Causal Analysis After Haavelmo: Definitions and a Unified Analysis of Identification of Recursive Causal Models
|
|
- Calvin Dickerson
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Causal Inference in the Social Sciences University of Michigan December 12, 2012 This draft, December 15, 2012 James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157 Causal Analysis After Haavelmo: Definitions and a Unified Analysis of Identification of Recursive Causal Models James Heckman University of Chicago Rodrigo Pinto University of Chicago
2 Plan of the Talk Six Topics: 1 Haavelmo (1943): econometric approach to causal analysis based on latent variables. First formalization of Yule s credo: Correlation is not causation. 2 Linking the models developed in econometrics to DAG approaches (e.g. Pearl, 2009). Those models are fundamentally recursive. 3 Simultaneous causality and mediation analysis. (Haavelmo (1944)) James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
3 Plan of the Talk 4 A framework unifying alternative causal estimators for recursive models as solutions to a mixture problem a Matching b Instrumental Variables c Control Functions/ Selection Models d Stratification e Random Effects Approaches 5 New results on identification within this framework using mixture models. 6 Econometric mediation analysis. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
4 1. Econometric Approach to Causality James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
5 The econometric approach to causality develops explicit models of outcomes where the causes of effects are investigated and the mechanisms governing the choice of treatment are analyzed. The relationship between treatment outcomes and treatment choice mechanisms is studied. A careful accounting of the unobservables in outcome and treatment choice equations facilitates the design and interpretation of estimators. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
6 Both objective and subjective evaluations are considered, where subjective valuations are those of the person receiving treatment as well as the persons assigning it. Differences between anticipated and realized objective and subjective outcomes are analyzed. Models for simultaneous treatment effects are developed. A careful distinction is made between models for potential outcomes and empirical methods for identifying treatment effects. Carefully analyzes the relationship between observables and unobservables. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
7 The econometric approach to causality addresses questions that arise in addressing policy problems. Three distinct policy questions: P1 Evaluating the Impact of Historical Interventions on Outcomes Including Their Impact in Terms of the Well-Being of the Treated and Society at Large P2 Forecasting the Impacts (Constructing Counterfactual States) of Interventions Implemented in one Environment in Other Environments, Including Their Impacts In Terms of Well-Being. (External Validity.) P3 Forecasting the Impacts of Interventions (Constructing Counterfactual States Associated with Interventions) Never Historically Experienced to Various Environments, Including Their Impacts in Terms of Well-Being. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
8 Table 1: Three Distinct Tasks Arising in the Analysis of Causal Models Task Description Requirements 1 Defining the Class of A Scientific Theory: Hypotheticals or A Purely Mental Counterfactuals by Activity Thought Experiments (Models) 2 Identifying Causal Parameters Mathematical Analysis of from Hypothetical Population Point or Set Identification Data 3 Identifying Parameters from Estimation and Testing Real Data Theory James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
9 A Prototypical Structural Model in Economics Prototypical econometric model for policy evaluation. Agent can be given two courses of treatment 1 and 0 with mutually exclusive outcomes Y (1) and Y (0). Costs C. Information I for the relevant decision maker. The decision to treat may be made on the basis of the expected outcomes E(Y (1) I) and E(Y (0) I) and costs E(C I) where the expectations are those of the relevant decision maker. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
10 Expected net value: E(Y (1) I) E(C I) E(Y (0) I). (1) James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
11 For persons who pick treatment based on expected maximum gain: D = 1[(E(Y (1) I) E(C I) E(Y (0) I)) 0]. Generalized Roy Model James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
12 Ex post treatment effect is Y (1) Y (0). The ex ante effect is E(Y (1) I) E(Y (0) I). Behavioral or scientific theory motivates the construction of (Y (0), Y (1)) and decision rules about treatment assignment. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
13 The statistical approach to causal inference does not model the treatment assignment rule or its relationship to potential outcomes. The econometric approach makes the treatment assignment equation the centerpiece of its focus and considers both objective and subjective valuations as well as ex ante (E(Y (1) I), E(Y (0) I), E(C I)) and ex post outcomes (Y (1), Y (0), C). For this model, expected effect of treatment for people at the margin of participating is E(Y (1) Y (0) E(Y (1) I) E(Y (0) I) E(C I) = 0), The gain to people just indifferent between treatment and no treatment. Distributional treatment effects (Heckman, Smith, and Clements (1997)) James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
14 Generating Structural Counterfactuals The traditional model of econometrics is the all causes model. Outcomes for treatment assignment are produced from deterministic mapping of inputs to outputs: y = g (x, u) (2) where x and u are fixed variables specified by the relevant economic theory. Notation anticipates the distinction between observable (x) and unobservable (u) that is important in empirical implementation. Two types of variables in (2) enter symmetrically. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
15 D is the domain of the mapping g : D R y, where R y is the range of y. There may be multiple outcome variables. All outcomes are explained in a functional sense by the arguments of g in (2). If one models the ex post realizations of outcomes, it is entirely reasonable to invoke an all causes model since the realizations are known (ex post) and all uncertainty has been resolved. Implicit in the definition of a function is the requirement that g be stable or invariant to changes in x and u ( Autonomy Frisch, 1938). The g function remains stable as its arguments are varied. Invariance is a key property of a causal model. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
16 Equation (2) is sometimes called a Marshallian causal function. Uncertainty is a feature of the environment, (2) can be interpreted as ex post realizations of the counterfactual as uncertainty is resolved. From the point of view of agent i with information set I i, the ex ante expected value of Y is E (Y I i ). (3) James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
17 Haavelmo (1943) All Causes Framework Early work used recursive linear models. Y outcome cause X observed by analyst = β + cause U unobserved by analyst (4) Distinguishing feature of the econometric approach is explicit modeling of unobservables that drive outcomes and produce selection problems and analyzing their relationship to observables. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
18 Fixing Vs. Conditioning Distinguished between fixing and conditioning on X. E(Y X = x) conditioning on X F (Y X = x) = xβ + E(U X = x) Fixing X at level X = x X is externally manipulated to take value x Fixing X at different levels is a hypothetical manipulation that does not change the U. E(Y X = x, U = u) (A mental construct). In Haavelmo (1943): y = xβ + u Causality is in the mind - a conceptual thought experiment. Marshall (1890) ceteris paribus clause. No algorithm for producing conceptual models. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
19 Decomposing Unobserved Confounders Marschak and Andrews (1944) decompose the unobservable: V X and E (V, X ). E(Y X ) = X β + φe(v X ). U = φv + E (5) Source of Confounding All estimators for causal models control for the effects of V (implicitly or explicitly). James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
20 2. Linking the Econometric Framework of Haavelmo to Fundamentally Recursive DAG Models M H : the hypothetical model (H) M E : the empirical model (E) B E, B H : the domain of the empirical and hypothetical models. Autonomy (Frisch, 1938): y = f Y (x, u) and x = f X (v, ω) hold for both models. (Also called structural invariance.) Example of a hypothetical model: y = xβ + u (Haavelmo, 1943). James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
21 M (Y ): parents of Y. They directly cause Y, i.e. Some Notation 1 Variables in M (Y ) cause Y 2 Given M (Y ), Y is not affected by changes of other variables in B that are not caused by Y. If M (Y ) =, Y is not caused by any variable in the model. In such cases, Y is an external variable. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
22 Construct a Hypothetical Intervention Define a hypothetical random variable X not caused by other variables in the model. This is a purely mental construct. Goal of causal analysis is to identify its effect in the data. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
