Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
    • Supplementary Material
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Request JHR at your library
  • Alerts
  • Call for Editor
  • Free Issue
  • Special Issue
  • Other Publications
    • UWP

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Human Resources
  • Other Publications
    • UWP
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Human Resources

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
    • Supplementary Material
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Request JHR at your library
  • Alerts
  • Call for Editor
  • Free Issue
  • Special Issue
  • Follow uwp on Twitter
  • Follow JHR on Bluesky
Research ArticleSymposium on Empirical Methods

Control Function Methods in Applied Econometrics

Jeffrey M. Wooldridge
Journal of Human Resources, March 2015, 50 (2) 420-445; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.50.2.420
Jeffrey M. Wooldridge
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1

    Estimates of the log(wage) Equation

    Explanatory Variable1
    OLS
    2
    2SLS
    3
    2SLS
    4
    CF
    5
    CF
    educ0.0747
    (0.0036)
    0.157
    (0.052)
    0.161
    (0.054)
    0.153
    (0.048)
    0.151
    (0.048)
    exper0.0848
    (0.0068)
    0.119
    (0.023)
    0.120
    (0.024)
    0.116
    (0.021)
    0.115
    (0.021)
    exper2−0.0023
    (0.0003)
    −0.0024
    (0.0004)
    −0.0024
    (0.0005)
    −0.0022
    (0.0003)
    −0.0022
    (0.0003)
    black−0.119
    (0.018)
    −0.123
    (0.051)
    −0.121
    (.062)
    −0.107
    (0.048)
    −0.105
    (0.048)
    Embedded Image——−0.0008
    (0.0408)
    0.018
    (0.006)
    0.019
    (0.006)
    Embedded Image—−0.082
    (0.048)
    —−0.082
    (0.048
    −0.106
    (0.050)
    Embedded Image————0.0019
    (0.0010)
    intercept4.62
    (0.07)
    3.24
    (0.88)
    3.17
    (0.91)
    3.31
    (0.81)
    3.33
    (0.81)
    Observations3,0103,0103,0103,0103,010
    • Notes: (i) Each equation contains dummy variables for living in an SMSA and living in the South. In addition, they include regional dummies for where the man was living in 1966 and an indicator of whether the man lived in an SMSA in 1966.

    • (ii) Standard errors for OLS and 2SLS are robust to heteroskedasticity.

    • (iii) In Column 2, the 2SLS estimates are equivalent to the CF estimates.

    • (iv) The standard errors for the CF estimates in Columns 4 and 5 are based on 1,000 bootstrap replications.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Estimates of the math12 Equation

    Explanatory Variable1
    OLS
    2
    2SLS
    3
    CF
    4
    2SLS
    5
    CF
    6
    CF
    cathhs1.49
    (0.39)
    2.36
    (1.25)
    1.59
    (1.07)
    2.06
    (1.63)
    2.30
    (1.19)
    −0.95
    (1.75)
    motheduc0.714
    (0.062)
    0.713
    (0.062)
    0.714
    (0.062)
    0.620
    (0.077)
    0.714
    (0.064)
    0.709
    (0.062)
    fatheduc0.893
    (0.056)
    0.887
    (0.057)
    0.893
    (0.057)
    0.908
    (0.071)
    0.886
    (0.058)
    0.876
    (0.058)
    Ifaminc1.84
    (0.14)
    1.82
    (0.14)
    1.84
    (0.14)
    1.87
    (0.18)
    1.90
    (0.15)
    1.86
    (0.15)
    Embedded Image———1.61
    (0.73)
    −0.077
    (0.262)
    −0.085
    (0.262)
    Embedded Image———−0.198
    (0.684)
    0.089
    (0.235)
    0.184
    (0.238)
    Embedded Image———−0.688
    (2.082)
    −1.10
    (0.61)
    −0.691
    (0.634)
    Embedded Image——−0.061
    (0.594)
    —−0.290
    (0.632)
    −1.52
    (0.80)
    Embedded Image—————3.31
    (1.31)
    intercept11.20
    (1.25)
    11.45
    (1.29)
    11.23
    (1.28)
    11.87
    (1.62)
    10.72
    (1.37)
    11.18
    (1.38)
    Observations7,4447,4447,4447,4447,4447,444
    • Notes: (i) Standard errors for OLS and 2SLS are robust to heteroskedasticity.

    • (ii) The standard errors for the CF estimates are based on 1,000 bootstrap replications.

    • (iii) Using the estimates from Column 6, the average treatment effect on the treated is 3.99 (t = 2.96) and the average treatment effect on the untreated is –1.27 (t = –0.73).

