Structural-equation Estimation without Instrumental Variables

Eric Blankmeyer
Email eb01@txstate.edu
September 2017

Abstract. For a single equation in a system of linear equations, estimation
by instrumental variables is the standard approach. In practice, however, it
is often difficult to find valid instruments. This paper proposes a maximumlikelihood method that does not require instrumental variables; it is
illustrated by simulation and with a real data set.
Key words. Simultaneous equation estimation, instrumental variable, twostage least squares, limited-information maximum likelihood, canonical
correlation.

1

Introduction
The consistent estimation of a simultaneous equation is a significant
topic in econometrics and a challenging problem at the practical level. For
an equation embedded in a system of simultaneous linear equations,
estimation by ordinary least squares (OLS) is generally inconsistent; and
the apparently-universal recommendation is to use instrumental variables
(IV), for example two-stage least squares (TSLS) or limited information
maximum likelihood (LIML). “The substantial literature on estimation with
weak instruments has not yet produced a serious practical competitor to
the usual instrumental variable estimator” (Leamer 2010, 44-45). “The
various methods that have been developed for simultaneous-equations
models are all IV estimators” (Greene 2003, 398).
However, the IV approach is frequently problematic since a valid
instrument must be uncorrelated with the random component of the
variable for which it is a proxy but sufficiently correlated with its systematic
component.
Those who use instrumental variables would do well to
anticipate the inevitable barrage of questions about the
appropriateness of their instruments. Ever-present
asymptotic bias casts a large dark shadow on
instrumental variables estimates and is what limits the
applicability of the estimate even to the setting that is
observed, not to mention extrapolation to new settings. In
addition, small sample bias of instrumental variables
estimators, even in the consistent case, is a huge
neglected problem with practice…(Leamer 2010, 35)
What can go wrong with instrumental variables? The most
important potential problem is a bad instrument, that is,
an instrument that is correlated with the omitted
variables (or the error term in the structural equation of
interest in the case of simultaneous equations). Especially
worrisome is the possibility that an association between
the instrumental variable and omitted variables can lead
to a bias in the resulting estimates that is much
greater than the bias in ordinary least squares estimates.
2

Moreover, seemingly appropriate instruments can turn
out to be correlated with omitted variables on closer
examination (Angrist and Krueger 2001, 79).
Widespread concern about the effectiveness of IV methods is
especially apparent from the voluminous literature on weak
instruments that has emerged during the last twenty years, a small
but distinguished sample of which includes Staiger and Stock (1997),
Angrist and Krueger (2001), Mariano (2001), Stock et al. (2002),
Andrews and Stock (2006), Chernozhukov and Hansen (2008),
Baltagi et al. (2012), and Judge and Mittelhammer (2012). When the
instruments’ exogeneity is in doubt, Conley et al. (2012) and Nevo
and Rosen (2012) explore procedures to estimate bounds on the
problematic regression coefficients.
This paper proposes the Non-Instrumental Simultaneous
Equation (NISE) estimator, which requires no instruments and is
consistent under a set of assumptions often invoked for linear
statistical models. In an insightful paper on the various simultaneousequation estimators, Chow (1964, 533-537) explains the relationship
between canonical correlation (CC) and the estimator that I call NISE.
He also compares NISE to LIML, noting that the latter has better
statistical efficiency when valid instruments are available (Chow
1964, 542-543).
A rather long history of econometric research links CC to systems of
linear equations. Early examples include Hooper (1959), who explores CC
in relation to the reduced form, and Hannan (1967), who studies CC in the
context of subsets of simultaneous equations that are just-identified.
Hannan’s paper inspired research by Chow and Ray-Chaudhuri (1967) and
Ghosh (1972). Theil (1971, 317-321) uses CC to motivate Zellner’s
methodology for seemingly-unrelated regressions. More recently, CC and
the closely-related reduced-rank regression (Reinsel and Velu 1998) have
become the estimators for error-correction models of a vector
autoregression that may contain cointegrated variables (e. g., Johansen
1996).