23 Model for Hypotheticals Model H-1 B H = {X, U, X, Y, V }, M H (Y ) = { X, U}, M H (U) = {V, E}. M H (X ) = {V, Ω}. Variables X, V, E, and Ω are external: M H ( X ) = M H (V ) = M H (E) = M H (Ω) =. U, V, Ω, E unobserved. E and Ω play no essential role in producing selection and evaluation problems. Play an important role in constructing and interpreting the probability spaces of random variables. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
24 Figure 1: Mechanisms of Causality (a) Haavelmo s Hypothetical Model H-1 Ω ε V U X X ~ Y James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
25 Empirical Model Model E-1 B E = {X, U, Y, V }, M E (Y ) = {X, U}, and M E (U) = {V, E}. M E (X ) = {V, Ω}. V, Ω, E are external: M E (V ) =, M E (Ω) =, M E (E) = U, V are unobserved. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
26 Figure 2: Mechanisms of Causality (a) Haavelmo s Hypothetical Model H-1 (b) Haavelmo s Empirical Model E-1 Ω ε V U X X ~ Y Ω ε V U X Y B H = B E { X } James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
27 Formal Definition of Fixing Definition D-1 Fixing: We represent the variable Y B H when X B H is fixed at level x according to the hypothetical model M H by standard statistical conditioning: Y (x) (Y X = x), under model M H. (6) James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
28 Acylic Models To connect M E and M H invoke the Local Markov Condition (Kiiveri et al., 1984; Pearl, 1988). X, Y B are variables that belong to the domain of the model Let G B be a subset of the model domain. Variables directly caused by X B are termed direct descendants of X. Denoted by M 1 (X ) = {Y B; X M (Y )}. Let M 1 (G) = X G M 1 (X ) such that G B. Higher order descendants of generation k: M (k+1) (G) = M 1 (M k (G)). James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
29 Overall set of variables caused by X (directly or indirectly) are called descendants of X : D(X ) = B j=1 M j (X ). Descendants of X, also called internal variables associated with X. In acyclic models, no variable is a descendant of itself, i.e., X / D(X ), X B The set of non-descendant variables of X are called the variables external to X and defined by: L (X ) = B \ D(X ). If a variable X B is external to all other variables in B, it is termed external to the model and has no parents: M (X ) =. Simultaneous equations models in econometrics (Haavelmo, 1944) relax this requirement and allow variables to be descendants of themselves. Recently formulated causal models in statistics (e.g., by Pearl and Rubin) take a step backward from traditional econometric models (Haavelmo, 1944) and are fundamentally recursive. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
30 Local Markov Condition Variable Y is independent of its non-descendants conditional on its parents: LMC: Y B, Y T { all X M (Y )} T B\(D(Y ) Y ). (7) LMC (7)is a necessary and sufficient condition for obtaining a DAG. Pearl (1988) James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
31 3. Nonrecursive (Simultaneous) Models of Causality: Developed in Economics (Haavelmo, 1944) A system of linear simultaneous equations captures interdependence among outcomes Y. Standard framework for mediation analyses. (Klein and Goldberger (1955).) James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
32 Linear model in terms of parameters (Γ, B), observables (Y, X ) and unobservables U: ΓY + BX = U E (U) = 0 (8) Y is a vector of internal and interdependent variables X is external and exogenous (E (U X ) = 0) Γ is a full rank matrix. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
33 Linear-in-the-parameters all causes model for vector Y. Causes are X and U. The structure is (Γ, B), Σ U, where Σ U is the variance-covariance matrix of U. In the Cowles Commission analysis it is assumed that Γ, B, Σ U are invariant to classes of changes in X and modifications of the distribution of U. Autonomy (Frisch, 1938). Later defined as part of the SUTVA (1986) assumption. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
34 Linear systems be generalized. Can postulate a system of equations G (Y, X, U) = 0 Conditions for unique solution of reduced forms Y = K (X, U) require that certain Jacobian terms be nonvanishing. Matzkin (2007, 2010). The structural form (8) is an all causes model that relates in a deterministic way outcomes (internal variables) to other outcomes (internal variables) and external variables (the X and U). James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
35 Are ceteris paribus manipulations associated with the effect of varying some components of Y on other components of Y are possible within the model? James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
36 Consider a two-agent model of social interactions. Y 1 is the outcome for agent 1; Y 2 is the outcome for agent 2. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
37 Y 1 = α 1 + γ 12 Y 2 + β 11 X 1 + β 12 X 2 + U 1 (9a) Y 2 = α 2 + γ 21 Y 1 + β 21 X 1 + β 22 X 2 + U 2. (9b) Social interactions model is a version of the standard simultaneous equations problem. This model is sufficiently flexible to capture the notion that the consumption of 1 (Y 1 ) depends on the consumption of 2 if γ 12 0, as well as 1 s value of X if β 11 0, X 1 (assumed to be observed), 2 s value of X, X 2 if β 12 0 and unobservable factors that affect 1 (U 1 ). The determinants of 2 s consumption are defined symmetrically. Allow U 1 and U 2 to be freely correlated. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
38 Assume E (U 1 X 1, X 2 ) = 0 (10a) and E (U 2 X 1, X 2 ) = 0. (10b) Completeness guarantees that (9a) and (9b) have a determinate solution for (Y 1, Y 2 ). Applying Haavelmo s (1943) fixing analysis to (9a) and (9b), the causal effect of Y 2 on Y 1 is γ 12. This is the effect on Y 1 of fixing Y 2 at different values, holding constant the other variables in the equation. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
39 Under completeness, the reduced form outcomes of the model after social interactions are solved out can be written as Y 1 = π 10 + π 11 X 1 + π 12 X 2 + E 1, (11a) Y 2 = π 20 + π 21 X 1 + π 22 X 2 + E 2. (11b) James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
40 Least squares can identify the ceteris paribus effects of X 1 and X 2 on Y 1 and Y 2 because E(E 1 X 1, X 2 ) = 0 and E(E 2 X 1, X 2 ) = 0. Simple algebra: and π 11 = β 11 + γ 12 β 21 1 γ 12 γ 21, π 12 = β 12 + γ 12 β 22 1 γ 12 γ 21, π 21 = γ 21β 11 + β 21 1 γ 12 γ 21, π 22 = γ 21β 12 + β 22 1 γ 12 γ 21 E 1 = U 1 + γ 12 U 2 1 γ 12 γ 21, E 2 = γ 21U 1 + U 2 1 γ 12 γ 21. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
41 Without any further information on the variances of (U 1, U 2 ) and their relationship to the causal parameters, we cannot isolate the causal effects γ 12 and γ 21 from the reduced form regression coefficients. This is so because holding X 1, X 2, U 1 and U 2 fixed in (9a) or (9b), it is not in principle possible to vary Y 2 or Y 1, respectively, because they are exact functions of X 1, X 2, U 1 and U 2. This exact dependence holds true even if U 1 = 0 and U 2 = 0 so that there are no unobservables. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
42 Can we define causality within the model? There is no mechanism yet specified within the model to independently vary the right hand sides of Equations (9a) and (9b). Some economists suggest that the mere fact that we can write (9a) and (9b) means that we can imagine independent variation. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
43 By the same token, we can imagine a model Y = ϕ 0 + ϕ 1 X 1 + ϕ 2 X 2. If part of the model is ( ) X 1 = X 2, no causal effect of X 1 holding X 2 constant is possible in principle within the rules of the model. If we break restriction ( ) and permit independent variation in X 1 and X 2, we can define the causal effect of X 1 holding X 2 constant. The X effects on Y 1 and Y 2, identified through the reduced forms, combine the direct effects (through β ij ) and the indirect effects (as they operate through Y 1 and Y 2, respectively). If we assume exclusions (β 12 = 0) or (β 21 = 0) or both, we can identify the ceteris paribus causal effects of Y 2 on Y 1 and of Y 1 on Y 2, respectively, if β 22 0 or β 11 0, respectively. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
44 Thus if β 12 = 0, from the reduced form π 12 π 22 = γ 12. If β 21 = 0, we obtain π 21 π 11 = γ 21. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
45 In a general nonlinear model, Y 1 = g 1 (Y 2, X 1, X 2, U 1 ) Y 2 = g 2 (Y 1, X 1, X 2, U 2 ), Exclusion is defined as g 1 X 2 = 0 for all (Y 2, X 1, X 2, U 1 ) and g 2 X 1 = 0 for all (Y 1, X 1, X 2, U 2 ). James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
46 Assuming the existence of local solutions, we can solve these equations to obtain By the chain rule we can write Y 1 = ϕ 1 (X 1, X 2, U 1, U 2 ) Y 2 = ϕ 2 (X 1, X 2, U 1, U 2 ) g 1 Y 2 = Y 1 X 2 / Y2 X 2 = ϕ 1 X 2 / ϕ2 X 2. We may define and identify causal effects for Y 1 on Y 2 using partials with respect to X 2 in an analogous fashion. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
