Conditional treatment and its effect on recidivism

The objective of this paper is to evaluate the effect of the 1985 ”Employment Services for Ex-Offenders” (ESEO) program on recidivism. Initially, the sample has been split randomly in a control group and a treatment group. However, the actual treatment (mainly being job related counseling) only takes place conditional on finding a job, and not having been arrested, for those selected in the treatment group. We use a multiple proportional hazard model with unobserved heterogeneity for job seach and recidivism time which incorporates the conditional treatment effect. We find that the program helps to reduce criminal activity, contrary to the result of the previous analysis of this data set. This finding is important for crime prevention policy.

Bounds on functionals of the distribution treatment effects

Bounds on the distribution function of the sum of two random variables with known marginal distributions obtained by Makarov (1981) can be used to bound the cumulative distribution function (c.d.f.) of individual treatment effects. Identification of the distribution of individual treatment effects is important for policy purposes if we are interested in functionals of that distribution, such as the proportion of individuals who gain from the treatment and the expected gain from the treatment for these individuals. Makarov bounds on the c.d.f. of the individual treatment effect distribution are pointwise sharp, i.e. they cannot be improved in any single point of the distribution. We show that the Makarov bounds are not uniformly sharp. Specifically, we show that the Makarov bounds on the region that contains the c.d.f. of the treatment effect distribution in two (or more) points can be improved, and we derive the smallest set for the c.d.f. of the treatment effect distribution in two (or more) points. An implication is that the Makarov bounds on a functional of the c.d.f. of the individual treatment effect distribution are not best possible.

The Olympic impact on hosting candidate countries

In this paper, we analyze the impact of hosting the Summer Olympics on macroeconomic aggregates such as GDP, consumption, government consumption and investments per capita. The data is in panel structure and includes the period of ten years before and ten years after the event containing the Olympic Summer Games between 1960 and 1996. The sample countries comprise only candidates to host the games. This sampling strategy allows us to estimate the average treatment effect consistently, because it is assumed that these countries are comparable to each other, including those that ultimately hosted the games. The impact of hosting the Olympic games is measured by Fixed Effect and First Difference regressions. Moreover, we do a structural break test developed by Andrews (1993) to identify if hosting the Olympic Games creates anticipation effects for demand changes that stimulate current GDP, consumption, government consumption and investments. The results indicate a positive effect of the Summer Olympics in all variables of interest. However, the distribution in time and anticipation of these effects is unclear in the tests, changing significantly depending on the model and the significance level used.

Bounds on policy relevant parameters with discrete policy variation

When estimating policy parameters, also known as treatment effects, the assignment to treatment mechanism almost always causes endogeneity and thus bias many of these policy parameters estimates. Additionally, heterogeneity in program impacts is more likely to be the norm than the exception for most social programs. In situations where these issues are present, the Marginal Treatment Effect (MTE) parameter estimation makes use of an instrument to avoid assignment bias and simultaneously to account for heterogeneous effects throughout individuals. Although this parameter is point identified in the literature, the assumptions required for identification may be strong. Given that, we use weaker assumptions in order to partially identify the MTE, i.e. to stablish a methodology for MTE bounds estimation, implementing it computationally and showing results from Monte Carlo simulations. The partial identification we perfom requires the MTE to be a monotone function over the propensity score, which is a reasonable assumption on several economics' examples, and the simulation results shows it is possible to get informative even in restricted cases where point identification is lost. Additionally, in situations where estimated bounds are not informative and the traditional point identification is lost, we suggest a more generic method to point estimate MTE using the Moore-Penrose Pseudo-Invese Matrix, achieving better results than traditional methods.

Revisiting the synthetic control estimator

The synthetic control (SC) method has been recently proposed as an alternative to estimate treatment effects in comparative case studies. The SC relies on the assumption that there is a weighted average of the control units that reconstruct the potential outcome of the treated unit in the absence of treatment. If these weights were known, then one could estimate the counterfactual for the treated unit using this weighted average. With these weights, the SC would provide an unbiased estimator for the treatment effect even if selection into treatment is correlated with the unobserved heterogeneity. In this paper, we revisit the SC method in a linear factor model where the SC weights are considered nuisance parameters that are estimated to construct the SC estimator. We show that, when the number of control units is fixed, the estimated SC weights will generally not converge to the weights that reconstruct the factor loadings of the treated unit, even when the number of pre-intervention periods goes to infinity. As a consequence, the SC estimator will be asymptotically biased if treatment assignment is correlated with the unobserved heterogeneity. The asymptotic bias only vanishes when the variance of the idiosyncratic error goes to zero. We suggest a slight modification in the SC method that guarantees that the SC estimator is asymptotically unbiased and has a lower asymptotic variance than the difference-in-differences (DID) estimator when the DID identification assumption is satisfied. If the DID assumption is not satisfied, then both estimators would be asymptotically biased, and it would not be possible to rank them in terms of their asymptotic bias.