3

Section 2 introduces NISE as a maximum-likelihood estimator
(mle) and describes a test for specification error; additional analytical
content is provided in an appendix. Section 3 reports a simulation of
OLS, TSLS and NISE in the context of a market model, and section 4
applies the three estimation methods to a data set for Texas nursing
facilities. Section 5 contains some conclusions and disclaimers.
NISE
The simultaneous linear equation of interest is
Yγ = Xβ + u,

(1)

where the matrix Y contains n observations on G endogenous variables, X
contains n observations on H exogenous variables, γ and β are vectors of
unknown parameters, and u is a vector of n unobservable gaussian
disturbances identically and independently distributed with E(u) = E(Xu) =
0. In addition to X, the model contains L exogenous variables W that
appear in other linear equations; and L ≥ G so (1) is identifiable by
exclusion restrictions.
A researcher wants to estimate (1) but does not intend to estimate
the model’s other equations. In fact, she may have no usable data on W,
which is a principal motive for choosing NISE instead of LIML or TSLS. It is
irrelevant for identification that the actual measurements on the excluded
exogenous variables may be absent from the data set or otherwise
unusable. If the model is correct, then the real effects of the excluded
exogenous variables on the equation of interest are reflected in Y.
For this linear system, only one of whose equations is to be
estimated, Davidson and MacKinnon (1993, 644) show that there is no
Jacobian term in the loglikelihood; accordingly, the NISE mle is derived by
minimizing the Lagrangian
F = (Yγ - Xβ)T(Yγ - Xβ) – λ[γT(YTY)γ -1] ,

(2)

where the constraint guarantees that the total squared error uTu is
minimized with respect to the left-hand side of equation (1). (Chow 1964,
4

533-537 and 542-543; conforming to more recent usage, my notation
reverses the roles of β and γ in his paper.) Chow shows that the estimate
of γ is c, the characteristic vector corresponding to the smallest
characteristic value λmin that solves the determinantal equation
|YTMY – λYTY| = |YTMY(YTY)-1 -λI | = 0.

(3)

In (3), the nxn idempotent matrix M = I-X(XTX)-1XT “partials out” X from
each column of Y.
At this point, a researcher may choose to normalize an endogenous
variable with a coefficient of 1 on the equation’s left-hand side, moving the
other endogenous variable(s) to the right-hand side. For G ≥ 2 endogenous
variables with y1 on the left, the coefficient of yg is –cg/c1 (g = 2,…,G). Then
b, an estimate of β, is obtained from the OLS regression of y1 + (c2/c1)y2 +
… + (cG/c1) yG on X. Standard errors for the NISE coefficients can be
estimated using a “pairs” or “cases” bootstrap.
The coefficient of determination from the OLS regression is
2
r1 = 1 - λmin, the largest squared canonical correlation between Y and X.
Accordingly, Bartlett’s large-sample approximation to Wilks’ lambda is a
likelihood-ratio test for NISE:
Z = -(n -1 -(G+H+1)/2)∑ln(1-ri2)

,

(4)

where the summation is over the sample squared canonical correlations ri2
from i = 2 to i = min(G,H). On the null hypothesis, only r12 is statistically
significant; that is, the data support exactly one linear relationship between
X and Y, so equation (1) is correctly specified. Then Z has asymptotically a
chi-square distribution with (G-1)(H-1) degrees of freedom (e. g., Mardia et
al. 1979, 288-289).
A value of Z large enough to reject the null hypothesis at conventional
levels of significance may be evidence of specification error and
identification failure. If the null hypothesis in (4) is not rejected, NISE is
consistent but inefficient since it is a limited-information method that
ignores the model’s other equations. NISE is also inefficient relative to
LIML and TSLS methods when valid instruments exist. These inefficiency
characterizations are of course based on asymptotic theory. Against them
5

one can set the well-documented practical deficiencies of IV methods and
the convenience of an additional reality check on IV estimates when they
can be computed.
A market simulation
The simulation produces cross-section data on markets for an
agricultural commodity. The demand function includes two endogenous
variables, the price of the commodity (p) and the quantity demanded (qd);
three exogenous variables –-household income (inc), the price of a
substitute commodity (ps), and the price of a complementary commodity
(pc); and a random disturbance ud. The supply function includes the price
and the quantity supplied (qs); the exogenous variables rainfall (r), the price
of fertilizer (pf), and the ambient temperature (t); and a random disturbance
us. The market is supposed to be in equilibrium at each observation in the
data set: qd = qs = q. With the variables log-transformed, the simulated
demand function is
qi = -1.00pi + 1.50inci + 0.50psi -0.50pci + 3.00 + udi ;

(5)

and the simulated supply function is
qi = 0.75pi + 2.50ri -1.50pfi -1.00ti + 0.50 + usi

