IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/usg/econwp/201219.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Statistical verification of a natural "natural experiment": Tests and sensitivity checks for the sibling sex ratio instrument

Author

Listed:
  • Huber, Martin

Abstract

This paper presents statistical evidence about the validity of the sibling sex ratio instrument proposed by Angrist and Evans (1998), a prominent natural “natural experiment” in the sense of Rosenzweig and Wolpin (2000). The sex ratio of the first two siblings is arguably randomly assigned and influences the probability of having a third child, which makes it a candidate instrument for fertility when estimating the effect of fertility on female labor supply. However, identification hinges on the satisfaction of the instrumental exclusion restriction and the monotonicity of fertility in the instrument, see Imbens and Angrist (1994). Using the methods of Kitagawa (2008), Huber and Mellace (2011a), and Huber and Mellace (2012), we for the first time verify the validity of the sibling sex ratio instrument by statistical hypothesis tests, which suggest that violations are small if not close to nonexistent. We also provide novel sensitivity checks to assess deviations from the exclusion restriction and/or monotonicity in the nonparametric local average treatment effect framework and find the negative labor supply effect of fertility to be robust to a plausible range of violations.

Suggested Citation

  • Huber, Martin, 2012. "Statistical verification of a natural "natural experiment": Tests and sensitivity checks for the sibling sex ratio instrument," Economics Working Paper Series 1219, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:usg:econwp:2012:19
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ux-tauri.unisg.ch/RePEc/usg/econwp/EWP-1219.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cruces, Guillermo & Galiani, Sebastian, 2007. "Fertility and female labor supply in Latin America: New causal evidence," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 565-573, June.
    2. Yoram Ben-Porath & Finis Welch, 1976. "Do Sex Preferences Really Matter?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 90(2), pages 285-307.
    3. Aviv Nevo & Adam M. Rosen, 2012. "Identification With Imperfect Instruments," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(3), pages 659-671, August.
    4. Angrist, Joshua D, 1990. "Lifetime Earnings and the Vietnam Era Draft Lottery: Evidence from Social Security Administrative Records," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 313-336, June.
    5. Jungmin Lee, 2008. "Sibling size and investment in children’s education: an asian instrument," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 21(4), pages 855-875, October.
    6. Killingsworth, Mark R. & Heckman, James J., 1987. "Female labor supply: A survey," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & R. Layard (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 2, pages 103-204, Elsevier.
    7. Small, Dylan S., 2007. "Sensitivity Analysis for Instrumental Variables Regression With Overidentifying Restrictions," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 102, pages 1049-1058, September.
    8. Dalton Conley & Rebecca Glauber, 2005. "Parental Educational Investment and Children's Academic Risk: Estimates of the Impact of Sibship Size and Birth Order from Exogenous Variations in Fertility," NBER Working Papers 11302, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Goux, Dominique & Maurin, Eric, 2005. "The effect of overcrowded housing on children's performance at school," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(5-6), pages 797-819, June.
    10. Le-Yu Chen & Jerzy Szroeter, 2009. "Hypothesis testing of multiple inequalities: the method of constraint chaining," CeMMAP working papers CWP13/09, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    11. Philip Oreopoulos, 2006. "Estimating Average and Local Average Treatment Effects of Education when Compulsory Schooling Laws Really Matter," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(1), pages 152-175, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Aart Kraay, 2012. "Instrumental variables regressions with uncertain exclusion restrictions: a Bayesian approach," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 108-128, January.
    14. Jorg Stoye, 2009. "More on Confidence Intervals for Partially Identified Parameters," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(4), pages 1299-1315, July.
    15. Hoogerheide, L.F. & van Dijk, H.K., 2006. "A reconsideration of the Angrist-Krueger analysis on returns to education," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2006-15, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    16. Levitt, Steven D, 1997. "Using Electoral Cycles in Police Hiring to Estimate the Effect of Police on Crime," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(3), pages 270-290, June.
    17. Ashenfelter, Orley & Krueger, Alan B, 1994. "Estimates of the Economic Returns to Schooling from a New Sample of Twins," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(5), pages 1157-1173, December.
    18. Michael P. Murray, 2006. "Avoiding Invalid Instruments and Coping with Weak Instruments," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(4), pages 111-132, Fall.
    19. Carlos A. Flores & Alfonso Flores-Lagunes, 2013. "Partial Identification of Local Average Treatment Effects With an Invalid Instrument," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(4), pages 534-545, October.
    20. Iacovou, Maria, 2001. "Fertility and female labour supply," ISER Working Paper Series 2001-19, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    21. 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.
    22. Donald W. K. Andrews, 2000. "Inconsistency of the Bootstrap when a Parameter Is on the Boundary of the Parameter Space," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(2), pages 399-406, March.
    23. Hansen, Peter Reinhard, 2005. "A Test for Superior Predictive Ability," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 23, pages 365-380, October.
    24. Victor Chernozhukov & Han Hong & Elie Tamer, 2007. "Estimation and Confidence Regions for Parameter Sets in Econometric Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(5), pages 1243-1284, September.
    25. Jin‐young Choi & Myoung‐jae Lee, 2012. "Bounding endogenous regressor coefficients using moment inequalities and generalized instruments," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 66(2), pages 161-182, May.
    26. Joshua Angrist & Victor Lavy & Analia Schlosser, 2010. "Multiple Experiments for the Causal Link between the Quantity and Quality of Children," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(4), pages 773-824, October.
    27. Christopher J. Bennett, 2009. "Consistent and Asymptotically Unbiased MinP Tests of Multiple Inequality Moment Restrictions," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 0908, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    28. 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.
    29. Martin Huber & Giovanni Mellace, 2010. "Sharp IV bounds on average treatment effects under endogeneity and noncompliance," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2010 2010-31, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
    30. 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.
    31. Angrist, Joshua D, 1990. "Lifetime Earnings and the Vietnam Era Draft Lottery: Evidence from Social Security Administrative Records: Errata," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1284-1286, December.
    32. Joseph G. Altonji & Todd E. Elder & Christopher R. Taber, 2005. "An Evaluation of Instrumental Variable Strategies for Estimating the Effects of Catholic Schooling," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 40(4), pages 791-821.
    33. Donald, Stephen G. & Hsu, Yu-Chin, 2011. "A new test for linear inequality constraints when the variance–covariance matrix depends on the unknown parameters," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 113(3), pages 241-243.
    34. Guido W. Imbens & Donald B. Rubin, 1997. "Estimating Outcome Distributions for Compliers in Instrumental Variables Models," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 64(4), pages 555-574.
    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. Iva Trako, 2018. "Fertility and Parental Labor-Force Participation: New Evidence from a Developing Country in the Balkans," Working Papers halshs-01828471, HAL.
    2. Angelov, Nikolay & Karimi, Arizo, 2012. "Mothers’ Income Recovery after Childbearing," Working Paper Series, Center for Labor Studies 2012:19, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
    3. Clément de Chaisemartin, 2017. "Tolerating defiance? Local average treatment effects without monotonicity," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 8(2), pages 367-396, July.
    4. Iva Trako, 2018. "Fertility and Parental Labor-Force Participation: New Evidence from a Developing Country in the Balkans," PSE Working Papers halshs-01828471, HAL.

