Tables and Figures. This draft, July 2, 2007

Similar documents
The College Premium in the Eighties: Returns to College or Returns to Ability

Table B1. Full Sample Results OLS/Probit

Chilean and High School Dropout Calculations to Testing the Correlated Random Coefficient Model

Estimating Marginal and Average Returns to Education

Lecture 11 Roy model, MTE, PRTE

Four Parameters of Interest in the Evaluation. of Social Programs. James J. Heckman Justin L. Tobias Edward Vytlacil

Estimating Marginal and Average Returns to Education

Adding Uncertainty to a Roy Economy with Two Sectors

Estimation of Treatment Effects under Essential Heterogeneity

Comparative Advantage and Schooling

and Cohort Effects of Superstition on Education Attainment

Lecture 8. Roy Model, IV with essential heterogeneity, MTE

The Econometric Evaluation of Policy Design: Part I: Heterogeneity in Program Impacts, Modeling Self-Selection, and Parameters of Interest

Principles Underlying Evaluation Estimators

Instrumental Variables

Dynamics in Social Networks and Causality

Sample Problems. Note: If you find the following statements true, you should briefly prove them. If you find them false, you should correct them.

Lecture 11/12. Roy Model, MTE, Structural Estimation

Testing for Essential Heterogeneity

Estimating Marginal Returns to Education

Lecture 8. Using the CLR Model. Relation between patent applications and R&D spending. Variables

Average and Marginal Returns to Upper Secondary Schooling in Indonesia

SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX MATERIALS [not intended for publication]

WISE MA/PhD Programs Econometrics Instructor: Brett Graham Spring Semester, Academic Year Exam Version: A

Econ 673: Microeconometrics Chapter 12: Estimating Treatment Effects. The Problem

IV Estimation WS 2014/15 SS Alexander Spermann. IV Estimation

CIVL 7012/8012. Simple Linear Regression. Lecture 3

Estimating Heterogeneous Treatment Effects in the Presence of Self-Selection: A Propensity Score Perspective*

Causal Inference with General Treatment Regimes: Generalizing the Propensity Score

In Class Review Exercises Vartanian: SW 540

Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)

Estimating marginal returns to education

ECNS 561 Topics in Multiple Regression Analysis

Interpreting and using heterogeneous choice & generalized ordered logit models

REGRESSION RECAP. Josh Angrist. MIT (Fall 2014)

College Education and Wages in the U.K.: Estimating Conditional Average Structural Functions in Nonadditive Models with Binary Endogenous Variables

Heterogeneous Treatment Effects

Selection on Observables: Propensity Score Matching.

Instrumental Variables: Then and Now

NELS 88. Latent Response Variable Formulation Versus Probability Curve Formulation

DO NOT CITE WITHOUT AUTHOR S PERMISSION:

Comparing groups using predicted probabilities

WISE MA/PhD Programs Econometrics Instructor: Brett Graham Spring Semester, Academic Year Exam Version: A

( ) : : (CUHIES2000), Heckman Vytlacil (1999, 2000, 2001),Carneiro, Heckman Vytlacil (2001) Carneiro (2002) Carneiro, Heckman Vytlacil (2001) :

y i s 2 X 1 n i 1 1. Show that the least squares estimators can be written as n xx i x i 1 ns 2 X i 1 n ` px xqx i x i 1 pδ ij 1 n px i xq x j x

Population Aging, Labor Demand, and the Structure of Wages

Heterogeneous Treatment Effects in the Presence of. Self-Selection: A Propensity Score Perspective

ESTIMATING AVERAGE TREATMENT EFFECTS: REGRESSION DISCONTINUITY DESIGNS Jeff Wooldridge Michigan State University BGSE/IZA Course in Microeconometrics

ECON 482 / WH Hong Binary or Dummy Variables 1. Qualitative Information

Matching Techniques. Technical Session VI. Manila, December Jed Friedman. Spanish Impact Evaluation. Fund. Region

Selection endogenous dummy ordered probit, and selection endogenous dummy dynamic ordered probit models

Write your identification number on each paper and cover sheet (the number stated in the upper right hand corner on your exam cover).

Estimating the return to education for married women mroz.csv: 753 observations and 22 variables

Identify the scale of measurement most appropriate for each of the following variables. (Use A = nominal, B = ordinal, C = interval, D = ratio.

