Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The practice of using point estimates produced by the King ecological inference technique as dependent variables in second-stage linear regressions leads to second-stage results that, in general, are inconsistent. This conclusion holds even when all assumptions behind King's ecological technique are satisfied. Second-stage inconsistency is a consequence of the fact that King-based point estimates of disaggregated quantities contain errors correlated with the true quantities the estimates measure. Our findings on second-stage inconsistency, as well as a fix that we propose, follow from econometric theory in conjunction with an analysis of simulated and real ecological data sets.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Herron et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: