Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-ns2hh Total loading time: 0.386 Render date: 2022-10-05T14:26:40.853Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": true, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Unreliable Inferences About Unobserved Processes: A Critique of Partial Observability Models*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2017

Abstract

Methodologists and econometricians advocate the partial observability model as a tool that enables researchers to estimate the distinct effects of a single explanatory variable on two partially observable outcome variables. However, we show that when the explanatory variable of interest influences both partially observable outcomes, the partial observability model estimates are extremely sensitive to misspecification. We use Monte Carlo simulations to show that, under partial observability, minor, unavoidable misspecification of the functional form can lead to substantial large-sample bias, even though the same misspecification leads to little or no bias under full observability.

Type
Research Notes
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Carlisle Rainey is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University, 2010 Allen Building, College Station, TX 77843 (crainey@tamu.edu). Robert A. Jackson is a Professor in the Department of Political Science, Florida State University, 531 Bellamy Building, Tallahassee, FL 32306 (rjackson@fsu.edu). The authors thank Will Moore, Austin Mitchell, participants at the 2012 Southern Political Science Association Annual Conference, and participants at the 2012 Midwest Political Science Association Annual Conference for valuable comments on previous versions of the manuscript. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2017.3

References

Abowd, John M., and Farber, Henry S.. 1982. ‘Job Queues and the Union Status of Workers’. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 35:354367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amir, Shmueli. 2001. ‘The Effect of Health on Acute Care Supplemental Insurance Ownership: An Empirical Analysis’. Health Economics 10:341350.Google Scholar
Beger, Andreas, DeMeritt, Jacqueline H. R., Hwang, Wonjae, and Moore, Will H.. 2011. ‘The Split Population Logit (SPopLogit): Modeling Measurement Bias in Binary Data’. Working Paper, FSU, Tallahassee. Available at http://polmeth.wustl.edu/files/polmeth/begdemhwamoo28feb11.pdf.Google Scholar
Berry, William D., DeMeritt, Jacqueline H. R., and Justin, Esarey. 2010. ‘Testing for interaction in binary logit and probit models: Is a product term essential?’. American Journal of Political Science 54:248266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., DeMeritt, Jacqueline H. R., and Justin, Esarey. 2015. ‘Bias and overconfidence in parametric models of interactive processes’. American Journal of Political Science 60:521539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyes, William J., Hoffman, Dennis L., and Low, Stuart A.. 1989. ‘An Econometric Analysis of the Bank Credit Scoring Problem’. Journal of Econometrics 40:314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braumoeller, Bear F. 2003. ‘Causal Complexity and the Study of Politics’. Political Analysis 11:209233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Gongmeng, Firth, Michael, Gao, Daniel N., and Rui, Oliver M.. 2006. ‘Ownership Structure, Corporate Governance, and Fraud: Evidence from China’. Journal of Corporate Finance 12:424448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comola, Margherita, and Fafchamps, Marcel. 2014. ‘Testing Unilateral and Bilateral Link Formation’. The Economic Journal 124:954976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimara, Efthalia, and Skuras, Dimitris. 2003. ‘Adoption of Agricultural Innovations as a Two-Stage Partial Observability Process’. Agricultural Economics 28(3):187196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinstein, Jonathan S. 1990. ‘Detection Controlled Estimation’. Journal of Law and Economics 33:233276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heywood, John S., and Mohanty, Madhu S.. 1990. ‘Race and Employment in the Federal Sector’. Economics Letters 33:179183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, G. 1998. Unifying Political Methodology: The Likelihood Theory of Statistical Inference, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, Malcolm, and Santaella, Julio A.. 1997. ‘Economic Determinants of IMF Financial Arrangements’. Journal of Development Economics 54:405436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, John Allen. 1996. ‘Opportunity and Choice in Socially Structured Labor Markets’. American Journal of Sociology 102:114160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meng, Chun-Lo, and Schmidt, Peter. 1985. ‘On the Cost of Partial Observability in the Bivariate Probit Model’. International Economic Review 26:7185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanty, Madhu S. 2002. ‘A Bivariate Probit Approach to the Determination of Employment: A Study of Teen Employment Differentials in Los Angeles County’. Applied Economics 34:143156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nieman, Mark David. 2015. ‘Statistical Analysis of Strategic Interaction With Unobserved Player Actions: Introducing a Strategic Probit With Partial Observability’. Political Analysis 23:429448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poirier, Dale J. 1980. ‘Partial Observability in Bivariate Probit Models’. Journal of Econometrics 12:209217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, and Vreeland, James Raymond. 2000. ‘The Effect of IMF Programs on Economic Growth’. Journal of Development Economics 62:385421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, and Vreeland, James Raymond. 2002. ‘A Statistical Model of Bilateral Cooperation’. Political Analysis 10:101112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafford, Sarah L. 2002. ‘The Effect of Punishment on Firm Compliance With Hazardous Waste Regulations’. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44:290308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Randall W. 2008. ‘The Scope of IMF Conditionality’. International Organization 62:589620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tukey, John W. 1986. ‘Sunset Salvo’. The American Statistician 40:7276.Google Scholar
Vreeland, James Raymond. 2003. The IMF and Economic Development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Tracy Yue. 2013. ‘Corporate Securities Fraud: Insights from a New Empirical Framework’. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 29:535568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiang, Jun. 2010. ‘Relevance as a Latent Variable in Dyadic Analysis of Conflict’. Journal of Politics 72:484498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Rainey and Jackson Dataset

Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Rainey and Jackson supplementary material

Appendix

Download Rainey and Jackson supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 122 KB
1
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Unreliable Inferences About Unobserved Processes: A Critique of Partial Observability Models*
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Unreliable Inferences About Unobserved Processes: A Critique of Partial Observability Models*
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Unreliable Inferences About Unobserved Processes: A Critique of Partial Observability Models*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *