Lets assume, that the real DGP (real world data) is generated from the model:

$$y_i = \beta_0 + \beta_1x_{1i} + \beta_2x_{2i} + \varepsilon_i$$

Lets further assume, that $x_1$ and $x_2$ are correlated. Precisely, $x_1$ is a confounder variable, that causes $x_2$:

$$x_{2i} = \alpha_0 + \alpha_1 x_{1i} + u_i$$

Researcher does not know above information, he is sure, that the true model has only one variable, and assumes following functional form:

$$ y_i = \gamma_0 + \gamma_2x_{2i} + v_i $$

What can we, who know everything, tell about the consistency of the estimator $\hat \gamma_2$?

  • It is inconsistent, because consistent estimator has limit in the 'real world parameter', which in this case is $\beta_2$.
  • It is consistent, because consistent estimator has limit in the parameters of 'assumed model'. In this case $\gamma_2$. It is the model, which does not fit real world, not the estimator.

I see these two possibilities. Which one is (more) true, and what is most important - why?


Neither. An estimator is consistent for some parameter, so in this case the answer is

  • Yes, $\hat\gamma_2$ is consistent for $\beta_2$
  • No, $\hat\gamma_2$ is not consistent for $\gamma_2$ (or for $\beta_0$ or lots of other things).

In this case, the causal assumptions suggest you'd be more interested in whether it was consistent for $\gamma_2$, but you still need to say "consistent for $\gamma_2$", not just "consistent". The same is true for 'biased' and 'unbiased': an estimator is biased or unbiased for a parameter

Sometimes there is genuinely only one interesting limit, and it's a reasonable abuse of notation to leave it implied, but a claim of consistency does require specifying the limit.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for this answer! Thanks to it I found this phrase in "Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach" by Wooldridge. Previously I was using a handbook, which uses 'consintency' without specifying parameter for which it is calculated. This implied supposedly wrongful thinking that the consistency is supposed to be 'general', whatever it would mean. $\endgroup$ – cure Oct 23 at 10:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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