IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/azt/cemmap/24-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who should be treated? Empirical welfare maximization methods for treatment choice

Author

Listed:
  • Toru Kitagawa
  • Aleksey Tetenov

Abstract

One of the main objectives of empirical analysis of experiments and quasi-experiments is to inform policy decisions that determine theallocation of treatments to individuals with different observable covariates. We study the properties and implementation of the Empirical Welfare Maximization (EWM) method, which estimates a treatment assignment policy by maximizing the sample analog of average social welfare over a class of candidate treatment policies. The EWM approach is attractive in terms of both statistical performance and practical implementation in realistic settings of policy design. Common features of these settings include: (i) feasible treatment assignment rules are constrained exogenously for ethical, legislative, or political reasons, (ii) a policy maker wants a simple treatment assignment rule based on one or more eligibility scores in order to reduce the dimensionality of individual observable characteristics, and/or (iii) the proportion of individuals who can receive the treatment is a priori limited due to a budget or a capacity constraint. We show that when the propensity score is known, the average social welfare attained by EWM rules converges at least at n^(-1/2) rate to the maximum obtainable welfare uniformly over a minimally constrained class of data distributions, and this uniform convergence rate is minimax optimal. We examine how the uniform convergence rate depends on the richness of the class of candidate decision rules, the distribution of conditional treatment effects, and the lack of knowledge of the propensity score. We offer easily implementable algorithms for computing the EWM rule and an application using experimental data from the National JTPA Study.

Suggested Citation

  • Toru Kitagawa & Aleksey Tetenov, 2017. "Who should be treated? Empirical welfare maximization methods for treatment choice," CeMMAP working papers 24/17, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  • Handle: RePEc:azt:cemmap:24/17
    DOI: 10.1920/wp.cem.2017.2417
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cemmap.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/CWP2417.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1920/wp.cem.2017.2417?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Linton, Oliver & Song, Kyungchul & Whang, Yoon-Jae, 2010. "An improved bootstrap test of stochastic dominance," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 154(2), pages 186-202, February.
    2. Donald W. K. Andrews & Xiaoxia Shi, 2013. "Inference Based on Conditional Moment Inequalities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(2), pages 609-666, March.
    3. Florios, Kostas & Skouras, Spyros, 2008. "Exact computation of max weighted score estimators," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 146(1), pages 86-91, September.
    4. Stephen G. Donald & Yu-Chin Hsu, 2016. "Improving the Power of Tests of Stochastic Dominance," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(4), pages 553-585, April.
    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. Toru Kitagawa & Aleksey Tetenov, 2018. "Who Should Be Treated? Empirical Welfare Maximization Methods for Treatment Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(2), pages 591-616, March.
    2. Yoichi Arai & Yu‐Chin Hsu & Toru Kitagawa & Ismael Mourifié & Yuanyuan Wan, 2022. "Testing identifying assumptions in fuzzy regression discontinuity designs," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(1), pages 1-28, January.
    3. Beare, Brendan K. & Shi, Xiaoxia, 2019. "An improved bootstrap test of density ratio ordering," Econometrics and Statistics, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 9-26.
    4. Hsu, Yu-Chin & Shen, Shu, 2019. "Testing treatment effect heterogeneity in regression discontinuity designs," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 208(2), pages 468-486.
    5. Barrett, Garry F. & Donald, Stephen G. & Hsu, Yu-Chin, 2016. "Consistent tests for poverty dominance relations," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 191(2), pages 360-373.
    6. Yu-Chin Hsu & Robert P. Lieli, 2021. "Inference for ROC Curves Based on Estimated Predictive Indices," Papers 2112.01772, arXiv.org.
    7. Yu‐Chin Hsu & Shu Shen, 2021. "Testing monotonicity of conditional treatment effects under regression discontinuity designs," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(3), pages 346-366, April.
    8. Brendan K. Beare & Jackson D. Clarke, 2022. "Modified Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests of stochastic dominance," Papers 2210.08892, arXiv.org.
    9. Yu-Chin Hsu & Martin Huber & Ying-Ying Lee & Chu-An Liu, 2021. "Testing Monotonicity of Mean Potential Outcomes in a Continuous Treatment with High-Dimensional Data," Papers 2106.04237, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    10. Chuang, O-Chia & Kuan, Chung-Ming & Tzeng, Larry Y., 2017. "Testing for central dominance: Method and application," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 196(2), pages 368-378.
    11. David Lander & David Gunawan & William Griffiths & Duangkamon Chotikapanich, 2020. "Bayesian assessment of Lorenz and stochastic dominance," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 767-799, May.
    12. Qihui Chen & Zheng Fang, 2019. "Inference on Functionals under First Order Degeneracy," Papers 1901.04861, arXiv.org.
    13. Firpo, Sergio & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kobus, Martyna & Parker, Thomas & Rosa-Dias, Pedro, 2020. "Loss Aversion and the Welfare Ranking of Policy Interventions," IZA Discussion Papers 13176, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Arvanitis, Stelios & Topaloglou, Nikolas, 2017. "Testing for prospect and Markowitz stochastic dominance efficiency," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 198(2), pages 253-270.
    15. Chung, D. & Linton, O. & Whang Y-J., 2021. "Consistent Testing for an Implication of Supermodular Dominance," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2134, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    16. Miguel A. Delgado & Juan Carlos Escanciano, 2013. "Conditional Stochastic Dominance Testing," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(1), pages 16-28, January.
    17. Chen, Le-Yu & Lee, Sokbae, 2019. "Breaking the curse of dimensionality in conditional moment inequalities for discrete choice models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 210(2), pages 482-497.
    18. Linton, Oliver & Whang, Yoon-Jae & Yen, Yu-Min, 2016. "A nonparametric test of a strong leverage hypothesis," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 194(1), pages 153-186.
    19. David Lander & David Gunawan & William E. Griffiths & Duangkamon Chotikapanich, 2016. "Bayesian Assessment of Lorenz and Stochastic Dominance Using a Mixture of Gamma Densities," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 2023, The University of Melbourne.
    20. Andrews, Donald W.K. & Shi, Xiaoxia, 2017. "Inference based on many conditional moment inequalities," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 196(2), pages 275-287.

    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:azt:cemmap:24/17. 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: Dermot Watson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifsssuk.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.