Abstract

This paper reconciles the asymptotic disagreement between Bayesian and frequentist inference in set‐identified models by adopting a multiple‐prior (robust) Bayesian approach. We propose new tools for Bayesian inference in set‐identified models and show that they have a well‐defined posterior interpretation in finite samples and are asymptotically valid from the frequentist perspective. The main idea is to construct a prior class that removes the source of the disagreement: the need to specify an unrevisable prior for the structural parameter given the reduced‐form parameter. The corresponding class of posteriors can be summarized by reporting the ‘posterior lower and upper probabilities’ of a given event and/or the ‘set of posterior means’ and the associated ‘robust credible region’. We show that the set of posterior means is a consistent estimator of the true identified set and the robust credible region has the correct frequentist asymptotic coverage for the true identified set if it is convex. Otherwise, the method provides posterior inference about the convex hull of the identified set. For impulse‐response analysis in set‐identified Structural Vector Autoregressions, the new tools can be used to overcome or quantify the sensitivity of standard Bayesian inference to the choice of an unrevisable prior.

Highlights

  • IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT the asymptotic equivalence between Bayesian and frequentist inference breaks down in set-identified models

  • Our robust Bayesian approach removes the need to specify the prior for the structural parameter given the reduced-form parameter, which is the component of the prior that is responsible for the asymptotic disagreement between Bayesian and frequentist inference

  • We develop a robust Bayesian inference procedure for set-identified models, providing Bayesian inference that is asymptotically equivalent to frequentist inference about the identified set

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT the asymptotic equivalence between Bayesian and frequentist inference breaks down in set-identified models. Most empirical applications of set-identified SVARs adopt standard Bayesian inference and select a non-informative—but unrevisable—prior for the rotation matrix that transforms reduced-form shocks into structural shocks.2 Baumeister and Hamilton (2015) cautioned against this approach and showed that it may result in spuriously informative posterior inference. Our method overcomes this drawback by removing the need to specify a single prior for the rotation matrix. The Supplemental Material (Appendix B in Giacomini and Kitagawa (2021)) contains additional results and discussion about the validity of the assumptions in SVARs

Notation and Definitions
Multiple Priors
Posterior Lower and Upper Probabilities
Set of Posterior Means and Quantiles
Robust Credible Region
Plausibility of Identifying Restrictions
Informativeness of Identifying Restrictions and of Priors
ASYMPTOTIC PROPERTIES
Consistency of the Set of Posterior Means
Asymptotic Coverage Properties of the Robust Credible Region
ROBUST BAYESIAN INFERENCE IN SVARS
Set Identification in SVARs
Under-Identifying Zero Restrictions
Sign Restrictions
The Impulse-Response Identified Set
Multiple Priors in SVARs
NUMERICAL IMPLEMENTATION
EMPIRICAL APPLICATION
CONCLUSION
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.