TY - JOUR

T1 - Finite sample evidence suggesting a heavy tail problem of the generalized empirical likelihood estimator

AU - Guggenberger, Patrik

PY - 2008/7/1

Y1 - 2008/7/1

N2 - □ Comprehensive Monte Carlo evidence is provided that compares the finite sample properties of generalized empirical likelihood (GEL) estimators to the ones of k-class estimators in the linear instrumental variables (IV) model. We focus on sample median, mean, mean squared error, and on the coverage probability and length of confidence intervals obtained from inverting a t-statistic based on the various estimators. The results indicate that in terms of the above criteria, all the GEL estimators and the limited information maximum likelihood (LIML) estimator behave very similarly. This suggests that GEL estimators might also share the "no-moment" problem of LIML. At sample sizes as in our Monte Carlo study, there is no systematic bias advantage of GEL estimators over k-class estimators. On the other hand, the standard deviation of GEL estimators is pronouncedly higher than for some of the k-class estimators. Therefore, if mean squared error is used as the underlying loss function, our study suggests the use of computationally simple estimators, such as two-stage least squares, in the linear IV model rather than GEL. Based on the properties of confidence intervals, we cannot recommend the use of GEL estimators either in the linear IV model.

AB - □ Comprehensive Monte Carlo evidence is provided that compares the finite sample properties of generalized empirical likelihood (GEL) estimators to the ones of k-class estimators in the linear instrumental variables (IV) model. We focus on sample median, mean, mean squared error, and on the coverage probability and length of confidence intervals obtained from inverting a t-statistic based on the various estimators. The results indicate that in terms of the above criteria, all the GEL estimators and the limited information maximum likelihood (LIML) estimator behave very similarly. This suggests that GEL estimators might also share the "no-moment" problem of LIML. At sample sizes as in our Monte Carlo study, there is no systematic bias advantage of GEL estimators over k-class estimators. On the other hand, the standard deviation of GEL estimators is pronouncedly higher than for some of the k-class estimators. Therefore, if mean squared error is used as the underlying loss function, our study suggests the use of computationally simple estimators, such as two-stage least squares, in the linear IV model rather than GEL. Based on the properties of confidence intervals, we cannot recommend the use of GEL estimators either in the linear IV model.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=45849114782&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=45849114782&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/07474930801960410

DO - 10.1080/07474930801960410

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:45849114782

VL - 27

SP - 526

EP - 541

JO - Econometric Reviews

JF - Econometric Reviews

SN - 0747-4938

IS - 4-6

ER -