IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2106.06421.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Sensitivity of LATE Estimates to Violations of the Monotonicity Assumption

Author

Listed:
  • Claudia Noack

Abstract

In this paper, we develop a method to assess the sensitivity of local average treatment effect estimates to potential violations of the monotonicity assumption of Imbens and Angrist (1994). We parameterize the degree to which monotonicity is violated using two sensitivity parameters: the first one determines the share of defiers in the population, and the second one measures differences in the distributions of outcomes between compliers and defiers. For each pair of values of these sensitivity parameters, we derive sharp bounds on the outcome distributions of compliers in the first-order stochastic dominance sense. We identify the robust region that is the set of all values of sensitivity parameters for which a given empirical conclusion, e.g. that the local average treatment effect is positive, is valid. Researchers can assess the credibility of their conclusion by evaluating whether all the plausible sensitivity parameters lie in the robust region. We obtain confidence sets for the robust region through a bootstrap procedure and illustrate the sensitivity analysis in an empirical application. We also extend this framework to analyze treatment effects of the entire population.

Suggested Citation

  • Claudia Noack, 2021. "Sensitivity of LATE Estimates to Violations of the Monotonicity Assumption," Papers 2106.06421, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2106.06421
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.06421
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Manski, Charles F, 1990. "Nonparametric Bounds on Treatment Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 319-323, May.
    2. Clément de Chaisemartin & Xavier d'Haultfoeuille, 2012. "Late Again with Defiers," PSE Working Papers halshs-00699646, HAL.
    3. Klein, Tobias J., 2010. "Heterogeneous treatment effects: Instrumental variables without monotonicity?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 155(2), pages 99-116, April.
    4. Brigham Frandsen & Lars Lefgren & Emily Leslie, 2023. "Judging Judge Fixed Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 113(1), pages 253-277, January.
    5. Yuichi Kitamura & Taisuke Otsu & Kirill Evdokimov, 2013. "Robustness, Infinitesimal Neighborhoods, and Moment Restrictions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(3), pages 1185-1201, May.
    6. Anderson, Gordon & Linton, Oliver & Whang, Yoon-Jae, 2012. "Nonparametric estimation and inference about the overlap of two distributions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 171(1), pages 1-23.
    7. Samuel Norris & Matthew Pecenco & Jeffrey Weaver, 2021. "The Effects of Parental and Sibling Incarceration: Evidence from Ohio," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(9), pages 2926-2963, September.
    8. St'ephane Bonhomme & Martin Weidner, 2018. "Minimizing Sensitivity to Model Misspecification," Papers 1807.02161, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    9. Victor Chernozhukov & Iv·n Fern·ndez-Val & Alfred Galichon, 2010. "Quantile and Probability Curves Without Crossing," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(3), pages 1093-1125, May.
    10. Clément de Chaisemartin, 2017. "Tolerating defiance? Local average treatment effects without monotonicity," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 8(2), pages 367-396, July.
    11. Guildo W. Imbens, 2003. "Sensitivity to Exogeneity Assumptions in Program Evaluation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 126-132, May.
    12. Patrick Kline & Andres Santos, 2013. "Sensitivity to missing data assumptions: Theory and an evaluation of the U.S. wage structure," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 4(2), pages 231-267, July.
    13. Angrist, Joshua D & Evans, William N, 1998. "Children and Their Parents' Labor Supply: Evidence from Exogenous Variation in Family Size," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(3), pages 450-477, June.
    14. 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.
    15. Huber, Martin, 2014. "Sensitivity checks for the local average treatment effect," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 220-223.
    16. Guido W. Imbens & Charles F. Manski, 2004. "Confidence Intervals for Partially Identified Parameters," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(6), pages 1845-1857, November.
    17. Machado, Cecilia & Shaikh, Azeem M. & Vytlacil, Edward J., 2019. "Instrumental variables and the sign of the average treatment effect," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 212(2), pages 522-555.
    18. Toru Kitagawa, 2015. "A Test for Instrument Validity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83(5), pages 2043-2063, September.
    19. Christian M Dahl & Martin Huber & Giovanni Mellace, 2023. "It is never too LATE: a new look at local average treatment effects with or without defiers," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 26(3), pages 378-404.
    20. Horowitz, Joel L & Manski, Charles F, 1995. "Identification and Robustness with Contaminated and Corrupted Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(2), pages 281-302, March.
    21. Isaiah Andrews & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2021. "A Model of Scientific Communication," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(5), pages 2117-2142, September.
    22. Matthew A. Masten & Alexandre Poirier, 2020. "Inference on breakdown frontiers," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(1), pages 41-111, January.
    23. Charles F. Manski & John V. Pepper, 2000. "Monotone Instrumental Variables, with an Application to the Returns to Schooling," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 997-1012, July.
    24. Fiorini, Mario & Katrien Stevens, 2014. "Assessing the Monotonicity Assumption in IV and fuzzy RD designs," Working Papers 2014-13, University of Sydney, School of Economics.
    25. Isaiah Andrews & Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2017. "Measuring the Sensitivity of Parameter Estimates to Estimation Moments," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 132(4), pages 1553-1592.
    26. Imbens, Guido W & Angrist, Joshua D, 1994. "Identification and Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 467-475, March.
    27. Hong, Han & Li, Jessie, 2018. "The numerical delta method," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 206(2), pages 379-394.
    28. Philip A. Haile & Elie Tamer, 2003. "Inference with an Incomplete Model of English Auctions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(1), pages 1-51, February.
    29. Yaroslav Mukhin, 2018. "Sensitivity of Regular Estimators," Papers 1805.08883, arXiv.org.
    30. 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.
    31. Donald W. K. Andrews & Gustavo Soares, 2010. "Inference for Parameters Defined by Moment Inequalities Using Generalized Moment Selection," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(1), pages 119-157, January.
    32. Edward Vytlacil, 2002. "Independence, Monotonicity, and Latent Index Models: An Equivalence Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(1), pages 331-341, January.
    33. Martin Huber & Lukas Laffers & Giovanni Mellace, 2017. "Sharp IV Bounds on Average Treatment Effects on the Treated and Other Populations Under Endogeneity and Noncompliance," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(1), pages 56-79, January.
    34. Federico A. Bugni, 2010. "Bootstrap Inference in Partially Identified Models Defined by Moment Inequalities: Coverage of the Identified Set," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(2), pages 735-753, March.
    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. Luther Yap, 2022. "Sensitivity of Policy Relevant Treatment Parameters to Violations of Monotonicity," Working Papers 655, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..

