IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v174y2019icp84-88.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A convenient omitted variable bias formula for treatment effect models

Author

Listed:
  • Clarke, Damian

Abstract

Generally, determining the size and magnitude of the omitted variable bias (OVB) in regression models is challenging when multiple included and omitted variables are present. Here, I describe a convenient OVB formula for treatment effect models with potentially many included and omitted variables. I show that in these circumstances it is simple to infer the direction, and potentially the magnitude, of the bias. In a simple setting, this OVB is based on mutually exclusive binary variables, however I provide an extension which loosens the need for mutual exclusivity of variables, deriving the bias in difference-in-differences style models with an arbitrary number of included and excluded “treatment” indicators.

Suggested Citation

  • Clarke, Damian, 2019. "A convenient omitted variable bias formula for treatment effect models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 84-88.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:174:y:2019:i:c:p:84-88
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2018.10.035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176518304488
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.10.035?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
    ---><---

    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. Charles F. Manski, 2013. "Identification of treatment response with social interactions," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 16(1), pages 1-23, February.
    2. Abhijit V. Banerjee & Shawn Cole & Esther Duflo & Leigh Linden, 2007. "Remedying Education: Evidence from Two Randomized Experiments in India," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 122(3), pages 1235-1264.
    3. Jonah B. Gelbach, 2016. "When Do Covariates Matter? And Which Ones, and How Much?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(2), pages 509-543.
    4. Douglas Almond & Lena Edlund & Mårten Palme, 2009. "Chernobyl's Subclinical Legacy: Prenatal Exposure to Radioactive Fallout and School Outcomes in Sweden," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 124(4), pages 1729-1772.
    5. Duflo, Esther & Glennerster, Rachel & Kremer, Michael, 2008. "Using Randomization in Development Economics Research: A Toolkit," Handbook of Development Economics, in: T. Paul Schultz & John A. Strauss (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 61, pages 3895-3962, Elsevier.
    6. Alex Armand & Paul Atwell & Joseph Gomes, 2017. "The Reach of Radio: Defection Messaging and Armed Group Behavior," HiCN Working Papers 249, Households in Conflict Network.
    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. Michael Kremer, 2003. "Randomized Evaluations of Educational Programs in Developing Countries: Some Lessons," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 102-106, May.
    9. Hunt Allcott & Daniel Keniston, 2018. "Dutch Disease or Agglomeration? The Local Economic Effects of Natural Resource Booms in Modern America," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 85(2), pages 695-731.
    10. Edward Miguel & Michael Kremer, 2004. "Worms: Identifying Impacts on Education and Health in the Presence of Treatment Externalities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(1), pages 159-217, January.
    11. Kevin A. Clarke, 2005. "The Phantom Menace: Omitted Variable Bias in Econometric Research," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(4), pages 341-352, September.
    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. Clarke, Damian & Salinas, Viviana, 2020. "Access to The Emergency Contraceptive Pill Improves Women's Health: Evidence from Chile," IZA Discussion Papers 13134, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Kyle Butts, 2021. "Difference-in-Differences Estimation with Spatial Spillovers," Papers 2105.03737, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
    3. Deepankar Basu, 2022. "Bounds for Bias-Adjusted Treatment Effect in Linear Econometric Models," Papers 2203.12431, arXiv.org.
    4. Dutt, Verena K. & Nicolay, Katharina & Vay, Heiko & Voget, Johannes, 2019. "Can European banks' country-by-country reports reveal profit shifting? An analysis of the information content of EU banks' disclosures," ZEW Discussion Papers 19-042, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    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. Sawada Yasuyuki & Mahmud Minhaj & Seki Mai & Le An & Kawarazaki Hikaru, 2017. "Individualized Self-learning Program to Improve Primary Education: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment in Bangladesh," Working Papers 156, JICA Research Institute.
    2. Miriam Bruhn & David McKenzie, 2009. "In Pursuit of Balance: Randomization in Practice in Development Field Experiments," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(4), pages 200-232, October.
    3. Guido W. Imbens, 2010. "Better LATE Than Nothing: Some Comments on Deaton (2009) and Heckman and Urzua (2009)," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(2), pages 399-423, June.
    4. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2019. "Understanding development and poverty alleviation," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2019-2, Nobel Prize Committee.
    5. Patrick J. McEwan, 2012. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of education and health interventions in developing countries," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(2), pages 189-213, June.
    6. Abhijit V. Banerjee & Esther Duflo, 2009. "The Experimental Approach to Development Economics," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 151-178, May.
    7. Eduard Marinov, 2019. "The 2019 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 78-116.
    8. McKenzie, David, 2012. "Beyond baseline and follow-up: The case for more T in experiments," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 210-221.
    9. David K. Evans & Arkadipta Ghosh, 2008. "Prioritizing Educational Investments in Children in the Developing World," Working Papers WR-587, RAND Corporation.
    10. Sonia Bhalotra & Martin Karlsson & Therese Nilsson & Nina Schwarz, 2022. "Infant Health, Cognitive Performance, and Earnings: Evidence from Inception of the Welfare State in Sweden," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(6), pages 1138-1156, November.
    11. David K. Evans & Arkadipta Ghosh, 2008. "Prioritizing Educational Investments in Children in the Developing World," Working Papers 587, RAND Corporation.
    12. Temple, Jonathan R.W., 2010. "Aid and Conditionality," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Dani Rodrik & Mark Rosenzweig (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 4415-4523, Elsevier.
    13. Michael Christian Lehman, 2014. "Long-Run Effects Of Conditional Cash Transfers," Anais do XLI Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 41st Brazilian Economics Meeting] 223, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].
    14. Duflo, Esther & Glennerster, Rachel & Kremer, Michael, 2008. "Using Randomization in Development Economics Research: A Toolkit," Handbook of Development Economics, in: T. Paul Schultz & John A. Strauss (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 61, pages 3895-3962, Elsevier.
    15. 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.
    16. Orazio Attanasio & Costas Meghir & Emily Nix, 2015. "Human Capital Development and Parental Investment in India," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2026R2, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Apr 2019.
    17. Sokbae Lee & Yoon-Jae Whang, 2009. "Nonparametric Tests of Conditional Treatment Effects," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1740, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    18. Schultz, T. Paul, 2010. "Population and Health Policies," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Dani Rodrik & Mark Rosenzweig (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 4785-4881, Elsevier.
    19. Hunt Allcott, 2012. "Site Selection Bias in Program Evaluation," NBER Working Papers 18373, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Yasuyuki Sawada & Minhaj Mahmud & Mai Seki & An Le & Hikaru Kawarazaki, 2019. "Fighting the Learning Crisis in Developing Countries: A Randomized Experiment of Self-Learning at the Right Level," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-1127, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Omitted variable bias; Ordinary least squares regression; Treatment effects; Difference-in-differences;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • C22 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes
    • C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Estimation: General

    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:eee:ecolet:v:174:y:2019:i:c:p:84-88. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    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.