Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: st: To: Statalist <[email protected]>
From
Fernando Rios Avila <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
Re: st: To: Statalist <[email protected]>
Date
Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:02:32 -0500
The problem is that you are not using any of the right options in the
-oaxaca- command. For instance, what you are referring to is a two
fold decomposition, whereas by default Oaxaca does a three fold
decomposition (for more detail look at the paper and documentation).
For instance, if you do :
oaxaca y x, by(d) probit nodetail weight(0)
you will have the results in the more traditional two fold way.
(again, look at the documentation)
HTH
Fernando
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Dimitriy V. Masterov
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I am trying to make sense of the results of a Oxaca-Blinder
> decomposition produced by Ben Jann's oaxaca command (version 4.0.5
> from ssc). I have a binary outcome y, a single continuous explanatory
> variable x (0-100), and a binary group indicator d:
>
> oaxaca y x, by(d) probit nodetail
>
> Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition Number of obs = 2178524
> Model = probit
> Group 1: DElectronics_1 = 0 N of obs 1 = 1612480
> Group 2: DElectronics_1 = 1 N of obs 2 = 566044
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> bbe_flag1 | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
> -------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
> overall |
> group_1 | .0617275 .0001892 326.25 0.000 .0613567 .0620983
> group_2 | .0698966 .0003379 206.85 0.000 .0692343 .0705589
> difference | -.0081692 .0003873 -21.09 0.000 -.0089282 -.0074101
> endowments | -.0135059 .0001323 -102.10 0.000 -.0137651 -.0132466
> coefficients | .0024407 .0004099 5.95 0.000 .0016374 .003244
> interaction | .002896 .0001549 18.69 0.000 .0025924 .0031996
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The rate for Group 2 is about 0.8 of a percent point higher. That can
> be broken out as the sum:
> (1) the difference due to different characteristics x (-1.35)
> (2) the difference in the effect of x on y (+0.24)
> (3) interaction (+0.3)
>
> In the draft version of Yun's 2004 paper (link below), I only see two
> terms that correspond to (1) and (2) above in the probit example. The
> interaction seems to be a sort of residual. Where does it come from?
>
> Finally, using the SJ version of Yun's mvdcmp command, also produces
> only two terms. His difference due to coefficients seems to be the sum
> of (2) and (3) from above.
>
> DVM
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fftp.iza.org%2Fdp877.pdf&ei=roWiUIjUB-TXigKfk4GYCg&usg=AFQjCNF6vZ3LumWLgT3tZE65rgxqSyoUSg&sig2=XNMCW_y-Cp_ZjdmNZnX64g&cad=rja
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/