,

(6)

for i = 1, …, n.
In both (5) and (6), the exogenous variables are uncorrelated with
their respective disturbances; but the model implies that p and ud are
indeed correlated. This is the cause of simultaneity bias that prevents
consistent estimation by OLS. A researcher wants to estimate the demand
function but not the supply function. However, the simulated values of the
supply shifters r, pf and t will be required as instruments in the sequel
since it is of interest to compare the performances of TSLS and NISE.
All the model’s exogenous variables are generated from independent
standard normal distributions; ud and us are also independent normal, each
with zero mean and a standard deviation of 2. At every replication, the
6

simulation computes pi from the reduced form and inserts that value into
equation (5). In 5,000 replications, the median correlation between p and ud
is 0.489. Table 1 summarizes this base case for two sample sizes:
n = 50 and n = 500. The table reports the median value of each regression
coefficient and, underneath each coefficient, a robust version of its
standard error, i. e., the Qn scale in Rousseeuw and Croux (1993).
The simulations show that the OLS estimate of the price elasticity of
demand is notably biased, and the other OLS coefficients are moderately
biased toward zero. The TSLS and NISE coefficients are very close to the
values in (5). For both sample sizes OLS is most efficient, followed by
TSLS and then NISE; but when n = 500 the differences in efficiency are
minor. The instrumental variables are strong as indicated by the
significance level of the F test for the first-stage regression (it is a joint test
on the exclusion of r, pf, and t). In addition, the null hypothesis for the J test
is not rejected: r, pf and t have no significant correlation with the TSLS
residuals. Finally, the null hypothesis for the Z test in NISE is not rejected:
among the variables p, q, inc, ps and pc, the demand function is the only
linear relationship supported by the data.
Table 2 examines two variations on the base case. To explore the
effect of weak instruments on TSLS, the coefficients of r, pf, and t in
equation (6) are reduced to 0.5, -0.3, and -0.2 respectively. For this
simulation, the median correlation between p and ud is 0.599; and at n = 50
the null hypothesis of the F test for weak instruments cannot be rejected.
The TSLS price elasticity of demand is biased and statistically insignificant,
but the NISE estimate is accurate and more than twice its robust standard
error. At n = 500 the TSLS bias is much smaller and the standard error has
shrunk.
When the supply shifter rain (r) is mistakenly included in the demand
function, the NISE price elasticity of demand is ruined at both sample sizes
and its standard error explodes. This specification error is flagged by the Z
test, for which the alternative hypothesis of non-identification cannot be
rejected. TSLS performs well.
In this section I have explicitly specified the demand and supply
functions and have solved for the reduced form of the price variable, which
I then substitute into the demand function to generate the quantity variable.
7

However, in their simulations of IV estimators some researchers (e.g.,
Staiger and Stock 1997, Judge and Mittelhammer 2012) do not actually
specify the structural equations for the included endogenous variables and
therefore do not derive an authentic reduced form. Instead the included
endogenous variables are generated from a pseudo reduced form and then
substituted into the equation of interest to produce the dependent variable
on the left-hand side. Since these steps do not give rise to simultaneity
bias, it is introduced ad hoc in the form of correlations between the
structural disturbance and the disturbances in the pseudo reduced form.
This setup is effective for testing estimators like LIML and TSLS
because they are general-purpose techniques, supposedly consistent in a
wide variety of situations where a regressor is correlated with a
disturbance. NISE, on the other hand, is not a general-purpose technique.
It is focused on simultaneity bias, and for valid simulation it requires “data”
from an authentic reduced form that is a function of the structural
parameters and the structural disturbances.
A cost function for nursing homes
As an application of NISE, I draw on a data base of the Texas Health
and Human Services Commission (2002) to estimate a short-run cost
function for a typical Texas nursing home. For each of 920 facilities in
2002, the data set provides the total cost, the number of resident-days (the
“quantity” variable), and the hourly wage rates paid to registered nurses
(RN), licensed vocation nurses (LVN), nurse’s aides (AIDE), and laundry
and housekeeping personnel (L+H). The data were screened for outliers
using robust methods (Maronna et al. 2006, 204-208), and 61 observations
were removed.
Specifying a log-linear model, I assume that total cost and resident
days are jointly endogenous since in theory management would try to
minimize the cost per resident-day either as a primary objective or as a
necessary condition for profit maximization. Because the nursing homes
recruit staff in a large labor market of health-care personnel, I take the
wage rates to be exogenous. The disturbances in the cost function are
assumed to be independently and identically distributed normal variables,
8

