Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
| From | "Dimitriy V. Masterov" <dvmaster@gmail.com> |
| To | Statalist <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |
| Subject | Re: st: To: Statalist <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |
| Date | Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:35:09 -0800 |
Fernando, I overlooked the paper thinking it was irrelevant since the probit option was added later. Quite the opposite. Makes much more sense. Thanks! DVM On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Fernando Rios Avila <f.rios.a@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > <dvmaster@gmail.com> 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/ * * 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/