IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2012.02390.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Sharp Bounds in the Latent Index Selection Model

Author

Listed:
  • Philip Marx

Abstract

A fundamental question underlying the literature on partial identification is: what can we learn about parameters that are relevant for policy but not necessarily point-identified by the exogenous variation we observe? This paper provides an answer in terms of sharp, analytic characterizations and bounds for an important class of policy-relevant treatment effects, consisting of marginal treatment effects and linear functionals thereof, in the latent index selection model as formalized in Vytlacil (2002). The sharp bounds use the full content of identified marginal distributions, and analytic derivations rely on the theory of stochastic orders. The proposed methods also make it possible to sharply incorporate new auxiliary assumptions on distributions into the latent index selection framework. Empirically, I apply the methods to study the effects of Medicaid on emergency room utilization in the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment, showing that the predictions from extrapolations based on a distribution assumption (rank similarity) differ substantively and consistently from existing extrapolations based on a parametric mean assumption (linearity). This underscores the value of utilizing the model's full empirical content in combination with auxiliary assumptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Philip Marx, 2020. "Sharp Bounds in the Latent Index Selection Model," Papers 2012.02390, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2012.02390
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2012.02390
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles F. Manski, 1989. "Anatomy of the Selection Problem," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 24(3), pages 343-360.
    2. Alfred Galichon, 2016. "Optimal Transport Methods in Economics," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10870.
    3. Ian Jewitt, 1989. "Choosing Between Risky Prospects: The Characterization of Comparative Statics Results, and Location Independent Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 60-70, January.
    4. Alberto Abadie & Joshua Angrist & Guido Imbens, 2002. "Instrumental Variables Estimates of the Effect of Subsidized Training on the Quantiles of Trainee Earnings," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(1), pages 91-117, January.
    5. Amanda Kowalski, 2016. "Doing more when you're running LATE: Applying marginal treatment effect methods to examine treatment effect heterogeneity in experiments," Artefactual Field Experiments 00560, The Field Experiments Website.
    6. Christian N. Brinch & Magne Mogstad & Matthew Wiswall, 2017. "Beyond LATE with a Discrete Instrument," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(4), pages 985-1039.
    7. Sims,Christopher A. (ed.), 1994. "Advances in Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521444606, September.
    8. James J. Heckman & Jeffrey Smith & Nancy Clements, 1997. "Making The Most Out Of Programme Evaluations and Social Experiments: Accounting For Heterogeneity in Programme Impacts," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 64(4), pages 487-535.
    9. Jörg Stoye, 2010. "Partial identification of spread parameters," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 1(2), pages 323-357, November.
    10. Amanda E. Kowalski, 2016. "Doing More When You're Running LATE: Applying Marginal Treatment Effect Methods to Examine Treatment Effect Heterogeneity in Experiments for the Young and Privately Insured"," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2045, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    11. Alfred Galichon, 2016. "Optimal transport methods in economics," Post-Print hal-03256830, HAL.
    12. Magne Mogstad & Andres Santos & Alexander Torgovitsky, 2018. "Using Instrumental Variables for Inference About Policy Relevant Treatment Parameters," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1589-1619, September.
    13. Muliere, Pietro & Scarsini, Marco, 1989. "A note on stochastic dominance and inequality measures," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 314-323, December.
    14. Guido W. Imbens & Donald B. Rubin, 1997. "Estimating Outcome Distributions for Compliers in Instrumental Variables Models," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 64(4), pages 555-574.
    15. Abadie A., 2002. "Bootstrap Tests for Distributional Treatment Effects in Instrumental Variable Models," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 97, pages 284-292, March.
    16. David S. Lee, 2009. "Training, Wages, and Sample Selection: Estimating Sharp Bounds on Treatment Effects," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(3), pages 1071-1102.
    17. Fan, Yanqin & Park, Sang Soo, 2010. "Sharp Bounds On The Distribution Of Treatment Effects And Their Statistical Inference," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 931-951, June.
    18. Sims,Christopher A. (ed.), 1994. "Advances in Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521444590, September.
    19. Edward Vytlacil, 2002. "Independence, Monotonicity, and Latent Index Models: An Equivalence Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(1), pages 331-341, January.
    20. Toru Kitagawa, 2009. "Identification region of the potential outcome distributions under instrument independence," CeMMAP working papers CWP30/09, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Evan K. Rose & Yotam Shem-Tov, 2021. "On Recoding Ordered Treatments as Binary Indicators," Papers 2111.12258, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marx, Philip, 2024. "Sharp bounds in the latent index selection model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 238(2).
    2. Pereda-Fernández, Santiago, 2023. "Identification and estimation of triangular models with a binary treatment," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 585-623.
    3. Huber, Martin & Wüthrich, Kaspar, 2017. "Evaluating local average and quantile treatment effects under endogeneity based on instruments: a review," FSES Working Papers 479, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Freiburg/Fribourg Switzerland.
    4. Francesca Molinari, 2020. "Microeconometrics with Partial Identi?cation," CeMMAP working papers CWP15/20, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    5. Francesca Molinari, 2019. "Econometrics with Partial Identification," CeMMAP working papers CWP25/19, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    6. Manuel Arellano & Stéphane Bonhomme, 2017. "Quantile Selection Models With an Application to Understanding Changes in Wage Inequality," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 1-28, January.
    7. Magne Mogstad & Andres Santos & Alexander Torgovitsky, 2018. "Using Instrumental Variables for Inference About Policy Relevant Treatment Parameters," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1589-1619, September.
    8. Patrick Kline & Christopher R. Walters, 2019. "On Heckits, LATE, and Numerical Equivalence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(2), pages 677-696, March.
    9. Michael R.M. Abrigo & Timothy J. Halliday & Teresa Molina, 2022. "Expanding health insurance for the elderly of the Philippines," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(3), pages 500-520, April.
    10. Jinhyun Lee, 2013. "Sharp Bounds on Heterogeneous Individual Treatment Responses," Discussion Paper Series, School of Economics and Finance 201310, School of Economics and Finance, University of St Andrews.
    11. Amanda E Kowalski, 2023. "Behaviour within a Clinical Trial and Implications for Mammography Guidelines," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(1), pages 432-462.
    12. Martin Huber & Giovanni Mellace, 2010. "Sharp IV bounds on average treatment effects under endogeneity and noncompliance," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2010 2010-31, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
    13. Lee, Jinhyun, 2013. "Sharp Bounds on Heterogeneous Individual Treatment Responses," SIRE Discussion Papers 2013-89, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    14. Victor Chernozhukov & Iván Fernández‐Val & Blaise Melly, 2013. "Inference on Counterfactual Distributions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(6), pages 2205-2268, November.
    15. Kate Ho & Adam M. Rosen, 2015. "Partial Identification in Applied Research: Benefits and Challenges," NBER Working Papers 21641, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Robert A. Moffitt & Matthew V. Zahn, 2019. "The Marginal Labor Supply Disincentives of Welfare: Evidence from Administrative Barriers to Participation," NBER Working Papers 26028, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    18. James J. Heckman & Edward J. Vytlacil, 2000. "Instrumental Variables, Selection Models, and Tight Bounds on the Average Treatment Effect," NBER Technical Working Papers 0259, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Matthias Westphal & Daniel A Kamhöfer & Hendrik Schmitz, 2022. "Marginal College Wage Premiums Under Selection Into Employment," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(646), pages 2231-2272.
    20. Kitagawa, Toru, 2021. "The identification region of the potential outcome distributions under instrument independence," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 225(2), pages 231-253.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2012.02390. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.