So I have a binary model where $y_1^*$ is the latent unobserved variable and $y_1 \in \{0,1\}$ the observed. $y_2$ determines $y_1$ and $z_2$ is thus my instrument. So in short the model is. \begin{eqnarray} y_1^*&=& \delta_1 z_1 + \alpha_1 y_2 + u_1 \\ y_2 &=& \delta_{21} z_1 + \delta_{22}z_2 + v_2 = \textbf{z}\delta + v_2 \\ y_1 &=& \text{1}[y^*>0] \end{eqnarray} Since the error terms aren't independent but, \begin{eqnarray} \begin{pmatrix} u_1 \\ v_2 \end{pmatrix} \sim \mathcal{N} \left(\textbf{0} \; , \begin{bmatrix} 1 &\eta \\ \eta &\tau^2 \end{bmatrix} \right). \nonumber \end{eqnarray} I make use of an IV-probit model.
I'm having trouble deriving the likelihood function. I get that I can write one of the error terms as a linear function of the other so,
\begin{eqnarray}
u_{1} = \frac{\eta}{\tau^2}v_{2} + \xi, \qquad \text{where} \quad \xi \sim \mathcal{N}(0, 1-\eta^2).
\end{eqnarray}
and that $\xi$ should be used in order to impose a normal CDF.
I've looked in the Stata manual (http://www.stata.com/manuals13/rivprobit.pdf) for IV-probit and they suggest using the definition of the conditional density
\begin{eqnarray}
f(y_1, y_2 \mid \textbf{z}) = f(y_1 \mid y_2, \textbf{z}) f(y_2 \mid \textbf{z})
\end{eqnarray}
in order to derive the likelihood function but I really don't use it (and yea I end up with the wrong result...). My attempt so far is,
\begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{L}(y_1) &=& \prod_{i=1}^n \Pr(y_1=0 \mid y_2, \textbf{z} )^{1-y_1} \Pr(y_1=1 \mid y_2, \textbf{z} )^{y_1} \nonumber \\ &=& \prod_{i=1}^n \Pr(y_1^* \leq 0)^{1-y_1} \Big(\Pr(y_1^* > 0) f(y_2 \mid \textbf{z}) \Big)^{y_1} \nonumber \\ \text{[standardizing]} &=& \prod_{i=1}^n \Pr \Big( \frac{\xi}{\sqrt{1-\eta^2}} \leq - \frac{\delta_1 z_1 + \alpha_1 y_2 + \frac{\eta}{\tau^2}(y_2 - \textbf{z})}{\sqrt{1-\eta^2}}\Big)^{1-y_1} \\ &\cdot& \Big(\Pr \Big( \frac{\xi}{\sqrt{1-\eta^2}} < \frac{\delta_1 z_1 + \alpha_1 y_2 + \frac{\eta}{\tau^2}(y_2 - \textbf{z})}{\sqrt{1-\eta^2}}\Big) f(y_2 \mid \textbf{z}) \Big)^{y_1} \nonumber \\ &=& [1-\Phi(w)]^{1-y_i} \left[ \Phi(w)f(y_2 \mid \textbf{x}) \right]^{y_1} \end{eqnarray} As I said, I haven't used the definition for the joint density function as stated above. Moreover, I end up with also $f(y_2 \mid \textbf{z})$ being raised to $y_1$ which appears to be wrong. Can somebody give me a hint on how to derive the correct (log-) likelihood function or where I went wrong?