47 This definition of causal effects in an interdependent system generalizes the recursive definitions of causality featured in the statistical treatment effect literature (Holland, 1988, and Pearl, 2009a). The key to this definition is manipulation of external inputs and exclusion, not randomization or matching. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
48 Econometric Mediation Analysis Build on Wright (1921, 1934), Klein and Goldberger (1955), and Theil (1958) Reduced form estimates the net effect of a policy change X 1 Y 1 X 1 = ϕ 1(X 1, X 2, U 1, U 2 ) X 1. (12) Using this analysis, the system can trivially be used to conduct mediation analyses. ( ) ( ) Y 1 g1 Y2 g 1 = + = ϕ 1(X 1, X 2, U 1, U 2 ) X 1 Y 2 X 1 X 1 X }{{}}{{}}{{} 1 Identified Identified Identified through from reduced from structure exclusion form in structure James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
49 A More General DAG Framework for Causal Analysis Return to recursive models as does much of the causal analysis literature. Introduce instrumental variables (Reiersöl, 1945) James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
50 Features: 1 Observed outcome Y ; 2 Observed treatment indicator T that causes outcome Y ; 3 Unobserved variable U that causes outcome Y ; 4 Unobserved transmission variable V that causes treatment indicator T ; 5 Observed external variable Z that causes treatment indicator T (random assignment might generate Z); 6 Observed variable X that causes T and Y, and might be a descendant of V ; 7 Hypothetical variable T that replaces T as a cause of Y. Without loss of generality, assume that V, U designate unobserved random vectors generating variables Y, T and X. Structural model: y = f Y (t, u, x), u = f U (v, ε), x = f X (v, ω), t = f T (z, v, x). James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
51 Model H-2 Extended Model for Hypotheticals: (Keep Ω and E implicit.) B H = {Y, V, T, Z, X, U, T } M H (Y ) = {X, U, T }, M H (X ) = {V }, M H (T ) = {V, Z, X } M H (U) = {V }. Variables Z, V, T are external, that is, M H (Z) = M H ( T ) = M H (V ) =. Causal effect of T on Y can be moderated by X. Model E-2 Extended Empirical Model: B E = {Y, V, T, Z, X, U}, M E (Y ) = {X, U, T }, M E (X ) = {V }, M E (T ) = {V, Z, X }, M E (U) = {V }, Variables Z, V are external, that is, M E (V ) = M E (Z) =. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
52 Figure 3: Mechanisms of Causality (a) Hypothetical Model H-2 X V U Z T Y T ~ (b) Empirical Model E-2 X V U Z T Y James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
53 Models where T and T cause U: Generalized Roy Model. Model H-2 M H (U) = {V, T } and remaining relations as defined in Model H-2. Model E-2 M E (U) = {V, T } and remaining relations as defined in Model E-2. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
54 Figure 4: Mechanisms of Causality (a) Hypothetical Model H-2 X V U Z T Y T ~ (b) Empirical Model E-2 X V U Z T Y James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
55 Suppose we fix the hypothetical variable T to take exactly the values that T takes in the empirical model. By autonomy, the distribution of Y in both models must be the same. Thus, Y d = Y (T = T ) Left-hand side is a variable in M E, the right hand side in M H T = T means that we are fixing T on the values T takes. For discrete T : Y = d Y (T = T ) d = Y (t) 1[T = t] (13) t supp(t ) James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
56 Quandt (1958) switching regression model. In the binary treatment case: Y d = Y (1)T + Y (0)(1 T ) U d = U(1)T + U(0)(1 T ). Continuum of treatment T [0, 1], Y = 1 0 Y (t)1(t = t)df T (t). James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
57 Benefit of the More General Framework Allow for the analysis of heterogeneity in both slopes and intercepts. (e.g., Generalized Roy Model, Heckman and Vytlacil, 2007a) In the linear setup of Haavelmo (1943): Y (t) = X (t)β(t) + U(t), t [0, 1] or t {0, 1}. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
58 Mean Causal Effects Average treatment effect (ATE) conditional on X when hypothetical variable T is fixed at values t and t : E(Y (t) Y (t ) X = x) E(Y T = t, X = x) E(Y T = t, X = x); t t. More general formula for total causal effects: E(Y (t) Y (t ) K, X = x) E(Y T = t, K, X = x) E(Y T = t, K, X = x) K is some event based on variables not caused by T. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
59 A variety of distributional treatment effects e.g. % who benefit from treatment (net and gross; ex ante and ex post). Benefits to the bottom percentile. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
60 Identification Strategy Identification of treatment effects requires that we connect models M H and M E in a fashion that allows us to evaluate causal parameters of model M H using data generated by model M E. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
61 4. Identification One set of identifying conditions Assumption A-1 Z is a non-degenerate random variable conditional on X ; Assumption A-2 Counterfactual outcomes Y have finite first moments; Assumption A-3 The population contains both a treatment and a control group for each X, that is, 0 < Pr(T = 1 X = x) < 1 x supp(x ). Assumption A-4 V, U are absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
62 ALL valid strategies in the literature control for Haavelmo s V in some form or other. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
63 Table 2: Alternative Approaches to Identifying Treatment Effects by Eliminating V : Binary Treatment Case (Y (1), Y (0)) T X, V, T {0, 1} Y = TY (1) + (1 T )Y (0) E(Y T = t, X = x) = E(Y T = t, X = x, V = v)df V X =x (v) Method Need Instrument (Z)? Identify Distribution of V? V X? V Z? Matching a V, X known No Yes (V observed) No Control Functions b V estimated, X, Z known (continuous T ); Bounds on quantiles Yes Yes (over support) V X, Z of V estimated (discrete case) Factor No Yes (with auxiliary measurements Typically Method c Distribution of V estimated from additional measurements of V (M) over support) V X (not strictly required) IV LATE d Z, X known Yes Estimate intervals of No; V Z quantiles of V (Heckman and Vytlacil, 1999, 2005) and conditions on them James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
64 Table 3: Alternative Approaches to Identifying Treatment Effects by Eliminating V : Binary Treatment Case Cont. (Y (1), Y (0)) T X, V, T {0, 1} Y = TY (1) + (1 T )Y (0) E(Y T = t, X = x) = E(Y T = t, X = x, V = v)df V X =x (v) IV LIV e Z, X known Yes Shrink interval of quantiles of V to a point using continuous instruments and conditions on them Stratification f Z, X known Instruments give restrictions on strata (balancing scores for V ) Mixing Estimate V, P(V ) for discrete No (intervals of Distributions g mixtures V ) Identify distribution of strata which places interval bounds on V and conditions on them Yes (Integral Equation) No; V Z V Z (for strata) Yes James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
65 4.a Matching: V is Known Lemma L-1 Matching: Let G B H be a set of (matching) variables not caused by T, such that, under model M H, T Y (t) G; t supp(t ), then E(Y (t) G) under M H is equal to E(Y T = t, G) under M E. Proof In matching, it is assumed that the matching variables are observed without error. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
66 Lemma L-2 Under Model H-2, Y (t) T V, X Alternatively: Y T V, T = t, X. Proof James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
67 V may not be observed. Proxy V. Matching on Mismeasured Variables (Carneiro, Hansen, and Heckman, 2003) Correct for measurement error in the proxies.(conti, Heckman, Pinger, and Zanolini (2009), revised 2012.) James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
68 4.b LIV and LATE Identification Heckman and Vytlacil (2005) show how to identify: E(Y T = t, V, X ) from observed data (E(Y T = t, X ) when variable V is unobserved. Under assumptions (A-1) (A-4), and under the assumption of Model H-2, using weak separability between observables and unobservables can establish the following relationship between V and instrumental variable Z : Lemma L-3 Under Model H-2, V Z X. Proof Their LIV estimator identifies E(Y T = t, V, X ) for all quantiles of V in the support of P(T = 1 Z). Heckman Vytlacil separability assumption implies and is implied by the LATE assumptions of Imbens and Angrist (1994). LATE identifies E(Y T = t, V V V, X ) where V and V ) are identified from values of Pr(T = 1 Z). James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
69 4.c Control Function Approach Method goes back to Telser (1964). See Blundell and Powell (2003) for survey. Estimate V using the relationship that follows from Lemma L-3 and auxiliary equations that relate V to T, X, and Z. These equations are called control functions. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
70 4.d Stratification (Robins and Greenland, 1992) Popularized and expanded on by Frangakis and Rubin (2002) James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
71 Definition D-2 Stratification: Stratification Variable Let Z be a discrete valued random variable, where supp(z) = {z 1,... z NZ }. Define the strata variable S as an ordered random vector of treatment assignments T when T is conditioned on Z = z 1,... Z = z NZ : S = [(T Z = z 1 ),..., (T Z = z NZ )]. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
