This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Statistical treatment rules for heterogeneous populations

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Charles Manski

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

An important objective of empirical research on treatment response is to provide decision makers with information useful in choosing treatments. Manski (2000, 2002, 2003) showed how identification problems generate ambiguity about the identity of optimal treatment choices. This paper studies treatment choice using sample data. I consider a planner who must choose among alternative statistical treatment rules, these being functions that map observed covariates of population members and sample data on treatment response into a treatment allocation. I study the use of risk (Wald, 1950) to evaluate the performance of alternative rules and, more particularly, the minimax-regret criterion to choose a treatment rule. These concepts may also be used to choose a sample design. Wald's development of statistical decision theory directly confronts the problem of finite-sample inference without recourse to the approximations of asymptotic theory. However, it is computationally challenging to implement. The main original work of this paper is to study implementation using data from a classical randomized experiment. Analysis of a simple problem of evaluation of an innovation yields a concise description of the set of undominated treatment rules and tractable computation of the minimax-regret rule. Analysis of a more complex problem of treatment choice using covariate information yields computable bounds on the maximum regret of alternative conditional empirical success rules, and consequent sufficient sample sizes for the beneficial use of covariate information. Numerical findings indicate that prevailing practices in the use of covariate information in treatment choice are too conservative.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://cemmap.ifs.org.uk/wps/cwp0303.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies in its series CeMMAP working papers with number CWP03/03.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 53 pp.
Date of creation: May 2003
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ifs:cemmap:03/03

Contact details of provider:
Postal: The Institute for Fiscal Studies 7 Ridgmount Street LONDON WC1E 7AE
Phone: (+44) 020 7291 4800
Fax: (+44) 020 7323 4780
Email:
Web page: http://cemmap.ifs.org.uk

Order Information:
Postal: The Institute for Fiscal Studies 7 Ridgmount Street LONDON WC1E 7AE
Email:

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Emma Hyman).

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports: References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Rajeev Dehejia, 1999. "Program Evaluation as a Decision Problem," NBER Working Papers 6954, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  2. Manski, Charles F., 2000. "Identification problems and decisions under ambiguity: Empirical analysis of treatment response and normative analysis of treatment choice," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 415-442, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)

  1. Michael Rosholm & Jonas Staghøj & Michael Svarer, 2007. "A Statistical Programme Assignment Model," Economics Working Papers 2007-16, School of Economics and Management, University of Aarhus. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  2. Conny Wunsch, 2007. "Optimal Use of Labour Market Policies," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2007 2007-26, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen. [Downloadable!]
  3. Rajeev H. Dehejia, 2002. "Program evaluation as a decision problem," Discussion Papers 0102-23, Columbia University, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  4. repec:att:wimass:192059 is not listed on IDEAS
  5. Hirano, Keisuke & Porter, Jack, 2006. "Asymptotics for statistical treatment rules," MPRA Paper 1173, University Library of Munich, Germany. [Downloadable!]
  6. Oscar Mitnik, 2008. "How do Training Programs Assign Participants to Training? Characterizing the Assignment Rules of Government Agencies for Welfare-to-Work Programs in California," Working Papers 0907, University of Miami, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  7. J. Stoye, 2009. "Charles F. Manski, Identification for Prediction and Decision (Harvard University Press 2007)," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(5), pages 857-862. [Downloadable!]
  8. Raghu Suryanarayanan, 2006. "Implications of Anticipated Regret and Endogenous Beliefs for Equilibrium Asset Prices: A Theoretical Framework," CSEF Working Papers 162, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy. [Downloadable!]
  9. repec:att:wimass:1920422 is not listed on IDEAS
  10. repec:att:wimass:192052 is not listed on IDEAS
  11. Stefanie Behncke & Markus Frölich & Michael Lechner, 2007. "Targeting Labour Market Programmes: Results from a Randomized Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 3085, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  12. Hirano, Keisuke & Porter, Jack, 2009. "Impossibility Results for Nondifferentiable Functionals," MPRA Paper 15990, University Library of Munich, Germany. [Downloadable!]
  13. William A. Brock & Steven N. Durlauf & James M. Nason & Giacomo Rondina, 2007. "Simple versus optimal rules as guides to policy," Working Paper 2007-07, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  14. Raghu Suryanarayanan, 2006. "A Model of Anticipated Regret and Endogenous Beliefs," CSEF Working Papers 161, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy. [Downloadable!]
  15. Karl Schlag, 2006. "ELEVEN - Tests needed for a Recommendation," Economics Working Papers ECO2006/2, European University Institute. [Downloadable!]
  16. repec:att:wimass:192051 is not listed on IDEAS
  17. repec:att:wimass:1920420 is not listed on IDEAS
  18. Karl H. Schlag, 2006. "Designing Non-Parametric Estimates and Tests for Means," Economics Working Papers ECO2006/26, European University Institute. [Downloadable!]
  19. Charles F. Manski, 2005. "Search Profiling with Partial Knowledge of Deterrence," NBER Working Papers 11848, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? IDEAS is also providing many rankings, for example of authors and institutions.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-27.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.