gov2001-l Digest, Vol 57, Issue 29 - Gov2001

25 Apr 2010

Hi everyone, 

If we use fixed effects model, we assume that there could be an omitted variable causing
potential bias we cannot estimate. As I understand it that's why we use fixed effects
model. 
Missing data cannot then be imputed, because we cannot assume that it is missing at
random. Otherwise, the assumption behind EM algorithm and fixed effects model would
conflict.
That is how I understood what Iain said in the last section. Maybe I got it wrong. Do we
just ignore missing data in that case, or is there a procedure that can enable us to
tackle this problem?

Nino Malekovic
MPA Candidate, Class 2011
Harvard Kennedy School
________________________________________
From: gov2001-l-bounces at lists.fas.harvard.edu [gov2001-l-bounces at
lists.fas.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of gov2001-l-request at lists.fas.harvard.edu
[gov2001-l-request at lists.fas.harvard.edu]
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 3:18 PM
To: gov2001-l at lists.fas.harvard.edu
Subject: gov2001-l Digest, Vol 57, Issue 29

Send gov2001-l mailing list submissions to
        gov2001-l at lists.fas.harvard.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        gov2001-l-request at lists.fas.harvard.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
        gov2001-l-owner at lists.fas.harvard.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of gov2001-l digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Bounding in Amelia (Ashley Anderson)
   2. Bounding errors (Ashley Anderson)
   3. Re: Bounding errors (Gary King)
   4. Memory Limit with R's fixed effects with probit.gee (Gabriel Chan)
   5. Re: Memory Limit with R's fixed effects with probit.gee
      (Gary King)
   6. RD as first stage in 2SLS (Matthew Kraft)
   7. Matching (Han He)
   8. Re: Matching (Gary King)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:39:18 -0400
From: Ashley Anderson <aaanders at fas.harvard.edu>
Subject: [gov2001] Bounding in Amelia
To: Class List for Gov 2001/E-2001 <gov2001-l at lists.fas.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <C7F9E876.12A7F%aaanders at fas.harvard.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="US-ASCII"

Hello All,

I had a question about setting bounds in Amelia: if you wanted the imputed
numbers to be strictly positive, I know you would set a lower bound to 0,
but how would you specify the upper bound (there wouldn't be one).

-Ashley Anderson

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:20:04 -0400
From: Ashley Anderson <aaanders at fas.harvard.edu>
Subject: [gov2001] Bounding errors
To: Class List for Gov 2001/E-2001 <gov2001-l at lists.fas.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <C7F9F206.12A82%aaanders at fas.harvard.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I figured out the first question but now I'm getting an error with my
bounding matrix. This is what I have:

row1 <- c(5,0,100000)
row2 <- c(6,0,100000)
row3 <- c(7,0,100000)
row4 <- c(8,0,100000)
row5 <- c(9,0,100000)

grr <- matrix(rbind(row1, row2, row3, row4, row5), ncol=3, nrow=5)

bds <- grr

a.out <- amelia(data, m=5, ts="year", cs="cty", idvars =
c("id", "id2"),
bounds=bds, max.resample = 100000)

I was pretty sure that this was how you set up a bounds matrix (it tells
amelia that columns 5,6,7,8, and 9 should be bounded from 0 to 100000), but
I keep getting this error:

Error in matrix(NA, nrow = AMn.ss, ncol = AMp) :
  non-numeric matrix extent

Does anyone know what I could be doing wrong?

-Ashley Anderson