Estimation of marginal effects for models with alternative variable transformations

Author(s):  
Fernando Rios-Avila

margins is a powerful postestimation command that allows the estimation of marginal effects for official and community-contributed commands, with well-defined predicted outcomes (see predict). While the use of factor-variable notation allows one to easily estimate marginal effects when interactions and polynomials are used, estimation of marginal effects when other types of transformations such as splines, logs, or fractional polynomials are used remains a challenge. In this article, I describe how margins‘s capabilities can be extended to analyze other variable transformations using the command f_able.

Author(s):  
Darwin Ugarte Ontiveros

Recent evidence suggests that formality improves micro-firms profits in Bolivia. This gain is only for firms with 2 to 5 workers, while smaller and larger firms would lose out by formalizing (McKenzie and Sakho, 2010). However, as much of the empirical literature on this topic, the estimations are based on strong assumptions about unobservables. If the returns to formality vary among firms and these variations influence selection into formality, traditional estimators are biased (Heckman and Vytlacil, 2007). In this paper we considerthese elements to estimate the heterogeneous effects of formality on firm profits in Bolivia. We find remarkable heterogeneity in the returns to formality, from -3% to 6%. The group of firms with positive marginal effects from formality corresponds to those which are most likely to register. We also characterize the firms that likely benefit from having a formal status. These would correspond to large firms which work at big scales.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lesley Meng ◽  
Krzysztof Laudanski ◽  
Ann Huffenberger ◽  
Christian Terwiesch

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Maraun ◽  
Moritz Heene

There has come to exist within the psychometric literature a generalized belief to the effect that a determination of the level of factorial invariance that holds over a set of k populations Δj, j = 1..s, is central to ascertaining whether or not the common factor random variables ξj, j = 1..s, are equivalent. In the current manuscript, a technical examination of this belief is undertaken. The chief conclusion of the work is that, as long as technical, statistical senses of random variable equivalence are adhered to, the belief is unfounded.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document