1999
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.96.8.4730
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Local instrumental variables and latent variable models for identifying and bounding treatment effects

Abstract: This paper examines the relationship between various treatment parameters within a latent variable model when the effects of treatment depend on the recipient's observed and unobserved characteristics. We show how this relationship can be used to identify the treatment parameters when they are identified and to bound the parameters when they are not identified.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

3
667
1

Year Published

2007
2007
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 521 publications
(671 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
3
667
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The concept of MTE was first introduced by Bjorklund and Moffitt (1987). Carneiro et al (2001), Heckman et al (2006), and Heckman and Vytlacil (2007) develop the theoretical framework of MTE estimation for the returns to schooling; derive the identification of the average treatment effect (ATE), treatment on the treated (TT), and treatment on the untreated (TUT); and also provide the empirical applications of these methods for U.S. data. Heckman and Li (2003) and Wang et al (2007) apply these methods to the estimation of the returns to education in China.…”
Section: Heterogeneous Returns To Higher Educationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The concept of MTE was first introduced by Bjorklund and Moffitt (1987). Carneiro et al (2001), Heckman et al (2006), and Heckman and Vytlacil (2007) develop the theoretical framework of MTE estimation for the returns to schooling; derive the identification of the average treatment effect (ATE), treatment on the treated (TT), and treatment on the untreated (TUT); and also provide the empirical applications of these methods for U.S. data. Heckman and Li (2003) and Wang et al (2007) apply these methods to the estimation of the returns to education in China.…”
Section: Heterogeneous Returns To Higher Educationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Correspondingly, MTE measured for large values of u s (close to 1) shows the returns to education for people less likely to obtain higher education, based on their unobservable characteristics. Heckman and Vytlacil (1999), Heckman et al (2006), and Heckman and Vytlacil (2007) show that ATE, TT and TUT could be determined as the weighted averages of MTE, according to the formulas (25), described in section 3 of the Technical Appendix. The weights 16 Note that in considering the population effects, the effect of the sorting on gains can be based on the observable characteristics if E(X|S = 1) = E(X|S = 0) = E(X), in other words, if people sort themselves based on the observable characteristics.…”
Section: Returns To Education: Model With Essential Heterogeneitymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…3 Some recent surveys provide insightful discussions about MTE, see for example Blundell and Costa Dias (2009) who discuss MTE among a range of alternative policy evaluation approaches, French and Taber (2011) who discuss treatment effects and MTE and its relation to the Roy model, and the excellent, comprehensive, but technical treatments of MTE in Heckman and Vytlacil (2007) and Heckman, Urzúa and Vytlacil (2006), based on the earlier work by Heckman and Vytlacil (1999, 2001a, 2001b.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The concept of the marginal treatment effect MTE was first introduced by Björklund and Moffitt (1987) in the context of a multivariate-normal switching regression model, in which they defined the "marginal gain" as the gain from treatment for individuals who are shifted into (or out of) treatment by a marginal change in the cost of treatment (i.e., the instrument). It was extended in a series of papers by Heckman and Vytlacil (1999, 2001b, 2007 who define the MTE as the gain from treatment for individuals shifted into (or out of) treatment by a marginal change in the propensity score (i.e., the predicted probability of treatment, which is a function of the instrument), develop non-parametric estimation methods, and clarify the connection of the switching regime self-selection model and of MTE with IV and LATE.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%