IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bdi/wptemi/td_1158_17.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Targeting policy-compliers with machine learning: an application to a tax rebate programme in Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Monica Andini

    (Bank of Italy)

  • Emanuele Ciani

    (Bank of Italy)

  • Guido de Blasio

    (Bank of Italy)

  • Alessio D'Ignazio

    (Bank of Italy)

  • Viola Salvestrini

    (London School of Economics and Political Science)

Abstract

Machine Learning (ML) can be a powerful tool to inform policy decisions. Those who are treated under a programme might have different propensities to put into practice the behaviour that the policymaker wants to incentivize. ML algorithms can be used to predict the policy-compliers; that is, those who are most likely to behave in the way desired by the policymaker. When the design of the programme is tailored to target the policy-compliers, the overall effectiveness of the policy is increased. This paper proposes an application of ML targeting that uses the massive tax rebate scheme introduced in Italy in 2014.

Suggested Citation

  • Monica Andini & Emanuele Ciani & Guido de Blasio & Alessio D'Ignazio & Viola Salvestrini, 2017. "Targeting policy-compliers with machine learning: an application to a tax rebate programme in Italy," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 1158, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
  • Handle: RePEc:bdi:wptemi:td_1158_17
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/temi-discussione/2017/2017-1158/en_tema_1158.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jon Kleinberg & Jens Ludwig & Sendhil Mullainathan & Ziad Obermeyer, 2015. "Prediction Policy Problems," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 491-495, May.
    2. Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Mert Demirer & Esther Duflo & Christian Hansen & Whitney Newey & James Robins, 2018. "Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 21(1), pages 1-68, February.
    3. Aaron Chalfin & Oren Danieli & Andrew Hillis & Zubin Jelveh & Michael Luca & Jens Ludwig & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2016. "Productivity and Selection of Human Capital with Machine Learning," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 124-127, May.
    4. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2017. "The State of Applied Econometrics: Causality and Policy Evaluation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 3-32, Spring.
    5. Sendhil Mullainathan & Jann Spiess, 2017. "Machine Learning: An Applied Econometric Approach," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 87-106, Spring.
    6. Tullio Jappelli & Luigi Pistaferri, 2014. "Fiscal Policy and MPC Heterogeneity," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(4), pages 107-136, October.
    7. Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Mert Demirer & Esther Duflo & Christian Hansen & Whitney Newey, 2017. "Double/Debiased/Neyman Machine Learning of Treatment Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 261-265, May.
    8. Andrea Neri & Concetta Rondinelli & Filippo Scoccianti, 2017. "Household spending out of a tax rebate: Italian ��80 tax bonus�," Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers) 379, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    9. Jon Kleinberg & Himabindu Lakkaraju & Jure Leskovec & Jens Ludwig & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2018. "Human Decisions and Machine Predictions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 133(1), pages 237-293.
    10. Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Mert Demirer & Esther Duflo & Christian Hansen & Whitney Newey & James Robins, 2016. "Double/Debiased Machine Learning for Treatment and Causal Parameters," Papers 1608.00060, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2017.
    11. Hal R. Varian, 2014. "Big Data: New Tricks for Econometrics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(2), pages 3-28, Spring.
    12. Neri, Andrea & Rondinelli, Concetta & Scoccianti, Filippo, 2017. "Household spending out of a tax rebate: Italian “€80 tax bonus”," Working Paper Series 2099, European Central Bank.
    13. Jonah E. Rockoff & Brian A. Jacob & Thomas J. Kane & Douglas O. Staiger, 2011. "Can You Recognize an Effective Teacher When You Recruit One?," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 6(1), pages 43-74, January.
    14. Dana Chandler & Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2011. "Predicting and Preventing Shootings among At-Risk Youth," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(3), pages 288-292, May.
    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. Andreas Joseph, 2019. "Parametric inference with universal function approximators," Papers 1903.04209, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2020.
    2. Concetta Rondinelli & Roberta Zizza, 2020. "Spend today or spend tomorrow? The role of inflation expectations in consumer behaviour," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 1276, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    3. Aiello, Francesco & Albanese, Giuseppe & Piselli, Paolo, 2019. "Good value for public money? The case of R&D policy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1057-1076.

