← ireadpaper · 顶刊中的公共政策研究

工具变量操纵

Instrument Hacking
NBER Working Papers · 2026 · Michael P. Keane、Timothy Neal、Patrick Vu

中文摘要

在工具变量(IV)研究中,研究者经常评估多个候选工具,并有选择地报告具有最有利的第一阶段或第二阶段统计量的设定。我们证明,这种形式的工具选择(“工具变量操纵”)会导致IV估计量产生偏向OLS估计量的中位数偏误,从而破坏了使用IV的理由。当所有候选工具具有相同的真实强度时,中位数偏误随可用工具的数量单调增加。更一般地,当候选工具的真实强度不同时,单调性不一定成立,因为增加工具数量可能使研究者选择真正更强的工具。尽管如此,在根据IV文献中工具强度的经验分布进行校准的模拟中,中位数偏误随可用工具的数量单调增加。此外,即使只有少数可用工具,偏误的幅度也相当大。

Abstract

In instrumental-variable (IV) studies, researchers often evaluate multiple candidate instruments and selectively report the specification with the most favorable first- or second-stage statistics. We show that this form of instrument selection (“instrument-hacking”) induces median bias in IV estimators toward the OLS estimand, undermining the rationale for using IV. When all candidate instruments have the same true strength, median bias increases monotonically with the number of available instruments. More generally, when candidate instruments differ in true strength, monotonicity need not hold because increasing the number of instruments can lead researchers to select genuinely stronger instruments. Nonetheless, in simulations calibrated to the empirical distribution of instrument strengths in the IV literature, median bias increases monotonically with the number of available instruments. Furthermore, it is substantial in magnitude, even when only a few instruments are available.
在 ireadpaper 查看全部 →