I Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition confusion

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition, specifically focusing on the confusion regarding the last equation in the decomposition process. Participants clarify that the last line of the equation represents the difference in average wages between two groups, broken down into explained and unexplained components. The first part of the equation accounts for the impact of differences in explanatory variables, while the second part highlights the unexplained differential. The confusion is resolved by emphasizing that the equation can be simplified to show the relationship between these components. Ultimately, the original poster acknowledges their misunderstanding and requests to delete the thread.
vandanak
Messages
34
Reaction score
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
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 .
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
2
Replies
52
Views
12K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top