IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/boc/bocoec/1059.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Limited Monotonicity and the Combined Compliers LATE

Author

Listed:
  • Nadja van ’t Hoff

    (University of Southern Denmark)

  • Arthur Lewbel

    (Boston College)

  • Giovanni Mellace

    (University of Southern Denmark)

Abstract

We consider estimating a local average treatment effect given an endogenous binary treatment and two or more valid binary instruments. We propose a novel limited monotonicity assumption that is generally weaker than alternative monotonicity assumptions considered in the literature, and allows for a great deal of choice heterogeneity. Using this limited monotonicity, we define and identify the Combined Complier Local Average Treatment Effect (CC-LATE), which is arguably a more policy relevant parameter than the weighted average of LATEs identified by Two Stage Least Squares. We apply our results to estimate the effect of learning one’s HIV status on protective behaviors.

Suggested Citation

  • Nadja van ’t Hoff & Arthur Lewbel & Giovanni Mellace, 2023. "Limited Monotonicity and the Combined Compliers LATE," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 1059, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 25 Apr 2024.
    • Handle: RePEc:boc:bocoec:1059
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://fmwww.bc.edu/EC-P/wp1059.pdf
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Clément de Chaisemartin & Xavier d'Haultfoeuille, 2012. "Late Again with Defiers," PSE Working Papers halshs-00699646, HAL.
    3. Rebecca L. Thornton, 2008. "The Demand for, and Impact of, Learning HIV Status," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(5), pages 1829-1863, December.
    4. Clément de Chaisemartin, 2017. "Tolerating defiance? Local average treatment effects without monotonicity," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 8(2), pages 367-396, July.
    5. 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.
    6. Sokbae Lee & Bernard Salanié, 2018. "Identifying Effects of Multivalued Treatments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(6), pages 1939-1963, November.
    7. 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.
    8. Gordon B. Dahl & Enrico Moretti, 2008. "The Demand for Sons," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 75(4), pages 1085-1120.
    9. Magne Mogstad & Alexander Torgovitsky & Christopher R. Walters, 2021. "The Causal Interpretation of Two-Stage Least Squares with Multiple Instrumental Variables," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(11), pages 3663-3698, November.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Huber, Martin & Lechner, Michael & Wunsch, Conny, 2013. "The performance of estimators based on the propensity score," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 175(1), pages 1-21.
    13. Huntington-Klein Nick, 2020. "Instruments with Heterogeneous Effects: Bias, Monotonicity, and Localness," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 182-208, January.
    14. Magne Mogstad & Alexander Torgovitsky & Christopher R. Walters, 2020. "Policy Evaluation with Multiple Instrumental Variables," Working Papers 2020-99, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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).
    2. Thomas Carr & Toru Kitagawa, 2021. "Testing Instrument Validity with Covariates," Papers 2112.08092, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    3. Stephen Coussens & Jann Spiess, 2021. "Improving Inference from Simple Instruments through Compliance Estimation," Papers 2108.03726, arXiv.org.
    4. Schmieder, Julia, 2021. "Fertility as a driver of maternal employment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    5. Vishal Kamat & Samuel Norris & Matthew Pecenco, 2023. "Identification in Multiple Treatment Models under Discrete Variation," Papers 2307.06174, arXiv.org.
    6. Sloczynski, Tymon, 2021. "When Should We (Not) Interpret Linear IV Estimands as LATE?," IZA Discussion Papers 14349, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Bonsang, Eric & Pronkina, Elizaveta, 2023. "Family size and vaccination among older individuals: The case of COVID-19 vaccine," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    8. Huntington-Klein Nick, 2020. "Instruments with Heterogeneous Effects: Bias, Monotonicity, and Localness," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 182-208, January.
    9. Julia Schmieder, 2020. "Fertility as a Driver of Maternal Employment," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1882, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    10. Huntington-Klein Nick, 2020. "Instruments with Heterogeneous Effects: Bias, Monotonicity, and Localness," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 182-208, January.
    11. Claudia Noack, 2021. "Sensitivity of LATE Estimates to Violations of the Monotonicity Assumption," Papers 2106.06421, arXiv.org.
    12. Nadja van 't Hoff, 2023. "Identifying Causal Effects of Nonbinary, Ordered Treatments using Multiple Instrumental Variables," Papers 2311.17575, arXiv.org.
    13. Lina Zhang & David T. Frazier & Don S. Poskitt & Xueyan Zhao, 2020. "Decomposing Identification Gains and Evaluating Instrument Identification Power for Partially Identified Average Treatment Effects," Monash Econometrics and Business Statistics Working Papers 34/20, Monash University, Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics.
    14. Brigham Frandsen & Lars Lefgren & Emily Leslie, 2023. "Judging Judge Fixed Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 113(1), pages 253-277, January.
    15. Clément de Chaisemartin, 2017. "Tolerating defiance? Local average treatment effects without monotonicity," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 8(2), pages 367-396, July.
    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. Sokbae Lee & Bernard Salanié, 2018. "Identifying Effects of Multivalued Treatments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(6), pages 1939-1963, November.
    18. Clint Harris, 2022. "Interpreting Instrumental Variable Estimands with Unobserved Treatment Heterogeneity: The Effects of College Education," Papers 2211.13132, arXiv.org.
    19. Humlum, Anders & Munch, Jakob R. & Rasmussen, Mette, 2023. "What Works for the Unemployed? Evidence from Quasi-Random Caseworker Assignments," IZA Discussion Papers 16033, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Manu Navjeevan & Rodrigo Pinto & Andres Santos, 2023. "Identification and Estimation in a Class of Potential Outcomes Models," Papers 2310.05311, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Instrumental variable; Local Average Treatment Effect; monotonicity; multiple instruments;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C14 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods: General
    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • C26 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Instrumental Variables (IV) Estimation

    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:boc:bocoec:1059. 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: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/debocus.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.