but they are correlated with resident days: given the wage rates, a nursing
facility whose total cost is randomly higher or lower than expected will
adjust its resident days.
Although NISE is likely to be most useful when there are no
observations on the excluded exogenous variables, the data set appears to
provide two candidates for instruments: the Medicaid per-diem
reimbursement and the daily rate charged to private-pay patients.
Microeconomic theory does not suggest that these variables belong in a
cost function since the two payment rates pertain to the firm’s revenue. The
Medicaid per diem is arguably exogenous because it is set by regulatory
authorities. However, the facility manager can affect the per diem by
adjusting the composition of the resident days since the facility is
reimbursed at higher rates for residents needing more assistance and
supervision. The private-pay rate could also be exogenous when there is
vigorous competition among nursing homes to enroll self-funded residents.
On the other hand, the long-term care industry may resemble monopolistic
competition if each facility can exercise some pricing power via the
amenities it offers, the convenience of its location, its reputation for quality
of care, and so on. In short, it is not certain that the candidate instruments
are exogeneous.
Historically, occupancy rates in Texas nursing homes were lower
than in many other states, partly because regulators readily authorized the
construction of new or expanded facilities. The average occupancy rate in
2002 was just 70 percent, an indication that many firms were not operating
very efficiently. The cost function could consequently be modeled using the
stochastic-frontier methodology of Aigner et al. (1977) with its nonlinear
likelihood, but I do not pursue this approach. As Greene (2003, 502-503)
remarks, the asymmetry of the stochastic frontier’s error distribution “does
not negate our basic results for least squares in this classical regression
model. This model satisfies the assumptions of the Gauss-Markov
theorem…” apart from the above-mentioned endogeneity problem.
The cost-function estimates are shown in Table 3. As expected, all
the slope coefficients are positive. The OLS and NISE coefficients are
statistically significant (p-values < 0.10), but only the resident-days
coefficient is significant for TSLS. The TSLS regression implies that total
9

costs vary more than proportionally with resident days. For OLS, the
relationship is essentially proportional; but total costs vary less than
proportionally in the NISE regression. A bootstrap-based test indicates that
each resident-days coefficient is significantly different from the other two.
In view of the previous discussion of the data set’s instrumental
variables, it is worth noting that the J test for the over-identifying restrictions
is strongly rejected: the instruments are correlated with the TSLS residuals
and, by inference, with the cost function’s disturbances. So although the
available instruments are strong --the F test in Table 3 clearly rejects the
null hypothesis of weak instruments-- they don’t verify the identification of
the cost function. On the other hand, the null hypothesis of the Z test is
definitely not rejected so the NISE estimates appear to be acceptable.
Caveats and conclusions
With the exception of cointegrated time series, for which OLS is
“superconsistent,” the econometrics literature appears to be united in the
view that IV methods are the only way to estimate consistently a
simultaneous linear equation when identification is based on exclusion
restrictions. Nevertheless, this paper has provided tentative evidence that
NISE can deal effectively with simultaneity bias when the linear equation is
in fact identified and the sample size is not too small. Moreover, the Z test
raises a red flag in situations where specification error causes a failure of
identification. However, NISE cannot replace IV methods in applications
other than simultaneous linear equations; for example, NISE can’t deal with
bias arising from “errors in variables.” In addition, NISE fails when the
equation of interest includes no exogenous variables: if X is empty, λmin = 1
and also YTMY = YTY identically in equation (3). For the Z test, X must
contain at least two variables.
For practical computations, the X and Y arrays can be input to CC
software, which then produces c as the coefficients of Y corresponding to
the largest squared canonical correlation. In addition, a pairs or cases
bootstrap can estimate the sampling errors of the NISE coefficients,
allowing for the possibility that the errors u in equation (1) are
heteroskedastic. One can of course compute the usual bootstrap standard
10

errors, but it may be preferable to use a robust dispersion estimator
(Maronna et al. 2006, chapter 2, Rousseeuw and Croux 1993). In addition
to limiting the distortions due to outlying data points, a robust bootstrap
estimate of dispersion may be desirable since the NISE coefficients –cg/c1
do not necessarily have a finite second moment, as Anderson (2010)
explains in the context of LIML.
Appendix: a derivation of the NISE mle
In equation (1), the covariance matrix of Y, denoted Θ, has rank G
and is consistently estimated by its usual sample counterpart, denoted V.
Likewise the covariance matrix of X, denoted ψ, has rank H. When the
NISE log-likelihood is concentrated by “partialing out” X from each column
of Y, the residuals MY have a covariance matrix ∑, of rank G, which is
consistently estimated by its sample counterpart, denoted S. Then the
variance of the jointly endogenous variables can be decomposed into the
residual variance and the “regression” variance, say
γTΘγ = γT∑γ + δTψδ .

