IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uwarer/270439.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Defying the LATE? Identication of local treatment eects when the instrument violates monotonicity

Author

Listed:
  • de Chaisemartin, Clement

Abstract

The instrumental variable method relies on a strong no-deers condition, which requires that the instrument aect every subject's treatment decision in the same direction. This paper shows that no-deers can be replaced by a weaker compliersdeers condition, which requires that a subgroup of compliers have the same size and the same distribution of potential outcomes as deers. This condition is necessary and sucient for IV to capture causal eects for the remaining part of compliers. In many applications, compliers-deers is a very weak condition. For instance, in Angrist & Evans (1998), 94% of DGPs compatible with the data satisfy compliers-deers, while 0% satisfy no-deers.

Suggested Citation

  • de Chaisemartin, Clement, 2013. "Defying the LATE? Identication of local treatment eects when the instrument violates monotonicity," Economic Research Papers 270439, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:uwarer:270439
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.270439
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/270439/files/twerp_1020_chaisemartin.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/270439/files/twerp_1020_chaisemartin.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.270439?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Jeffrey R. Kling, 2006. "Incarceration Length, Employment, and Earnings," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 863-876, June.
    3. Clément de Chaisemartin & Xavier d'Haultfoeuille, 2012. "Late Again with Defiers," PSE Working Papers halshs-00699646, HAL.
    4. Klein, Tobias J., 2010. "Heterogeneous treatment effects: Instrumental variables without monotonicity?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 155(2), pages 99-116, April.
    5. DiNardo, John & Lee, David S., 2011. "Program Evaluation and Research Designs," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 5, pages 463-536, Elsevier.
    6. Luc Behaghel & Bruno Crépon & Marc Gurgand & Thomas Le Barbanchon, 2015. "Please Call Again: Correcting Nonresponse Bias in Treatment Effect Models," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(5), pages 1070-1080, December.
    7. Clément de Chaisemartin, 2017. "Tolerating defiance? Local average treatment effects without monotonicity," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 8(2), pages 367-396, July.
    8. Alberto Abadie & Joshua Angrist & Guido Imbens, 2002. "Instrumental Variables Estimates of the Effect of Subsidized Training on the Quantiles of Trainee Earnings," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(1), pages 91-117, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Imbens, Guido W & Angrist, Joshua D, 1994. "Identification and Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 467-475, March.
    11. Abadie, Alberto, 2003. "Semiparametric instrumental variable estimation of treatment response models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 231-263, April.
    12. 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.
    13. Rashmi Barua & Kevin Lang, 2009. "School Entry, Educational Attainment and Quarter of Birth: A Cautionary Tale of LATE," NBER Working Papers 15236, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. David S. Lee, 2009. "Training, Wages, and Sample Selection: Estimating Sharp Bounds on Treatment Effects," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(3), pages 1071-1102.
    15. Huber, Martin & Mellace, Giovanni, 2012. "Relaxing monotonicity in the identification of local average treatment effects," Economics Working Paper Series 1212, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    16. Kelly Bedard & Elizabeth Dhuey, 2006. "The Persistence of Early Childhood Maturity: International Evidence of Long-Run Age Effects," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1437-1472.
    17. Edward Vytlacil, 2002. "Independence, Monotonicity, and Latent Index Models: An Equivalence Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(1), pages 331-341, January.
    18. Hahn, Jinyong & Todd, Petra & Van der Klaauw, Wilbert, 2001. "Identification and Estimation of Treatment Effects with a Regression-Discontinuity Design," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(1), pages 201-209, January.
    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. Huber, Martin & Wüthrich, Kaspar, 2017. "Evaluating local average and quantile treatment effects under endogeneity based on instruments: a review," FSES Working Papers 479, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Freiburg/Fribourg Switzerland.
    2. 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.
    3. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2021. "Answering causal questions using observational data," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2021-2, Nobel Prize Committee.
    4. Black, Dan A. & Joo, Joonhwi & LaLonde, Robert & Smith, Jeffrey A. & Taylor, Evan J., 2022. "Simple Tests for Selection: Learning More from Instrumental Variables," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    5. Chaisemartin, Clément de, 2014. "Tolerating defiance? Local average treatment effects without monotonicity," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 197, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    6. 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.
    7. Clément de Chaisemartin & Xavier d'Haultfoeuille, 2012. "Late Again with Defiers," PSE Working Papers halshs-00699646, HAL.
    8. Kaspar Wüthrich, 2020. "A Comparison of Two Quantile Models With Endogeneity," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(2), pages 443-456, April.
    9. Claudia Noack, 2021. "Sensitivity of LATE Estimates to Violations of the Monotonicity Assumption," Papers 2106.06421, arXiv.org.
    10. Schmieder, Julia, 2021. "Fertility as a driver of maternal employment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    11. Hsu, Yu-Chin & Huang, Ta-Cheng & Xu, Haiqing, 2023. "Testing For Unobserved Heterogeneous Treatment Effects With Observational Data," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(3), pages 582-622, June.
    12. Julia Schmieder, 2020. "Fertility as a Driver of Maternal Employment," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1882, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    13. Peter Hull & Michal Kolesár & Christopher Walters, 2022. "Labor by design: contributions of David Card, Joshua Angrist, and Guido Imbens," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 124(3), pages 603-645, July.
    14. Ma, Jun & Marmer, Vadim & Yu, Zhengfei, 2023. "Inference on individual treatment effects in nonseparable triangular models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 235(2), pages 2096-2124.
    15. Fiorini, Mario & Katrien Stevens, 2014. "Assessing the Monotonicity Assumption in IV and fuzzy RD designs," Working Papers 2014-13, University of Sydney, School of Economics.
    16. Ismael Mourifié & Yuanyuan Wan, 2017. "Testing Local Average Treatment Effect Assumptions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(2), pages 305-313, May.
    17. Magne Mogstad & Andres Santos & Alexander Torgovitsky, 2018. "Using Instrumental Variables for Inference About Policy Relevant Treatment Parameters," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1589-1619, 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. Carneiro, Pedro & Lee, Sokbae, 2009. "Estimating distributions of potential outcomes using local instrumental variables with an application to changes in college enrollment and wage inequality," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 149(2), pages 191-208, April.
    20. Yingying DONG & Ying-Ying LEE & Michael GOU, 2019. "Regression Discontinuity Designs with a Continuous Treatment," Discussion papers 19058, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Financial Economics;

    JEL classification:

    • 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

    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:ags:uwarer:270439. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/workingpapers/ .

    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.