Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

7621 Final Exam Practice and Past Questions, Exams of Economics

Practice questions appearing on past econ exam 7621

Typology: Exams

2019/2020

Uploaded on 10/24/2020

lorabrown711
lorabrown711 🇺🇸

4 documents

1 / 6

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Smith School of Business
MGMT 880/990
Winter 2018
Professor Olena Ivus
Final Exam Practice Questions
1. Consider the difference-in-means estimator ¯
d= ¯y1¯y0, where ¯y1is the sample
average of yiwith wi= 1 and ¯y0is the sample average of yiwith wi= 0.
(a) You would like to estimate the average treatment effect on the treated:
T T =E(y1y0|w= 1)
Show that ¯
dis a biased estimator of the average treatment effect, and the bias
is given by E(y0|w= 1) E(y0|w= 0).
(b) Let y0be the earnings someone would earn in the absence of job training,
and let w= 1 denote the job training indicator. Explain the meaning of
E(y0|w= 1) < E(y0|w= 0). Intuitively, does it make sense that E(¯
d)< T T ?
2. The table in Attachment A is from Bernard, Redding, and Schott (2010) “Multiple-
Product Firms and Product Switching,” American Economic Review, 100:1, 7097.
In column 2 (Multiple product), the characteristics of single- and multiple-product
firms are compared for the 1997 census. The column reports the results from OLS
regressions of form characteristic (in logs) on a dummy variable for the multiple-
product firms (one if a firm produces multiple products) and main industry fixed
effects.
(a) Interpret the coefficient 0.58.
(b) What variation is used to estimate this coefficient?
(c) Why did the authors cluster standard errors by main industry?
3. The table in Attachment B is from Neumark (2002) “Youth Labor Markets in the
United States: Shopping Around vs. Staying Put” The Review of Economics and
Statistics. Neumark is interested in determining whether having multiple jobs as a
young person hurts or helps labor market outcomes later in life. The equation of
interest is:
ln(wi) = Xiβ+αSi+ui
where iindexes individuals, wis the adult wage, Xtis a vector of exogenous covari-
ates, and Sis longest tenure obtained (in years) on a job in the five years following
schooling (measures early job stability).
1
pf3
pf4
pf5

Partial preview of the text

Download 7621 Final Exam Practice and Past Questions and more Exams Economics in PDF only on Docsity!

Smith School of Business

MGMT 880/

Winter 2018

Professor Olena Ivus

Final Exam Practice Questions

1. Consider the difference-in-means estimator d¯ = ¯y 1 − y¯ 0 , where ¯y 1 is the sample

average of yi with wi = 1 and ¯y 0 is the sample average of yi with wi = 0.

(a) You would like to estimate the average treatment effect on the treated:

T T = E(y 1 − y 0 |w = 1)

Show that d¯ is a biased estimator of the average treatment effect, and the bias

is given by E(y 0 |w = 1) − E(y 0 |w = 0).

(b) Let y 0 be the earnings someone would earn in the absence of job training,

and let w = 1 denote the job training indicator. Explain the meaning of

E(y 0 |w = 1) < E(y 0 |w = 0). Intuitively, does it make sense that E( d¯) < T T?

2. The table in Attachment A is from Bernard, Redding, and Schott (2010) “Multiple-

Product Firms and Product Switching,” American Economic Review, 100:1, 7097.

In column 2 (Multiple product), the characteristics of single- and multiple-product

firms are compared for the 1997 census. The column reports the results from OLS

regressions of form characteristic (in logs) on a dummy variable for the multiple-

product firms (one if a firm produces multiple products) and main industry fixed

effects.

(a) Interpret the coefficient 0.58.

(b) What variation is used to estimate this coefficient?

(c) Why did the authors cluster standard errors by main industry?

3. The table in Attachment B is from Neumark (2002) “Youth Labor Markets in the

United States: Shopping Around vs. Staying Put” The Review of Economics and

Statistics. Neumark is interested in determining whether having multiple jobs as a

young person hurts or helps labor market outcomes later in life. The equation of

interest is:

ln(wi) = Xiβ + αSi + ui

where i indexes individuals, w is the adult wage, Xt is a vector of exogenous covari-

ates, and S is longest tenure obtained (in years) on a job in the five years following

schooling (measures early job stability).

(a) Column (1) shows OLS estimates, with standard errors reported in brack-

ets. Based on these estimates, by what percentage would we expect wages to

change in response to a one year increase in tenure? Is this effect statistically

significant?

(b) Neumark is concerned that tenure may be endogenous to wages. Discuss pos-

sible sources of endogeneity.

(c) To address endogeneity concerns, Neumark uses local unemployment rates

from the years in which workers entered the labour market (Uijt, where i

indexes individuals, j indexes entry year, and t = 1, ..., 5 indexes year in the

labour market) as instruments for the job stability experienced by workers as

youths. Which conditions should hold for Uijt to be valid instruments?

(d) Columns (2) and (3) display the first-stage and equation of interest estimates

for one two-stage least squares model. Does model (3) suggest an increase in

tenure causes an increase in adult wages?

(e) At the bottom of the table several specification tests are reported for each

model. Are the excluded instruments in model (2) weak? Briefly explain

what we mean by “weak” instruments, and comment on what effects weak

instruments might have on our estimates.

(f) Is the OLS estimate of the effect of tenure in model (1) statistically different

from the 2SLS estimate in column (3)? From those in column (5)? (Hint: read

the last sentence in the footnote carefully.)

