Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
153 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Policy Relevant Treatment Effects with Multidimensional Unobserved Heterogeneity (2403.13738v2)

Published 20 Mar 2024 in econ.EM

Abstract: This paper provides a unified framework for bounding policy relevant treatment effects using instrumental variables. In this framework, the treatment selection may depend on multidimensional unobserved heterogeneity. We derive bilinear constraints on the target parameter by extracting information from identifiable estimands. We apply a convex relaxation method to these bilinear constraints and provide conservative yet computationally simple bounds. Our convex-relaxation bounds extend and robustify the bounds by Mogstad, Santos, and Torgovitsky (2018) which require the threshold-crossing structure for the treatment: if this condition holds, our bounds are simplified to theirs for a large class of target parameters; even if it does not, our bounds include the true parameter value whereas theirs may not and are sometimes empty. Linear shape restrictions can be easily incorporated to narrow the proposed bounds. Numerical and simulation results illustrate the informativeness of our convex-relaxation bounds.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (32)
  1. Carr, T. and T. Kitagawa (2023): “Testing Instrument Validity with Covariates,” .
  2. Dahl, C. M., M. Huber, and G. Mellace (2023): “It is never too LATE: a new look at local average treatment effects with or without defiers,” The Econometrics Journal, 26, 378–404.
  3. de Chaisemartin, C. (2017): “Tolerating defiance? Local average treatment effects without monotonicity,” Quantitative Economics, 8, 367–396.
  4. DiNardo, J. and D. S. Lee (2011): “Program Evaluation and Research Designs,” in Handbook of Labor Economics, ed. by O. Ashenfelter and D. Card, Elsevier, vol. 4, Part A, chap. 5, 463–536.
  5. Gafarov, B. (2019): “Inference in high-dimensional set-identified affine models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.00111.
  6. Gautier, E. (2021): “Relaxing monotonicity in endogenous selection models and application to surveys,” in Advances in Contemporary Statistics and Econometrics: Festschrift in Honor of Christine Thomas-Agnan, Springer, 59–78.
  7. Gautier, E. and S. Hoderlein (2011): “A triangular treatment effect model with random coefficients in the selection equation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1109.0362.
  8. Goff, L. (2020): ‘‘A vector monotonicity assumption for multiple instruments,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.00553.
  9. Heckman, J. J. (2001): “Micro data, heterogeneity, and the evaluation of public policy: Nobel lecture,” Journal of political Economy, 109, 673–748.
  10. Heckman, J. J. and E. J. Vytlacil (1999): “Local instrumental variables and latent variable models for identifying and bounding treatment effects,” Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences, 96, 4730–4734.
  11. ——— (2001): “Policy-Relevant Treatment Effects,” American Economic Review, 91, 107–111.
  12. ——— (2005): “Structural Equations, Treatment Effects, and Econometric Policy Evaluation,” Econometrica, 73, 669–738.
  13. ——— (2007): “Econometric evaluation of social programs, part II: Using the marginal treatment effect to organize alternative econometric estimators to evaluate social programs, and to forecast their effects in new environments,” Handbook of Econometrics, 6, 4875–5143.
  14. Huber, M. and G. Mellace (2015): “Testing Instrument Validity for LATE Identification Based on Inequality Moment Constraints,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 97, 398–411.
  15. Imbens, G. W. (2014): “Instrumental variables: an econometrician’s perspective,” Statistical science, 29, 323–358.
  16. Imbens, G. W. and J. D. Angrist (1994): “Identification and Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects,” Econometrica, 62, 467–75.
  17. Kédagni, D. and I. Mourifié (2020): “Generalized instrumental inequalities: testing the instrumental variable independence assumption,” Biometrika, 107, 661–675.
  18. Kitagawa, T. (2015): “A Test for Instrument Validity,” Econometrica, 83, 2043–2063.
  19. Klein, T. J. (2010): “Heterogeneous treatment effects: Instrumental variables without monotonicity?” Journal of Econometrics, 155, 99–116.
  20. Lee, S. and B. Salanié (2018): “Identifying effects of multivalued treatments,” Econometrica, 86, 1939–1963.
  21. Manski, C. F. (1990): “Nonparametric bounds on treatment effects,” The American Economic Review, 80, 319–323.
  22. Manski, C. F. and J. V. Pepper (2000): “Monotone instrumental variables: With an application to the returns to schooling,” Econometrica, 68, 997–1010.
  23. McCormick, G. P. (1976): “Computability of global solutions to factorable nonconvex programs: Part I—Convex underestimating problems,” Mathematical Programming, 10, 147–175.
  24. Mogstad, M., A. Santos, and A. Torgovitsky (2018): “Using Instrumental Variables for Inference About Policy Relevant Treatment Parameters,” Econometrica, 86, 1589–1619.
  25. Mogstad, M., A. Torgovitsky, and C. R. Walters (2020): “Policy Evaluation with Multiple Instrumental Variables,” Tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic Research.
  26. Mourifié, I. and Y. Wan (2017): “Testing local average treatment effect assumptions,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 99, 305–313.
  27. Navjeevan, M., R. Pinto, and A. Santos (2023): “Identification and estimation in a class of potential outcomes models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05311.
  28. Sloczynski, T. (2021): “When Should We (Not) Interpret Linear IV Estimands as LATE?” Working Paper.
  29. Small, D. S., Z. Tan, R. R. Ramsahai, S. A. Lorch, and M. A. Brookhart (2017): “Instrumental variable estimation with a stochastic monotonicity assumption,” Statistical Science, 32, 561–579.
  30. Sun, Z. (2023): “Instrument validity for heterogeneous causal effects,” Journal of Econometrics, 237, 105523.
  31. van’t Hoff, N., A. Lewbel, and G. Mellace (2023): “Limited Monotonicity and the Combined Compliers LATE,” Working Paper.
  32. Vytlacil, E. J. (2002): “Independence, Monotonicity, and Latent Index Models: An Equivalence Result,” Econometrica, 70, 331–341.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now