12
$\begingroup$

From Econometrics, by Fumio Hayashi (Chpt 1):

Unconditional Homoskedasticity:

  • The second moment of the error terms E(εᵢ²) is constant across the observations
  • The functional form E(εᵢ²|xi) is constant across the observations

Conditional Homoskedasticity:

  • The restriction that the second moment of the error terms E(εᵢ²) is constant across the observations is lifted
    • Thus the conditional second moment E(εᵢ²|xi) can differ across the observations through possible dependence on xᵢ.

So then, my question:

How does Conditional Homoskedasticity differ from Heteroskedasticity?

My understanding is that there is heteroskedasticity when the second moment differs across observations (xᵢ).

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Maybe this will help: www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ674/falk/… $\endgroup$ – whuber Apr 7 '11 at 18:48
  • $\begingroup$ There a slight issue in that the lecture says "Therefore, conditional homoskedasticity implies unconditional homoskedasticity" in contradiction to the Econometrics book. They seem to be conditioning on different things. $\endgroup$ – Henry Apr 7 '11 at 23:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Henry It is difficult to tell from the present question which definitions are accurate and which ones not--some of them do not seem to make sense out of the context of the textbook. Some clarification would be welcome. $\endgroup$ – whuber Apr 8 '11 at 0:25
10
$\begingroup$

I will begin by just quoting from Hayashi to help anybody else who would like to comment. I have tried to preserve formatting and original equation numbers.

Begin quote from Hayashi page 126, section 2.6:

Conditional versus Unconditional Homoskedasticity

The conditional homoskedasticity assumption is:

Assumption 2.7 (conditional homoskedasticity): \begin{align*} \tag{2.6.1} E(\epsilon_i^2|\mathbf{x}_i)=\sigma^2>0. \end{align*} This assumption implies that the unconditional second moment $E(\epsilon_i^2)$ equals $\sigma^2$ by the Law of Total Expectations. To be clear about the distinction between unconditional and conditional homoskedasticity, consider the following example [Example 2.6 (unconditionally homoskedastic but conditionally heteroskedastic errors)...]

End quote.

Some relevant equations from Hayashi pages 11-14 (Section 1.1): \begin{align*} \tag{1.1.12} E(\epsilon_i^2|\mathbf{X})=\sigma^2>0 \quad (i=1,2,\ldots,n) \\\ \tag{1.1.17} E(\epsilon_i^2|\mathbf x_i)=\sigma^2>0 \quad (i=1,2,.\ldots,n). \end{align*}

The subsection "The Classical Regression Model for Random Samples" on page 12 discusses the implications of a sample being iid. Quoting from Hayashi pages 12-13: "The implication of the identical distribution aspect of a random sample is that the joint distribution of $(\epsilon_i,\mathbf x_i)$ does not depend on $i$. So the unconditional second moment $E(\epsilon_i^2)$ is constant across $i$ (this is referred to as unconditional homoskedasticity) and the functional form of the conditional second moment $E(\epsilon_i^2|\mathbf x_i)$ is the same across $i$. However Assumption 1.4---that the value of the conditional second moment is the same across $i$---does not follow. Therefore, Assumption 1.4 remains restrictive for the case of a random sample; without it, the conditional second moment $E(\epsilon_i^2|\mathbf x_i)$ can differ across $i$ through its possible dependence on $\mathbf x_i$. To emphasize the distinction, the restrictions on the conditional second moments, (1.1.12) and (1.1.17), are referred to as conditional homoskedasticity."

[No further quotes from Hayashi, just my understanding after this point.]

I assume the original question was about the above discussion on pages 12-13. In that case, I think the first bullet under "Conditional Homoskedasticity" isn't technically correct (though I understand what you mean): Hayashi says (1.1.17) is "conditional homoskedasticity," and if $E(\epsilon_i^2|\mathbf x_i)=\sigma^2$, then $E(\epsilon_i^2)=E[E(\epsilon_i^2|\mathbf x_i)]=E[\sigma^2]=\sigma^2$, as Hayashi notes on page 126 (that conditional homoskedasticity implies unconditional homoskedasticity by the Law of Total Expectations).

So I think part of the issue may be the interpretation of Hayashi's statements. Conditional homoskedasticity says (1.1.17) even for different $\mathbf x_i$, the variance of $\epsilon_i$ is the same constant $\sigma^2$. Unconditional homoskedasticity is a weaker statement, in that you could have $E(\epsilon_i^2)=\sigma^2$ but $E(\epsilon_i^2|\mathbf x_i)\ne\sigma^2$; Examples 2.6 (page 127) illustrates this. It also perhaps answers the question of the overlap between homo- and heteroskedasticity: it gives an example where there is unconditional homoskedasticity as well as conditional heteroskedasticity.

These are confusing concepts, especially without a lot of experience with conditional expectations/distributions, but hopefully this adds some clarity (and source material for any future discussions).

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It might help to summarize those examples here to more fully clarify the distinction between these confusing concepts. $\endgroup$ – gung Jun 7 '15 at 0:58

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.