IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/vfsc14/100620.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Overidentification test in a nonparametric treatment model with unobserved heterogeneity

Author

Listed:
  • Sarnetzki, Florian
  • Dzemski, Andreas

Abstract

We provide an overidentification test for a nonparametric treatment model where individuals are allowed to select into treatment based on unobserved gains. Our test can be used to test the validity of instruments in a framework with essential heterogeneity (Imbens and Angrist 1994). The essential ingredient is to assume that a binary and a continuous instrument are available. The testable restriction is closely related to the overidentification of the Marginal Treatment Effect. We suggest a test statistic and characterize its asymptotic distribution and behavior under local alternatives. In simulations, we investigate the validity and finite sample performance of an easy-to-implement wild bootstrap procedure. Finally, we illustrate the applicability of our method by studying two instruments from the literature on teenage pregnancies. This research is motivated by the observation that in the presence of essential heterogeneity classical GMM overidentification tests can not be used to test for the validity of instruments (Heckman and Schmierer 2010). The test complements existing tests by considering for the first time the subpopulation of compliers. Our approach can be interpreted as a test of index sufficiency and is related to the test of the validity of the matching approach in Heckman et. al 1996,1998. Conditional on covariates the propensity score aggregates all information that the instruments provide about observed outcomes given that the model is correctly specified. The estimated propensity score enters our test statistic as a generated regressor. We quantify the effect of the first stage estimation error and find that in order to have good power against local alternatives we have to reduce the bias from estimating the first stage nonparametrically, e.g., by fitting a higher order local polynomial. For the second stage no bias reduction is necessary. Previous literature (Ying Ying Lee 2013) establishes the validity of a multiplier bootstrap to conduct inference in a treatment model with nonparametrically estimated regressors. Our simulations illustrate that a much easier to implement na ve wild bootstrap procedure can have good properties. In our application we consider two instruments that have been used in the analysis of the effect of teenage child bearing on high-school graduation. For the binary instrument we use teenage miscarriage and for the continuous instrument we use age of first menstrual period. If teenage girls select into pregnancy based on some unobserved heterogeneity that is correlated with their likelihood of graduation miscarriage does not constitute a valid instrument. Our test confirms this line of argument by rejecting that the treatment model is correctly specified.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarnetzki, Florian & Dzemski, Andreas, 2014. "Overidentification test in a nonparametric treatment model with unobserved heterogeneity," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100620, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:vfsc14:100620
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/100620/1/VfS_2014_pid_384.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hansen, Lars Peter, 1982. "Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 1029-1054, July.
    2. James J. Heckman & Edward Vytlacil, 2005. "Structural Equations, Treatment Effects, and Econometric Policy Evaluation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(3), pages 669-738, May.
    3. V. Joseph Hotz & Susan Williams McElroy & Seth G. Sanders, 2005. "Teenage Childbearing and Its Life Cycle Consequences: Exploiting a Natural Experiment," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 40(3).
    4. Kong, Efang & Linton, Oliver & Xia, Yingcun, 2010. "Uniform Bahadur Representation For Local Polynomial Estimates Of M-Regression And Its Application To The Additive Model," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(5), pages 1529-1564, October.
    5. Mammen, Enno & Rothe, Christoph & Schienle, Melanie, 2010. "Nonparametric regression with nonparametrically generated covariates," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2010-059, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    6. Abadie, Alberto, 2003. "Semiparametric instrumental variable estimation of treatment response models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 231-263, April.
    7. James J. Heckman & Sergio Urzua & Edward Vytlacil, 2006. "Understanding Instrumental Variables in Models with Essential Heterogeneity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(3), pages 389-432, August.
    8. Carneiro, Pedro & Lee, Sokbae, 2009. "Estimating distributions of potential outcomes using local instrumental variables with an application to changes in college enrollment and wage inequality," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 149(2), pages 191-208, April.
    9. Martin Huber & Giovanni Mellace, 2015. "Testing Instrument Validity for LATE Identification Based on Inequality Moment Constraints," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(2), pages 398-411, May.
    10. V. Joseph Hotz & Charles H. Mullin & Seth G. Sanders, 1997. "Bounding Causal Effects Using Data from a Contaminated Natural Experiment: Analysing the Effects of Teenage Childbearing," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 64(4), pages 575-603.
    11. Elias Masry, 1996. "Multivariate Local Polynomial Regression For Time Series:Uniform Strong Consistency And Rates," Journal of Time Series Analysis, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(6), pages 571-599, November.
    12. David I. Levine & Gary Painter, 2003. "The Schooling Costs of Teenage Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing: Analysis with a Within-School Propensity-Score-Matching Estimator," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(4), pages 884-900, November.
    13. Edward Vytlacil, 2002. "Independence, Monotonicity, and Latent Index Models: An Equivalence Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(1), pages 331-341, January.
    14. Peter Hall & Joel L. Horowitz, 2012. "A simple bootstrap method for constructing nonparametric confidence bands for functions," CeMMAP working papers CWP14/12, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    15. Ying-Ying Lee, 2014. "Partial Mean Processes with Generated Regressors: Continuous Treatment Effects and Nonseparable Models," Economics Series Working Papers 706, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    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. Huber Martin & Wüthrich Kaspar, 2019. "Local Average and Quantile Treatment Effects Under Endogeneity: A Review," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-27, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Martin E Andresen & Martin Huber, 2021. "Instrument-based estimation with binarised treatments: issues and tests for the exclusion restriction," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 24(3), pages 536-558.