Kausalanalyse. Analysemöglichkeiten von Paneldaten

Linear Regression With Special Variables

Rising Wage Inequality and the Effectiveness of Tuition Subsidy Policies:

Chapter 14. Multiple Regression Models. Multiple Regression Models. Multiple Regression Models

Econometrics Problem Set 10

GROWING APART: THE CHANGING FIRM-SIZE WAGE PREMIUM AND ITS INEQUALITY CONSEQUENCES ONLINE APPENDIX

Market and Nonmarket Benefits

14.32 Final : Spring 2001

Lecture 24: Partial correlation, multiple regression, and correlation

Ch 7: Dummy (binary, indicator) variables

Economics Introduction to Econometrics - Fall 2007 Final Exam - Answers

Applied Econometrics Lecture 1

Section 9c. Propensity scores. Controlling for bias & confounding in observational studies

MGEC11H3Y L01 Introduction to Regression Analysis Term Test Friday July 5, PM Instructor: Victor Yu

Solutions to Odd-Numbered End-of-Chapter Exercises: Chapter 8

Eco 391, J. Sandford, spring 2013 April 5, Midterm 3 4/5/2013

Section 4. Test-Level Analyses

Evaluating Social Programs with Endogenous Program Placement and Selection of the Treated 1

Propensity-Score-Based Methods versus MTE-Based Methods. in Causal Inference

Introduction to Econometrics (4 th Edition) Solutions to Odd-Numbered End-of-Chapter Exercises: Chapter 8

Estimating and Using Propensity Score in Presence of Missing Background Data. An Application to Assess the Impact of Childbearing on Wellbeing

Applied Statistics and Econometrics

Econometrics Problem Set 6

Chapter 60 Evaluating Social Programs with Endogenous Program Placement and Selection of the Treated

Package causalweight

EVALUATING EDUCATION POLICIES WHEN THE RATE OF RETURN VARIES ACROSS INDIVIDUALS PEDRO CARNEIRO * Take the standard model of potential outcomes:

Continuous Probability Distributions

Answer Key: Problem Set 6

Empirical approaches in public economics

Module 4 Practice problem and Homework answers

Equation Number 1 Dependent Variable.. Y W's Childbearing expectations

Econometrics Problem Set 4

Two-Way ANOVA. Chapter 15

The Econometric Evaluation of Policy Design: Part III: Selection Models and the MTE

Sociology 593 Exam 2 March 28, 2002

Potential Outcomes Model (POM)

Changes in the Transitory Variance of Income Components and their Impact on Family Income Instability

ECONOMETRIC MODEL WITH QUALITATIVE VARIABLES

4. Nonlinear regression functions

Longitudinal Data Analysis Using SAS Paul D. Allison, Ph.D. Upcoming Seminar: October 13-14, 2017, Boston, Massachusetts

THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY. Second Semester Final Examination November, Econometrics II: Econometric Modelling (EMET 2008/6008)


Can a Pseudo Panel be a Substitute for a Genuine Panel?

Using Selection on Unobserved Variables to Address Selection on Unobserved Variables

Sociology 593 Exam 2 Answer Key March 28, 2002

MTS Degree Program: Ethnicity & Gender

Transcription:

and Figures This draft, July 2, 2007 1 / 16

Figures 2 / 16

Figure 1: Density of Estimated Propensity Score Pr(D=1) % 50 40 Treated Group Untreated Group 30 f (P) 20 10 0.01~.10.11~.20.21~.30.31~.40.41~.50.51~.60.61~.70.71~.80.81~.90.91~.99 P Figure 1. Density of Estimated Propensity Score Pr ( D = 1) 3 / 16

Figure 2: Marginal Treatment Effect as a Function of Unobserved Heterogeneity U D 0.8 0.4 MTE 0.0-0.4-0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 U D 4 / 16

-0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Figure 3: Weights of Treatment Parameters Figure 2. Marginal Treatment Effect as a Function of Unobserved Heterogeneity U D U D 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 TT TUT ATE Weight 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 U D Figure 3. Weights of Treatment Parameters 5 / 16

Figure 4: Gender-specific MTE and Weights as a Function of Unobserved Heterogeneity U D 0.5 Male 0.7 Female 0.4 MTE MTE 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 U D 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 U D 6.0 5.0 4.0 TT TUT ATE 6.0 5.0 4.0 TT TUT ATE Weight 3.0 Weight 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 U D 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 U D 6 / 16

