Abadie新作：简明IV,DID,RDD教程和综述

Stata 连享会   主页 || 视频 || 推文

温馨提示： 定期 清理浏览器缓存，可以获得最佳浏览体验。

✌ 课程详情： https://gitee.com/arlionn/Course   |   lianxh.cn

✨ 课程主页： https://gitee.com/arlionn/Course

Abadie, A., M. D. Cattaneo, 2018, Econometric methods for program evaluation, MIT working paper. -PDF-

提要： Our goal in this article is to provide a summary overview of the literature on the econometrics of program evaluation for ex-post analysis and, in the process, to delineate some of the directions along which it is expanding, discussing recent developments and the areas where research may be particularly fruitful in the near future. Other recent surveys on the estimation of causal treatment effects and the econometrics of program evaluation from different perspectives and disciplines include Abadie (2005a), Angrist and Pischke (2008, 2014), Athey and Imbens (2017c), Blundell and Costa Dias (2009), DiNardo and Lee (2011), Heckman and Vytlacil (2007), Hern´an and Robins (2018), Imbens and Rubin (2015), Imbens and Wooldridge (2009), Lee (2016), Manski (2008), Pearl (2009), Rosenbaum (2002, 2010), Van der Laan and Robins (2003), and VanderWeele (2015), among many others.

未来的研究方向

• 大数据
• 机器学习
• networks, spillovers, social interactions

An important recent development that has had a profound impact in the program evaluation literature is the arrival of new data environments (Mullainathan and Spiess, 2017). The availability of big data has generated the need for methods able to cope with data sets that are either too large or too complex to be analyzed using standard econometric methods. Of particular importance is the role of administrative records and of large data sets collected by automated systems.

These are, in some cases, relatively new source of information and pose challenges in terms of identification, estimation and inference. Model selection, shrinkage and empirical Bayes approaches are particular useful in this context (e.g., Efron, 2012; Abadie and Kasy, 2017), though these methods have not yet been fully incorporated into the program evaluation toolkit. Much of the current research in this area develops machine learning methods to estimate heterogeneous treatment effects in contexts with many covariates (see, e.g., Athey and Imbens, 2016; Wager and Athey, 2017; Taddy et al., 2016).

Also potentiated by the rise of new big, complex data, is the very recent work on networks, spillovers, social interactions, and interference (Graham, 2015; Graham and de Paula, 2018). While certainly of great importance for policy, these research areas are still evolving and not yet fully incorporated into the program evaluation literature. Bringing developments in these relatively new areas to the analysis and interpretation of policy and treatment effects is important to improve policy prescriptions.

Finally, because of space limitations, there are important topics not covered in this review. Among them are mediation analysis (VanderWeele, 2015; Lok, 2016), dynamic treatment effects and duration models (Abbring and Van den Berg, 2003; Abbring and Heckman, 2007), bounds and partial identification methods (Manski, 2008; Tamer, 2010), and optimal design of policies (Hirano and Porter, 2009; Kitagawa and Tetenov, 2018). These are also important areas of active research in the econometrics of program evaluation.

政策评价和因果推断方面的书籍和综述 （待更新）

• Abadie, A. (2005a). Causal inference. In Kempf-Leonard, K., editor, Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, vol. 1, pages 259–266. Academic.

• Abbring, J. H. and Heckman, J. J. (2007). Econometric evaluation of social programs, part III: Distributional treatment effects, dynamic treatment effects, dynamic discrete choice, and general equilibrium policy evaluation. In Heckman, J. and Leamer, E., editors, Handbook of Econometrics, vol. VI, pages 5145–5303. Elsevier Science B.V

• Angrist, J. D. and Pischke, J. S. (2008). Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton University Press.

• Angrist, J. D. and Pischke, J. S. (2014). Mastering ’Metrics: The Path from Cause to Effect. Princeton University Press. Athey, S. and Imbens, G. W. (2017c). The state of applied econometrics: Causality and policy evaluation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2):3–32.

• Belloni, A., Chernozhukov, V., Fern´andez-Val, I., and Hansen, C. (2017). Program evaluation with high-dimensional data. Econometrica, 85(1):233–298.

• Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., and Mullainathan, S. (2004). How much should we trust differencesin-differences estimates?*. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(1):249–275

• Cattaneo, M. D. and Escanciano, J. C. (2017). Regression Discontinuity Designs: Theory and Applications (Advances in Econometrics, volume 38). Emerald Group Publishing.

• Cattaneo, M. D., Idrobo, N., and Titiunik, R. (2018a). A Practical - Introduction to Regression Discontinuity Designs: Part I. Cambridge Elements: Quantitative and Computational Methods for Social Science, Cambridge University Press, forthcoming

• Cattaneo, M. D., Idrobo, N., and Titiunik, R. (2018b). A Practical Introduction to Regression Discontinuity Designs: Part II. Cambridge Elements: Quantitative and Computational Methods for Social Science, Cambridge University Press, in preparation.

• DiNardo, J. and Lee, D. S. (2011). Program evaluation and research designs. In Ashenfelter, A. and Card, D., editors, Handbook of Labor Economics, vol. 4A, chapter 5, pages 463–536. Elsevier Science B.V.

• Ding, P. (2017). A paradox from randomization-based causal inference. Statistical Science, 32(3):331–345.

• Doudchenko, N. and Imbens, G. W. (2016). Balancing, regression, difference-in-differences and synthetic control methods: A synthesis. Working Paper 22791, National Bureau of Economic Research.

• Heckman, J. J. and Vytlacil, E. J. (2007). Econometric evaluation of social programs, Part I: Causal models, structural models and econometric policy evaluation. In Heckman, J. and Leamer, E., editors, Handbook of Econometrics, vol. VI, pages 4780–4874. Elsevier Science B.V.

• Hern´an, M. A. and Robins, J. M. (2018). Causal Inference. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC, forthcoming.

• Van der Laan, M. J. and Robins, J. M. (2003). Unified Methods for Censored Longitudinal Data and Causality. Springer Science & Business Media.

• VanderWeele, T. (2015). Explanation in Causal Inference: Methods for Mediation and Interaction. Oxford University Press, New York.

相关课程

连享会-直播课 上线了！
http://lianxh.duanshu.com

免费公开课：

• 直击面板数据模型 - 连玉君，时长：1小时40分钟
• Stata 33 讲 - 连玉君, 每讲 15 分钟.
• 部分直播课 课程资料下载 (PPT，dofiles等)

课程一览

支持回看，所有课程可以随时购买观看。

Note: 部分课程的资料，PPT 等可以前往 连享会-直播课 主页查看，下载。

关于我们

• Stata连享会 由中山大学连玉君老师团队创办，定期分享实证分析经验。直播间 有很多视频课程，可以随时观看。
• 连享会-主页 和 知乎专栏，300+ 推文，实证分析不再抓狂。
• 公众号推文分类： 计量专题 | 分类推文 | 资源工具。推文分成 内生性 | 空间计量 | 时序面板 | 结果输出 | 交乘调节 五类，主流方法介绍一目了然：DID, RDD, IV, GMM, FE, Probit 等。
• 公众号关键词搜索/回复 功能已经上线。大家可以在公众号左下角点击键盘图标，输入简要关键词，以便快速呈现历史推文，获取工具软件和数据下载。常见关键词：课程, 直播, 视频, 客服, 模型设定, 研究设计, stata, plus, 绘图, 编程, 面板, 论文重现, 可视化, RDD, DID, PSM, 合成控制法 等

连享会小程序：扫一扫，看推文，看视频……

扫码加入连享会微信群，提问交流更方便

✏ 连享会学习群-常见问题解答汇总：
✨ https://gitee.com/arlionn/WD