Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition confusion

In summary, the three equations illustrate that the impact of between-group differences in explanatory variables is captured by the coefficients for group A, while the differential not explained by these differences is captured by the coefficients for group B.
  • #1
vandanak
34
0
TL;DR Summary
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
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
Oh got it don't know where my mind was . Please someone delete the thread .
 

1. What is Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition confusion?

Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition confusion refers to a statistical method used to explain the difference in outcomes between two groups, such as the gender wage gap. It decomposes the gap into two parts: one due to differences in characteristics and the other due to differences in returns to those characteristics. However, there is often confusion about the interpretation and application of this method.

2. How is Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition confusion different from other decomposition methods?

Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition confusion is different from other decomposition methods, such as the Juhn-Murphy-Pierce decomposition, because it focuses on the difference in outcomes between two groups rather than the overall gap. It also takes into account differences in characteristics and returns to those characteristics, while other methods may only consider one of these factors.

3. What are some common mistakes when using Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition?

Some common mistakes when using Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition include using it to compare groups with different sample sizes, using it to compare groups with different distributions of characteristics, and assuming that the difference in returns to characteristics is due to discrimination rather than other factors.

4. How can Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition be used to address issues of discrimination?

Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition can be used to identify the portion of the wage gap that is due to differences in characteristics and the portion that is due to differences in returns to those characteristics. This can help to determine if discrimination is a contributing factor to the gap, but it cannot prove or disprove discrimination on its own.

5. What are some potential limitations of Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition?

Some potential limitations of Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition include its reliance on certain assumptions, such as the linearity of the wage equation, and its inability to account for unobservable characteristics that may contribute to the wage gap. It also does not provide a causal explanation for the differences in outcomes between groups.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
808
Replies
1
Views
785
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
0
Views
216
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
912
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
842
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
121
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
7
Views
441
Back
Top