跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要直接讨论内生性、工具变量有效性及教育对工资估计中的识别问题。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
John Bound
David A. Jaeger
Regina M. Baker

工具变量与内生解释变量弱相关时的估计问题

研究问题
当工具变量解释内生变量的能力很弱时,轻微外生性偏离与有限样本偏差会如何影响 IV 估计,大样本能否避免这些问题?
方法与思路
作者分析弱工具相关性下的估计问题,并重新考察以出生季度作为教育工具变量的美国人口普查工资方程研究。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称弱相关性会放大轻微外生性偏离的影响,有限样本 IV 偏差趋向 OLS 偏差,并建议常规报告首阶段偏 R² 与 F 统计量。
阅读关注点
应核对不一致与有限样本偏差分别依赖的条件、重估样本及工具设定,以及首阶段诊断的解释边界。
阅读边界
仅据 OpenAlex 索引摘要,稿件版本未注明,不能推断刊本变化;摘要未给出诊断阈值,重估结论也不能证明所有出生季度工具均无效。

原文摘要

We draw attention to two problems associated with the use of instrumental variables (IV), the importance of which for empirical work has not been fully appreciated. First, the use of instruments that explain little of the variation in the endogenous explanatory variables can lead to large inconsistencies in the IV estimates even if only a weak relationship exists between the instruments and the error in the structural equation. Second, in finite samples, IV estimates are biased in the same direction as ordinary least squares (OLS) estimates. The magnitude of the bias of IV estimates approaches that of OLS estimates as the R 2 between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable approaches 0. To illustrate these problems, we reexamine the results of a recent paper by Angrist and Krueger, who used large samples from the U.S. Census to estimate wage equations in which quarter of birth is used as an instrument for educational attainment. We find evidence that, despite huge sample sizes, their IV estimates may suffer from finite-sample bias and may be inconsistent as well. These findings suggest that valid instruments may be more difficult to find than previously imagined. They also indicate that the use of large data sets does not necessarily insulate researchers from quantitatively important finite-sample biases. We suggest that the partial R 2 and the F statistic of the identifying instruments in the first-stage estimation are useful indicators of the quality of the IV estimates and should be routinely reported.

笔记与分组