The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Estimation with weak instruments: Accuracy of higher‐order bias and MSE approximations
Open accessAbstract
In this paper, we consider parameter estimation in a linear simultaneous equations model. It is well known that two‐stage least squares (2SLS) estimators may perform poorly when the instruments are weak. In this case 2SLS tends to suffer from the substantial small sample biases. It is also known that LIML and Nagar‐type estimators are less biased than 2SLS but suffer from large small sample variability. We construct a bias‐corrected version of 2SLS based on the Jackknife principle. Using higher‐order expansions we show that the MSE of our Jackknife 2SLS estimator is approximately the same as the MSE of the Nagar‐type estimator. We also compare the Jackknife 2SLS with an estimator suggested by Fuller (Econometrica 45, 933–54) that significantly decreases the small sample variability of LIML. Monte Carlo simulations show that even in relatively large samples the MSE of LIML and Nagar can be substantially larger than for Jackknife 2SLS. The Jackknife 2SLS estimator and Fuller's estimator give the best overall performance. Based on our Monte Carlo experiments we conduct informal statistical tests of the accuracy of approximate bias and MSE formulas. We find that higher‐order expansions traditionally used to rank LIML, 2SLS and other IV estimators are unreliable when identification of the model is weak. Overall, our results show that only estimators with well‐defined finite sample moments should be used when identification of the model is weak.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments
Staiger, D., & Stock, J. H. (1997) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/2171753 · Cited by 7,081
Estimation and Inference in Econometrics.
Chambers, M. J., Davidson, R., & MacKinnon, J. G. (1994) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2234656 · Cited by 5,413
Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments
Staiger, D., & Stock, J. (1994) · doi:10.3386/t0151 · Cited by 5,302 · cited 3×
“As in Staiger and Stock (1997), we may then assume that (η(φ — 1), η~ι/2Ζ'ε, n~í/2Z'u) =» (φ, Ψζε, Φζ«), where Φ ζε, Φ ζ« have a marginal normal distribution (Φζε, Ψ z« )' ~ /V(0, Σ <g> ¡κ).”
InfluentialEstimation and Inference in Econometrics.
Levin, A., Davidson, R., & MacKinnon, J. G. (1994) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290953 · Cited by 2,396
Shao, J., & Tu, D. (1995) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0795-5 · Cited by 1,985
Higher Order Properties of Gmm and Generalized Empirical Likelihood Estimators
Newey, W., & Smith, R. J. (2004) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00482.x · Cited by 805
Nagar, A. L. (1959) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1909352 · Cited by 573
Alternative Approximations to the Distributions of Instrumental Variable Estimators
Bekker, P. A. (1994) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/2951662 · Cited by 449
Some Properties of a Modification of the Limited Information Estimator
Fuller, W. A. (1977) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912683 · Cited by 410
A New Specification Test for the Validity of Instrumental Variables
Hahn, J., & Hausman, J. (2002) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/1468-0262.00272 · Cited by 388
Self-citation
Cited by
Avoiding bias from weak instruments in Mendelian randomization studies
Burgess, S., Thompson, S. G., & CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration (2011) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyr036 · Cited by 3,952
A review of instrumental variable estimators for Mendelian randomization
Burgess, S., Small, D. S., & Thompson, S. G. (2017) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/0962280215597579 · Cited by 1,764
Bias due to participant overlap in two‐sample Mendelian randomization
Burgess, S., Davies, N. M., & Thompson, S. G. (2016) · Genetic Epidemiology · doi:10.1002/gepi.21998 · Cited by 1,624
Burgess, S., Dudbridge, F., & Thompson, S. G. (2016) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.6835 · Cited by 1,153
Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research
Bascle, G. (2008) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/1476127008094339 · Cited by 1,133
Metadata
- Authors
- Hahn, J., Hausman, J., & Kuersteiner, G.
- Venue
- The Econometrics Journal
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2004-06-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 272-306
- ISSN
- 1368-4221 (ISSN-L)
- 1368-423X
- OpenAlex
- W2074850605
- Cited by
- 332
- References
- 27
- FWCI
- 12.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Estimation with weak instruments: Accuracy of higher‐order bias and MSE approximations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1368-423x.2004.00131.x
- The paper
- Hahn, J., Hausman, J., & Kuersteiner, G. (2004). Estimation with weak instruments: Accuracy of higher‐order bias and MSE approximations. The Econometrics Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423x.2004.00131.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.