Abstract
AbstractThis paper investigates the finite sample performance of a range of parametric, semi-parametric, and non-parametric instrumental variable estimators when controlling for a fixed set of covariates to evaluate the local average treatment effect. Our simulation designs are based on empirical labor market data from the US and vary in several dimensions, including effect heterogeneity, instrument selectivity, instrument strength, outcome distribution, and sample size. Among the estimators and simulations considered, non-parametric estimation based on the random forest (a machine learner controlling for covariates in a data-driven way) performs competitive in terms of the average coverage rates of the (bootstrap-based) 95% confidence intervals, while also being relatively precise. Non-parametric kernel regression as well as certain versions of semi-parametric radius matching on the propensity score, pair matching on the covariates, and inverse probability weighting also have a decent coverage, but are less precise than the random forest-based method. In terms of the average root mean squared error of LATE estimation, kernel regression performs best, closely followed by the random forest method, which has the lowest average absolute bias.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Computer Science Applications,Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)
Reference52 articles.
1. Abadie, A. (2003). Semiparametric instrumental variable estimation of treatment response models. Journal of Econometrics, 113, 231–263.
2. Abadie, A., & Imbens, G. W. (2008). On the failure of the bootstrap for matching estimators. Econometrica, 76, 1537–1557.
3. Abadie, A., & Imbens, G. W. (2011). Bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 29, 1–11.
4. Advani, A., & Sloczyński, T. (2013). Mostly harmless simulations? On the internal validity of empirical Monte Carlo studies. IZA Discussion Paper No. 7874.
5. Angrist, J., & Evans, W. (1998). Children and their parents labor supply: Evidence from exogeneous variation in family size. American Economic Review, 88, 450–477.