arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2011.06695econ.EMstat.ME

我们何时(不)应将线性工具变量估计量解释为局部平均处理效应?

When Should We (Not) Interpret Linear IV Estimands as LATE?

Tymon Słoczyński

AI总结:

本文探讨线性工具变量估计量作为条件局部平均处理效应加权平均的解释问题,指出在存在额外协变量且回归可能误设定时,权重可能为负,从而影响因果解释。

摘要:

本文重新审视线性工具变量(IV)估计量作为条件局部平均处理效应(LATE)加权平均的解释。我关注一种情况,即需要额外协变量进行识别,而减少形式和第一阶段回归可能因隐含的同质性限制而误设定。我显示,某些条件LATE的权重可能为负,且在较弱的单调性版本下,IV估计量不再可解释为因果效应,即在某些协变量值处有合规者但无反叛者,而在其他地方有反叛者但无合规者。负权重问题在Angrist和Imbens(1995)的交互规范中消失,该规范避免了误设定且在应用中似乎被低估。我在预审拘留对案件结果的因果效应应用中展示了发现。在此设定中,我拒绝更强的单调性版本,证明交互仪器在使用jackknife方法时足够强以实现一致估计,并呈现了几种经济和统计上不同的估计值,这取决于是否使用交互仪器。

英文摘要:

In this paper I revisit the interpretation of the linear instrumental variables (IV) estimand as a weighted average of conditional local average treatment effects (LATEs). I focus on a situation in which additional covariates are required for identification while the reduced-form and first-stage regressions may be misspecified due to an implicit homogeneity restriction on the effects of the instrument. I show that the weights on some conditional LATEs are negative and the IV estimand is no longer interpretable as a causal effect under a weaker version of monotonicity, i.e. when there are compliers but no defiers at some covariate values and defiers but no compliers elsewhere. The problem of negative weights disappears in the interacted specification of Angrist and Imbens (1995), which avoids misspecification and seems to be underused in applied work. I illustrate my findings in an application to the causal effects of pretrial detention on case outcomes. In this setting, I reject the stronger version of monotonicity, demonstrate that the interacted instruments are sufficiently strong for consistent estimation using the jackknife methodology, and present several estimates that are economically and statistically different, depending on whether the interacted instruments are used.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