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Estimates of the inlf Equation

    Explanatory Variable1
    Linear
    OLS
    2
    Linear
    2SLS
    3
    Probit
    MLE
    4
    Probit
    CF
    5
    Probit
    CF
    6
    Probit
    CF
    nwifeinc−0.0033
    (0.0002)
    −0.0014
    (0.0010)
    −0.0091
    (0.0010)
    −0.0042
    (0.0026)
    −0.0001
    (0.0028)
    −0.0025
    (0.0028)
    educ0.0350
    (0.0026)
    0.0300
    (0.0035)
    0.100
    (0.008)
    0.087
    (0.010)
    0.088
    (0.010)
    0.090
    (0.010)
    exper0.0033
    (0.0024)
    0.00067
    (0.00273)
    0.0080
    (0.0072)
    0.0011
    (0.0081)
    0.0007
    (0.0081)
    0.0003
    (0.0081)
    exper2−0.00023
    (0.00005)
    −0.00019
    (0.00006)
    −0.00062
    (0.00006)
    −0.00051
    (0.00017)
    −0.00049
    (0.00017)
    −0.00047
    (0.00017)
    kidlt6−0.180
    (0.016)
    −0.183
    (0.016)
    −0.520
    (0.045)
    −0.512
    (0.046)
    −0.339
    (0.064)
    −0.346
    (0.064)
    Embedded Image————−0.000046
    (0.000018)
    −0.00029
    (0.00012)
    kidlt6 · nwifeinc————−0.0061
    (0.0016)
    −0.0058
    (0.0016)
    Embedded Image———−0.0052
    (0.0027)
    −0.0055
    (0.0027)
    −0.0273
    (0.0072)
    Embedded Image—————−0.00052
    (0.00013)
    Embedded Image—————0.00075
    (0.00024)
    intercept0.333
    (0.045)
    0.371
    (0.048)
    −0.494
    (0.130)
    −0.390
    (0.140)
    −0.474
    (0.141)
    −0.422
    (0.143)
    Embedded Image−0.0033
    (0.0002)
    −0.0014
    (0.0010)
    −0.0033
    (0.0002)
    −0.0015
    (0.0009)
    −0.00097
    (0.00010)
    −0.0015
    (0.0010)
    Observations5,6345,6345,6345,6345,6345,634
    • Notes: (i) Standard errors for OLS and 2SLS are robust to heteroskedasticity.

    • (ii) The standard errors for the CF estimates are based on 1,000 bootstrap replications.

    • (iii) Embedded Image is the estimated derivative-based average partial effect of nwifeinc, where the individual APEs are averaged across the entire sample.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Average Partial Effects of nwifeinc at Different Quartiles

    1
    Probit
    CF
    2
    Probit
    CF
    3
    Probit
    CF
    No young children
        25th percentile−0.00143
    (0.00087)
    0.00026
    (0.00105)
    0.00163
    (0.00129)
        50th percentile−0.00146
    (0.00091)
    −0.00014
    (0.00098)
    −0.00068
    (0.00095)
        75th percentile−0.00149
    (0.00095)
    −0.00065
    (0.00096)
    −0.00367
    (0.00158)
    At least one young child
        25th percentile−0.00157
    (0.00099)
    −0.00197
    (0.00120)
    −0.00067
    (0.00129)
        50th percentile−0.00156
    (0.00099)
    −0.00240
    (0.00115)
    −0.00295
    (0.00098)
        75th percentile−0.00155
    (0.00097)
    −0.00291
    (0.00109)
    −0.00535
    (0.00124)
    • Notes: (i) Column 1 is for the probit estimates reported in Column 4 of Table 3, Column 2 corresponds to Column 5 in Table 3, and Column 3 corresponds to Column 6 in Table 3.

    • (ii) All standard errors are obtained from 1,000 bootstrap replications.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Human Resources: 50 (2)
Journal of Human Resources
Vol. 50, Issue 2
31 Mar 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Human Resources.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Control Function Methods in Applied Econometrics
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Human Resources
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Human Resources web site.
Citation Tools
Control Function Methods in Applied Econometrics
Jeffrey M. Wooldridge
Journal of Human Resources Mar 2015, 50 (2) 420-445; DOI: 10.3368/jhr.50.2.420

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Control Function Methods in Applied Econometrics
Jeffrey M. Wooldridge
Journal of Human Resources Mar 2015, 50 (2) 420-445; DOI: 10.3368/jhr.50.2.420
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • I. Introduction
    • II. Models Linear in Constant Coefficients
    • III. Correlated Random Coefficient Models
    • IV. Nonlinear Models
    • V. Concluding Remarks
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • The Role of Parental Wealth and Income in Financing Childrens College Attendance and Its Consequences
  • Trust in Financial Institutions and Demand for Financial Advice
  • Psychological distress and work and social adjustment in the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-Country analysis
  • Additionality in Payment for Ecosystem Services Programs: Agricultural Conservation Subsidies in Maryland
  • Can Customary Land Tenure Facilitate Agricultural Productivity Growth? Evidence from Burkina Faso
  • Incorporating Stated Consequentiality Questions in Stated Preference Research
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Matching Methods in Practice: Three Examples
  • What Are We Weighting For?
Show more Symposium on Empirical Methods

Similar Articles

UW Press logo

© 2026 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

Powered by HighWire