(g) What do we mean by an “overidentified” instrumental variables model? Are

the overidentifying restrictions for estimation of model (3) rejected by the

data?

4. You observe N individuals over T > 2 time periods, along with individual char-

acteristics which are constant over time, Xi, vary with time, Wit, and indicators

for the event that i receives a treatment in t, Dit. You wish to estimate the effect

of treatment on an outcome yit, taking into account individual-specific trends in y

and time-invariant unobserved heterogeneity. Propose an estimation strategy, being

very clear as to which variables are included in any model(s) you suggest. Briefly

discuss the conditions which have to hold for your estimates to be consistent.

5. Using the data on 545 men who worked every year from 1980 to 1987, you have

estimated the following wage equation:

log(wageit) = Dt + β 1 educi + β 2 blacki + β 3 hispi + β 4 experit+

β 5 exper

2

it +^ β^6 marriedit^ +^ β^7 unionit^ +^ ci^ +^ uit.

You have also computed the regression-based version of the robust Hausman test.

Your code and the STATA output are in Attachment C.

Attachment A

Table 2—1997 Multiple-Product versus Single-Product Firm Characteristics

Firm characteristic Multiple product Multiple industry Multiple sector

Output 0.66 0.67 0.

Employment 0.58 0.61 0.

Probability of export 0.12 0.12 0.

Labor productivity 0.08 0.06 0.

TFP 0.02 0.02 0.

Notes: Results are from OLS regressions of log characteristics on a dummy variable indicat-

ing the firms’ status as well as main industry fixed effects, i.e., the industry in which firms

have the highest value of shipments. Regressions are restricted to the 110,414 observations

for which all firm characteristics are available. All differences are statistically significant at

the 1 percent level based on standard errors clustered by main industry except for multiple-

sector firms’ TFP.

Attachment B

TABLE 2.—R ESULTS FOR E FFECTS OF L ONGEST TENURE ATTAINED ON L OG ADULT WAGE , M EN

OLS

First stage IV

First stage IV

First stage IV

First stage IV (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Longest tenure attained, five-year post- schooling period

0.005...^ 0.075...^ 0.08...^ 0.07...^ 0.

Schooling 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.09 0. (0.01) (0.03) (0.01) (0.03) (0.01) (0.03) (0.01) (0.03) (0.01) Experience 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.20 0.06 0.20 0.06 0.01 0. (0.03) (0.10) (0.04) (0.10) (0.04) (0.10) (0.04) (0.10) (0.04) Experience squared  10 ^2 0.17 2.2 0.25 3.4 0.25 3.4 0.25 2.0 0. (0.18) (0.55) (0.19) (0.56) (0.19) (0.56) (0.19) (0.53) (0.20) Currently married 0.17 0.07 0.17 0.10 0.17 0.11 0.17 0.02 0. (0.03) (0.10) (0.03) (0.10) (0.03) (0.10) (0.03) (0.10) (0.03) Nonwhite 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.03 0. (0.05) (0.14) (0.05) (0.14) (0.05) (0.14) (0.05) (0.13) (0.05) Minimum unemployment rate on current job 0.04 0.15 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.13 0.05 0.15 0. (0.01) (0.05) (0.02) (0.04) (0.02) (0.05) (0.02) (0.05) (0.02) Current unemployment rate 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.06 0. (0.01) (0.03) (0.01) (0.03) (0.01) (0.03) (0.01) (0.03) (0.01) U (^) ij 1...^ 0....^...^...^...^...^...^... (0.03) U (^) ij 2...^ 0....^...^...^...^...^...^... (0.03) U (^) ij 3...^ 0....^...^...^...^...^...^... (0.02) U (^) ij 4...^ 0....^...^...^...^...^...^... (0.02) U (^) ij 5...^ 0....^...^...^...^...^...^... (0.02) U  j 1...^...^...^ 0.30...^ 0....^...^... (0.05) (0.05) U  j 3...^...^...^ 0.04...^ 0....^...^... (0.04) (0.04) U  j 5...^...^...^ 0.13...^ 0....^...^... (0.04) (0.05) U  j ...^...^...^...^...^...^...^ 1.... (0.20) ( U (^) ij 1  U  j 1 )...^...^...^...^...^ 0....^...^... (0.03) ( U (^) ij 2  U  j 2 )...^...^...^...^...^ 0....^...^... (0.03) ( U (^) ij 3  U  j 3 )...^...^...^...^...^ 0....^...^... (0.03) ( U (^) ij 4  U  j 4 )...^...^...^...^...^ 0....^...^... (0.03) ( U (^) ij 5  U  j 5 )...^...^...^...^...^ 0....^...^... (0.03) ( U (^) ij   U  j )...^...^...^...^...^...^...^ 0.... (0.02) F -statistic for instruments in first stage...^ 11.4...^ 34.3...^ 13.1...^ 16.... p -value for Hausman exogeneity test...^...^ 0.12...^ 0.02...^ 0.04...^ 0. p -value for test of overidentifying restrictions

p -value for test of overidentifying restrictions when minimum unemployment rate on current job is excluded

There are 860 observations in column (1)–(7) and 942 in column (8)–(9). In addition to the reported coefficients, controls are included for residence in an SMSA and four Census regions, AFQT (standardized for age), and mother’s and father’s education (with dummy variables for missing data). Because there are only four entry cohorts, only three of the coefficients of the U  jt can be identified. In this and the following tables, enough digits for the key coefficients are reported to assess whether the estimated coefficients are significant at the 5% or 10% level. The Hausman test is computed only for the coefficient of the instrumented variable.