IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/crs/wpaper/2020-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An alternative to synthetic control for models with many covariates under sparsity

Author

Listed:
  • Marianne BLÉHAUT

    (CREST-ENSAE)

  • Xavier D'HAULTFOEUILLE

    (CREST-ENSAE)

  • Jérémy L'HOUR

    (CREST-ENSAE)

  • Alexandre B. TSYBAKOV

    (CREST-ENSAE)

Abstract

The synthetic control method is a an econometric tool to evaluate causal effects when only one unit is treated. While initially aimed at evaluating the effect of large-scale macroeconomic changes with very few available control units, it has increasingly been used in place of more well-known microeconometric tools in a broad range of applications, but its properties in this context are unknown. This paper introduces an alternative to the synthetic control method, which is developed both in the usual asymptotic framework and in the high-dimensional scenario. We propose an estimator of average treatment effect that is doubly robust, consistent and asymptotically normal. It is also immunized against first-step selection mistakes. We illustrate these properties using Monte Carlo simulations and applications to both standard and potentially high-dimensional settings, and offer a comparison with the synthetic control method.

Suggested Citation

  • Marianne BLÉHAUT & Xavier D'HAULTFOEUILLE & Jérémy L'HOUR & Alexandre B. TSYBAKOV, 2020. "An alternative to synthetic control for models with many covariates under sparsity," Working Papers 2020-17, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
  • Handle: RePEc:crs:wpaper:2020-17
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://crest.science/RePEc/wpstorage/2020-17.pdf
    File Function: CREST working paper version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. LaLonde, Robert J, 1986. "Evaluating the Econometric Evaluations of Training Programs with Experimental Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 604-620, September.
    2. Hainmueller, Jens, 2012. "Entropy Balancing for Causal Effects: A Multivariate Reweighting Method to Produce Balanced Samples in Observational Studies," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 25-46, January.
    3. A. Belloni & V. Chernozhukov & I. Fernández‐Val & C. Hansen, 2017. "Program Evaluation and Causal Inference With High‐Dimensional Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 233-298, January.
    4. Farrell, Max H., 2015. "Robust inference on average treatment effects with possibly more covariates than observations," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 189(1), pages 1-23.
    5. Victor Chernozhukov & Christian Hansen & Martin Spindler, 2015. "Post-Selection and Post-Regularization Inference in Linear Models with Many Controls and Instruments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 486-490, May.
    6. A. Belloni & D. Chen & V. Chernozhukov & C. Hansen, 2012. "Sparse Models and Methods for Optimal Instruments With an Application to Eminent Domain," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(6), pages 2369-2429, November.
    7. Alexandre Belloni & Victor Chernozhukov & Christian Hansen, 2014. "Inference on Treatment Effects after Selection among High-Dimensional Controlsâ€," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 81(2), pages 608-650.
    8. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens & Stefan Wager, 2018. "Approximate residual balancing: debiased inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 80(4), pages 597-623, September.
    9. Abadie, Alberto & Diamond, Alexis & Hainmueller, Jens, 2010. "Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 105(490), pages 493-505.
    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. Alexandre Belloni & Mingli Chen & Victor Chernozhukov, 2016. "Quantile Graphical Models: Prediction and Conditional Independence with Applications to Systemic Risk," Papers 1607.00286, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2019.
    2. Davide Viviano & Jelena Bradic, 2021. "Dynamic covariate balancing: estimating treatment effects over time," Papers 2103.01280, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2021.
    3. Michael Pollmann, 2020. "Causal Inference for Spatial Treatments," Papers 2011.00373, arXiv.org.
    4. Alexandre Belloni & Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Christian Hansen & Kengo Kato, 2018. "High-dimensional econometrics and regularized GMM," CeMMAP working papers CWP35/18, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    5. Kyle Colangelo & Ying-Ying Lee, 2019. "Double debiased machine learning nonparametric inference with continuous treatments," CeMMAP working papers CWP72/19, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    6. Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C. & Zhao, Jun, 2020. "Doubly robust difference-in-differences estimators," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 219(1), pages 101-122.
    7. Martin Huber, 2019. "An introduction to flexible methods for policy evaluation," Papers 1910.00641, arXiv.org.
    8. Michael C. Knaus, 2021. "A double machine learning approach to estimate the effects of musical practice on student’s skills," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(1), pages 282-300, January.
    9. Kyle Colangelo & Ying-Ying Lee, 2019. "Double debiased machine learning nonparametric inference with continuous treatments," CeMMAP working papers CWP54/19, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    10. Philipp Bach & Victor Chernozhukov & Malte S. Kurz & Martin Spindler, 2021. "DoubleML -- An Object-Oriented Implementation of Double Machine Learning in R," Papers 2103.09603, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2021.
    11. Kyle Colangelo & Ying-Ying Lee, 2020. "Double Debiased Machine Learning Nonparametric Inference with Continuous Treatments," Papers 2004.03036, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2021.
    12. 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.
    13. Knaus, Michael C., 2020. "Double Machine Learning based Program Evaluation under Unconfoundedness," Economics Working Paper Series 2004, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    14. Johann Pfitzinger, 2021. "An Interpretable Neural Network for Parameter Inference," Papers 2106.05536, arXiv.org.
    15. Martin Wiegand, 2019. "Do early-ending conditional cash transfer programs crowd out school enrollment?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-053/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    16. Zhong, Wei & Gao, Yang & Zhou, Wei & Fan, Qingliang, 2021. "Endogenous treatment effect estimation using high-dimensional instruments and double selection," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    17. Jelena Bradic & Stefan Wager & Yinchu Zhu, 2019. "Sparsity Double Robust Inference of Average Treatment Effects," Papers 1905.00744, arXiv.org.
    18. Michael Zimmert, 2018. "Efficient Difference-in-Differences Estimation with High-Dimensional Common Trend Confounding," Papers 1809.01643, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    19. Su, Liangjun & Ura, Takuya & Zhang, Yichong, 2019. "Non-separable models with high-dimensional data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 212(2), pages 646-677.
    20. Kaspar Wuthrich & Ying Zhu, 2019. "Omitted variable bias of Lasso-based inference methods: A finite sample analysis," Papers 1903.08704, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2021.

    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:crs:wpaper:2020-17. 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/crestfr.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: Secretariat General (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/crestfr.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.