7 / 16

Table 1: Variables and Descriptive Statistics Total Treated Group Untreated Group (N = 1,439) (N = 406) (N = 1,033) Independent Variables Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 4 years college attendee ( = 1, if yes).282 1.000.000 Monthly earnings 37,887 24,134 45,000 25,225 35,092 23,112 Log of earnings 10.419.477 10.614.437 10.343.471 Mincer experience (= Age - years of schooling - 6) 9.585 3.504 6.892 2.892 10.644 3.138 Male ( = 1, if yes).548.532.555 Parental education Father s years of schooling 8.520 3.843 10.399 4.084 7.781 3.478 Mother s years of schooling 6.630 3.583 8.180 3.951 6.021 3.232 8 / 16

Table 1 continued Total Treated Group Untreated Group (N = 1,439) (N = 406) (N = 1,033) Independent Variables Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Ethnicity Hokkien ( = 1, if yes).735.704.747 Hakka ( = 1, if yes).138.128.141 Mainlander ( = 1, if yes).120.165.102 Aborigine ( = 1, if yes).008.002.010 Residence prior to age 15 Major city ( = 1, if yes).226.281.204 Not major city ( = 1, if yes).559.493.585 Not in Taiwan ( = 1, if yes).007.005.008 Missing data ( = 1, if yes).208.222.203 9 / 16

Table 1 continued Total Treated Group Untreated Group (N = 1,439) (N = 406) (N = 1,033) Independent Variables Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Birth cohort 1967 ( = 1, if yes).023.015.026 1968 ( = 1, if yes).055.054.055 1969 ( = 1, if yes).093.091.094 1970 ( = 1, if yes).099.076.107 1971 ( = 1, if yes).093.096.092 1972 ( = 1, if yes).106.118.102 1973 ( = 1, if yes).113.108.114 1974 ( = 1, if yes).099.108.095 1975 ( = 1, if yes).083.084.083 1976 ( = 1, if yes).113.126.108 1977 ( = 1, if yes).076.062.082 1978 ( = 1, if yes).047.062.041 10 / 16

Table 2: Estimated Probit Model for College Attainment (N = 1,439) Independent Variables Coefficient SE Mean Marginal Effect Intercept -1.618 *.345 Parental education Father s schooling.072*.027.024 Mother s schooling -.028.033 -.009 Gender (relative to female) Male.071.205.023 Ethnicity (relative to Hokkien) Hakka.261.339.090 Mainlander -.288.380 -.087 Aborigine -.574.529 -.151 Residence prior to age 15 (relative to not in major city) Major city.168.267.056 Not in Taiwan.074.483.025 Missing data.080.098.027 * p <.05 (two-tailed tests). 11 / 16

Table 2 continued Independent Variables Coefficient SE Mean Marginal Effect Birth cohort (relative to 1967) 1968.315.310.111 1969.269.292.094 1970.040.294.013 1971.292.292.102 1972.281.289.098 1973.210.289.072 1974.231.290.080 1975.150.297.051 1976.272.288.094 1977.084.300.028 1978.318.316.112 * p <.05 (two-tailed tests). 12 / 16

Table 2 continued Independent Variables Coefficient SE Mean Marginal Effect Two-way interaction terms Father s schooling * Mother s schooling.004.003.001 Father s schooling * Gender.005.026.002 * Hakka -.093*.041 -.030 * Mainlander -.048.033 -.016 * Major city -.016.031 -.005 Mother s schooling * Gender -.004.027 -.001 * Hakka.093*.046.030 * Mainlander.130*.041.042 * Major city.040.034.013 Gender * Major city -.386*.181 -.114 * Hakka -.303.226 -.091 * Mainlander -.202.243 -.062 Hakka * Major City.414.374.150 Mainlander * Major City -.244.267 -.074 * p <.05 (two-tailed tests). 13 / 16

Table 3: OLS Regressions Predicting Logged Earnings Independent Variables Total Male Female Intercept 10.048 10.258 10.088 (.044) (.062) (.056) 4 year s college attendee.380.324.445 (.029) (.044) (.038) Mincer experience.021.027.013 (.004) (.005) (.005) Experience squared -.006 -.006 -.004 (.001) (.001) (.001) Male(=1, if yes).242 (.023) R 2.169.086.186 N 1,439 789 650 Significant at the level of α =.05; Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. 14 / 16

