IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp10055.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating More Precise Treatment Effects in Natural and Actual Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Duleep, Harriet

    (College of William and Mary)

  • Liu, Xingfei

    (University of Alberta)

Abstract

The importance of using natural experiments and experimental data in economic research has long been recognized. Yet, it is only in recent years that these approaches have become an integral part of the economist's analytical toolbox, thanks to the efforts of Meyer, Card, Peters, Krueger, Gruber, and others. This use has shed new light on a variety of public policy issues and has already caused a major challenge to some tightly held beliefs in economics, most vividly illustrated by the finding of a positive effect of a minimum wage increase on the employment of low-wage workers. Although currently in vogue in economic research, the analysis of experimental data and natural experiments could be substantially strengthened. This paper discusses how analysts could increase the precision with which they measure treatment effects. An underlying theme is how best to measure the effect of a treatment on a variable, as opposed to explaining a level or change in a variable.

Suggested Citation

  • Duleep, Harriet & Liu, Xingfei, 2016. "Estimating More Precise Treatment Effects in Natural and Actual Experiments," IZA Discussion Papers 10055, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp10055
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp10055.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Card, 1990. "The Impact of the Mariel Boatlift on the Miami Labor Market," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 43(2), pages 245-257, January.
    2. Jennifer Hunt, 1992. "The Impact of the 1962 Repatriates from Algeria on the French Labor Market," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 45(3), pages 556-572, April.
    3. Angrist, Joshua D, 1990. "Lifetime Earnings and the Vietnam Era Draft Lottery: Evidence from Social Security Administrative Records," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 313-336, June.
    4. Meyer, Bruce D, 1995. "Natural and Quasi-experiments in Economics," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 13(2), pages 151-161, April.
    5. Herbert L. Lyon & Julian L. Simon, 1968. "Price Elasticity of the Demand for Cigarettes in the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 50(4), pages 888-895.
    6. Angrist, Joshua D, 1990. "Lifetime Earnings and the Vietnam Era Draft Lottery: Evidence from Social Security Administrative Records: Errata," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1284-1286, December.
    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. Carlos Andres Trujillo & Catalina Estrada-Mejia & Jose A Rosa, 2021. "Norm-focused nudges influence pro-environmental choices and moderate post-choice emotional responses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-23, March.

    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. Duleep, Harriet, 2012. "Sharpening the Effectiveness of Natural Experiments as an Analytical Tool," IZA Discussion Papers 6682, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Idrisov, Georgiy (Идрисов, Георгий) & Taganov, B.V. (Таганов, Б.), 2016. "Research of the Effect of Growth of Openness of the Russian Economy on Income Inequality in Russia [Исследование Влияния Роста Открытости Российской Экономики На Неравенство Доходов Населения В Рос," Working Papers 3136, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    3. Boris Salazar-Trujillo & Daniel Otero Robles, 2019. "La revolución empírica en economía," Apuntes del Cenes, Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia, vol. 38(68), pages 15-48, July.
    4. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2021. "Answering causal questions using observational data," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2021-2, Nobel Prize Committee.
    5. Tito Boeri & Jan van Ours, 2013. "The Economics of Imperfect Labor Markets: Second Edition," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10142.
    6. Dautović, Ernest & Gambacorta, Leonardo & Reghezza, Alessio, 2023. "Supervisory policy stimulus: evidence from the euro area dividend recommendation," Working Paper Series 2796, European Central Bank.
    7. Aydemir, Abdurrahman B. & Kırdar, Murat G., 2017. "Quasi-experimental impact estimates of immigrant labor supply shocks: The role of treatment and comparison group matching and relative skill composition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 282-315.
    8. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2010. "The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design Is Taking the Con out of Econometrics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 24(2), pages 3-30, Spring.
    9. 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.
    10. Simonetta Longhi & Peter Nijkamp & Jacques Poot, 2009. "Regional Economic Impacts of Immigration: A Review," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 09-047/3, Tinbergen Institute, revised 23 Jul 2009.
    11. Rösner, Anja & Haucap, Justus & Heimeshoff, Ulrich, 2020. "The impact of consumer protection in the digital age: Evidence from the European Union," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    12. Peter Hull & Michal Kolesár & Christopher Walters, 2022. "Labor by design: contributions of David Card, Joshua Angrist, and Guido Imbens," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 124(3), pages 603-645, July.
    13. Guido W. Imbens, 2020. "Potential Outcome and Directed Acyclic Graph Approaches to Causality: Relevance for Empirical Practice in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(4), pages 1129-1179, December.
    14. Joshua D. Angrist & Alan B. Krueger, 2001. "Instrumental Variables and the Search for Identification: From Supply and Demand to Natural Experiments," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 69-85, Fall.
    15. Jeff Borland & Yi-Ping Tseng & Roger Wilkins, 2005. "Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Methods of Microeconomic Program and Policy Evaluation," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2005n08, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    16. Jens Ludwig & Jeffrey R. Kling & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2011. "Mechanism Experiments and Policy Evaluations," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(3), pages 17-38, Summer.
    17. Davide Cantoni & Noam Yuchtman, 2020. "Historical Natural Experiments: Bridging Economics and Economic History," NBER Working Papers 26754, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Mazzutti, Caio Cícero Toledo Piza da Costa, 2016. "Three essays on the causal impacts of child labour laws in Brazil," Economics PhD Theses 0616, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    19. Meyer, Bruce D, 1995. "Natural and Quasi-experiments in Economics," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 13(2), pages 151-161, April.
    20. Robert Gibbons, 2010. "Transaction‐Cost Economics: Past, Present, and Future?," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 112(2), pages 263-288, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    experimental approach; average of differences; differences in averages; precision of treatment effects; natural experiment; policy evaluation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C1 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General
    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics

    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:iza:izadps:dp10055. 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: Holger Hinte (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaade.html .

    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.