72 Example of Stratification Matrix for the Binary Case T {0, 1} For #(Z) = 3, matrix A that represents all possible strata (S) is: Strata (S) {}}{ s 1 s 2 s 3 s 4 s 5 s 6 s 7 s z 1 A = z 2 Z Each column represents one stratum. Each row associates the strata with the instrument Z = z j. The presence of elements 0 and 1 in every line implies that 0 < Pr(T = 1 Z = z) < 1; for all z supp(z). z 3 James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
73 Idea Partition sample space of the strata so that T Y (t) for each subset of the sample space. Identify counterfactuals with each subset. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
74 A Fundamental Problem With Stratification A basic problem is that the proposed partitions that guarantee independence are not known. Use the concept of stratification to generate a partition that has the desired conditional independence property Lemma L-1. This identification strategy is a version of mixture models (Rao, 1992) and belongs to a broader class of identification methods which we introduce. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
75 Simplify the argument further: Keep X and U implicit. Model H-3 Simplified Model for Hypotheticals: B H = {Y, T, T, Z, V }, M H (Y ) = { T, V }, M H (T ) = {Z, V }, M H (Z) = M H (V ) = M H ( T ) =. V is unobserved. Model E-3 Simplified Empirical Model: B E = {Y, T, Z, V }, M E (Y ) = {T, V }, M E (T ) = {Z, V }, M E (Z) = M E (V ) =. V is unobserved. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
76 Figure 5: Mechanisms of Causality (a) Hypothetical Simplified Model H-3 (b) Empirical Simplified Model E-3 V V Z T Y T ~ Z T Y James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
77 Model H-4 Causal Models with Strata Hypothetical Strata Model: B H = {Y, T, T, Z, V, S} M H (Y ) = { T, V }, M H (T ) = {Z, S}, M H (S) = {V } M H (Z) = M H (V ) = M H ( T ) =. S and V are unobserved variables. Model E-4 Empirical Strata Model: B E = {Y, T, Z, V, S} M E (Y ) = {T, V, Z}, M E (T ) = {Z, S}, M E (S) = {V } M E (Z) = M E (V ) =. S and V are unobserved variables. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
78 Figure 6: Mechanisms of Causality (a) Hypothetical Strata Model H-4 (b) Empirical Strata Model E-4 S V S V Z T Y T ~ Z T Y James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
79 Strata allows us (under certain conditions) to control for V. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
80 Properties of Stratification Procedures If supp(t ) = {t 1,, t NT }, partition is finite there are N N Z T possible strata. supp(s) = {s 1,, s NS } for the support of S, i.e., all strata s such that Pr(S = s) > 0. Key intuition: can partition the support of V on the basis of strata as each value v of V is associated with a unique stratum s supp(s) by construction. This is a consequence of the structural relationship determining treatment: t = f T (z, v, x) Specifically, supp(v ) is the union of the disjoint sets S n = {v supp(v ); (S V = v) = s n } as stratum s n varies across supp(s). In other words, we partition the sample space on the basis of the response type s supp(s). In this notation, the events S = s n or V S n are equivalent. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
81 Principal strata allows us (under certain conditions) to control for V. They are a coarse partition of V. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
82 Both V and the strata variable S play the role of conditioning variables in matching as defined in Lemma L-1. Theorem T-1 In Model H-4, Y (t) T V, but also Y (t) T S. Proof Lemma L-4 In Model H-4, Z S, Y (t) Z S, and Y (t) T S, Z. Proof Lemma L-4 shows that the strata variable S of Definition D-2 is independent of instrument Z. From Lemma L-1: N S E(Y (t)) = E(Y T = t, S n ) Pr(S n ). (14) n=1 James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
83 The Strata Identification Problem Identification problem for mean treatment effects: the identification of {E(Y (t) S n ), Pr(S n )} N S n=1 from the observed {E(Y T = t, Z = z j ), Pr(T = t Z = z j )} N Z j=1 for t supp(t ). James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
84 Identification Based on Strata James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
85 Lemma L-5 In Model H-4, Y (t) Z S. Proof Lemma L-6 In Model H-4, Y (t) T S, Z. Proof James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
86 P Z (t) = [Pr(T = t Z = z 1 ),..., Pr(T = t Z = z NZ )] (Propensity scores) Q Z (t) = [E(Y T = t, Z = z 1 ),..., E(Y T = t, Z = z NZ )] (Data) P S = [Pr(S 1 ),, Pr(S NS ))] (Hypothetical) Q S (t) = [E(Y (t) S 1 )),..., E(Y (t) S NS ))]. (Hypothetical) James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
87 Definition D-3 Strata Matrix: Define the strata matrix A as a matrix that consists of support of S, (e.g., {s 1,..., s NS }) A = [s 1,..., s NS ]. Dimension is N Z N S. Define matrix: A t = 1[A = t] ; t supp(t ). i.e. equals 1 for elements of A that take values = t; zero otherwise. A[j, n] for the element in the j-th line and n-th column of matrix A, we use A[, n] for the n-th column and A[j, ] for the j-th row. We use rank(a) for the column rank of matrix A. Elements of the strata matrix are deterministic: A[j, n] = (T Z = z j, S n ); n {1,..., N S }, j {1,..., N Z }. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
88 From Lemma L-4: Pr(T =t observed Z = z j ) = A t [j, ] Can be constructed from strata Probability of the Stratum P S unknown (15) From Equation (15): P S = A + T [P Z (0),..., P Z (N T ) ] (16) A + T : Moore-Penrose inverse of matrix A T = [A 0,..., A N T ]. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
89 Lemma L-7 In Model H-4, Y (t) Z S. Proof Lemma L-8 In Model H-4, Y (t) T S, Z. Proof James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
90 From Lemmas L-1 and L-4, Equation (15) and the definition of A t : E(Y T = t, Z = z j ) = }{{} Observed N S n=1 A t [j, n] }{{} Can be constructed from strata Unobserved {}}{ E(Y (t) S n ) Pr(S n ). (17) Pr(T = t Z = z j ) }{{} Observed James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
91 Theorem T-2 {E(Y (t) S n )} N S n=1 are identified rank(a t) = N S for each t supp(t ). Proof From Equation (14): E(Y (t)) = ι N S (P S Q S (t)) = ι N S A + t (Q Z (t) (P Z )) (18) : Hadamard product (element-wise multiplication) A + t is the Moore-Penrose inverse of matrix A t ι NS is a N S -dimensional vector whose elements are 1. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
92 Theorem T-3 Identification of stratum probability Pr(T = t S n )} N S n=1 are identified rank(a t) = N S for each t supp(t ). Proof Theorem T-4 {E(Y (t) S n )} N S n=1 are identified rank(a t) = N S for each t supp(t ). Proof Corollary C-1 rank(a t ) = N S E(Y (t)) is identified. Proof James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
93 Key Requirement for Identification The identification of strata treatment effects relies on assumptions that restrict the number of elements in the support of S. To achieve this end, one must draw on hypothetical models that restrict how Z and V interact to generate the treatment assignment T. While the identification of strata treatment effects requires that A t be invertible, the identification of average effect when treatment is set to t, namely, E(Y (t)) is less restrictive. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
94 Stratification and Mixture Distributions James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
95 Define a probability measure P Λ on (I, Q) for a probability measure Λ on (Θ, Ξ), by the following transformation: P Λ (Q) = P θ (Q)dΛ(θ); Q Q. (19) Theorem T-5 θ A necessary and sufficient condition for identifying all finite mixing distributions (e.g., Λ) associated with a family of probability measures P = {P θ, θ Θ} is that the probabilities {P θ, θ Θ} are linearly independent as functions on Q. Proof {P θ, θ Θ} linearly independent is translated to rank((a) = (Supp(S)). James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
96 In our notation, Θ = supp(s), and Ξ is a σ-algebra associated with supp(s). Let the family of distributions be P = {P sn, s n supp(s)} where P sn is the distribution of (T S = s n ) defined by the following probabilities: Pr(T = t S = s n ) = [Pr(Z = z 1 )... Pr(Z = z NZ )] A t [, n]; t supp(t ). James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
97 The mixing distribution Λ represents a distribution of S, say Λ = {Pr(S = s n )} N S n=1. In this case, P Λ is given by: N S P Λ = Pr(S = s n )P sn. n=1 Theorem T-5 states that for Λ to be identified, {P θ, θ Θ} must be linearly independent. In other words, A T must have column rank equal to the number of elements in supp(s), as stated in Theorem T-3. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
98 Example for Binary Treatment James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
99 Binary treatment: N T = 2. Suppose 0 < Pr(T = 1 Z = z) < 1 for each z supp(z) The matrix of all possible strata: i = 1,..., N Z, and n = 1,..., 2 N Z, A[i, n] = odd( n/i ). a smallest integer bigger or equal than a. odd(a) = 1 if a is an odd number and zero otherwise A 1 = A and A 0 = ι NZ ι N T A, N Z : cardinality of the support of the random variable Z : N Z = #(Z). James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
