Monte Carlo evidence on the choice between sample selection and two-part models

Abstract This Monte Carlo study examines the relative performance of sample selection and two-part models for data with a cluster at zero. The data are drawn from a bivariate normal distribution with a positive correlation. The alternative estimators are examined in terms of means squared error, mean bias and pointwise bias. The sample selection estimators include LIML and FIML. The two-part estimators include a naive (the true specification, omitting the correlation coefficient) and a data-analytic (testimator) variant. In the absence of exclusion restrictions, the two-part models are no worse, and often appreciably better than selection models in terms of mean behavior, but can behave poorly for extreme values of the independent variable. LIML had the worst performance of all four models. Empirically, selection effects are difficult to distinguish from a non-linear (e.g., quadratic) response. With exclusion restrictions, simple selection models were significantly better behaved than a naive two-part model over subranges of the data, but were negligibly better than the data-analytic version.