IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v175y2012i2p587-617.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating continuous training programmes by using the generalized propensity score

Author

Listed:
  • Jochen Kluve
  • Hilmar Schneider
  • Arne Uhlendorff
  • Zhong Zhao

Abstract

Summary: The paper assesses the heterogeneity of treatment effects arising from variation in the duration of training. We use German administrative data that have the extraordinary feature that the amount of treatment varies continuously from 10 days to 395 days (i.e. 13 months). This feature allows us to estimate a continuous dose- response function that relates each value of the dose, i.e. days of training, to the individual post-treatment probability of employment (the response). The dose-response function is estimated after adjusting for covariate imbalance by using the generalized propensity score, which is a recently developed method for covariate adjustment under continuous treatment regimes. Our data have the advantage that we can consider both the actual and the planned durations of training as treatment variables: if only actual durations are observed, treatment effect estimates may be biased because of endogenous exits. Our results indicate an increasing dose-response function for treatments of up to 120 days, which then flattens out, i.e. longer training programmes do not seem to add an additional treatment effect.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Jochen Kluve & Hilmar Schneider & Arne Uhlendorff & Zhong Zhao, 2012. "Evaluating continuous training programmes by using the generalized propensity score," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 175(2), pages 587-617, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:175:y:2012:i:2:p:587-617
    DOI: j.1467-985X.2011.01000.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2011.01000.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kosuke Imai & David A. van Dyk, 2004. "Causal Inference With General Treatment Regimes: Generalizing the Propensity Score," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 99, pages 854-866, January.
    2. Michael Gerfin & Michael Lechner, 2002. "A Microeconometric Evaluation of the Active Labour Market Policy in Switzerland," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(482), pages 854-893, October.
    3. Jere R. Behrman & Yingmei Cheng & Petra E. Todd, 2004. "Evaluating Preschool Programs When Length of Exposure to the Program Varies: A Nonparametric Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 108-132, February.
    4. Werner Eichhorst & Klaus F. Zimmermann, 2007. "And Then There Were Four...How Many (and Which) Measures of Active Labor Market Policy Do We Still Need?," Applied Economics Quarterly (formerly: Konjunkturpolitik), Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, vol. 53(3), pages 243-272.
    5. Ulf Rinne & Marc Schneider & Arne Uhlendorff, 2011. "Do the skilled and prime-aged unemployed benefit more from training? Effect heterogeneity of public training programmes in Germany," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(25), pages 3465-3494.
    6. Blien, Uwe & Hirschenauer, Franziska & Arendt, Manfred & Braun, Hans Jürgen & Gunst, Dieter-Michael & Kilcioglu, Sibel & Kleinschmidt, Helmut & Musati, Martina & Roß, Hermann & Vollkommer, Dieter & We, 2004. "Typisierung von Bezirken der Agenturen für Arbeit (Classification of employment office areas)," Zeitschrift für ArbeitsmarktForschung - Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 37(2), pages 146-175.
    7. Jochen Kluve & Boris Augurzky, 2007. "Assessing the performance of matching algorithms when selection into treatment is strong," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 533-557.
    8. Kosuke Imai & Gary King & Elizabeth A. Stuart, 2008. "Misunderstandings between experimentalists and observationalists about causal inference," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(2), pages 481-502, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Peter R. Mueser & Kenneth R. Troske & Alexey Gorislavsky, 2007. "Using State Administrative Data to Measure Program Performance," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(4), pages 761-783, November.
    11. Jacobi, Lena & Kluve, Jochen, 2007. "Before and after the Hartz reforms: The performance of active labour market policy in Germany," Zeitschrift für ArbeitsmarktForschung - Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 40(1), pages 45-64.
    12. Heckman, J.J. & Hotz, V.J., 1988. "Choosing Among Alternative Nonexperimental Methods For Estimating The Impact Of Social Programs: The Case Of Manpower Training," University of Chicago - Economics Research Center 88-12, Chicago - Economics Research Center.
    13. James Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Jeffrey Smith & Petra Todd, 1998. "Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(5), pages 1017-1098, September.
    14. Blien, Uwe & Hirschenauer, Franziska & Arendt, Manfred & Braun, Hans Jürgen & Gunst, Dieter-Michael & Kilcioglu, Sibel & Kleinschmidt, Helmut & Musati, Martina & Roß, Hermann & Vollkommer, Dieter & We, 2004. "Typisierung von Bezirken der Agenturen für Arbeit (Classification of employment office areas)," Zeitschrift für ArbeitsmarktForschung - Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 37(2), pages 146-175.