100 Example of Stratification Matrix for the Binary Case T {0, 1} For #(Z) = 3, matrix A that represents all possible strata (S) is: Strata (S) {}}{ s 1 s 2 s 3 s 4 s 5 s 6 s 7 s z 1 A = z 2 Z Each column represents one stratum. Each j associates the strata with the instrument Z = z j. The presence of elements 0 and 1 in every line implies that 0 < Pr(T = 1 Z = z) < 1; for all z supp(z). z 3 James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
101 Monotonicity Without further assumptions, treatment effects cannot be identified because rank(a) N Z < N S = 2 N Z. To identify treatment effects, the number of strata in the support of S must be reduced. Imbens and Angrist (1994) use a monotonicity assumption that in framework reduces the number of strata. Without loss of generality, assume Pr(T = 1 Z = z j ) > Pr(T = 1 Z = z j ) whenever j > j : James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
102 Assumption A-5 Monotonicity: For all z j, z j supp(z), j > j (T Z = z j ) (T Z = z j ). Monotonicity assumption A-5 does not imply that T (z) is non-increasing in z. Instead, it states that (T Z = z j, S n ) (T Z = z j, S n ) for all n {1,..., N S } and j > j ; j, j {1,..., N Z }. Lemma L-9 Under monotonicity assumption A-5, A is lower triangular. Proof James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
103 Example of Stratification Matrix Under Monotonicity Under monotonicity assumption A-5 if #(Z) = 3, the admissable strata matrix A that comprises all strata in supp(s) is: A = James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
104 Previous Literature The analysis of Vytlacil (2002) shows that under Monotonicity Assumption A-5, the treatment assignment function is separable in terms of the propensity score and unobserved variable V. There exists a function τ(v ) such that treatment assignments T are defined by T = 1[Pr(T = 1 Z) τ(v )]. Theorem T-6 There exists a function τ(v ) such that Pr(1[Pr(T = 1 Z) τ(v )] = T ) = 1. Proof LATE implictly assumes a V with these properties James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
105 LATE identifies E(Y (1) Y (0) X, V V V ) (Heckman and Vytlacil, 1999, 2005) V = Pr(T = 1 Z) V = Pr(T = 1 Z) (Z, Z) discrete points of LATE. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
106 Theorem T-7 Under Monotonicity Assumption A-5, the strata probabilities {Pr(S n } N S n=1 are identified. Proof Theorem T-8 Let S (t) be the union of S n such that Pr(T = t S n ) > 0 for n = 1,, N S then, under Monotonicity Assumption A-5, E(Y (t) S (t)) is identified. Proof James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
107 Stratification Treatment Effects James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
108 Revisit the definition of treatment effects using stratification concepts. For simplicity take the binary case. Let supp(z) = {z 1,..., z NZ } such that Pr(T = 1 Z = z 1 ) = 0, Pr(T = 1 Z = z NZ ) = 1 and Pr(T = 1 Z = z n ) > Pr(T = 1 Z = z n ) whenever n > n. Under Monotonicity Assumption A-5, the number of strata is given by N S = N Z 1 and the dimension of A is N Z (N Z 1). James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
109 and The strata matrix A and its Moore-Penrose inverse A + 1 the following form: A = A + 1 = are of James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
110 Strata Probabilities Using T-3 we can identify strata probabilities and generate the following relationship for the treatment group: Pr(S n ) = Pr(T = 1 Z = z n+1 ) Pr(T = 1 Z = z n ); n {1,..., N S }. (20) James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
111 Under monotonicity assumption A-5: E(Y (1) S n ) Pr(S n ) }{{} Unobserved For the control group: E(Y (0) S n ) Pr(S n ) }{{} Unobserved = E(YT Z = z n+1 ) E(YT Z = z n ) }{{} Observed n {1,..., N S }. (21) = E(Y (1 T ) Z = z n ) E(Y (1 T ) Z = z n+1 ) }{{} Observed n {1,..., N S }. (22) James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
112 LATE is a Stratum Treatment Effect and Stratum Treatment Effects are LATEs Subtracting (22) from (21) within each stratum: E(Y (1) Y (0) S n) Pr(S n) =E(Y Z = z n+1 ) E(Y Z = z n); n {1,..., N S }. By equation (20): E(Y Z = z n+1 ) E(Y Z = z n ) E(Y (1) Y (0) S n ) = Pr(T = 1 Z = z n+1 ) Pr(T = 1 Z = z n ) (23) = LATE (z n+1, z n ); n {1,..., N S }. (24) This shows that the strata average treatment effect is identical to the Local Average Treatment Effect (LATE) in Imbens and Angrist (1994). James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
113 Heckman and Vytlacil (1999; 2005) show how to use Pr(T = 1 Z) to trace out the support of V on which LATE implicitly conditions. Identifies the quantiles of V associated with the changers. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
114 Generating Marginal Treatment Effects A change of variables permits us to explore this further. Let p n = Pr(T = 1 Z = z n ) Define n = Pr(T = 1 Z = z n+1 ) Pr(T = 1 Z = z n ). In this notation, n j=1 Pr(S j) = p n + n according to equation (20). Define L = F S (S), cdf of S. From equation (20): N S ( n L = Pr(S j ) ) N S ( 1[S = s n ] = pn + n )1[S = s n ]. n=1 j=1 n=1 (25) James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
115 Thus L = p n + n, S = s n and V S n are equivalent and P = p n and Z = z n are equivalent. Thus: E(Y (1) Y (0) L = p n + n ) = E(Y P = p n + n ) E(Y P = p n ) n = LATE (p n + n, p n ) James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
116 MTE If L and P absolutely continuous: E(Y (1) Y (0) L = p) = lim 0 E(Y P = p + ) E(Y P = p) = lim 0 LATE (p +, p) = MTE (p) MTE (p) is the Marginal Treatment Effect (MTE) of Heckman and Vytlacil (1999). Heckman and Vytlacil (2005, 2007) show how, under different supports, MTE (p) generates a variety of treatment parameters. Through limit operations with continuous instruments, Heckman and Vytlacil identify the points of evaluation of the quantiles of V. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
117 Treatment Effect Weights James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
118 Treatment Effect Weights A consequence of Lemma L-4: Y (t) (T, Z) S Thus: E(Y (t) S, K) = E(Y (t) S). (26) This causal effect is a weighted average of the total treatment effects within strata: N S E(Y (1) Y (0) K) = E(Y (1) Y (0) S n, K) Pr(S n K) n=1 N S Pr(K Sn) Pr(Sn) = E(Y (1) Y (0) S n) by Equation (26) Pr(K) n=1 N S = E(Y (1) Y (0) S n)ω K,n (27) n=1 where weights ω K,n = Pr(K Sn) Pr(Sn) Pr(K) are positive and N s n=1 ω K,n = 1. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
119 In the case of the average treatment effect, the weights ω K,n = Pr(S n ). Can use equation (27) to examine the average treatment effect in the case of absolutely continuous variables. Note that in this case, L has a uniform [0, 1] distribution, as L = F S (S) and the average treatment effect can be written as: N S E(Y (1) Y (0)) = E(Y (1) Y (0) S n ) Pr(S n ) n=1 N S = E(Y (1) Y (0) L = p n + n ) Pr(L = p n + n ). n=1 The equation for the continuous case is: E(Y (1) Y (0)) = 1 0 MTE (p)dp. (28) James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
120 Since Z S (Lemma L-4): Pr(T = 1 S n ) = [Pr(Z = z 1 )... Pr(Z = z NZ )]A 1 [, n] = N Z j=n+1 Pr(Z = z j ) = 1 F P (p n + n ). where F P stands for the cumulative distribution function of P. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
121 Thus the treatment weights are given by: E(Y (1) Y (0) T = 1) = (29) N S = E(Y (1) Y (0) S n ) (1 F P(p n + n )) Pr(S n ) Pr(T = 1) n=1 }{{} Weights N S = n=1 E(Y (1) Y (0) L = p n + n ) (1 F P(p n + n )) Pr(L = p n + n ) Pr(T = 1) For the continuous case are: E(Y (1) Y (0)) = 1 0 } {{ } Weights (30) ( ) (1 MTE FP (p)) (p) dp. Pr(T = 1) }{{} Weights. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
122 5. Summary of Identification Strategies for Binary Case James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
123 The Fundamental Confounding Problem All of the methods for identifying the Haavelmo model that are discussed in this paper take different approaches to solving the fundamental integral equation. E(Y T = t, X = x) = }{{} Data E(Y T = t, X = x, V = v) }{{} Counterfactual df V X =x (v) }{{} Mixing Distribution. James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
124 Table 4: Alternative Approaches to Identifying Treatment Effects by Eliminating V : Binary Treatment Case (Y (1), Y (0)) T X, V, T {0, 1} Y = TY (1) + (1 T )Y (0) E(Y T = t, X = x) = E(Y T = t, X = x, V = v)df V X =x (v) Method Need Instrument (Z)? Identify Distribution of V? V X? V Z? Matching a V, X known No Yes (V observed) No Control Functions b V estimated, X, Z known (continuous T ); Bounds on quantiles Yes Yes (over support) V X, Z of V estimated (discrete case) Factor No Yes (with auxiliary measurements Typically Method c Distribution of V estimated from additional measurements of V (M) over support) V X (not strictly required) IV LATE d Z, X known Yes Estimate intervals of No; V Z quantiles of V (Heckman and Vytlacil, 1999, 2005) and conditions on them James Heckman and Rodrigo Pinto Causal Analysis After Haavelmo, December 15, / 157
Econometric Causality
Econometric (2008) International Statistical Review, 76(1):1-27 James J. Heckman Spencer/INET Conference University of Chicago Econometric The econometric approach to causality develops explicit models
More informationNBER WORKING PAPER SERIES UNORDERED MONOTONICITY. James J. Heckman Rodrigo Pinto. Working Paper
