I hope you are all well,
I have an analysis based on the convergence growth model and for testing the reverse causality in this model I ran a 2SLS regression with instrumental variables. However, when I ran the model I get insignificant results which would be normally interpreted as no causality between the variables (which I am sure is not the case since causality between income and education for example is running both ways) in my model even after carefully inspecting the data and using various instruments for my main variables.
Therefore, my question is, how I interpret these results? What are the possible interpretations for insignificant 2SLS results or I simply have to ignore it?
I should still mention the insignificant results of the 2SLS in my study or just ignore it.
Thank you very much to everyone.
Code:
. ivregress 2sls g_iwi_mean i_iwi_initial i_y_dep_initial i_o_dep_initial ln_density_initial > g_ln_pop_mean g_educ_mean i_urban_initial interval_v_initial c.i_y_dep_initial#c.inf_init > ial Bangladesh India Pakistan Nepal Cambodia Indonesia Vietnam Philippines Thailand (g_wor > king_age_mean = g_working_age_lag) note: Thailand omitted because of collinearity Instrumental variables (2SLS) regression Number of obs = 133 Wald chi2(18) = 324.43 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 R-squared = 0.6535 Root MSE = 2.953 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ g_iwi_mean | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- g_working_age_mean | 2.697712 6.523627 0.41 0.679 -10.08836 15.48379 i_iwi_initial | -.1795225 .1862335 -0.96 0.335 -.5445334 .1854885 i_y_dep_initial | -.2254004 .2376895 -0.95 0.343 -.6912632 .2404625 i_o_dep_initial | -.0476965 .4437751 -0.11 0.914 -.9174796 .8220867 ln_density_initial | -.3872617 .2989893 -1.30 0.195 -.9732699 .1987465 g_ln_pop_mean | -2.95531 4.342148 -0.68 0.496 -11.46576 5.555143 g_educ_mean | 1.012909 8.103293 0.12 0.901 -14.86925 16.89507 i_urban_initial | -.028095 .0291471 -0.96 0.335 -.0852223 .0290323 interval_v_initial | -1.90502 5.477426 -0.35 0.728 -12.64058 8.830537 | c.i_y_dep_initial#| c.inf_initial | .0007439 .0158664 0.05 0.963 -.0303536 .0318414 | Bangladesh | -10.79152 18.13457 -0.60 0.552 -46.33462 24.75159 India | 3.995187 6.616727 0.60 0.546 -8.973358 16.96373 Pakistan | 3.770025 3.276182 1.15 0.250 -2.651173 10.19122 Nepal | 2.650764 7.993771 0.33 0.740 -13.01674 18.31827 Cambodia | .2245071 9.617907 0.02 0.981 -18.62624 19.07526 Indonesia | -.312647 7.758975 -0.04 0.968 -15.51996 14.89466 Vietnam | -2.22392 16.88002 -0.13 0.895 -35.30815 30.86031 Philippines | 1.166022 6.106007 0.19 0.849 -10.80153 13.13358 Thailand | 0 (omitted) _cons | 36.85584 59.7841 0.62 0.538 -80.31885 154.0305 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Instrumented: g_working_age_mean Instruments: i_iwi_initial i_y_dep_initial i_o_dep_initial ln_density_initial g_ln_pop_mean g_educ_mean i_urban_initial interval_v_initial c.i_y_dep_initial#c.inf_initial Bangladesh India Pakistan Nepal Cambodia Indonesia Vietnam Philippines g_working_age_lag
Stefan Bradeanu
0 Response to 2SLS Interpretation
Post a Comment