CiteULike is a free online bibliography manager. Register and you can start organising your references online.

Finite Sample Evidence Suggesting a Heavy Tail Problem of the Generalized Empirical Likelihood Estimator Export

Econometric Reviews, Vol. 27, No. 4. (2008), pp. 526-541.

Citation Format

[Posts]

View FullText article


Biostatistics's tags for this article

asymptotics econometrics econometric_theory empirical_likelihood

X Reviews [Write a review of this article]

X Find related articles from these CiteULike users

X Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

X Posting History

X Abstract

Comprehensive Monte Carlo evidence is provided that compares the finite sample properties of generalized empirical likelihood (GEL) estimators to the ones of <i>k</i>-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 <i>k</i>-class estimators. On the other hand, the standard deviation of GEL estimators is pronouncedly higher than for some of the <i>k</i>-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.


X BibTeX record

X RIS record


Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions
CiteULike organises scholarly (or academic) papers or literature and provides bibliographic (which means it makes bibliographies) for universities and higher education establishments. It helps undergraduates and postgraduates. People studying for PhDs or in postdoctoral (postdoc) positions. The service is similar in scope to EndNote or RefWorks or any other reference manager like BibTeX, but it is a social bookmarking service for scientists and humanities researchers.