Why are my 2SLS estimates much larger than my OLS estimates? When performing IV regression, it is often taken as a sign of unbiasedness if the IV estimates are similar to the OLS estimates of the same model My question is: If the estimates are very differ
Statas ivregress 2sls command - Economics Stack Exchange I am transitioning to using the quot;ivregress 2sls quot; command in Stata for IV estimates I've been trying to produce F-statistics to test for whether the instrument is weak I believe that the
Is 2SLS asymptotically MLE? - economics. stackexchange. com Thus, the 2SLS estimator attains the same asymptotic variance matrix as the MLE estimator With this, I want to say "2SLS is asymptotically equivalent to MLE" Am I overlooking something? It doesn't feel right because MLE makes the stronger assumption of normality It feels like with that additional assumption there should be an efficiency gain
reference request - Using dependent variables and exogenous variables . . . In the literature, as well as in software packages (ivreg in STATA), I find that it is quite common to add dependent variable's as well as lagged exogenous variables as intruments in the first stage of 2SLS (to capture exogenous variation of the endogenous variable)
microeconomics - What does it mean if the controls in my IV model are . . . I am seeking to understand what it means for my 2SLS IV model if my controls are correlated with my instrument (such that when I add additional controls to my model that are positively correlated with Y, the coefficient on my instrument declines)