(A1)

Now NISE bears a formal resemblance to LIML, whose derivation is
provided by Davidson and MacKinnon (1993, 644-649) and by Theil (1971,
502-504 and 679-686). LIML and NISE maximize similar constrained
Gaussian log-likelihoods and have similar normalizations. For NISE, the
normalization constraint is γTΘγ = 1 (Chow 1964, 533-537 and 542-543;
cp. Theil 1971, 684 and Anderson 2010, 359-361). However, NISE does
not use the other LIML constraints, which involve the excluded exogenous
variables W, i. e., the instruments. These latter constraints increase the
asymptotic efficiency of LIML relative to NISE, but the premise of NISE is
that valid observations on the instruments are not available.
In short, a derivation of NISE as mle follows the derivation of LIML if
one omits every term involving variables excluded a priori from the
equation of interest. Given a random sample of n observations X and Y,
maximization of the NISE log likelihood is equivalent to the minimization of
F* = 0.5nlog|∑| + 0.5tr(∑-1S) –0.5ρ(γTΘγ – 1) ,

(A2)
11

where ρ is a Lagrange multiplier (cp. Theil 1971, 679). S is a consistent
estimator of ∑, and this substitution means that the second term in (A2) is a
constant, not dependent on ∑. When (A1) is applied to the third term of
(A2) and ∂F*/∂∑ is set equal to zero, it follows that
n∑-1 - ργγT = 0

(A3)

(e.g., Theil 1971, 31-32 or Greene 2003, 839-840).
Premultiplying (A3) by ∑ and postmultiplying by Θγ,
Θγ – (ρ/n)∑γγTΘγ = 0

(A4)

or

[Θ – (ρ/n) ∑]γ = 0

(A5)

or

[∑ - λΘ]γ = 0 ,

(A6)

where λ = n/ρ. The corresponding determinantal equation is
|∑ - ΛΘ| = | ∑Θ-1 – λI | = 0 ;

(A7)

and minimization requires the smallest characteristic value,
λmin = γT∑γ / γTΘγ ,

(A8)

which is a real positive fraction.
To operationalize the NISE estimation procedure, ∑ and Θ are
replaced by their consistent estimators, S and V respectively. Then γ is
estimated by c, the characteristic vector corresponding to λmin. While
standard errors for the NISE coefficients can be estimated using a
bootstrap, it is also possible to estimate a covariance matrix for the
coefficients based on ỹg = λminyg - eg, where eg is the residual vector when
X is partialed out of yg (g = 2,…,G). If A is the sample covariance matrix of
(ỹ2,..,ỹG,X), then an estimator of the asymptotic covariance matrix of
(-c2/c1,…,-cG/c1,b) is n-1 2A-1, where 2 is the residual variance from the
OLS regression that produces b as an estimate of β in section 2.

12

References
Aigner, D., K. Lovell, P. Schmidt, 1977. Formulation and estimation of
stochastic frontier production models. Journal of Econometrics 6: 21-37.
Anderson, T., 2010. The LIML estimator has finite moments ! Journal of
Econometrics 157: 359-361.
Andrews, D., J. Stock, 2006. Testing with many weak instruments. Journal
of Econometrics 138: 24-46.
Angrist, J., A. Krueger, 2001. Instrumental variables and the search for
identification: from supply and demand to natural experiments. Journal of
Economic Perspectives 15: 69-85.
Baltagi, B., C. Kao, L. Liu, 2012. On the estimation and testing of fixed
effects panel data models with weak instruments. Advances in
Econometrics, volume 30, eds. D. Terrell and D. Millimet. Bingley UK:
Emerald.
Chernozhukov, V., C. Hansen, 2008. The reduced form: a simple approach
to inference with weak instruments. Economics Letters 100: 68-71.
Chow, G., 1964. A comparison of alternative estimators for simultaneous
equations. Econometrica 32: 532-553.
Chow, G., D. Ray-Chaudhuri, 1967. An alternative proof of Hannan's
theorem on canonical correlation and multiple equation systems.
Econometrica 35: 139-142.
Conley, T., C. Hansen, P. Rossi, 2012. Plausibly exogenous. Review of
Economics and Statistics 94: 260-272.
Davidson, R., J. MacKinnon, 1993. Estimation and Inference in
Econometrics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ghosh, S., 1972. Canonical correlation and extended limited Information
methods under general linear restrictions on parameters. International
Economic Review 13: 728-736.
13

Greene, W., 2003. Econometric Analysis, fifth edition. Upper Saddle River
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hannan, E., 1967. Canonical correlation and multiple equation systems.
Econometrica 35: 123-138.
Hooper,J., 1959. Simultaneous equations and canonical correlation theory.
Econometrica 27: 245-256.
Johansen, S., 1996. Likelihood-Based Inference in Cointegrated Vector
Autoregressive Models, second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Judge, G., R. Mittelhammer, 2012. A risk superior semiparametric
estimator for overidentified linear models. Advances in Econometrics,
volume 30, eds. D. Terrell and D. Millimet. Bingley UK: Emerald.

