4
$\begingroup$

$y = 4 + 2.5\,x + u$

For an increase of 1 unit of $X$ (that is, $X$ to $X+1$), we expect an increase $2.5$ units of $Y$ (that is, $Y$ to $Y+2.5$).

Is that right?


What if there's a/an $\ln$?


$\ln(y) = 1.7 + 0.083\,x + u$

For an increase of 1 unit of $X$ (that is, $X$ to $X+1$), we expect:

a/an $8.3\%$ increase in $Y$ (that is, $Y$ to $Y(1+8.3%)$)?

a/an $0.083\%$ increase in $Y$ (that is, $Y$ to $Y(1+0.083%)$)?

The above is supposed to make use of the fact that log difference is approximately equal to percentage change.


$\ln(y) = 4 + 0.083\,\ln(x) + u$

For a $1\%$ increase in $X$ (that is, $X$ to $X(1+1%)$), we expect:

a/an $8.3\%$ increase in $Y$ (that is, $Y$ to $Y(1+8.3%)$)?

a/an $0.083\%$ increase in $Y$ (that is, $Y$ to $Y(1+0.083%)$)?

The above is supposed to make use of the fact that log difference is approximately equal to percentage change.


Apologies for the confusion everyone. I am wondering about this part in Introductory Econometrics by Wooldridge. It's been a few years since I've interpreted SLR coefficients.

Why is it in the first part $0.083$ becomes $8.3%$ (instead of $0.083%$) but in the second part $0.257$ becomes $0.257%$ (instead of $25.7%$)?


enter image description here


enter image description here

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is X measured in percentages or is it a proportion or some other unit of measurement? I think a lot of care needs to be taken here to get the unit of measurements of X and hence the interpretation right. How is X measured? I think some answers belong might be operating off of assumptions of the units of X which are not explicitly mentioned in the original question. $\endgroup$ Mar 1, 2016 at 5:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ see stats.stackexchange.com/questions/190826/… and also stats.stackexchange.com/questions/191248/… $\endgroup$
    – user83346
    Mar 1, 2016 at 6:43
  • $\begingroup$ @fcop Thanks. Edited question. Sorry for the confusion. My concern is about those parts of the textbook. $\endgroup$
    – BCLC
    Mar 1, 2016 at 6:47
  • $\begingroup$ @StatsStudent I was thinking something like that, but I don't think it's in %age. Edited. Sorry for the confusion. $\endgroup$
    – BCLC
    Mar 1, 2016 at 6:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BCLC I think you missed the edit to my answer. I don't think there's a typo. $\endgroup$ Mar 4, 2016 at 20:20

4 Answers 4

5
+50
$\begingroup$

For a 1-unit increase in $X$, we expect an 8.3% increase in $Y$

Not quite, because the calculation goes

$$\ln(Y') = 1.7 + 0.083(X + 1) = (1.7 + 0.083X) + 0.083 = \ln(Y) + 0.083$$

so a 1-unit increase in X changes $\ln(Y)$ to

$$\ln(Y) + 0.083 = \ln(Y) + \ln(e^{0.083}) = \ln(e^{0.083}Y) $$

So since $$e^{0.083} \approx 1.0865$$ it actually leads to about an 8.7% increase in $Y$.

It's worth noting that $e^x \approx 1 + x$ for small values of $x$, so your equation is approximately true, for small values of $0.083$.

I take it you can work out the last example from here.

Does Wooldridge have a typo? The former makes 0.083 into 8.3% and not 0.083% while the latter makes 0.257 into 0.257% and not 25.7%

I don't think so.

