IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/glodps/93.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Going beyond LATE: Bounding Average Treatment Effects of Job Corps Training

Author

Listed:
  • Chen, Xuan
  • Flores, Carlos A.
  • Flores-Lagunes, Alfonso

Abstract

We derive nonparametric sharp bounds on average treatment effects with an instrumental variable (IV) and use them to evaluate the effectiveness of the Job Corps training program for disadvantaged youth. We focus on the population average treatment effect (ATE) and the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT), which are parameters not point identified with an IV under heterogeneous treatment effects. The main assumptions employed to bound the ATE and ATT are monotonicity in the treatment of the average outcomes of specified subpopulations, and mean dominance assumptions across the potential outcomes of these subpopulations. Importantly, the direction of the mean dominance assumptions can be informed from data, and some of our bounds do not require an outcome with bounded support. We employ these bounds to assess the effectiveness of Job Corps using data from a randomized social experiment with non-compliance (a common feature of social experiments). Our empirical results indicate that the effect of Job Corps on eligible applicants (the target population) four years after randomization is to increase weekly earnings and employment by at least $24:61 and 4:3 percentage points, respectively, and to decrease yearly dependence on public welfare benefits by at least $84:29. Furthermore, the effect of Job Corps on participants (the treated population) is to increase weekly earnings by between $28:67 and $43:47, increase employment by between 4:9 and 9:3 percentage points, and decrease public benefits received by between $108:72 and $140:29. Finally, some of our results point to positive average effects of Job Corps on the labor market outcomes of those individuals who decide not to enroll in Job Corps regardless of their treatment assignment (the so-called never takers), suggesting that these individuals would benefit from participating in Job Corps.