    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. Andini, Monica & Ciani, Emanuele & de Blasio, Guido & D'Ignazio, Alessio & Salvestrini, Viola, 2018. "Targeting with machine learning: An application to a tax rebate program in Italy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 86-102.
    2. Falco J. Bargagli Stoffi & Kenneth De Beckker & Joana E. Maldonado & Kristof De Witte, 2021. "Assessing Sensitivity of Machine Learning Predictions.A Novel Toolbox with an Application to Financial Literacy," Papers 2102.04382, arXiv.org.
    3. Francesco Decarolis & Cristina Giorgiantonio, 2020. "Corruption red flags in public procurement: new evidence from Italian calls for tenders," Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers) 544, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    4. McKenzie, David & Sansone, Dario, 2019. "Predicting entrepreneurial success is hard: Evidence from a business plan competition in Nigeria," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    5. McKenzie, David J. & Sansone, Dario, 2017. "Man vs. Machine in Predicting Successful Entrepreneurs: Evidence from a Business Plan Competition in Nigeria," CEPR Discussion Papers 12523, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Monica Andini & Michela Boldrini & Emanuele Ciani & Guido de Blasio & Alessio D'Ignazio & Andrea Paladini, 2019. "Machine learning in the service of policy targeting: the case of public credit guarantees," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 1206, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    7. Pietro Battiston & Simona Gamba & Alessandro Santoro, 2020. "Optimizing Tax Administration Policies with Machine Learning," Working Papers 436, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2020.
    8. Guido de Blasio & Alessio D'Ignazio & Marco Letta, 2020. "Predicting Corruption Crimes with Machine Learning. A Study for the Italian Municipalities," Working Papers 16/20, Sapienza University of Rome, DISS.
    9. Liyang Tang, 2020. "Application of Nonlinear Autoregressive with Exogenous Input (NARX) neural network in macroeconomic forecasting, national goal setting and global competitiveness assessment," Papers 2005.08735, arXiv.org.
    10. Songul Cinaroglu, 2020. "Modelling unbalanced catastrophic health expenditure data by using machine‐learning methods," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 168-181, October.
    11. Anthony Niblett, 2018. "Regulatory Reform in Ontario: Machine Learning and Regulation," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 507, March.
    12. Isil Erel & Léa H. Stern & Chenhao Tan & Michael S. Weisbach, 2018. "Selecting Directors Using Machine Learning," NBER Working Papers 24435, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Andres Algaba & David Ardia & Keven Bluteau & Samuel Borms & Kris Boudt, 2020. "Econometrics Meets Sentiment: An Overview Of Methodology And Applications," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(3), pages 512-547, July.
    14. Ajay Agrawal & Joshua S. Gans & Avi Goldfarb, 2019. "Artificial Intelligence: The Ambiguous Labor Market Impact of Automating Prediction," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(2), pages 31-50, Spring.
    15. Marica Valente, 2020. "Heterogeneous effects of waste pricing policies," Papers 2010.01105, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2021.
    16. Jorge Mejia & Shawn Mankad & Anandasivam Gopal, 2019. "A for Effort? Using the Crowd to Identify Moral Hazard in New York City Restaurant Hygiene Inspections," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 1363-1386, December.
    17. Susan Athey, 2018. "The Impact of Machine Learning on Economics," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda, pages 507-547, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Jiaming Mao & Jingzhi Xu, 2020. "Ensemble Learning with Statistical and Structural Models," Papers 2006.05308, arXiv.org.
    19. Ballestar, María Teresa & Doncel, Luis Miguel & Sainz, Jorge & Ortigosa-Blanch, Arturo, 2019. "A novel machine learning approach for evaluation of public policies: An application in relation to the performance of university researchers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    20. Amit Sharma & Emre Kiciman, 2020. "DoWhy: An End-to-End Library for Causal Inference," Papers 2011.04216, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    machine learning; prediction; programme evaluation; fiscal stimulus;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C5 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling
    • H3 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:bdi:wptemi:td_1158_17. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bdigvit.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 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: (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bdigvit.html .

    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.