Advertisement

The weak-instruments problem in factor models

  • Kazuhiko HayakawaEmail author
Original Paper
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

This study considers the instrumental variable estimation of factor models. Specifically, we investigate the weak-instruments problem, which is not well investigated in the literature, in detail. We show that the signal-to-noise ratios, which are defined by the variance ratios of the common components to the errors, of the scaling variable and the instruments mainly determine the strength of instruments in a confirmatory factor model, while the structure of the factor loading is closely related to the strength of instruments in an explanatory factor model. By Monte Carlo simulation, we confirm that the simulation results are consistent with the theoretical implications, and Stock and Yogo test is useful in practice in detecting the weak instruments.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to two reviewers for helpful comments. The author also acknowledges the financial support from the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI 25780153, 15H01943, 16H03606, 17KK0070) provided by the JSPS.

References

  1. Anderson TW, Rubin H (1949) Estimation of the parameters of a single equation in a complete system of Stochastic equations. Ann Math Stat 20:46–63MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews DW, Stock JH (2007) Inference with Weak Instruments. In: Blundell R, Newey WK, Persson T (eds) Advances in economics and econometrics: theory and applications, 9th world congress, vol 3, Chap. 6. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews I, Stock JH, Sun L (2018) Weak instruments in IV regression: theory and practice. In: Working paperGoogle Scholar
  4. Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58:277–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arellano M, Bover O (1995) Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. J Econom 68:29–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bekker PA (1994) Alternative approximations to the distributions of instrumental variable estimators. Econometrica 62:657–681MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blundell R, Bond S (1998) Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J Econom 87:115–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bollen KA (1996) An alternative two stage least squares (2SLS) estimator for latent variable equations. Psychometrika 61:109–121MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bollen KA (2012) Instrumental variables in sociology and the social sciences. Annu Rev Sociol 38:37–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bollen KA, Kolenikov S, Bauldry S (2014) Model-implied instrumental variable-generalized method of moments (MIIV-GMM) estimators for latent variable models. Psychometrika 79:20–50MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bound J, Jaeger DA, Baker RM (1995) Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak. J Am Stat Assoc 90:443–450Google Scholar
  12. Fuller WA (1977) Some properties of a modification of the limited information estimator. Econometrica 45:939–953MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hägglund G (1982) Factor analysis by instrumental variables methods. Psychometrika 47:209–222MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hansen LP (1982) Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica 50:1029–1054MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hausman J, Newey WK, Woutersen T, Chao JC, Swanson NR (2012) Instrumental variable estimation with heteroskedasticity and many instruments. Quant Econ 3:211–255MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hayakawa K, Sun Q (2019) Instrumental variable estimation of factor models with possibly many variables. Commun Stat Simul Comput 48:1729–1745MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holzinger KJ, Swineford F (1939) A study in factor analysis: the stability of a bi-factor solution. In: Supplementary educational monographsGoogle Scholar
  18. Ihara M, Kano Y (1986) A new estimator of the uniqueness in factor analysis. Psychometrika 51:563–566MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kano Y (1990) Noniterative estimation and the choice of the number of factors in exploratory factor analysis. Psychometrika 55:277–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kleibergen F (2002) Pivotal statistics for testing structural parameters in instrumental variables regression. Econometrica 70:1781–1803MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kleibergen F (2005) Testing parameters in GMM without assuming that they are identified. Econometrica 73:1103–1123MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kunitomo N (1980) Asymptotic expansions of distributions of estimators in a linear functional relationship and simultaneous equations. J Am Stat Assoc 75:693–700MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Madansky A (1964) Instrumental variables in factor analysis. Psychometrika 29:105–113MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moreira MJ (2003) A conditional likelihood ratio test for structural models. Econometrica 71:1027–1048MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morimune K (1983) Approximate distributions of k-class estimators when the degree of overidentifiability is large compared with the sample size. Econometrica 51:821–841MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nelson CR, Startz R (1990) Some further results on the exact small sample properties of the instrumental variable estimator. Econometrica 58:967–976MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nelson C, Startz R (1990) The distribution of the instrumental variables estimator and its t-ratio when the instrument is a poor one. J Bus 63:S125–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Olea JLM, Pflueger C (2013) A robust test for weak instruments. J Bus Econ Stat 31:358–369MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rothenberg TJ (1984) Approximating the distributions of econometric estimators and test statistics. In: Handbook of econometrics, vol 2, Chap. 15. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 881–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sanderson E, Windmeijer F (2016) A weak instrument F-test in linear IV models with multiple endogenous variables. J Econom 190:212–221MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Staiger D, Stock JH (1997) Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica 65:557–586MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stock JH, Wright JH, Yogo M (2002) A survey of weak instruments and weak identification in generalized method of moments. J Bus Econ Stat 20:518–529MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stock JH, Trebbi F (2003) Retrospectives: who invented instrumental variable regression? J Econ Perspect 17:177–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stock JH, Wright J (2000) GMM with weak identification. Econometrica 68:1055–1096MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stock JH, Yogo M (2005) Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. In: Andrews Donald WK, Stock James H (eds) Identification and inference for econometric models: essays in honor of Thomas Rothenberg. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 80–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Behaviormetric Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsHiroshima UniversityHigashi-HiroshimaJapan

Personalised recommendations