17.2 Censored data: the Tobit model
Tobin (1958) studied household expenditure on durable goods, which is zero for many households in a given year. He proposed \[ y_i^* = x_i'\beta + \varepsilon _i, \qquad \varepsilon _i \sim N(0, \sigma ^2), \qquad y_i = \max (0, y_i^*) . \] The variable is censored at zero: we observe \(x_i\) for everyone, and \(y_i\) exactly when it is positive. (It would be truncated if households with \(y_i^* \leq 0\) did not appear in the sample at all.)
Theorem 17.2.1. Write \(c_i = x_i'\beta /\sigma \) and \(\lambda (c) = \phi (c)/\Phi (c)\), the inverse Mills ratio.
- (i)
- \(E(y_i \mid x_i, y_i > 0) = x_i'\beta + \sigma \lambda (c_i)\).
- (ii)
- \(E(y_i \mid x_i) = \Phi (c_i)x_i'\beta + \sigma \phi (c_i)\), and \(\partial E(y_i \mid x_i)/\partial x_{ij} = \Phi (c_i)\beta _j\).
- (iii)
- The log-likelihood is \[ \ell (\beta , \sigma ) = \sum _{y_i > 0}\Bigl [\log \phi \Bigl (\frac {y_i - x_i'\beta }{\sigma }\Bigr ) - \log \sigma \Bigr ] + \sum _{y_i = 0}\log \bigl (1 - \Phi (c_i)\bigr ) . \]
Proof. (i) For \(\varepsilon \sim N(0, \sigma ^2)\) and any \(a\), \(E(\varepsilon \mid \varepsilon > -a) = \sigma \phi (a/\sigma )/\Phi (a/\sigma )\). To see this, write \(\varepsilon = \sigma v\) with \(v\) standard normal; then \[ E(v \mid v > -c) = \frac {\int _{-c}^\infty v\phi (v)\,dv}{\Phi (c)} = \frac {\bigl [-\phi (v)\bigr ]_{-c}^\infty }{\Phi (c)} = \frac {\phi (c)}{\Phi (c)} , \] using \(\phi '(v) = -v\phi (v)\) and the symmetry \(\phi (-c) = \phi (c)\), \(P(v > -c) = \Phi (c)\). With \(a = x_i'\beta \), \(E(y_i \mid y_i > 0) = x_i'\beta + E(\varepsilon _i \mid \varepsilon _i > -x_i'\beta )\).
(ii) Since \(y_i = 0\) when it is not positive, \[ E(y_i) = P(y_i > 0)E(y_i \mid y_i > 0) = \Phi (c_i)\bigl [x_i'\beta + \sigma \lambda (c_i)\bigr ] = \Phi (c_i)x_i'\beta + \sigma \phi (c_i) . \] Differentiating with respect to \(x_{ij}\), with \(\partial c_i/\partial x_{ij} = \beta _j/\sigma \), \[ \frac {\partial E(y_i)}{\partial x_{ij}} = \phi (c_i)\frac {\beta _j}{\sigma }x_i'\beta + \Phi (c_i)\beta _j + \sigma \phi '(c_i)\frac {\beta _j}{\sigma } = \Phi (c_i)\beta _j + \beta _j\phi (c_i)(c_i - c_i) = \Phi (c_i)\beta _j , \] since \(\phi '(c_i) = -c_i\phi (c_i)\).
(iii) A positive \(y_i\) contributes its normal density \(\sigma ^{-1}\phi \bigl ((y_i - x_i'\beta )/\sigma \bigr )\); a zero contributes \(P(y_i^* \leq 0) = 1 - \Phi (c_i)\). □
Part (i) shows why least squares on the positive observations only is inconsistent: the conditional mean contains the omitted term \(\sigma \lambda (c_i)\), which depends on \(x_i\). Least squares on all observations, zeros included, fits a straight line to the non-linear mean of (ii) and is also inconsistent; typically it attenuates the coefficients, roughly by the fraction of positive observations. Part (ii) gives the decomposition of McDonald and Moffitt (1980): the effect of \(x_j\) on expected expenditure is \(\beta _j\) scaled by the probability of buying. The Tobit model is fragile: it relies on normality and homoscedasticity of \(\varepsilon _i\), and if either fails the estimates are inconsistent. It also forces the same variables, with proportional coefficients, to govern whether a household buys and how much it spends; the two-part and hurdle models relax this.
Questions on this section
Stuck on something here? Ask below and it stays attached to this topic.