We use the data from the National Supported Work Demonstration to study performance of non-propensity-score-matching estimators, and to compare them with propensity score matching. We find that all matching estimators we studied here are sensitive to the choice of data set. Propensity score methods are sensitive to smoothing parameters, and they usually have larger standard error. Difference-in-differences and bias-corrected matching improve the performance of the matching estimators considered here. Our results suggest that the 1974 earnings are important for Dehejia and Wahba’s PSID data but not for their CPS data in replicating experiment results. After decomposing the selection bias, we find that a sizable selection bias on unobservables is present in all data sets.
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
file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in its series IZA Discussion Papers with number
2375.
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.:
Did you know? Each page is provided with a technical contact, in case something is not right with the supplied information. See under "publisher info".