Suggested Citation

  • Chen, Xuan & Flores, Carlos A. & Flores-Lagunes, Alfonso, 2017. "Going beyond LATE: Bounding Average Treatment Effects of Job Corps Training," GLO Discussion Paper Series 93, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:glodps:93
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/163002/1/GLO-DP-0093.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Manski, Charles F, 1990. "Nonparametric Bounds on Treatment Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 319-323, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Angus Deaton, 2010. "Instruments, Randomization, and Learning about Development," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(2), pages 424-455, June.
    4. Paolo Frumento & Fabrizia Mealli & Barbara Pacini & Donald B. Rubin, 2012. "Evaluating the Effect of Training on Wages in the Presence of Noncompliance, Nonemployment, and Missing Outcome Data," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 107(498), pages 450-466, June.
    5. Charles F. Manski, 1997. "Monotone Treatment Response," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(6), pages 1311-1334, November.
    6. Alfonso Flores-Lagunes & Arturo Gonzalez & Todd Neumann, 2010. "Learning But Not Earning? The Impact Of Job Corps Training On Hispanic Youth," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 48(3), pages 651-667, July.
    7. James J. Heckman, 2010. "Building Bridges between Structural and Program Evaluation Approaches to Evaluating Policy," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(2), pages 356-398, June.
    8. Richard Blundell & Amanda Gosling & Hidehiko Ichimura & Costas Meghir, 2007. "Changes in the Distribution of Male and Female Wages Accounting for Employment Composition Using Bounds," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(2), pages 323-363, March.
    9. van Ours, Jan C., 2004. "The locking-in effect of subsidized jobs," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 37-55, March.
    10. Victor Chernozhukov & Sokbae Lee & Adam M. Rosen, 2013. "Intersection Bounds: Estimation and Inference," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(2), pages 667-737, March.
    11. Ozkan Eren & Serkan Ozbeklik, 2014. "Who Benefits From Job Corps? A Distributional Analysis Of An Active Labor Market Program," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 586-611, June.
    12. Azeem M. Shaikh & Edward J. Vytlacil, 2011. "Partial Identification in Triangular Systems of Equations With Binary Dependent Variables," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 949-955, May.
    13. Heckman, James J. & Urzúa, Sergio, 2010. "Comparing IV with structural models: What simple IV can and cannot identify," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 156(1), pages 27-37, May.
    14. O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), 1999. "Handbook of Labor Economics," Handbook of Labor Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 3, number 3.
    15. repec:pri:rpdevs:deaton_instruments_randomization_learning_all_04april_2010 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2009. "Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 8769.
    17. Imbens, Guido W & Angrist, Joshua D, 1994. "Identification and Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 467-475, March.
    18. Guido W. Imbens & Charles F. Manski, 2004. "Confidence Intervals for Partially Identified Parameters," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(6), pages 1845-1857, November.
    19. Keisuke Hirano & Jack R. Porter, 2012. "Impossibility Results for Nondifferentiable Functionals," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(4), pages 1769-1790, July.
    20. David S. Lee, 2009. "Training, Wages, and Sample Selection: Estimating Sharp Bounds on Treatment Effects," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 76(3), pages 1071-1102.
    21. Charles F. Manski & John V. Pepper, 2000. "Monotone Instrumental Variables, with an Application to the Returns to Schooling," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 997-1012, July.
    22. Chiburis, Richard C., 2010. "Semiparametric bounds on treatment effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 159(2), pages 267-275, December.
    23. Martin Huber & Giovanni Mellace, 2010. "Sharp IV bounds on average treatment effects under endogeneity and noncompliance," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2010 2010-31, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
    24. James J. Heckman & Edward J. Vytlacil, 2000. "Instrumental Variables, Selection Models, and Tight Bounds on the Average Treatment Effect," NBER Technical Working Papers 0259, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    25. Toru Kitagawa, 2009. "Identification region of the potential outcome distributions under instrument independence," CeMMAP working papers CWP30/09, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    26. Carlos A. Flores & Alfonso Flores-Lagunes, 2013. "Partial Identification of Local Average Treatment Effects With an Invalid Instrument," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(4), pages 534-545, October.
    27. Robert A. Moffitt, 2003. "Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United States," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number moff03-1, June.
    28. Peter Z. Schochet & John Burghardt & Steven Glazerman, 2001. "National Job Corps Study: The Impacts of Job Corps on Participants' Employment and Related Outcomes," Mathematica Policy Research Reports db6c4204b8e1408bb0c6289ec, Mathematica Policy Research.
    29. Xuan Chen & Carlos A. Flores, 2015. "Bounds on Treatment Effects in the Presence of Sample Selection and Noncompliance: The Wage Effects of Job Corps," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(4), pages 523-540, October.
    30. repec:eme:rleczz:s0147-912120140000040004 is not listed on IDEAS
    31. Andrew Chesher, 2010. "Instrumental Variable Models for Discrete Outcomes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(2), pages 575-601, March.
    32. Robert A. Moffitt, 2003. "Introduction to "Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United States"," NBER Chapters,in: Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United States, pages 1-14 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    33. Victor Chernozhukov & Christian Hansen, 2005. "An IV Model of Quantile Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(1), pages 245-261, January.
    34. Bhattacharya, Jay & Shaikh, Azeem M. & Vytlacil, Edward, 2012. "Treatment effect bounds: An application to Swan–Ganz catheterization," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 168(2), pages 223-243.
    35. repec:mpr:mprres:2951 is not listed on IDEAS
    36. Edward Vytlacil, 2002. "Independence, Monotonicity, and Latent Index Models: An Equivalence Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(1), pages 331-341, January.
    37. Zvi Eckstein & Kenneth I. Wolpin, 1999. "Why Youths Drop Out of High School: The Impact of Preferences, Opportunities, and Abilities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 67(6), pages 1295-1340, November.
    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. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Training programs; Program evaluation; Average treatment effects; Bounds; Instrumental variables;

    JEL classification:

    • J30 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - General
    • C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Estimation: General
    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models

    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:zbw:glodps:93. 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: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/glaboea.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 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.

    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.