This paper studies the special case of the triangular system of equations in Vytlacil and Yildiz (2007), where both dependent variables are binary but without imposing the restrictive support condition required by Vytlacil and Yildiz (2007) for identification of the average structural function (ASF) and the average treatment effect (ATE). Under weak regularity conditions, we derive upper and lower bounds on the ASF and the ATE. We show further that the bounds on the ASF and ATE are sharp under some further regularity conditions and an additional restriction on the support of the covariates and the instrument.

We show by example that empirical likelihood and other commonly used tests for moment restrictions are unable to control the (exponential) rate at which the probability of a Type I error tends to zero unless the possible distributions for the observed data are restricted appropriately. From this, it follows that for the optimality claim for empirical likelihood in Kitamura (2001) to hold, additional assumptions and qualifications are required. Under stronger assumptions than those in Kitamura (2001), we establish the following optimality result: (i) empirical likelihood controls the rate at which the probability of a Type I error tends to zero and (ii) among all procedures for which the probability of a Type I error tends to zero at least as fast, empirical likelihood maximizes the rate at which the probability of a Type II error tends to zero for most alternatives. This result further implies that empirical likelihood maximizes the rate at which the probability of a Type II error tends to zero for all alternatives among a class of tests that satisfy a weaker criterion for their Type I error probabilities.

Treatment Effect Bounds under Monotonicity Assumptions: An Application to Swan-Ganz Catheterization by Jay Bhattacharya, Azeem M. Shaikh and Edward Vytlacil. Published in volume 98, issue 2, pages 351-56 of American Economic Review, May 2008

This paper studies the wild bootstrap–based test proposed in Cameron, Gelbach, and Miller (2008). Existing analyses of its properties require that number of clusters is “large.” In an asymptotic framework in which the number of clusters is “small,” we provide conditions under which an unstudentized version of the test is valid. These conditions include homogeneity-like restrictions on the distribution of covariates. We further establish that a studentized version of the test may only overreject the null hypothesis by a “small” amount that decreases exponentially with the number of clusters. We obtain a qualitatively similar result for “score” bootstrap-based tests, which permit testing in nonlinear models.

This paper examines three distinct hypothesis testing problems that arise in the context of identification of some nonparametric models with endogeneity. The first hypothesis testing problem we study concerns testing necessary conditions for identification in some nonparametric models with endogeneity involving mean independence restrictions. These conditions are typically referred to as completeness conditions. The second and third hypothesis testing problems we examine concern testing for identification directly in some nonparametric models with endogeneity involving quantile independence restrictions. For each of these hypothesis testing problems, we provide conditions under which any test will have power no greater than size against any alternative. In this sense, we conclude that no nontrivial tests for these hypothesis testing problems exist.

It is often desired to rank different populations according to the value of some feature of each population. For example, it may be desired to rank neighbourhoods according to some measure of intergenerational mobility or countries according to some measure of academic achievement. These rankings are invariably computed using estimates rather than the true values of these features. As a result, there may be considerable uncertainty concerning the rank of each population. In this paper, we consider the problem of accounting for such uncertainty by constructing confidence sets for the rank of each population. We consider both the problem of constructing marginal confidence sets for the rank of a particular population as well as simultaneous confidence sets for the ranks of all populations. We show how to construct such confidence sets under weak assumptions. An important feature of all of our constructions is that they remain computationally feasible even when the number of populations is very large. We apply our theoretical results to re-examine the rankings of both neighbourhoods in the U.S. in terms of intergenerational mobility and developed countries in terms of academic achievement. The conclusions about which countries do best and worst at reading, math, and science are fairly robust to accounting for uncertainty. The confidence sets for the ranking of the fifty most populous commuting zones by measures of mobility are also found to be small. These confidence sets, however, become much less informative if one includes all commuting zones, if one considers neighbourhoods at a more granular level (counties, census tracts), or if one uses movers across areas to address concerns about selection.