Table 4: Estimated Coefficients Using Local Linear Regression with Gaussian Kernel and Optimal Bandwidth High School College vs. High School Independent Variables (γ 0 ) (γ 1 γ 0 ) 1. Total (N=1,439) Mincer experience.011 -.036 Experience squared.000 -.016 (.002) (.006) Male (=1, if yes).364 -.422 (.046) (.137) 2. Male (N=789) Mincer experience.019 -.043 (.011) (.040) Experience squared -.001 -.014 (.003) (.007) 3. Female (N=650) Mincer Experience -.006 -.011 (.010) (.035) Experience squared.003 -.018 (.002) (.008) Significant at the level of α =.05; Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. 15 / 16

Comparisons of Different Treatment Parameters Total Male Female Parameter (N=1,439) (N=789) (N=650) Significant at the level of α =.05; Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. 16 / 16

Comparisons of Different Treatment Parameters Total Male Female Parameter (N=1,439) (N=789) (N=650) 1. OLS.380.324.445 (.029) (.044) (.038) Significant at the level of α =.05; Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. 16 / 16

Comparisons of Different Treatment Parameters Total Male Female Parameter (N=1,439) (N=789) (N=650) 1. OLS.380.324.445 (.029) (.044) (.038) 2. IV.487.282.602 (.092) (.142) (.136) Significant at the level of α =.05; Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. 16 / 16

Comparisons of Different Treatment Parameters Total Male Female Parameter (N=1,439) (N=789) (N=650) 1. OLS.380.324.445 (.029) (.044) (.038) 2. IV.487.282.602 (.092) (.142) (.136) 3. ATE.388.306.602 (.180) (.144) (.144) Significant at the level of α =.05; Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. 16 / 16

Comparisons of Different Treatment Parameters Total Male Female Parameter (N=1,439) (N=789) (N=650) 1. OLS.380.324.445 (.029) (.044) (.038) 2. IV.487.282.602 (.092) (.142) (.136) 3. ATE.388.306.602 (.180) (.144) (.144) 4. TT.583.309.610 (.226) (.156) (.167) Significant at the level of α =.05; Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. 16 / 16

Comparisons of Different Treatment Parameters Total Male Female Parameter (N=1,439) (N=789) (N=650) 1. OLS.380.324.445 (.029) (.044) (.038) 2. IV.487.282.602 (.092) (.142) (.136) 3. ATE.388.306.602 (.180) (.144) (.144) 4. TT.583.309.610 (.226) (.156) (.167) 5. TUT.304.308.598 (.233) (.162) (.163) Significant at the level of α =.05; Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. 16 / 16

Comparisons of Different Treatment Parameters Total Male Female Parameter (N=1,439) (N=789) (N=650) 1. OLS.380.324.445 (.029) (.044) (.038) 2. IV.487.282.602 (.092) (.142) (.136) 3. ATE.388.306.602 (.180) (.144) (.144) 4. TT.583.309.610 (.226) (.156) (.167) 5. TUT.304.308.598 (.233) (.162) (.163) 6. Bias = OLS - ATE -.008.018 -.157 Significant at the level of α =.05; Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. 16 / 16

Comparisons of Different Treatment Parameters Total Male Female Parameter (N=1,439) (N=789) (N=650) 1. OLS.380.324.445 (.029) (.044) (.038) 2. IV.487.282.602 (.092) (.142) (.136) 3. ATE.388.306.602 (.180) (.144) (.144) 4. TT.583.309.610 (.226) (.156) (.167) 5. TUT.304.308.598 (.233) (.162) (.163) 6. Bias = OLS - ATE -.008.018 -.157 7. Selection bias = OLS - TT -.204.015 -.165 Significant at the level of α =.05; Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. 16 / 16

Comparisons of Different Treatment Parameters Total Male Female Parameter (N=1,439) (N=789) (N=650) 1. OLS.380.324.445 (.029) (.044) (.038) 2. IV.487.282.602 (.092) (.142) (.136) 3. ATE.388.306.602 (.180) (.144) (.144) 4. TT.583.309.610 (.226) (.156) (.167) 5. TUT.304.308.598 (.233) (.162) (.163) 6. Bias = OLS - ATE -.008.018 -.157 7. Selection bias = OLS - TT -.204.015 -.165 8. Sorting gain = TT - ATE.196.003.008 Significant at the level of α =.05; Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. 16 / 16

2024 © sciencedocbox.com Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Feedback