2015
DOI: 10.1920/wp.cem.2015.4115
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Finite sample bias corrected IV estimation for weak and many instruments

Abstract: This paper considers the finite sample distribution of the 2SLS estimator and derives bounds on its exact bias in the presence of weak and/or many instruments. We then contrast the behavior of the exact bias expressions and the asymptotic expansions currently popular in the literature, including a consideration of the no-moment problem exhibited by many Nagar-type estimators. After deriving a finite sample unbiased k-class estimator, we introduce a double k-class estimator based on Nagar (1962) that dominates … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 41 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Angrist & Krueger (1995), Imbens et al (1999), Donald & Newey (2001), Ackerberg &Devereux (2009), andHarding et al (2015), but none of the resulting feasible estimators is unbiased either in finite samples or under weak instrument asymptotics. Indeed, Hirano & Porter (2015) show that mean, median, and quantile unbiased estimation are all impossible in the linear IV model with an unrestricted parameter space for the first stage.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Angrist & Krueger (1995), Imbens et al (1999), Donald & Newey (2001), Ackerberg &Devereux (2009), andHarding et al (2015), but none of the resulting feasible estimators is unbiased either in finite samples or under weak instrument asymptotics. Indeed, Hirano & Porter (2015) show that mean, median, and quantile unbiased estimation are all impossible in the linear IV model with an unrestricted parameter space for the first stage.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%