Handout - 6 - Omitted Variable Bias Summary Table
Handout - 6 - Omitted Variable Bias Summary Table
Outline #6: Understanding possible omitted variable bias (OVB) in single explanatory variable regression
Suppose we estimate Yi = β0 + β1 X i + ui but we think we have an omitted variable Z that is correlated with X and
^
also determines the outcome Y. What will be the direction and magnitude of the bias in our estimate of β1 ? We
^
know that the bias depends on the correlation between X and the error term, β1 → β1 + ρX ,u (σ u / σ X ) . But the
correlation ρX ,u is not obvious. The following table can help.
So we can imagine estimating a relationship where the outcome variable is “current GDP per capita” and the
explanatory variable is “Extent of European settlement in region during era of imperialism.” We estimate a positive
coefficient. Did European settlement lead to higher GDP? We might think an omitted variable is “Index of tropical
climate” with higher numbers of the index indicating a more tropical climate. This variable negatively determines
GDP, and also negatively affected European settlement. So we see the estimated coefficient is biased upwards, and
the “actual” or unbiased effect of European settlement is smaller than what we have estimated.
The trickiest situation is when the bias is large enough ρX ,u (σ u / σ X ) that the sign is reversed! So in the above
example, European settlement could actually have had a negative effect on subsequent GDP, but the biased
coefficient is positive because Europeans strongly avoided tropical areas which might generally have lower GDP
than temperate areas. In other words, European settlement reduced GDP growth (from what it could have been), just
not enough to make subsequent GDP actually lower than tropical GDP levels.