IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v32y2024i4p521-540_10.html

How Much Should We Trust Instrumental Variable Estimates in Political Science? Practical Advice Based on 67 Replicated Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Lal, Apoorva
  • Lockhart, Mackenzie
  • Xu, Yiqing
  • Zu, Ziwen

Abstract

Instrumental variable (IV) strategies are widely used in political science to establish causal relationships, but the identifying assumptions required by an IV design are demanding, and assessing their validity remains challenging. In this paper, we replicate 67 articles published in three top political science journals from 2010 to 2022 and identify several concerning patterns. First, researchers often overestimate the strength of their instruments due to non-i.i.d. error structures such as clustering. Second, IV estimates are often highly uncertain, and the commonly used t-test for two-stage-least-squares (2SLS) estimates frequently underestimate the uncertainties. Third, in most replicated studies, 2SLS estimates are significantly larger in magnitude than ordinary-least-squares estimates, and their absolute ratio is inversely related to the strength of the instrument in observational studies—a pattern not observed in experimental ones—suggesting potential violations of unconfoundedness or the exclusion restriction in the former. We provide a checklist and software to help researchers avoid these pitfalls and improve their practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Lal, Apoorva & Lockhart, Mackenzie & Xu, Yiqing & Zu, Ziwen, 2024. "How Much Should We Trust Instrumental Variable Estimates in Political Science? Practical Advice Based on 67 Replicated Studies," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(4), pages 521-540, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:32:y:2024:i:4:p:521-540_10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198724000020/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:cup:polals:v:32:y:2024:i:4:p:521-540_10. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pan .

    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.