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES UNORDERED MONOTONICITY James J. Heckman Rodrigo Pinto Working Paper 23497 http://www.nber.org/papers/w23497 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge,
More informationPrinciples Underlying Evaluation Estimators
The Principles Underlying Evaluation Estimators James J. University of Chicago Econ 350, Winter 2019 The Basic Principles Underlying the Identification of the Main Econometric Evaluation Estimators Two
More informationCausal Analysis After Haavelmo
After Haavelmo University College London UCL Department Seminar September 3, 2013 Economics has forgotten its own past. (Judea Pearl, 2012) Haavemo s Contributions to Causality: Two seminal papers (1943,
More informationCausal Analysis After Haavelmo
After Haavelmo University of Oslo Haavelmo Lecture December 13, 2013 Oslo is the cradle of rigorous causal inference. Two Giants Ragnar Frisch Trygve Haavelmo Haavelmo s Research Program (a) Specify an
More informationCausal Analysis After Haavelmo James Heckman Rodrigo Pinto
James Heckman Rodrigo Pinto The University of Chicago September 9, 2013 James Heckman is the Henry Schultz Distinguished Service Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the University of Chicago; Professor
More informationFlexible Estimation of Treatment Effect Parameters
Flexible Estimation of Treatment Effect Parameters Thomas MaCurdy a and Xiaohong Chen b and Han Hong c Introduction Many empirical studies of program evaluations are complicated by the presence of both
More informationUsing Matching, Instrumental Variables and Control Functions to Estimate Economic Choice Models
Using Matching, Instrumental Variables and Control Functions to Estimate Economic Choice Models James J. Heckman and Salvador Navarro The University of Chicago Review of Economics and Statistics 86(1)
More informationLecture 8. Roy Model, IV with essential heterogeneity, MTE
Lecture 8. Roy Model, IV with essential heterogeneity, MTE Economics 2123 George Washington University Instructor: Prof. Ben Williams Heterogeneity When we talk about heterogeneity, usually we mean heterogeneity
More informationEconometric Causality
Econometric Causality James J. Heckman The Institute for Fiscal Studies Department of Economics, UCL cemmap working paper CWP1/08 Econometric Causality James J. Heckman February 4, 2008 Summary This paper
More informationThe Econometric Evaluation of Policy Design: Part I: Heterogeneity in Program Impacts, Modeling Self-Selection, and Parameters of Interest
The Econometric Evaluation of Policy Design: Part I: Heterogeneity in Program Impacts, Modeling Self-Selection, and Parameters of Interest Edward Vytlacil, Yale University Renmin University, Department
More informationEstimation of Treatment Effects under Essential Heterogeneity
Estimation of Treatment Effects under Essential Heterogeneity James Heckman University of Chicago and American Bar Foundation Sergio Urzua University of Chicago Edward Vytlacil Columbia University March
More informationPolicy-Relevant Treatment Effects
Policy-Relevant Treatment Effects By JAMES J. HECKMAN AND EDWARD VYTLACIL* Accounting for individual-level heterogeneity in the response to treatment is a major development in the econometric literature
More informationCausal analysis after Haavelmo. 8th/last Lecture - Hedibert Lopes
Causal analysis after Haavelmo 8th/last Lecture - Hedibert Lopes Insper - Institute of Education and Research December 1st, 2015 Hedibert Lopes (Insper) Heckman & Pinto (2014) December 1st, 2015 1 / 39
More informationGeneralized Roy Model and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Social Programs 1
Generalized Roy Model and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Social Programs 1 James J. Heckman The University of Chicago University College Dublin Philipp Eisenhauer University of Mannheim Edward Vytlacil Columbia
More informationNBER WORKING PAPER SERIES STRUCTURAL EQUATIONS, TREATMENT EFFECTS AND ECONOMETRIC POLICY EVALUATION. James J. Heckman Edward Vytlacil
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES STRUCTURAL EQUATIONS, TREATMENT EFFECTS AND ECONOMETRIC POLICY EVALUATION James J. Heckman Edward Vytlacil Working Paper 11259 http://www.nber.org/papers/w11259 NATIONAL BUREAU
More informationHaavelmo, Marschak, and Structural Econometrics
Haavelmo, Marschak, and Structural Econometrics James J. Heckman University of Chicago Trygve Haavelmo Centennial Symposium December 13 14, 2011 University of Oslo This draft, October 13, 2011 James J.
More informationThe Generalized Roy Model and Treatment Effects
The Generalized Roy Model and Treatment Effects Christopher Taber University of Wisconsin November 10, 2016 Introduction From Imbens and Angrist we showed that if one runs IV, we get estimates of the Local
More informationThe relationship between treatment parameters within a latent variable framework
Economics Letters 66 (2000) 33 39 www.elsevier.com/ locate/ econbase The relationship between treatment parameters within a latent variable framework James J. Heckman *,1, Edward J. Vytlacil 2 Department
More informationEcon 2148, fall 2017 Instrumental variables I, origins and binary treatment case
Econ 2148, fall 2017 Instrumental variables I, origins and binary treatment case Maximilian Kasy Department of Economics, Harvard University 1 / 40 Agenda instrumental variables part I Origins of instrumental
More informationAdding Uncertainty to a Roy Economy with Two Sectors
Adding Uncertainty to a Roy Economy with Two Sectors James J. Heckman The University of Chicago Nueld College, Oxford University This draft, August 7, 2005 1 denotes dierent sectors. =0denotes choice of
More informationFour Parameters of Interest in the Evaluation. of Social Programs. James J. Heckman Justin L. Tobias Edward Vytlacil
Four Parameters of Interest in the Evaluation of Social Programs James J. Heckman Justin L. Tobias Edward Vytlacil Nueld College, Oxford, August, 2005 1 1 Introduction This paper uses a latent variable
More informationStatistical Models for Causal Analysis
Statistical Models for Causal Analysis Teppei Yamamoto Keio University Introduction to Causal Inference Spring 2016 Three Modes of Statistical Inference 1. Descriptive Inference: summarizing and exploring
More informationA Distinction between Causal Effects in Structural and Rubin Causal Models
A istinction between Causal Effects in Structural and Rubin Causal Models ionissi Aliprantis April 28, 2017 Abstract: Unspecified mediators play different roles in the outcome equations of Structural Causal
More informationLecture 11 Roy model, MTE, PRTE
Lecture 11 Roy model, MTE, PRTE Economics 2123 George Washington University Instructor: Prof. Ben Williams Roy Model Motivation The standard textbook example of simultaneity is a supply and demand system
More informationSTRUCTURAL EQUATIONS, TREATMENT EFFECTS AND ECONOMETRIC POLICY EVALUATION 1. By James J. Heckman and Edward Vytlacil
STRUCTURAL EQUATIONS, TREATMENT EFFECTS AND ECONOMETRIC POLICY EVALUATION 1 By James J. Heckman and Edward Vytlacil First Draft, August 2; Revised, June 21 Final Version, September 25, 23. 1 This paper
More informationCausality II: How does causal inference fit into public health and what it is the role of statistics?
Causality II: How does causal inference fit into public health and what it is the role of statistics? Statistics for Psychosocial Research II November 13, 2006 1 Outline Potential Outcomes / Counterfactual
More informationECO Class 6 Nonparametric Econometrics
ECO 523 - Class 6 Nonparametric Econometrics Carolina Caetano Contents 1 Nonparametric instrumental variable regression 1 2 Nonparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects 3 2.1 Asymptotic results................................
More informationMatching. James J. Heckman Econ 312. This draft, May 15, Intro Match Further MTE Impl Comp Gen. Roy Req Info Info Add Proxies Disc Modal Summ
Matching James J. Heckman Econ 312 This draft, May 15, 2007 1 / 169 Introduction The assumption most commonly made to circumvent problems with randomization is that even though D is not random with respect
More informationSUPPOSE a policy is proposed for adoption in a country.
The Review of Economics and Statistics VOL. LXXXVIII AUGUST 2006 NUMBER 3 UNDERSTANDING INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLES IN MODELS WITH ESSENTIAL HETEROGENEITY James J. Heckman, Sergio Urzua, and Edward Vytlacil*
More informationCausal Inference Lecture Notes: Causal Inference with Repeated Measures in Observational Studies
Causal Inference Lecture Notes: Causal Inference with Repeated Measures in Observational Studies Kosuke Imai Department of Politics Princeton University November 13, 2013 So far, we have essentially assumed
More informationTechnical Track Session I: Causal Inference
Impact Evaluation Technical Track Session I: Causal Inference Human Development Human Network Development Network Middle East and North Africa Region World Bank Institute Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund
More informationThe Generalized Roy Model and the Cost-Benefit Analysis of Social Programs
Discussion Paper No. 14-082 The Generalized Roy Model and the Cost-Benefit Analysis of Social Programs Philipp Eisenhauer, James J. Heckman, and Edward Vytlacil Discussion Paper No. 14-082 The Generalized
More informationGenerated Covariates in Nonparametric Estimation: A Short Review.
