Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition confusion

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition, specifically the confusion surrounding the last equation in the decomposition process. The equations provided illustrate the estimation of separate linear wage regressions for groups A and B, using explanatory variables such as education and experience. The key takeaway is that the last equation can be simplified to show the impact of between-group differences in explanatory variables and the unexplained differential. The clarification provided emphasizes the relationship between the components of the equation, confirming that the first part represents the explained variance while the second part accounts for the unexplained variance.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of linear regression analysis
  • Familiarity with the Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition method
  • Knowledge of wage regression models
  • Basic grasp of statistical notation and terminology
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition in detail
  • Learn about linear regression diagnostics and interpretation
  • Explore the implications of wage differentials in labor economics
  • Investigate advanced regression techniques for wage analysis
USEFUL FOR

Economists, statisticians, and researchers focused on labor economics and wage analysis will benefit from this discussion, particularly those interested in understanding wage disparities and the methodologies used to analyze them.

vandanak
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
The Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition is a statistical method that explains the difference in the means of a dependent variable between two groups by decomposing the gap into that part that is due to differences in the mean values of the independent variable within the groups, on the one hand, and group differences in the effects of the independent variable, on the other hand. The method was introduced by sociologist and demographer Evelyn M. Kitagawa in 1955. I have confusion in understanding a term
The following three equations illustrate this decomposition. Estimate separate linear wage regressions for individuals i in groups A and B:

{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}(1)\qquad \ln({\text{wages}}_{A_{i}})&=X_{A_{i}}\beta _{A}+\mu _{A_{i}}\\(2)\qquad \ln({\text{wages}}_{B_{i}})&=X_{B_{i}}\beta _{B}+\mu _{B_{i}}\end{aligned}}}
{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}(1)\qquad \ln({\text{wages}}_{A_{i}})&=X_{A_{i}}\beta _{A}+\mu _{A_{i}}\\(2)\qquad \ln({\text{wages}}_{B_{i}})&=X_{B_{i}}\beta _{B}+\mu _{B_{i}}\end{aligned}}}

where Χ is a vector of explanatory variables such as education, experience, industry, and occupation, βA and βB are vectors of coefficients and μ is an error term.

Let bA and bB be respectively the regression estimates of βA and βB. Then, since the average value of residuals in a linear regression is zero, we have:

{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}(3)\qquad &\operatorname {mean} (\ln({\text{wages}}_{A}))-\operatorname {mean} (\ln({\text{wages}}_{B}))\\[4pt]={}&b_{A}\operatorname {mean} (X_{A})-b_{B}\operatorname {mean} (X_{B})\\[4pt]={}&b_{A}(\operatorname {mean} (X_{A})-\operatorname {mean} (X_{B}))+\operatorname {mean} (X_{B})(b_{A}-b_{B})\end{aligned}}}
{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}(3)\qquad &\operatorname {mean} (\ln({\text{wages}}_{A}))-\operatorname {mean} (\ln({\text{wages}}_{B}))\\[4pt]={}&b_{A}\operatorname {mean} (X_{A})-b_{B}\operatorname {mean} (X_{B})\\[4pt]={}&b_{A}(\operatorname {mean} (X_{A})-\operatorname {mean} (X_{B}))+\operatorname {mean} (X_{B})(b_{A}-b_{B})\end{aligned}}}

The first part of the last line of (3) is the impact of between-group differences in the explanatory variables X, evaluated using the coefficients for group A. The second part is the differential not explained by these differences in observed characteristics X.
I have confusion in last equation of equation 3. Please help I have kind of lost touch.
Thank you in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
vandanak said:
I have confusion in last equation of equation 3. Please help I have kind of lost touch.
What is your confusion? Do you understand why the last line is equal to the second line (multiply out the brackets and cancel terms)? Or do you not understand the statement
vandanak said:
The first part of the last line of (3) is the impact of between-group differences in the explanatory variables X, evaluated using the coefficients for group A. The second part is the differential not explained by these differences in observed characteristics X.
If this is the problem, you may be looking for a meaning that isn't there. Equation (3) can be summarised as ## D = E + F ##, and all the this statement is saying is
The first part of the last line of (3) is E, the second part is that part of D that is not explained by E.
 
Oh got it don't know where my mind was . Please someone delete the thread .
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
13K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
12K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
11K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
11K