    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. Martin Huber, 2015. "Testing the Validity of the Sibling Sex Ratio Instrument," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 29(1), pages 1-14, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Hans (J.L.W.) van Kippersluis & Niels (C.A.) Rietveld, 2017. "Beyond Plausibly Exogenous," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-096/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    4. 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.
    5. Imbens, Guido W., 2014. "Instrumental Variables: An Econometrician's Perspective," IZA Discussion Papers 8048, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Daniel L. Millimet & Le Wang, 2011. "Is the Quantity-Quality Trade-Off a Trade-Off for All, None, or Some?," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(1), pages 155-195.
    7. Schmieder, Julia, 2021. "Fertility as a driver of maternal employment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    8. Matthew A. Masten & Alexandre Poirier, 2021. "Salvaging Falsified Instrumental Variable Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(3), pages 1449-1469, May.
    9. Thomas Carr & Toru Kitagawa, 2021. "Testing Instrument Validity with Covariates," Papers 2112.08092, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    10. Huber, Martin & Mellace, Giovanni, 2011. "Testing instrument validity in sample selection models," Economics Working Paper Series 1145, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    11. Adriana D. Kugler & Santosh Kumar, 2017. "Preference for Boys, Family Size, and Educational Attainment in India," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 54(3), pages 835-859, June.
    12. Huber Martin & Wüthrich Kaspar, 2019. "Local Average and Quantile Treatment Effects Under Endogeneity: A Review," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-27, January.
    13. Sungwon Lee, 2024. "Partial identification and inference for conditional distributions of treatment effects," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(1), pages 107-127, January.
    14. Emla Fitzsimons & Bansi Malde, 2014. "Empirically probing the quantity–quality model," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 27(1), pages 33-68, January.
    15. Christopher J. Bennett, 2009. "Consistent and Asymptotically Unbiased MinP Tests of Multiple Inequality Moment Restrictions," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 0908, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    16. Richard A. Ashley & Guo Li, 2013. "Re-Examining the Impact of Housing Wealth and Stock Wealth on Household Spending: Does Persistence in Wealth Changes Matter?," Working Papers e07-39, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Department of Economics.
    17. Damian Clarke & Benjamín Matta, 2018. "Practical considerations for questionable IVs," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 18(3), pages 663-691, September.
    18. Joshua D. Angrist, 2022. "Empirical Strategies in Economics: Illuminating the Path From Cause to Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(6), pages 2509-2539, November.
    19. Chen, Le-Yu & Szroeter, Jerzy, 2014. "Testing multiple inequality hypotheses: A smoothed indicator approach," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 178(P3), pages 678-693.
    20. Donald W.K. Andrews, 2011. "Similar-on-the-Boundary Tests for Moment Inequalities Exist, But Have Poor Power," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1815R, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Mar 2012.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    instrumental variable; treatment effects; LATE; tests; sensitivity analysis.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: 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
    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth
    • J22 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Time Allocation and Labor Supply

    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:usg:econwp:2012:19. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vwasgch.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.