Generated Covariates in Nonparametric Estimation: A Short Review. Enno Mammen, Christoph Rothe, and Melanie Schienle Abstract In many applications, covariates are not observed but have to be estimated
More informationInstrumental Variables: Then and Now
Instrumental Variables: Then and Now James Heckman University of Chicago and University College Dublin Econometric Policy Evaluation, Lecture II Koopmans Memorial Lectures Cowles Foundation Yale University
More informationUsing Matching, Instrumental Variables and Control Functions to Estimate Economic Choice Models
DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES IZA DP No. 768 Using Matching, Instrumental Variables and Control Functions to Estimate Economic Choice Models James J. Heckman Salvador Navarro-Lozano April 2003 Forschungsinstitut
More informationNBER WORKING PAPER SERIES ECONOMETRIC MEDIATION ANALYSES: PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES WITH UNMEASURED AND MISMEASURED INPUTS
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES ECONOMETRIC MEDIATION ANALYSES: PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES WITH UNMEASURED AND MISMEASURED INPUTS James J. Heckman Rodrigo Pinto Working Paper 19314 http://www.nber.org/papers/w19314
More informationIdentification in Nonparametric Models for Dynamic Treatment Effects
Identification in Nonparametric Models for Dynamic Treatment Effects Sukjin Han Department of Economics University of Texas at Austin sukjin.han@austin.utexas.edu First Draft: August 12, 2017 This Draft:
More informationInstrumental Variables in Models with Multiple Outcomes: The General Unordered Case
DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES IZA DP No. 3565 Instrumental Variables in Models with Multiple Outcomes: The General Unordered Case James J. Heckman Sergio Urzua Edward Vytlacil June 2008 Forschungsinstitut zur
More informationAn Introduction to Causal Mediation Analysis. Xu Qin University of Chicago Presented at the Central Iowa R User Group Meetup Aug 10, 2016
An Introduction to Causal Mediation Analysis Xu Qin University of Chicago Presented at the Central Iowa R User Group Meetup Aug 10, 2016 1 Causality In the applications of statistics, many central questions
More informationWORKSHOP ON PRINCIPAL STRATIFICATION STANFORD UNIVERSITY, Luke W. Miratrix (Harvard University) Lindsay C. Page (University of Pittsburgh)
WORKSHOP ON PRINCIPAL STRATIFICATION STANFORD UNIVERSITY, 2016 Luke W. Miratrix (Harvard University) Lindsay C. Page (University of Pittsburgh) Our team! 2 Avi Feller (Berkeley) Jane Furey (Abt Associates)
More informationLecture 11/12. Roy Model, MTE, Structural Estimation
Lecture 11/12. Roy Model, MTE, Structural Estimation Economics 2123 George Washington University Instructor: Prof. Ben Williams Roy model The Roy model is a model of comparative advantage: Potential earnings
More informationExploring Marginal Treatment Effects
Exploring Marginal Treatment Effects Flexible estimation using Stata Martin Eckhoff Andresen Statistics Norway Oslo, September 12th 2018 Martin Andresen (SSB) Exploring MTEs Oslo, 2018 1 / 25 Introduction
More informationAdditional Material for Estimating the Technology of Cognitive and Noncognitive Skill Formation (Cuttings from the Web Appendix)
Additional Material for Estimating the Technology of Cognitive and Noncognitive Skill Formation (Cuttings from the Web Appendix Flavio Cunha The University of Pennsylvania James Heckman The University
More informationSupplementary material to: Tolerating deance? Local average treatment eects without monotonicity.
Supplementary material to: Tolerating deance? Local average treatment eects without monotonicity. Clément de Chaisemartin September 1, 2016 Abstract This paper gathers the supplementary material to de
More informationSensitivity checks for the local average treatment effect
Sensitivity checks for the local average treatment effect Martin Huber March 13, 2014 University of St. Gallen, Dept. of Economics Abstract: The nonparametric identification of the local average treatment
More informationPropensity Score Methods for Causal Inference
John Pura BIOS790 October 2, 2015 Causal inference Philosophical problem, statistical solution Important in various disciplines (e.g. Koch s postulates, Bradford Hill criteria, Granger causality) Good
More informationOnline Appendix to Yes, But What s the Mechanism? (Don t Expect an Easy Answer) John G. Bullock, Donald P. Green, and Shang E. Ha
Online Appendix to Yes, But What s the Mechanism? (Don t Expect an Easy Answer) John G. Bullock, Donald P. Green, and Shang E. Ha January 18, 2010 A2 This appendix has six parts: 1. Proof that ab = c d
More informationANALYTIC COMPARISON. Pearl and Rubin CAUSAL FRAMEWORKS
ANALYTIC COMPARISON of Pearl and Rubin CAUSAL FRAMEWORKS Content Page Part I. General Considerations Chapter 1. What is the question? 16 Introduction 16 1. Randomization 17 1.1 An Example of Randomization
More informationPart VII. Accounting for the Endogeneity of Schooling. Endogeneity of schooling Mean growth rate of earnings Mean growth rate Selection bias Summary
Part VII Accounting for the Endogeneity of Schooling 327 / 785 Much of the CPS-Census literature on the returns to schooling ignores the choice of schooling and its consequences for estimating the rate
More informationA Unified Framework for Defining and Identifying Causal Effects
A Unified Framework for Defining and Identifying Causal Effects Halbert White and Karim Chalak Department of Economics University of California, San Diego La Jolla, CA 92093-0508 USA January 30, 2006 Abstract
More informationOUTLINE CAUSAL INFERENCE: LOGICAL FOUNDATION AND NEW RESULTS. Judea Pearl University of California Los Angeles (www.cs.ucla.
OUTLINE CAUSAL INFERENCE: LOGICAL FOUNDATION AND NEW RESULTS Judea Pearl University of California Los Angeles (www.cs.ucla.edu/~judea/) Statistical vs. Causal vs. Counterfactual inference: syntax and semantics
More informationAGEC 661 Note Fourteen
AGEC 661 Note Fourteen Ximing Wu 1 Selection bias 1.1 Heckman s two-step model Consider the model in Heckman (1979) Y i = X iβ + ε i, D i = I {Z iγ + η i > 0}. For a random sample from the population,
More informationUnderstanding Instrumental Variables in Models with Essential Heterogeneity
DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES IZA DP No. 2320 Understanding Instrumental Variables in Models with Essential Heterogeneity James J. Heckman Sergio Urzua Edward Vytlacil September 2006 Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft
More informationIdentifying Effects of Multivalued Treatments
Identifying Effects of Multivalued Treatments Sokbae Lee Bernard Salanie The Institute for Fiscal Studies Department of Economics, UCL cemmap working paper CWP72/15 Identifying Effects of Multivalued Treatments
More informationGov 2002: 4. Observational Studies and Confounding
Gov 2002: 4. Observational Studies and Confounding Matthew Blackwell September 10, 2015 Where are we? Where are we going? Last two weeks: randomized experiments. From here on: observational studies. What
More informationSTRUCTURAL EQUATIONS, TREATMENT EFFECTS, AND ECONOMETRIC POLICY EVALUATION 1
Econometrica, Vol. 73, No. 3 (May, 2005), 669 738 STRUCTURAL EQUATIONS, TREATMENT EFFECTS, AND ECONOMETRIC POLICY EVALUATION 1 BY JAMES J. HECKMAN ANDEDWARDVYTLACIL This paper uses the marginal treatment
More informationSelection on Observables: Propensity Score Matching.
Selection on Observables: Propensity Score Matching. Department of Economics and Management Irene Brunetti ireneb@ec.unipi.it 24/10/2017 I. Brunetti Labour Economics in an European Perspective 24/10/2017
More informationCounterfactual worlds
Counterfactual worlds Andrew Chesher Adam Rosen The Institute for Fiscal Studies Department of Economics, UCL cemmap working paper CWP22/15 Counterfactual Worlds Andrew Chesher and Adam M. Rosen CeMMAP
More informationA Rothschild-Stiglitz approach to Bayesian persuasion
A Rothschild-Stiglitz approach to Bayesian persuasion Matthew Gentzkow and Emir Kamenica Stanford University and University of Chicago December 2015 Abstract Rothschild and Stiglitz (1970) represent random
More informationNonadditive Models with Endogenous Regressors
Nonadditive Models with Endogenous Regressors Guido W. Imbens First Draft: July 2005 This Draft: February 2006 Abstract In the last fifteen years there has been much work on nonparametric identification
More informationCompSci Understanding Data: Theory and Applications
CompSci 590.6 Understanding Data: Theory and Applications Lecture 17 Causality in Statistics Instructor: Sudeepa Roy Email: sudeepa@cs.duke.edu Fall 2015 1 Today s Reading Rubin Journal of the American
More informationNBER WORKING PAPER SERIES
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES IDENTIFICATION OF TREATMENT EFFECTS USING CONTROL FUNCTIONS IN MODELS WITH CONTINUOUS, ENDOGENOUS TREATMENT AND HETEROGENEOUS EFFECTS Jean-Pierre Florens James J. Heckman Costas
More informationTechnical Track Session I:
Impact Evaluation Technical Track Session I: Click to edit Master title style Causal Inference Damien de Walque Amman, Jordan March 8-12, 2009 Click to edit Master subtitle style Human Development Human
More informationWhen Should We Use Linear Fixed Effects Regression Models for Causal Inference with Longitudinal Data?