Leamer, E., 2010. Tanatalus on the road to Asymptopia. Journal of
Economic Literature 24: 31-46.
Mardia, K., J. Kent, J. Bibby, 1979. Multivariate Analysis. London:
Academic Press.
Mariano, R., 2001. Simultaneous equation model estimators: statistical
properties and practical implications. A Companion to Theoretical
Econometrics, ed. B. Baltagi. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Maronna, R., R. Martin, V. Yohai, 2006. Robust Statistics: Theory and
Methods. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Nevo, A., A.Rosen, 2012. Identification with imperfect instruments.
Review of Economics and Statistics 94: 659-671.
Reinsel, G., R.Velu, 1998. Multivariate Reduced-Rank Regression:
Theory and Applications. NY: Springer.
Rousseeuw, P., C. Croux, 1993. Alternatives to the median absolute
deviation. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88: 1273-1283.

14

Staiger, D., J. Stock, 1997. Instrumental variables regression with weak
instruments. Econometrica 65:557-586.
Stock, J., H. Wright, M. Yogo, 2002. A survey of weak instruments and
weak identification in generalized method of moments. Journal of
Business and Economic Statistics 20: 518-529.
Texas Health and Human Services Commission, 2002. 2002 Cost
Report – Texas Nursing Facility. Austin, Texas.
Theil, H., 1971. Principles of Econometrics. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.

15

Table 1. Base-case estimates of the demand function
( standard errors are under their coefficients)
OLS
Median in simulation
Price

TSLS
n=50

NISE

-0.603
0.109

-0.973
0.165

-1.004
0.234

Income

1.168
0.280

1.479
0.330

1.477
0.363

Psub

0.387
0.266

0.492
0.298

0.495
0.306

Pcom

-0.381
0.268

-0.487
0.301

-0.486
0.308

F signif
J signif
Z signif

0.000
0.494
0.505
n = 500

Price

-0.600
0.033

-0.999
0.050

-0.998
0.068

Income

1.157
0.084

1.496
0.100

1.496
0.106

Psub

0.385
0.079

0.502
0.091

0.501
0.093

Pcom

-0.386
0.079

-0.499
0.091

-0.498
0.091

F signif
J signif
Z signif

0.000
0.489
0.499

16

Table 2. Additional estimates of the price elasticity of demand
( standard errors are under their coefficients)
OLS
Median in simulation
elasticity

-0.167
0.130

F signif
J signif
Z signif

elasticity

-0.164
0.040

F signif
J signif
Z signif

-0.999
0.416

Weak instruments, n = 500
-0.927
0.232
0.003
0.499

-1.002
0.118

0.496

-0.378
0.126

F signif
J signif
Z signif

elasticity

Weak instruments, n = 50
-0.520
0.531
0.323
0.499

NISE

0.502

F signif
J signif
Z signif

Median in simulation
elasticity

TSLS

-0.378
0.038

RAIN in demand function, n = 50
-0.946
-0.031
0.278
2.217
0.000
0.499
0.000
RAIN in demand function, n = 500
-0.999
0.088
0.000
0.500

0.534
1.074

0.000

17

Table 3. Estimates of the cost-function model
the dependent variable is log total cost
(standard errors are under their coefficients)
n = 859
OLS

TSLS

NISE

ln resident days

0.977
0.009

1.216
0.079

0.779
0.025

ln RN wage

0.083
0.042

0.074
0.057

0.090
0.055

ln LVN wage

0.271
0.050

0.033
0.102

0.468
0.070

ln aide wage

0.261
0.047

0.116
0.079

0.381
0.058

ln L+H wage

0.098
0.053

0.055
0.072

0.133
0.067

F signif 1st-stage reg
J signif
Z signif

ln resident days

0.000
0.000
0.592

OLS -NISE
0.198
0.024

TSLS-OLS
0.239
0.128

TSLS-NISE
0.437
0.131

18

