7
$\begingroup$

The definition of endogeneity is: $$\mathbb{E}(\varepsilon \vert X)\neq0,$$ which I know is not quite the same as: $$\text{Cov}(\varepsilon, X)\neq0.$$ My question is, how can this occur in OLS, where by construction $\varepsilon \perp X$?

Is it due to some kind of non-linear effects, where $\text{Cov}(\varepsilon, X)=0$, but $\mathbb{E}(\varepsilon \vert X)\neq0$?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ The point is, OLS imposes orthogonality, but if orthogonality does not hold in reality, then OLS results will not reflect the reality well. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 17, 2016 at 16:41
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps this question confuses the errors $\epsilon$ with the residuals in the regression. OLS does not "construct" an orthogonality of errors and regressors; it merely assumes that such independence holds and draws inferences from that assumption. By construction, OLS forces the residuals to be orthogonal to the regressors. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Nov 17, 2016 at 16:46
  • $\begingroup$ OK, I guess I see your point. However, if we force the residuals to be correlated with Xs in OLS, aren't we introducing a bias in the estimated coefficients. $\endgroup$
    – mss
    Commented Nov 17, 2016 at 16:56

1 Answer 1

8
$\begingroup$

from my point of view this problem stems from the fact that OLS models a linear projection $L(Y|X)=X\beta$ that is defined such that we always have $(Y-L(Y|X))⊥X$ but it does not hold in general that $L(Y|X)=X\beta=E[Y|X]$.

As a example assume that $Y=X+X^2+e$ and $E[Y|X]=X+X^2$, if we now do not account for the squared term, i.e. estimate a linear projection $L(Y|X)=X\beta$ we effectively say $Y=X+\epsilon$ and $\epsilon=X^2+e$. Or in other words, we put the $X^2$ in the error term. By the basic calculation rules of random variables (and assuming that $e\sim iid(0,\sigma)$) it holds that $$Cov(\epsilon,X)=Cov(X^2+e,X)=Cov(X^2,X)=0$$ but clearly $$E[\epsilon|X]=E[X^2|X]\neq 0$$

Therefore, your suspicion of non-linear effects is quite right, but the more deep reason is that modelling via OLS is not necessarily the same as modelling the conditional expectation.

But more broadly speacking, enogeneity in general can have three reasons (as shown in standard textbooks like Wooldridges "Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data"). Classical is the omitted variable problem that stems from the confusion of the error term of the OLS estimator and the error term of the "real" model. Second is the measurement error problem where we control for all relevant covariates but some of the error in the measurement of them goes into the error term and third is the problem of Simulateneity. Therefore, I would say that your remarki that "endogeneity [can] be thought of as another manifestation of omitted variable problem" is correct. However, endogeneity must not necessarily stem from a omitted variable but can also have other sources.

I would clearly refer to the book of Wooldridge, especially Chap. 2 for the concepts of the conditional expectation (what we want to estimate) and linear projection (what we have at hand if we use OLS) and Chap. 4 for the problem of endogeneity and its sources.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ your example is a clear case of omitted variable bias in OLS. so, could endogeneity be thought of as another manifestation of omitted variable problem. or, is there a deeper difference between these 2 concepts? $\endgroup$
    – mss
    Commented Nov 17, 2016 at 17:08
  • $\begingroup$ @mss, omitted variables is one source of endogeneity $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 21, 2016 at 18:48

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.