If

$$ \ln(Y) = 4.8 + 0.257 \ln(X) $$

then a 1% increase in $X$ gives a new $Y'$ as

$$ \ln(Y') = 4.8 + 0.257 \ln(1.01 X) = \ln(Y) + 0.257 \ln(1.01) $$

We can manipulate the right hand side

$$ \ln(Y) + 0.257 \ln(1.01) = \ln(Y) + \ln(1.01^{0.257}) = \ln(1.01^{0.257} Y) $$

So $Y' = 1.01^{0.257} Y$. Google says $1.01^{0.257} \approx 1.0026$, which is $0.26\%$, as stated.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Its been a while since I've used the $\ln$ notation, I'm a $\log$ person myself. $\endgroup$ Mar 1, 2016 at 3:37
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry Matthew, didn't mean to conflict with your answer. It took a while to get everything Latex-ed... $\endgroup$ Mar 1, 2016 at 3:45
  • $\begingroup$ No worries Antoni, I think they both bring something to the table. $\endgroup$ Mar 1, 2016 at 3:48
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Matthew Drury. Edited question. Sorry for the confusion. $\endgroup$
    – BCLC
    Mar 1, 2016 at 6:48
  • $\begingroup$ That was so simple. I have no idea why I did not get that even though I already knew log diff is approximately %age change. I must have not been thinking straight. What a waste of 50 rep. Well, you enjoy. Thanks Matthew Drury ^-^ $\endgroup$
    – BCLC
    Mar 6, 2016 at 19:54
7
$\begingroup$

I think you can solve this with exponent and logarithm rules.

For the first model, $y = 4 + 2.5\,x + u$, a $1$-unit increase in $x$ will lead to a $2.5$ increase in $y$, simply because $2.5\,(x + 1) = 2.5\,x + 2.5$.

For the second model, $\ln(y) = 1.7 + 0.083\,x + u$ a $1$-unit increase in $x$ will, by the same token, increase the LHS of the equation $0.083$. But the equation renders the $\ln(y)$, not $y$. Hence, it will be the $\ln(y)$ that will be increased $0.083$. To know the increase in $y$ we will have to exponentiate: $e^{0.083} = 1.086$.

For the third model, $\ln(y) = 4 + 0.083\,\ln(x) + u$, an increase of now (as per the OP) $1\%$ in $x$ will lead to $\ln(1.01\,x)$ as opposed to $\ln(x)$ on the RHS of the equation, or $\ln(1.01\,x)=\ln(1.01)\,+\,\ln(x)$. This will increase the dependent variable by $\ln(1.01)$. But since the dependent variable is in $\log$ scale, we exponentiate to obtain the change in $y$, which is, naturally, $e^{\ln(1.01)}=1.01$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Antoni Parellada. Edited question. Sorry for the confusion. $\endgroup$
    – BCLC
    Mar 1, 2016 at 6:48
1
$\begingroup$

You can derive all answers yourself by using a simple intuition. Here how it goes. We start with the definition of the derivative: $$y(x)'\approx\frac{\Delta y(x)}{\Delta x}$$

Next we differentiate both sides of the linear model $y=b_0+b_x x$ and get this: $$\frac{\Delta y(x)}{\Delta x}\approx b_x $$ $$\Delta y(x)\approx b_x \Delta x$$

Then we say the magic phrase "per unit increase in x", which is the same as saying $\Delta x=1$, and proceed to the simplified formula $$\Delta y(x)\approx b_x $$

For the log we notice the following: $$\left(\ln y(x)\right)'=\frac{y'}{y}\approx\frac{\Delta y(x)}{y(x)\Delta x}$$

Then for a model $\ln y=b_0+b_1 x$ we get the following by differentiating both sides of the equation: $$\frac{\Delta y}{y}\approx b_x \Delta x$$ or for a unit increase in x: $$\frac{\Delta y}{y}\approx b_x $$ The left hand side can be interpreted as "percent change" but expressed in decimals, so 0.1 would mean 10%.

