I am trying to verify the expression for Omitted Variable Bias (OVB) as given e.g. in Wooldridge: $\tilde{\beta_1} = \hat{\beta_1} + \hat{\beta_2} \cdot \tilde{\delta_1}$, where $\tilde{\delta_1}$ is the estimated slope of the regression of $x_2$ on $x_1$.
Choosing the housing price data (hprice1.gdt) from Wooldridge available for gretl, I obtain the following estimates for the relevant regression coefficients:
Model1 (price ~ sqft)
------------------------
const 11.2041
sqrft 0.140211
Model2 (price ~ sqft + bdrms)
------------------------
const -19.315
sqrft 0.128436
bdrms 15.1982
Model3 (bdrms ~ sqft)
------------------------
const 2.00808
sqrft 0.000774748
So $\tilde{\beta_1}=0.140211$, $\tilde{\delta_1} = 0.000774748$, $\hat{\beta_2}=15.1982$ and $\hat{\beta_1}=0.128436$
But these values do not quite match the expression from above:
$0.124836+15.1982*0.000774748 = 0.1366108 \neq 0.140211$
Where is my misunderstanding ? Is the formula above valid only in the limit of infinite sample size?
Best Answer
The formula is valid and exact for all sample sizes. Your misunderstanding is a simple typo, there's no misunderstanding at all.
When you wrote:
Somehow you put $0.124836$ instead of $0.128436$ switching the $4$ for the $8$. Fixing the typo gives you the expected result:
$$0.128436+15.1982*0.000774748=0.140211$$
The proof is rather simple. Let $Y$ denote
price
, $X$ denotesqrft
and $Z$ denotebdrms
. Then:$$ \tilde{\beta}_1 = \frac{cov(X, Y)}{var(X)}= \frac{cov(X, \hat{\beta}_1X + \hat{\beta}_2Z + \hat{\epsilon})}{var(X)} = \hat{\beta}_1 + \hat{\beta}_2\frac{cov(X, Z)}{var(X)} = \hat{\beta}_1+ \hat{\beta}_2\tilde{\delta}_1 $$
Where we know $cov(X, \hat{\epsilon}) = 0$ by construction in OLS and $\frac{cov(X, Z)}{var(X)}$ is the coefficient of regressing $Z \sim X$ which we are denoting for $\tilde{\delta}_1$.
This relationship is exact and just a simple property of the algebra of OLS.
If you want to manually check this in
R
, there's a package calledwooldridge
with all the datasets from the textbook: