IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Sensitivity of Matching-Based Program Evaluations to the Availability of Control Variables

  • Michael Lechner
  • Conny Wunsch

Based on new, exceptionally informative and large German linked employer-employee administrative data, we investigate the question whether the omission of important control variables in matching estimation leads to biased impact estimates of typical active labour market programs for the unemployed. Such biases would lead to false policy conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of these expensive policies. Using newly developed Empirical Monte Carlo Study methods, we find that besides standard personal characteristics, information on individual health and firm characteristics of the last employer are particularly important for selection correction. Moreover, it is important to account for past performance on the labour market in a very detailed and flexible way. Information on job search behaviour, timing of unemployment and program start, as well as detailed regional characteristics are also relevant.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.cesifo-group.de/portal/page/portal/DocBase_Content/WP/WP-CESifo_Working_Papers/wp-cesifo-2011/wp-cesifo-2011-03/cesifo1_wp3381.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by CESifo Group Munich in its series CESifo Working Paper Series with number 3381.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_3381
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Poschingerstrasse 5, 81679 Munich

Phone: +49 (89) 9224-0
Fax: +49 (89) 985369
Web page: http://www.cesifo-group.de
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Lechner, Michael & Miquel, Ruth & Wunsch, Conny, 2005. "The Curse and Blessing of Training the Unemployed in a Changing Economy: the Case of East Germany after Unification," CEPR Discussion Papers 5171, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  2. Heckman, James & Navarro-Lozano, Salvador, 2003. "Using matching, instrumental variables and control functions to estimate economic choice models," Working Paper Series 2003:4, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
  3. Alberto Abadie & Guido W. Imbens, 2008. "On the Failure of the Bootstrap for Matching Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(6), pages 1537-1557, November.
  4. Bernd Fitzenberger & Aderonke Osikominu & Robert Völter, 2008. "Get Training or Wait? Long-Run Employment Effects of Training Programs for the Unemployed in West Germany," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 91-92, pages 321-355.
  5. Michael Lechner & Stephan Wiehler, 2007. "Kids or Courses? Gender Differences in the Effects of Active Labor Market Policies," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2007 2007-08, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
  6. Michael Gerfin & Michael Lechner, 2002. "A Microeconometric Evaluation of the Active Labour Market Policy in Switzerland," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(482), pages 854-893, October.
  7. Fitzenberger, Bernd & Volter, Robert, 2007. "Long-run effects of training programs for the unemployed in East Germany," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 730-755, August.
  8. Shadish, William R. & Clark, M. H. & Steiner, Peter M., 2008. "Can Nonrandomized Experiments Yield Accurate Answers? A Randomized Experiment Comparing Random and Nonrandom Assignments," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103(484), pages 1334-1344.
  9. Richard Blundell & Monica Costa Dias, 2008. "Alternative approaches to evaluation in empirical microeconomics," CeMMAP working papers CWP26/08, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  10. Thomas Fraker & Rebecca Maynard, 1987. "The Adequacy of Comparison Group Designs for Evaluations of Employment-Related Programs," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 22(2), pages 194-227.
  11. Jespersen, Svend T. & Munch, Jakob R. & Skipper, Lars, 2008. "Costs and benefits of Danish active labour market programmes," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 859-884, October.
  12. Friedlander, Daniel & Robins, Philip K, 1995. "Evaluating Program Evaluations: New Evidence on Commonly Used Nonexperimental Methods," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(4), pages 923-37, September.
  13. LaLonde, Robert J, 1986. "Evaluating the Econometric Evaluations of Training Programs with Experimental Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 604-20, September.
  14. Ahmed Khwaja & Gabriel Picone & Martin Salm & Justin G. Trogdon, 2011. "A comparison of treatment effects estimators using a structural model of AMI treatment choices and severity of illness information from hospital charts," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(5), pages 825-853, 08.
  15. James Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Jeffrey Smith & Petra Todd, 1998. "Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(5), pages 1017-1098, September.
  16. Michael Lechner & Conny Wunsch, 2009. "Active labour market policy in East Germany," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 17(4), pages 661-702, October.
  17. Miquel, Ruth & Lechner, Michael & Wunsch, Conny, 2005. "Long-Run Effects of Public Sector Sponsored Training in West Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 05-02, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  18. Frölich, Markus & Lechner, Michael, 2006. "Exploiting Regional Treatment Intensity for the Evaluation of Labour Market Policies," IZA Discussion Papers 2144, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  19. Peter R. Mueser & Kenneth Troske & Alexey Gorislavsky, 2003. "Using State Administrative Data to Measure Program Performance," Working Papers 0309, Department of Economics, University of Missouri.
  20. Peter Fredriksson & Per Johansson, 2003. "Program Evaluation and Random Program Starts," CESifo Working Paper Series 844, CESifo Group Munich.
  21. Card, David Edward & Kluve, Jochen & Weber, Andrea Maria, 2009. "Active Labor Market Policy Evaluations – A Meta-analysis," Ruhr Economic Papers 86, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
  22. Dolton, Peter & Smith, Jeffrey A., 2011. "The Impact of the UK New Deal for Lone Parents on Benefit Receipt," IZA Discussion Papers 5491, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  23. 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.
  24. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra E. Todd, 1997. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 64(4), pages 605-654.
  25. Jeffrey Smith & Petra Todd, 2003. "Does Matching Overcome Lalonde's Critique of Nonexperimental Estimators?," University of Western Ontario, Centre for Human Capital and Productivity (CHCP) Working Papers 20035, University of Western Ontario, Centre for Human Capital and Productivity (CHCP).
  26. Heckman, James J & Smith, Jeffrey A, 1999. "The Pre-programme Earnings Dip and the Determinants of Participation in a Social Programme. Implications for Simple Programme Evaluation Strategies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(457), pages 313-48, July.
  27. Jan C. van Ours, 2002. "The Locking-in Effect of Subsidized Jobs," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 474, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
  28. Rajeev H. Dehejia & Sadek Wahba, 2002. "Propensity Score-Matching Methods For Nonexperimental Causal Studies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(1), pages 151-161, February.
  29. Bernd Fitzenberger & Stefan Speckesser, 2007. "Employment effects of the provision of specific professional skills and techniques in Germany," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 529-573, May.
  30. Barbara Sianesi, 2004. "An Evaluation of the Swedish System of Active Labor Market Programs in the 1990s," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 133-155, February.
  31. Sianesi, Barbara, 2008. "Differential effects of active labour market programs for the unemployed," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 370-399, June.
  32. Heinrich, Carolyn J. & Mueser, Peter R. & Troske, Kenneth & Jeon, Kyung-Seong & Kahvecioglu, Daver C., 2009. "New Estimates of Public Employment and Training Program Net Impacts: A Nonexperimental Evaluation of the Workforce Investment Act Program," IZA Discussion Papers 4569, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  33. Stephan Thomsen, 2009. "Job Search Assistance Programs in Europe: Evaluation Methods and Recent Empirical Findings," FEMM Working Papers 09018, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
  34. Dorsett, Richard, 2006. "The new deal for young people: effect on the labour market status of young men," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 405-422, June.
  35. James J. Heckman & Jeffrey A. Smith, 1995. "Assessing the Case for Social Experiments," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 85-110, Spring.
  36. Joffe, Marshall M. & Ten Have, Thomas R. & Feldman, Harold I. & Kimmel, Stephen E., 2004. "Model Selection, Confounder Control, and Marginal Structural Models: Review and New Applications," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 58, pages 272-279, November.
  37. Fredriksson, Peter & Johansson, Per, 2008. "Dynamic Treatment Assignment," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 26, pages 435-445.
  38. Laura Larsson, 2003. "Evaluation of Swedish Youth Labor Market Programs," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 38(4).
  39. repec:adr:anecst:y:2008:i:91-92:p:15 is not listed on IDEAS
  40. Conny Wunsch & Michael Lechner, 2008. "What Did All the Money Do? On the General Ineffectiveness of Recent West German Labour Market Programmes," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 134-174, 02.
  41. Guido W. Imbens, 2003. "Nonparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects under Exogeneity: A Review," NBER Technical Working Papers 0294, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  42. Huber, Martin & Lechner, Michael & Wunsch, Conny, 2010. "How to Control for Many Covariates? Reliable Estimators Based on the Propensity Score," IZA Discussion Papers 5268, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  43. James J. Heckman, 1989. "Choosing Among Alternative Nonexperimental Methods for Estimating the Impact of Social Programs: The Case of Manpower Training," NBER Working Papers 2861, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  44. Petrongolo, Barbara, 2008. "The Long-Term Effects of Job Search Requirements: Evidence from the UK JSA Reform," IZA Discussion Papers 3856, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  45. Abowd, John M. & Kramarz, Francis, 1999. "The analysis of labor markets using matched employer-employee data," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 40, pages 2629-2710 Elsevier.
  46. James J. Heckman & Jeffrey A. Smith, 1999. "The Pre-Program Earnings Dip and the Determinants of Participation in a Social Program: Implications for Simple Program Evaluation Strategies," NBER Working Papers 6983, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  47. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra Todd, 1998. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 65(2), pages 261-294.
  48. James G. MacKinnon, 2006. "Bootstrap Methods in Econometrics," Working Papers 1028, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
  49. repec:adr:anecst:y:2008:i:91-92 is not listed on IDEAS
  50. Alberto Abadie & Guido W. Imbens, 2006. "Large Sample Properties of Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 235-267, 01.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_3381. 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: (Klaus Wohlrabe)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.