    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. 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.
    2. Kédagni, Désiré, 2023. "Identifying treatment effects in the presence of confounded types," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 479-511.
    3. Black, Dan A. & Joo, Joonhwi & LaLonde, Robert & Smith, Jeffrey A. & Taylor, Evan J., 2022. "Simple Tests for Selection: Learning More from Instrumental Variables," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Blaise Melly und Kaspar W thrich, 2016. "Local quantile treatment effects," Diskussionsschriften dp1605, Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft.
    6. Guilhem Bascle, 2008. "Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research," Post-Print hal-00576795, HAL.
    7. Huber Martin & Wüthrich Kaspar, 2019. "Local Average and Quantile Treatment Effects Under Endogeneity: A Review," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-27, January.
    8. Pedro Carneiro & Michael Lokshin & Nithin Umapathi, 2017. "Average and Marginal Returns to Upper Secondary Schooling in Indonesia," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(1), pages 16-36, January.
    9. Pereda-Fernández, Santiago, 2023. "Identification and estimation of triangular models with a binary treatment," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 585-623.
    10. Klein, Tobias J., 2010. "Heterogeneous treatment effects: Instrumental variables without monotonicity?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 155(2), pages 99-116, April.
    11. Tobias Klein, 2013. "College education and wages in the U.K.: estimating conditional average structural functions in nonadditive models with binary endogenous variables," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 135-161, February.
    12. Bartalotti, Otávio & Kédagni, Désiré & Possebom, Vitor, 2023. "Identifying marginal treatment effects in the presence of sample selection," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 565-584.
    13. Matias D Cattaneo & Michael Jansson & Xinwei Ma, 2019. "Two-Step Estimation and Inference with Possibly Many Included Covariates," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(3), pages 1095-1122.
    14. Arthur Lewbel, 2007. "Estimation of Average Treatment Effects with Misclassification," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(2), pages 537-551, March.
    15. 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.
    16. Carneiro, Pedro & Lee, Sokbae, 2009. "Estimating distributions of potential outcomes using local instrumental variables with an application to changes in college enrollment and wage inequality," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 149(2), pages 191-208, April.
    17. 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.
    18. Domenico Depalo, 2020. "Explaining the causal effect of adherence to medication on cholesterol through the marginal patient," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(S1), pages 110-126, October.
    19. Schmieder, Julia, 2021. "Fertility as a driver of maternal employment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    20. Patrick Kline & Christopher R. Walters, 2016. "Evaluating Public Programs with Close Substitutes: The Case of HeadStart," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 131(4), pages 1795-1848.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • C14 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods: General
    • C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: General

    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:zbw:vfsc14:100620. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfsocea.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.