When Should We Use Linear Fixed Effects Regression Models for Causal Inference with Longitudinal Data? Kosuke Imai Department of Politics Center for Statistics and Machine Learning Princeton University
More informationWEB APPENDIX FOR UNORDERED MONOTONICITY (Econometrica, Vol. 86, No. 1, January 2018, 1 35)
Econometrica Supplementary Material WEB APPENDIX FOR UNORDERED MONOTONICITY Econometrica, Vol. 86, No. 1, January 218, 1 35 JAMES J. HECKMAN Department of Economics, University of Chicago RODRIGO PINTO
More informationMarket and Nonmarket Benefits
of Education John Eric Humphries The University of Chicago James Heckman The University of Chicago Greg Veramendi Arizona State University A Celebration of the Life and Work of Gary S. Becker University
More informationHypothesis Testing. Part I. James J. Heckman University of Chicago. Econ 312 This draft, April 20, 2006
Hypothesis Testing Part I James J. Heckman University of Chicago Econ 312 This draft, April 20, 2006 1 1 A Brief Review of Hypothesis Testing and Its Uses values and pure significance tests (R.A. Fisher)
More informationFrom Causality, Second edition, Contents
From Causality, Second edition, 2009. Preface to the First Edition Preface to the Second Edition page xv xix 1 Introduction to Probabilities, Graphs, and Causal Models 1 1.1 Introduction to Probability
More informationCausal Hazard Ratio Estimation By Instrumental Variables or Principal Stratification. Todd MacKenzie, PhD
Causal Hazard Ratio Estimation By Instrumental Variables or Principal Stratification Todd MacKenzie, PhD Collaborators A. James O Malley Tor Tosteson Therese Stukel 2 Overview 1. Instrumental variable
More informationIdentification in Triangular Systems using Control Functions
Identification in Triangular Systems using Control Functions Maximilian Kasy Department of Economics, UC Berkeley Maximilian Kasy (UC Berkeley) Control Functions 1 / 19 Introduction Introduction There
More informationUsing matching, instrumental variables and control functions to estimate economic choice models
Using matching, instrumental variables and control functions to estimate economic choice models James Heckman Salvador Navarro-Lozano WORKING PAPER 2003:4 The Institute for Labour Market Policy Evaluation
More informationWeak Stochastic Increasingness, Rank Exchangeability, and Partial Identification of The Distribution of Treatment Effects
Weak Stochastic Increasingness, Rank Exchangeability, and Partial Identification of The Distribution of Treatment Effects Brigham R. Frandsen Lars J. Lefgren December 16, 2015 Abstract This article develops
More informationWhen Should We Use Linear Fixed Effects Regression Models for Causal Inference with Panel Data?
When Should We Use Linear Fixed Effects Regression Models for Causal Inference with Panel Data? Kosuke Imai Department of Politics Center for Statistics and Machine Learning Princeton University Joint
More informationPotential Outcomes and Causal Inference I
Potential Outcomes and Causal Inference I Jonathan Wand Polisci 350C Stanford University May 3, 2006 Example A: Get-out-the-Vote (GOTV) Question: Is it possible to increase the likelihood of an individuals
More informationIdentification with Latent Choice Sets: The Case of the Head Start Impact Study
Identification with Latent Choice Sets: The Case of the Head Start Impact Study Vishal Kamat University of Chicago 22 September 2018 Quantity of interest Common goal is to analyze ATE of program participation:
More informationControlling for Time Invariant Heterogeneity
Controlling for Time Invariant Heterogeneity Yona Rubinstein July 2016 Yona Rubinstein (LSE) Controlling for Time Invariant Heterogeneity 07/16 1 / 19 Observables and Unobservables Confounding Factors
More informationCausality in Econometrics (3)
Graphical Causal Models References Causality in Econometrics (3) Alessio Moneta Max Planck Institute of Economics Jena moneta@econ.mpg.de 26 April 2011 GSBC Lecture Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena
More informationApplied Health Economics (for B.Sc.)
Applied Health Economics (for B.Sc.) Helmut Farbmacher Department of Economics University of Mannheim Autumn Semester 2017 Outlook 1 Linear models (OLS, Omitted variables, 2SLS) 2 Limited and qualitative
More informationEconometrics of causal inference. Throughout, we consider the simplest case of a linear outcome equation, and homogeneous
Econometrics of causal inference Throughout, we consider the simplest case of a linear outcome equation, and homogeneous effects: y = βx + ɛ (1) where y is some outcome, x is an explanatory variable, and
More informationDynamic Treatment Effects
Dynamic Treatment Effects James J. Heckman University of Chicago and the American Bar Foundation John Eric Humphries University of Chicago Gregory Veramendi Arizona State University July 21, 2015 James
More informationA Rothschild-Stiglitz approach to Bayesian persuasion
A Rothschild-Stiglitz approach to Bayesian persuasion Matthew Gentzkow and Emir Kamenica Stanford University and University of Chicago January 2016 Consider a situation where one person, call him Sender,
More informationIntroduction to causal identification. Nidhiya Menon IGC Summer School, New Delhi, July 2015
Introduction to causal identification Nidhiya Menon IGC Summer School, New Delhi, July 2015 Outline 1. Micro-empirical methods 2. Rubin causal model 3. More on Instrumental Variables (IV) Estimating causal
More informationIsoLATEing: Identifying Heterogeneous Effects of Multiple Treatments
IsoLATEing: Identifying Heterogeneous Effects of Multiple Treatments Peter Hull December 2014 PRELIMINARY: Please do not cite or distribute without permission. Please see www.mit.edu/~hull/research.html
More informationDEALING WITH MULTIVARIATE OUTCOMES IN STUDIES FOR CAUSAL EFFECTS
DEALING WITH MULTIVARIATE OUTCOMES IN STUDIES FOR CAUSAL EFFECTS Donald B. Rubin Harvard University 1 Oxford Street, 7th Floor Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Tel: 617-495-5496; Fax: 617-496-8057 email: rubin@stat.harvard.edu
More informationEconometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data
Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data Jeffrey M. Wooldridge / The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England Contents Preface Acknowledgments xvii xxiii I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
More informationA Note on Adapting Propensity Score Matching and Selection Models to Choice Based Samples
DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES IZA DP No. 4304 A Note on Adapting Propensity Score Matching and Selection Models to Choice Based Samples James J. Heckman Petra E. Todd July 2009 Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft
More informationStatistical Analysis of Randomized Experiments with Nonignorable Missing Binary Outcomes
Statistical Analysis of Randomized Experiments with Nonignorable Missing Binary Outcomes Kosuke Imai Department of Politics Princeton University July 31 2007 Kosuke Imai (Princeton University) Nonignorable
More informationMarginal treatment effects
11 Marginal treatment effects In this chapter, we review policy evaluation and Heckman and Vytlacil s [25, 27a] (HV) strategy for linking marginal treatment effects to other average treatment effects including
More informationPotential Outcomes Model (POM)
Potential Outcomes Model (POM) Relationship Between Counterfactual States Causality Empirical Strategies in Labor Economics, Angrist Krueger (1999): The most challenging empirical questions in economics
More informationImpact Evaluation Technical Workshop:
Impact Evaluation Technical Workshop: Asian Development Bank Sept 1 3, 2014 Manila, Philippines Session 19(b) Quantile Treatment Effects I. Quantile Treatment Effects Most of the evaluation literature
More informationReview of Basic Probability Theory
Review of Basic Probability Theory James H. Steiger Department of Psychology and Human Development Vanderbilt University James H. Steiger (Vanderbilt University) 1 / 35 Review of Basic Probability Theory
More informationWhen Should We Use Linear Fixed Effects Regression Models for Causal Inference with Longitudinal Data?
When Should We Use Linear Fixed Effects Regression Models for Causal Inference with Longitudinal Data? Kosuke Imai Princeton University Asian Political Methodology Conference University of Sydney Joint
More informationComments on: Panel Data Analysis Advantages and Challenges. Manuel Arellano CEMFI, Madrid November 2006
Comments on: Panel Data Analysis Advantages and Challenges Manuel Arellano CEMFI, Madrid November 2006 This paper provides an impressive, yet compact and easily accessible review of the econometric literature
More informationThe problem of causality in microeconometrics.
The problem of causality in microeconometrics. Andrea Ichino University of Bologna and Cepr June 11, 2007 Contents 1 The Problem of Causality 1 1.1 A formal framework to think about causality....................................
More informationCounterfactual Reasoning in Algorithmic Fairness
Counterfactual Reasoning in Algorithmic Fairness Ricardo Silva University College London and The Alan Turing Institute Joint work with Matt Kusner (Warwick/Turing), Chris Russell (Sussex/Turing), and Joshua
More informationComparing IV with Structural Models: What Simple IV Can and Cannot Identify
DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES IZA DP No. 3980 Comparing IV with Structural Models: What Simple IV Can and Cannot Identify James J. Heckman Sergio Urzúa January 2009 Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit
More informationModels of Causality. Roy Dong. University of California, Berkeley
Models of Causality Roy Dong University of California, Berkeley Correlation is not the same as causation. 2 Conditioning is not the same as imputing. 3 Stylized example Suppose, amongst the population,
More informationQuantitative Economics for the Evaluation of the European Policy
Quantitative Economics for the Evaluation of the European Policy Dipartimento di Economia e Management Irene Brunetti Davide Fiaschi Angela Parenti 1 25th of September, 2017 1 ireneb@ec.unipi.it, davide.fiaschi@unipi.it,
More informationIdentification of Models of the Labor Market
Identification of Models of the Labor Market Eric French and Christopher Taber, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and Wisconsin November 6, 2009 French,Taber (FRBC and UW) Identification November 6, 2009
More information