Time-use surveys collect very detailed information about individuals' activities over a short period of time, typically one day. As a result, a large fraction of observations have values of zero for the time spent in many activities, even for individuals who do the activity on a regular basis. For example, it is safe to assume that all parents do at least some childcare, but a relatively large fraction report no time spent in childcare on their diary day. Because of the large number of zeros Tobit would seem to be the natural approach. However, it is important to recognize that the zeros in time-use data arise from a mismatch between the reference period of the data (the diary day) and the period of interest, which is typically much longer. Thus it is not clear that Tobit is appropriate. In this study, I examine the bias associated with alternative estimation procedures for estimating the marginal effects of covariates on time use. I begin by adapting the infrequency of purchase model, which is typically used to analyze expenditures, to time-diary data and showing that OLS estimates are unbiased. Next, using simulated data, I examine the bias associated with three procedures that are commonly used to analyze time-diary data – Tobit, the Cragg (1971) two-part model, and OLS – under a number of alternative assumptions about the data-generating process. I find that the estimated marginal effects from Tobits are biased and that the extent of the bias varies with the fraction of zero-value observations. The two-part model performs significantly better, but generates biased estimated in certain circumstances. Only OLS generates unbiased estimates in all of the simulations considered here.
[1]
M. Keen.
Zero Expenditures and the Estimation of Engel Curves
,
1986
.
[2]
C. Kalenkoski,et al.
Tobit or OLS? An empirical evaluation under different diary window lengths
,
2010
.
[3]
J. G. Cragg.
Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods
,
1971
.
[4]
D. Hamermesh.
Very Preliminary — Comments Welcome Grazing and Making Fat : Determinants and Effects
,
2008
.
[5]
R. Widmer,et al.
The allocation and value of time assigned to housework and child-care: An analysis for Switzerland
,
2001
.
[6]
R. Connelly,et al.
Mothers’ Time Choices
,
2007,
The Journal of human resources.
[7]
Sven-Olov Daunfeldt,et al.
Intra-Household Allocation of Time to Household Production Activities: Evidence from Swedish Household Data
,
2007
.
[8]
Michael Aichinger,et al.
Monte Carlo Simulation
,
2013
.
[9]
David C. Ribar,et al.
Parental child care in single-parent, cohabiting, and married-couple families : Time-diary evidence from the United Kingdom
,
2005
.
[10]
A Monte Carlo simulation study of Tobit models
,
2001
.
[11]
J. Tobin.
Estimation of Relationships for Limited Dependent Variables
,
1958
.
[12]
Joseph Price.
Parent-Child Quality Time
,
2006,
The Journal of Human Resources.
[13]
Harley Frazis,et al.
How does household production affect measured income inequality?
,
2009,
SSRN Electronic Journal.
[14]
Costas Meghir,et al.
BIVARIATE ALTERNATIVES TO THE TOBIT MODEL
,
1987
.
[15]
Jay Stewart,et al.
The Timing of Maternal Work and Time with Children
,
2009,
SSRN Electronic Journal.
[16]
Robert A. Moffitt,et al.
The Uses of Tobit Analysis
,
1980
.