    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. Francesca Molinari, 2020. "Microeconometrics with Partial Identi?cation," CeMMAP working papers CWP15/20, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    2. 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).
    3. Kitagawa, Toru, 2021. "The identification region of the potential outcome distributions under instrument independence," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 225(2), pages 231-253.
    4. Matthew A. Masten & Alexandre Poirier, 2021. "Salvaging Falsified Instrumental Variable Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(3), pages 1449-1469, May.
    5. Francesca Molinari, 2019. "Econometrics with Partial Identification," CeMMAP working papers CWP25/19, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    6. Ivan A. Canay & Azeem M. Shaikh, 2016. "Practical and theoretical advances in inference for partially identified models," CeMMAP working papers CWP05/16, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    7. Chen, Xuan & Flores, Carlos A. & Flores-Lagunes, Alfonso, 2015. "Going Beyond LATE: Bounding Average Treatment Effects of Job Corps Training," IZA Discussion Papers 9511, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. 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.
    9. Thomas Carr & Toru Kitagawa, 2021. "Testing Instrument Validity with Covariates," Papers 2112.08092, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    10. Brigham Frandsen & Lars Lefgren & Emily Leslie, 2023. "Judging Judge Fixed Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 113(1), pages 253-277, January.
    11. 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.
    12. Clément de Chaisemartin, 2017. "Tolerating defiance? Local average treatment effects without monotonicity," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 8(2), pages 367-396, July.
    13. Lukáš Lafférs, 2019. "Identification in Models with Discrete Variables," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 53(2), pages 657-696, February.
    14. François Gerard & Miikka Rokkanen & Christoph Rothe, 2020. "Bounds on treatment effects in regression discontinuity designs with a manipulated running variable," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(3), pages 839-870, July.
    15. Lina Zhang & David T. Frazier & D. S. Poskitt & Xueyan Zhao, 2020. "Decomposing Identification Gains and Evaluating Instrument Identification Power for Partially Identified Average Treatment Effects," Papers 2009.02642, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2022.
    16. Kaspar Wüthrich, 2020. "A Comparison of Two Quantile Models With Endogeneity," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(2), pages 443-456, April.
    17. Schmieder, Julia, 2021. "Fertility as a driver of maternal employment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    18. Machado, Cecilia & Shaikh, Azeem M. & Vytlacil, Edward J., 2019. "Instrumental variables and the sign of the average treatment effect," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 212(2), pages 522-555.
    19. Julia Schmieder, 2020. "Fertility as a Driver of Maternal Employment," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1882, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    20. Timothy B. Armstrong & Michal Kolesár, 2021. "Sensitivity analysis using approximate moment condition models," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), pages 77-108, January.

    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:2106.06421. 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.