IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/etheor/v35y2019i6p1146-1200_3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing Generalized Regression Monotonicity

Author

Listed:
  • Hsu, Yu-Chin
  • Liu, Chu-An
  • Shi, Xiaoxia

Abstract

We propose a test for a generalized regression monotonicity (GRM) hypothesis. The GRM hypothesis is the sharp testable implication of the monotonicity of certain latent structures, as we show in this article. Examples include the monotonicity of the conditional mean function when only interval data are available for the dependent variable and the monotone instrumental variable assumption of Manski and Pepper (2000). These instances of latent monotonicity can be tested using our test. Moreover, the GRM hypothesis includes regression monotonicity and stochastic monotonicity as special cases. Thus, our test also serves as an alternative to existing tests for those hypotheses. We show that our test controls the size uniformly over a broad set of data generating processes asymptotically, is consistent against fixed alternatives, and has nontrivial power against some ${n^{ - 1/2}}$ local alternatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Hsu, Yu-Chin & Liu, Chu-An & Shi, Xiaoxia, 2019. "Testing Generalized Regression Monotonicity," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(6), pages 1146-1200, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:etheor:v:35:y:2019:i:6:p:1146-1200_3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266466618000439/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ismaël Mourifié & Marc Henry & Romuald Méango, 2020. "Sharp Bounds and Testability of a Roy Model of STEM Major Choices," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(8), pages 3220-3283.
    2. Matthew A. Masten & Alexandre Poirier, 2018. "Interpreting Quantile Independence," Papers 1804.10957, arXiv.org.
    3. Yoichi Arai & Taisuke Otsu & Mengshan Xu, 2022. "GLS under Monotone Heteroskedasticity," Papers 2210.13843, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    4. Lixiong Li & Désiré Kédagni & Ismaël Mourifié, 2024. "Discordant relaxations of misspecified models," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(2), pages 331-379, May.
    5. Chetverikov, Denis & Wilhelm, Daniel & Kim, Dongwoo, 2021. "An Adaptive Test Of Stochastic Monotonicity," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(3), pages 495-536, June.
    6. Henry, Marc & Méango, Romuald & Mourifié, Ismaël, 2024. "Role models and revealed gender-specific costs of STEM in an extended Roy model of major choice," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 238(2).
    7. Yu-Chin Hsu & Martin Huber & Ying-Ying Lee & Chu-An Liu, 2021. "Testing Monotonicity of Mean Potential Outcomes in a Continuous Treatment with High-Dimensional Data," Papers 2106.04237, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    8. Zheng Fang & Juwon Seo, 2019. "A Projection Framework for Testing Shape Restrictions That Form Convex Cones," Papers 1910.07689, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2021.
    9. Sun, Zhenting, 2023. "Instrument validity for heterogeneous causal effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 237(2).
    10. Yu‐Chin Hsu & Shu Shen, 2021. "Testing monotonicity of conditional treatment effects under regression discontinuity designs," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(3), pages 346-366, April.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C01 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - Econometrics
    • C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: General
    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:etheor:v:35:y:2019:i:6:p:1146-1200_3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ect .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.