IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/qzm7y.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Using machine learning to monitor the equity of large-scale policy interventions: The Dutch decentralisation of the Social Domain

Author

Listed:
  • Verhagen, Mark D.

Abstract

Since individuals' social contexts vary strongly, large-scale policy interventions will likely have heterogeneous effects throughout a population. However, policy interventions are often assessed in narrow ways, either through aggregate effects or along a select number of a-priori hypothesised groups. Historically, such a narrow approach had been a necessity due to data and computational constraints. However, the availability of registry data and novel methods from the machine learning domain allow for a more rigorous, hypothesis-free approach to monitoring policy effects. I illustrate how these developments can revolutionise our measurement and understanding of policy interventions by studying the nationwide 2015 decentralisation of the social domain in The Netherlands. This policy intervention delegated responsibilities to administer social care from the national to the municipal level. The decentralisation was criticised beforehand for risk of producing inequitable effects across demographic groups or regions, but rigorous empirical follow-up remains lacking. Using machine learning methods on entire population data in The Netherlands, I find the policy induced strongly heterogeneous effects that include evidence of local capture and strong urban / rural divides. More generally, I provide a case study of how machine learning methods can be effectively used to monitor large-scale policy interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Verhagen, Mark D., 2023. "Using machine learning to monitor the equity of large-scale policy interventions: The Dutch decentralisation of the Social Domain," SocArXiv qzm7y, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:qzm7y
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/qzm7y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6412caf828e5c50c9393827e/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/qzm7y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maarse, J.A.M. (Hans) & Jeurissen, P.P. (Patrick), 2016. "The policy and politics of the 2015 long-term care reform in the Netherlands," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 241-245.
    2. Stefan Wager & Susan Athey, 2018. "Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forests," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 113(523), pages 1228-1242, July.
    3. Keisuke Hirano & Guido W. Imbens & Geert Ridder, 2003. "Efficient Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Using the Estimated Propensity Score," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(4), pages 1161-1189, July.
    4. Jonathan M.V. Davis & Sara B. Heller, 2020. "Rethinking the Benefits of Youth Employment Programs: The Heterogeneous Effects of Summer Jobs," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(4), pages 664-677, October.
    5. Charles M. Tiebout, 1956. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(5), pages 416-416.
    6. Athey, Susan & Imbens, Guido W., 2019. "Machine Learning Methods Economists Should Know About," Research Papers 3776, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    7. 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.
    8. Esther Mot, 2010. "The Dutch system of long-term care," CPB Document 204, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    9. Mosca, Ilaria, 2006. "Is decentralisation the real solution?: A three country study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 113-120, June.
    10. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    11. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, December.
    12. Wagstaff, Adam & Paci, Pierella & van Doorslaer, Eddy, 1991. "On the measurement of inequalities in health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 545-557, January.
    13. Esther Mot, 2010. "The Dutch system of long-term care," CPB Document 204.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    14. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2019. "Machine Learning Methods That Economists Should Know About," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 11(1), pages 685-725, August.
    15. Dolores Jiménez‐Rubio & Peter C. Smith & Eddy Van Doorslaer, 2008. "Equity in health and health care in a decentralised context: evidence from Canada," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 377-392, March.
    16. Verhagen, Mark D., 2021. "Identifying and Improving Functional Form Complexity: A Machine Learning Framework," SocArXiv bka76, Center for Open Science.
    17. Guido W. Imbens, 2004. "Nonparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Under Exogeneity: A Review," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 4-29, February.
    18. Imbens,Guido W. & Rubin,Donald B., 2015. "Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521885881.
    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. Mark Kattenberg & Bas Scheer & Jurre Thiel, 2023. "Causal forests with fixed effects for treatment effect heterogeneity in difference-in-differences," CPB Discussion Paper 452, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    2. Zhexiao Lin & Fang Han, 2022. "On regression-adjusted imputation estimators of the average treatment effect," Papers 2212.05424, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2023.
    3. Rahul Singh & Liyuan Xu & Arthur Gretton, 2020. "Kernel Methods for Causal Functions: Dose, Heterogeneous, and Incremental Response Curves," Papers 2010.04855, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2022.
    4. Goller, Daniel & Lechner, Michael & Moczall, Andreas & Wolff, Joachim, 2020. "Does the estimation of the propensity score by machine learning improve matching estimation? The case of Germany's programmes for long term unemployed," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    5. Anna Baiardi & Andrea A. Naghi, 2021. "The Value Added of Machine Learning to Causal Inference: Evidence from Revisited Studies," Papers 2101.00878, arXiv.org.
    6. Daniel Goller & Tamara Harrer & Michael Lechner & Joachim Wolff, 2021. "Active labour market policies for the long-term unemployed: New evidence from causal machine learning," Papers 2106.10141, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    7. Brett R. Gordon & Robert Moakler & Florian Zettelmeyer, 2022. "Close Enough? A Large-Scale Exploration of Non-Experimental Approaches to Advertising Measurement," Papers 2201.07055, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2022.
    8. Gabriel Okasa, 2022. "Meta-Learners for Estimation of Causal Effects: Finite Sample Cross-Fit Performance," Papers 2201.12692, arXiv.org.
    9. Michael Lechner, 2023. "Causal Machine Learning and its use for public policy," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, Springer;Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics, vol. 159(1), pages 1-15, December.
    10. Anna Baiardi & Andrea A. Naghi, 2021. "The Value Added of Machine Learning to Causal Inference: Evidence from Revisited Studies," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 21-001/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    11. Michael Pollmann, 2020. "Causal Inference for Spatial Treatments," Papers 2011.00373, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2023.
    12. Hao Dong & Daniel L. Millimet, 2020. "Propensity Score Weighting with Mismeasured Covariates: An Application to Two Financial Literacy Interventions," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-24, November.
    13. Michael C Knaus, 2022. "Double machine learning-based programme evaluation under unconfoundedness [Econometric methods for program evaluation]," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 25(3), pages 602-627.
    14. Dai, Yongwu & Chang, Hung-Hao & Liu, Weiping, 2015. "Do forest producers benefit from the forest disaster insurance program? Empirical evidence in Fujian Province of China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 127-133.
    15. Cockx, Bart & Lechner, Michael & Bollens, Joost, 2023. "Priority to unemployed immigrants? A causal machine learning evaluation of training in Belgium," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    16. Guido W. Imbens, 2020. "Potential Outcome and Directed Acyclic Graph Approaches to Causality: Relevance for Empirical Practice in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(4), pages 1129-1179, December.
    17. Huber, Martin & Meier, Jonas & Wallimann, Hannes, 2022. "Business analytics meets artificial intelligence: Assessing the demand effects of discounts on Swiss train tickets," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 22-39.
    18. Daniel Boller & Michael Lechner & Gabriel Okasa, 2021. "The Effect of Sport in Online Dating: Evidence from Causal Machine Learning," Papers 2104.04601, arXiv.org.
    19. Augustine Denteh & Helge Liebert, 2022. "Who Increases Emergency Department Use? New Insights from the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment," Papers 2201.07072, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    20. Francesca Caselli & Mr. Philippe Wingender, 2018. "Bunching at 3 Percent: The Maastricht Fiscal Criterion and Government Deficits," IMF Working Papers 2018/182, International Monetary Fund.

    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:osf:socarx:qzm7y. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.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.