The role of propensity score in the efficient estimation of the average treatment effects is examined. If the treatment is ignorable given some observed characteristics, it is shown that the propensity score is ancillary for estimation of the average treatment effects but not for estimation of average treatment effects on the treated. Efficient semiparametric estimators take the form of relevant sample averages of the data completed by the nonparametric imputation method. Projection on the propensity score is not necessary for efficient semiparametric estimation of the average treatment effects on the treated even if the propensity score is known.

February 01 2004 Functional Restriction and Efficiency in Causal Inference Jinyong Hahn Jinyong Hahn UCLA Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Author and Article Information Jinyong Hahn UCLA Received: July 11 2001 Accepted: February 13 2003 Online Issn: 1530-9142 Print Issn: 0034-6535 © 2004 President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology2004 The Review of Economics and Statistics (2004) 86 (1): 73–76. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465304323023688 Article history Received: July 11 2001 Accepted: February 13 2003 Cite Icon Cite Permissions Share Icon Share MailTo Twitter LinkedIn Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Search Site Citation Jinyong Hahn; Functional Restriction and Efficiency in Causal Inference. The Review of Economics and Statistics 2004; 86 (1): 73–76. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/003465304323023688 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll JournalsThe Review of Economics and Statistics Search Advanced Search This content is only available as a PDF. © 2004 President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology2004 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Fixed effects estimators of panel models can be severely biased because of the well-known incidental parameters problem. We show that this bias can be reduced by using a panel jackknife or an analytical bias correction motivated by large T. We give bias corrections for averages over the fixed effects, as well as model parameters. We find large bias reductions from using these approaches in examples. We consider asymptotics where T grows with n, as an approximation to the properties of the estimators in econometric applications. We show that if T grows at the same rate as n, the fixed effects estimator is asymptotically biased, so that asymptotic confidence intervals are incorrect, but that they are correct for the panel jackknife. We show T growing faster than n-super-1/3 suffices for correctness of the analytic correction, a property we also conjecture for the jackknife. Copyright The Econometric Society 2004.

We develop a new specification test for IV estimators adopting a particular second order approximation of Bekker. The new specification test compares the difference of the forward (conventional) 2SLS estimator of the coefficient of the right-hand side endogenous variable with the reverse 2SLS estimator of the same unknown parameter when the normalization is changed. Under the null hypothesis that conventional first order asymptotics provide a reliable guide to inference, the two estimates should be very similar. Our test sees whether the resulting difference in the two estimates satisfies the results of second order asymptotic theory. Essentially the same idea is applied to develop another new specification test using second-order unbiased estimators of the type first proposed by Nagar. If the forward and reverse Nagar-type estimators are not significantly different we recommend estimation by LIML, which we demonstrate is the optimal linear combination of the Nagar-type estimators (to second order). We also demonstrate the high degree of similarity for k-class estimators between the approach of Bekker and the Edgeworth expansion approach of Rothenberg. An empirical example and Monte Carlo evidence demonstrate the operation of the new specification test.

Title from cover

The problem of when to control for continuous or high-dimensional discrete covariate vectors arises in both experimental and observational studies. Large-cell asymptotic arguments suggest that full control for covariates or stratification variables is always efficient, even if treatment is assigned independently of covariates or strata. Here, we approximate the behavior of different estimators using a panel-data-type asymptotic sequence with fixed cell sizes and the number of cells increasing to infinity. Exact calculations in simple examples and Monte Carlo evidence suggest this generates a substantially improved approximation to actual finite-sample distributions. Under this sequence, full control for covariates is dominated by propensity-score matching when cell sizes are small, the explanatory power of the covariates conditional on the propensity score is low, and/or the probability of treatment is close to 0 or 1. Our panel-asymptotic framework also provides an explanation for why propensity-score matching can dominate covariate matching even when there are no empty cells. Finally, we introduce a random-effects estimator that provides finite-sample efficiency gains over both covariate matching and propensity-score matching.

What is the weak-instruments (WI) problem and what causes it? Universal agreement does not exist on these questions. We define weak instruments by two features: (i) two-stage least squares (2SLS) analysis is badly biased toward the ordinary least-squares (OLS) estimate, and alternative “unbiased” estimators such as limited-information maximum likelihood (LIML) may not solve the problem; and (ii) the standard (first-order) asymptotic distribution does not give an accurate framework for inference. Thus, a researcher may estimate “bad results” and not be aware of the outcome. The cause of WI is often stated to be a low R or F statistic of the reduced-form equation, in the most commonly occurring situation of one right-handside endogenous variable. We find the situation is more complex with an additional factor, the correlation between the stochastic disturbances of the structural equation and the reduced form, that needs to be taken into account. We discuss in this paper a specification test (Hahn and Hausman, 2002a) for WI, a caution against using “no moments” estimators such as LIML in the WI situation, and suggestions for different estimators, an approach to inference of Frank Kleibergen (2002) for WI. We end with a caution of how “small biases” can become “large biases” in the WI situation. We begin with the limited-information structural model under the assumptions of Hausman (1983):

Nonseparable panel models are important in a variety of economic settings, including discrete choice. This paper gives identification and estimation results for nonseparable models under time-homogeneity conditions that are like “time is randomly assigned” or “time is an instrument.” Partial-identification results for average and quantile effects are given for discrete regressors, under static or dynamic conditions, in fully nonparametric and in semiparametric models, with time effects. It is shown that the usual, linear, fixed-effects estimator is not a consistent estimator of the identified average effect, and a consistent estimator is given. A simple estimator of identified quantile treatment effects is given, providing a solution to the important problem of estimating quantile treatment effects from panel data. Bounds for overall effects in static and dynamic models are given. The dynamic bounds provide a partial-identification solution to the important problem of estimating the effect of state dependence in the presence of unobserved heterogeneity. The impact of T, the number of time periods, is shown by deriving shrinkage rates for the identified set as T grows. We also consider semiparametric, discrete-choice models and find that semiparametric panel bounds can be much tighter than nonparametric bounds. Computationally convenient methods for semiparametric models are presented. We propose a novel inference method that applies in panel data and other settings and show that it produces uniformly valid confidence regions in large samples. We give empirical illustrations.

Aggregate shocks affect most households’ and firms’ decisions. Using three stylized models, we show that inference based on cross-sectional data alone generally fails to correctly account for decision making of rational agents facing aggregate uncertainty. We propose an econometric framework that overcomes these problems by explicitly parameterizing the agents’ decision problem relative to aggregate shocks. Our framework and examples illustrate that the cross-sectional and time-series aspects of the model are often interdependent. Therefore, estimation of model parameters in the presence of aggregate shocks requires the combined use of cross-sectional and time-series data. We provide easy-to-use formulas for test statistics and confidence intervals that account for the interaction between the cross-sectional and time-series variation. Lastly, we perform Monte Carlo simulations that highlight the properties of the proposed method and the risks of not properly accounting for the presence of aggregate shocks.

We show by counterexample that Proposition 2 in Fernández-Villaverde, Rubio-Ramírez, and Santos (Econometrica (2006), 74, 93–119) is false. We also show that even if their Proposition 2 were corrected, it would be irrelevant for parameter estimates. As a more constructive contribution, we consider the effects of approximation error on parameter estimation, and conclude that second order approximation errors in the policy function have at most second order effects on parameter estimates.