I'm sure you can pick up from here. It's easy to see what happens when the log is on the right hand side with $\ln x$. It's very similar. Your confusion was in the meaning of the "percent change", which I already explained and shown that it corresponds to terms like $\frac{\Delta s}{s}$

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ So does Wooldridge have any typos? Or what? $\endgroup$
    – BCLC
    Mar 4, 2016 at 19:02
  • $\begingroup$ @BCLC, I don't see typos in highlighted boxes. I'm sure there are some typos in a thick book elsewhere $\endgroup$
    – Aksakal
    Mar 4, 2016 at 19:05
  • $\begingroup$ Aksakal, one part says 0.083 should be interpreted as 8.3% while another part says 0.257 should be interpreted as 0.257% rather than 25.7%. Why is this? Really because of the $\ln(x)$ ? why exactly? what is the relation? $\endgroup$
    – BCLC
    Mar 4, 2016 at 19:06
  • $\begingroup$ @BCLC, in the 2nd example the right hand side has a percentage. Note the language in first case "per unit increase in x" while in the second "per 1% increase in X". The confusion is that 0.083 is a decimal, and you quote it as percentage: 8.3%. In the second case 0.257 is applied to the percentage increase in X, so in a way in the second case the percentage comes from X itself not from beta like in 1st case. $\endgroup$
    – Aksakal
    Mar 4, 2016 at 19:09
1
$\begingroup$

You asked a number of questions. I will paraphrase each, and then answer them.

First question: If $f(x) = 4 + 2.5 x + u$, what is $f(x+1)-f(x)$? The answer is 2.5, for all $x$.

Second question: If $f(x) = \exp(1.7+0.083 x+u)$, what is $f(x+1)-f(x)$?

$$ \begin{eqnarray} f(x+1)-f(x) & = & \exp(1.7+0.083(x+1)+u) - \exp(1.7+0.083 x+u) \\ & = & \exp(1.7+0.083 x+u+0.083) - \exp(1.7+0.083 x+u) \\ & = & \exp(1.7+0.083 x+u) \cdot \exp(0.083) - \exp(1.7+0.083 x+u) \\ & = & [\exp(0.083)-1] \cdot \exp(1.7+0.083 x+u) \\ &\approx& 0.083 \cdot \exp(1.7+0.083 x+u) \\ &=& 0.083 \cdot f(x) \\ &=& 8.3\% \cdot f(x) \end{eqnarray} $$

Where in the $\approx$ step I used the approximation (which comes from the Taylor series) that for small $x$, $\exp(x) \approx 1+x$. So if $x$ increases by 1, $f(x)$ increases by 8.3%.

Third question: Here your question is a little unclear (there's at least one typo), but I think what you want to ask is: If $f(x) = \exp(4 + 0.083 \ln(x) + u)$, what is $f(1.01 \cdot x)-f(x)$? This would correspond to the question of how much $f(x)$ changes for a 1% increase in $x$.

$$ \begin{eqnarray} f(1.01\cdot x)-f(x) &=& \exp(4 + 0.083 \ln(1.01 x) + u) - \exp(4 + 0.083 \ln(x) + u) \\ &=& \exp(4 + 0.083 (\ln(1.01)+\ln(x)) + u) - \exp(4 + 0.083 \ln(x) + u) \\ &=& \exp(4 + 0.083 \ln(x) + u) \cdot \exp(0.083 \ln(1.01)) - \exp(4 + 0.083 \ln(x) + u) \\ &=& [\exp(0.083 \ln(1.01))-1] \cdot \exp(4 + 0.083 ln(x) + u) \\ &\approx& [\exp(0.083 \cdot 0.01)- 1] \cdot f(x) \\ &\approx& (1 + 0.083 \cdot 0.01 - 1) \cdot f(x) \\ &=& 0.083 \cdot 0.01 \cdot f(x) \\ &=& 0.083\% \cdot f(x) \end{eqnarray} $$

Where at the first $\approx$ I used the approximation that $\ln(1+x) \approx x$ for small $x$, and at the second $\approx$ I again used the approximation that $\exp(x) \approx 1+x$ for small $x$. (Of course, these are really the same approximation, but one stated in terms of $\exp()$ and one in terms of $\ln()$.)

So the answer is that a 1% increase in $x$ will cause a 0.083% increase in $f(x)$.

Fourth question: Does Wooldridge have a typo? No. If you compare the answers to your second and third question, it should now be clear why this is.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.