评论:《仪器的麻烦:重新审视基于冲击的IV设计》作者:Atanasov和Black

R. Duchin, J. Matsusaka, O. Ozbas
{"title":"评论:《仪器的麻烦:重新审视基于冲击的IV设计》作者:Atanasov和Black","authors":"R. Duchin, J. Matsusaka, O. Ozbas","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2697098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Atanasov and Black (2015) (AB) analyzes potential limitations of empirical studies that use shock-based IV designs, focusing specifically on our article that studies the effect of board independence on firm value (Duchin et al., 2010). With regard to our study, AB raises three concerns with our analysis. This note presents our reaction to AB’s analysis. We agree with two of the concerns in the abstract; it turns out they do not matter for the substance of our analysis. We disagree on the critical issue concerning selection of covariates. As a guide to future research, we highlight the nature of the disagreement, and explain why we believe covariates should be motivated by theory, and why an a theoretical approach to selecting covariates can result in failure to identify effects that actually exist. An important lesson from the analysis is that researchers should exercise caution when including ad-hoc covariates in empirical specifications. We offer concluding thoughts about empirical research and causal inference.","PeriodicalId":332226,"journal":{"name":"USC Marshall School of Business Research Paper Series","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comments on: 'The Trouble with Instruments: Re-Examining Shock-Based IV Designs' by Atanasov and Black\",\"authors\":\"R. Duchin, J. Matsusaka, O. Ozbas\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2697098\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Atanasov and Black (2015) (AB) analyzes potential limitations of empirical studies that use shock-based IV designs, focusing specifically on our article that studies the effect of board independence on firm value (Duchin et al., 2010). With regard to our study, AB raises three concerns with our analysis. This note presents our reaction to AB’s analysis. We agree with two of the concerns in the abstract; it turns out they do not matter for the substance of our analysis. We disagree on the critical issue concerning selection of covariates. As a guide to future research, we highlight the nature of the disagreement, and explain why we believe covariates should be motivated by theory, and why an a theoretical approach to selecting covariates can result in failure to identify effects that actually exist. An important lesson from the analysis is that researchers should exercise caution when including ad-hoc covariates in empirical specifications. We offer concluding thoughts about empirical research and causal inference.\",\"PeriodicalId\":332226,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"USC Marshall School of Business Research Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"USC Marshall School of Business Research Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2697098\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"USC Marshall School of Business Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2697098","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

Atanasov和Black (2015) (AB)分析了使用基于冲击的IV设计的实证研究的潜在局限性,特别关注我们研究董事会独立性对公司价值影响的文章(Duchin et al., 2010)。关于我们的研究,AB在我们的分析中提出了三个问题。本文是我们对AB分析的反应。我们同意抽象意义上的两个问题;事实证明,它们对我们分析的实质并不重要。我们在协变量选择的关键问题上意见不一致。作为对未来研究的指导,我们强调了分歧的本质,并解释了为什么我们认为协变量应该由理论驱动,以及为什么选择协变量的理论方法可能导致无法识别实际存在的影响。从分析中得到的一个重要教训是,当研究人员在经验规范中包括临时协变量时,应谨慎行事。我们提供关于实证研究和因果推理的结论性想法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comments on: 'The Trouble with Instruments: Re-Examining Shock-Based IV Designs' by Atanasov and Black
Atanasov and Black (2015) (AB) analyzes potential limitations of empirical studies that use shock-based IV designs, focusing specifically on our article that studies the effect of board independence on firm value (Duchin et al., 2010). With regard to our study, AB raises three concerns with our analysis. This note presents our reaction to AB’s analysis. We agree with two of the concerns in the abstract; it turns out they do not matter for the substance of our analysis. We disagree on the critical issue concerning selection of covariates. As a guide to future research, we highlight the nature of the disagreement, and explain why we believe covariates should be motivated by theory, and why an a theoretical approach to selecting covariates can result in failure to identify effects that actually exist. An important lesson from the analysis is that researchers should exercise caution when including ad-hoc covariates in empirical specifications. We offer concluding thoughts about empirical research and causal inference.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Real Cash Flow Expectations and Asset Prices Cleaning House Before Hosting New Guests: A Political Path Dependence Model of Political Connection Adaptation in the Aftermath of Anticorruption Shocks Explaining the Profitability Anomaly The Co-Production of Service: Modeling Service Times in Contact Centers Using Hawkes Processes Does Profitability Really Matter? Marginality, Volatility & $ Trillion Question
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1