    15. Schneider, Hilmar & Uhlendorff, Arne, 2006. "Die Wirkung der Hartz-Reform im Bereich der beruflichen Weiterbildung," IZA Discussion Papers 2255, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Jacobi, Lena & Kluve, Jochen, 2007. "Before and after the Hartz reforms: The performance of active labour market policy in Germany," Zeitschrift für ArbeitsmarktForschung - Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 40(1), pages 45-64.
    17. Juan Jose Diaz & Sudhanshu Handa, 2006. "An Assessment of Propensity Score Matching as a Nonexperimental Impact Estimator: Evidence from Mexico’s PROGRESA Program," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 41(2).
    18. Conny Wunsch, 2005. "Labour Market Policy in Germany: Institutions, Instruments and Reforms since Unification," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2005 2005-06, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
    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. Carlos A. Flores & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2009. "Evaluating Nonexperimental Estimators for Multiple Treatments: Evidence from Experimental Data," Working Papers 2010-10, University of Miami, Department of Economics.
    2. Kluve, Jochen & Schneider, Hilmar & Uhlendorff, Arne & Zhao, Zhong, 2007. "Evaluating Continuous Training Programs Using the Generalized Propensity Score," Ruhr Economic Papers 35, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    3. repec:zbw:rwirep:0035 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Jochen Kluve & Hilmar Schneider & Arne Uhlendorff & Zhong Zhao, 2007. "Evaluating Continuous Training Programs Using the Generalized Propensity Score," Ruhr Economic Papers 0035, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    5. Ulf Rinne & Arne Uhlendorff & Zhong Zhao, 2013. "Vouchers and caseworkers in training programs for the unemployed," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 1089-1127, December.
    6. Huber, Martin & Lechner, Michael & Walter, Thomas & Wunsch, Conny, 2009. "Do German Welfare-to-Work Programmes Reduce Welfare and Increase Work?," CEPR Discussion Papers 7238, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Marco Caliendo & Jens Hogenacker, 2012. "The German labor market after the Great Recession: successful reforms and future challenges," IZA Journal of European Labor Studies, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 1(1), pages 1-24, December.
    8. Carlos A. Flores & Alfonso Flores-Lagunes & Arturo Gonzalez & Todd C. Neumann, 2009. "Estimating the Effects of Lenght of Exposure to Traning Program: The Case of Job Corps," Working Papers 2010-3, University of Miami, Department of Economics.
    9. Kluve, Jochen & Schneider, Hilmar & Uhlendorff, Arne & Zhao, Zhong, 2007. "Evaluating continuous training programs using the generalized propensity score1," Technical Reports 2007,39, Technische Universität Dortmund, Sonderforschungsbereich 475: Komplexitätsreduktion in multivariaten Datenstrukturen.
    10. Lechner, Michael & Wunsch, Conny, 2013. "Sensitivity of matching-based program evaluations to the availability of control variables," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 111-121.
    11. Dettmann, E. & Becker, C. & Schmeißer, C., 2011. "Distance functions for matching in small samples," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(5), pages 1942-1960, May.
    12. Chabé-Ferret, Sylvain, 2015. "Analysis of the bias of Matching and Difference-in-Difference under alternative earnings and selection processes," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 185(1), pages 110-123.
    13. Michael Lechner & Conny Wunsch, 2009. "Are Training Programs More Effective When Unemployment Is High?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 27(4), pages 653-692, October.
    14. Flores-Lagunes, Alfonso & Gonzalez, Arturo & Neumann, Todd C., 2007. "Estimating the Effects of Length of Exposure to a Training Program: The Case of Job Corps," IZA Discussion Papers 2846, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Martin Huber & Michael Lechner & Conny Wunsch & Thomas Walter, 2011. "Do German Welfare‐to‐Work Programmes Reduce Welfare Dependency and Increase Employment?," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 12(2), pages 182-204, May.
    16. Stefanie Behncke & Markus Frölich & Michael Lechner, 2010. "Unemployed and their caseworkers: should they be friends or foes?," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 173(1), pages 67-92, January.
    17. 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.
    18. Dehejia Rajeev, 2015. "Experimental and Non-Experimental Methods in Development Economics: A Porous Dialectic," Journal of Globalization and Development, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 47-69, June.
    19. Lechner, Michael, 2004. "Sequential Matching Estimation of Dynamic Causal Models," IZA Discussion Papers 1042, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Carlos A. Flores & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2013. "Comparing Treatments across Labor Markets: An Assessment of Nonexperimental Multiple-Treatment Strategies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(5), pages 1691-1707, December.
    21. Zhao, Zhong, 2008. "Sensitivity of propensity score methods to the specifications," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 98(3), pages 309-319, March.

    More about this item

    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:bla:jorssa:v:175:y:2012:i:2:p:587-617. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley Content Delivery). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.