IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tor/tecipa/tecipa-774.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Sharp Test for the Judge Leniency Design

Author

Listed:
  • Mohamed Coulibaly
  • Yu-Chin Hsu
  • Ismael Mourifie
  • Yuanyuan Wan

Abstract

We propose a new specification test to assess the validity of the judge leniency design. We characterize a set of sharp testable implications, which exploit all the relevant information in the observed data distribution to detect violations of the judge leniency design assumptions. The proposed sharp test is asymptotically valid and consistent and will not make discordant recommendations. When the judge's leniency design assumptions are rejected, we propose a way to salvage the model using partial monotonicity and exclusion assumptions, under which a variant of the Local Instrumental Variable (LIV) estimand can recover the Marginal Treatment Effect. Simulation studies show our test outperforms existing non-sharp tests by significant margins. We apply our test to assess the validity of the judge leniency design using data from Stevenson (2018), and it rejects the validity for three crime categories: robbery, drug selling, and drug possession.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohamed Coulibaly & Yu-Chin Hsu & Ismael Mourifie & Yuanyuan Wan, 2024. "A Sharp Test for the Judge Leniency Design," Working Papers tecipa-774, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:tor:tecipa:tecipa-774
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.economics.utoronto.ca/public/workingPapers/tecipa-774.pdf
    File Function: Main Text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amanda Kowalski, 2016. "Doing more when you're running LATE: Applying marginal treatment effect methods to examine treatment effect heterogeneity in experiments," Artefactual Field Experiments 00560, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Toru Kitagawa, 2015. "A Test for Instrument Validity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83(5), pages 2043-2063, September.
    3. Amanda E. Kowalski, 2016. "Doing More When You're Running LATE: Applying Marginal Treatment Effect Methods to Examine Treatment Effect Heterogeneity in Experiments for the Young and Privately Insured"," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2045, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    4. 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.
    5. Yu‐Chin Hsu, 2017. "Consistent tests for conditional treatment effects," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 20(1), pages 1-22, February.
    6. Joseph J. Doyle Jr. & John A. Graves & Jonathan Gruber & Samuel A. Kleiner, 2015. "Measuring Returns to Hospital Care: Evidence from Ambulance Referral Patterns," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 123(1), pages 170-214.
    7. Megan T Stevenson, 2018. "Distortion of Justice: How the Inability to Pay Bail Affects Case Outcomes," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(4), pages 511-542.
    8. David C Chan & Matthew Gentzkow & Chuan Yu, 2022. "Selection with Variation in Diagnostic Skill: Evidence from Radiologists [The Determinants of Productivity in Medical Testing: Intensity and Allocation of Care]," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 137(2), pages 729-783.
    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. Domenico Depalo, 2020. "Explaining the causal effect of adherence to medication on cholesterol through the marginal patient," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(S1), pages 110-126, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Pereda-Fernández, Santiago, 2023. "Identification and estimation of triangular models with a binary treatment," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 585-623.
    4. David Arnold & Will Dobbie & Peter Hull, 2022. "Measuring Racial Discrimination in Bail Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(9), pages 2992-3038, September.
    5. Amanda E Kowalski, 2023. "Behaviour within a Clinical Trial and Implications for Mammography Guidelines," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(1), pages 432-462.
    6. Wang, Wenjie & Ida, Takanori & Shimada, Hideki, 2020. "Default effect versus active decision: Evidence from a field experiment in Los Alamos," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    7. Timothy B. Armstrong & Michal Kolesár, 2021. "Sensitivity analysis using approximate moment condition models," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), pages 77-108, January.
    8. 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.
    9. Patrick Kline & Christopher R. Walters, 2019. "On Heckits, LATE, and Numerical Equivalence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(2), pages 677-696, March.
    10. Robert A. Moffitt & Matthew V. Zahn, 2019. "The Marginal Labor Supply Disincentives of Welfare: Evidence from Administrative Barriers to Participation," NBER Working Papers 26028, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Kédagni, Désiré, 2023. "Identifying treatment effects in the presence of confounded types," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 479-511.
    12. Michael R.M. Abrigo & Timothy J. Halliday & Teresa Molina, 2022. "Expanding health insurance for the elderly of the Philippines," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(3), pages 500-520, April.
    13. Camille Landais & Arash Nekoei & Peter Nilsson & David Seim & Johannes Spinnewijn, 2021. "Risk-Based Selection in Unemployment Insurance: Evidence and Implications," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(4), pages 1315-1355, April.
    14. Gong, Jie & Lu, Yi & Xie, Huihua, 2020. "The average and distributional effects of teenage adversity on long-term health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    15. Marguerite Burns & Laura Dague, 2023. "In-Kind Welfare Benefits and Reincarceration Risk: Evidence from Medicaid," NBER Working Papers 31394, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. 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.
    17. David Arnold & Will Dobbie & Crystal S Yang, 2018. "Racial Bias in Bail Decisions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(4), pages 1885-1932.
    18. Anirban Basu & Norma B. Coe & Cole G. Chapman, 2018. "2SLS versus 2SRI: Appropriate methods for rare outcomes and/or rare exposures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(6), pages 937-955, June.
    19. Isaiah Andrews & Emily Oster, 2017. "A Simple Approximation for Evaluating External Validity Bias," NBER Working Papers 23826, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Johannes W. Ligtenberg & Tiemen Woutersen, 2024. "Multidimensional clustering in judge designs," Papers 2406.09473, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Judge Leniency Design; Instrumental Variables; Specification Test; Moment Inequalities.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: General
    • C14 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods: General
    • 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:tor:tecipa:tecipa-774. 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: RePEc Maintainer (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.