Désiré Kédagni, Huan Wu, Yi Cui
arXiv 7 Aug 2024 · Econometrics
arXiv:2408.03530 · PDF · DOI · OpenAlex · Extracted main text
Instrument variable (IV) methods are widely used in empirical research to identify causal effects of a policy. In the local average treatment effect (LATE) framework, the IV estimand identifies the LATE under three main assumptions: random assignment, exclusion restriction, and monotonicity. However, these assumptions are often questionable in many applications, leading some researchers to doubt the causal interpretation of the IV estimand. This paper considers a robust identification of causal parameters in a randomized experiment setting with noncompliance where the standard LATE assumptions could be violated. We discuss identification under two sets of weaker assumptions: random assignment and exclusion restriction (without monotonicity), and random assignment and monotonicity (without exclusion restriction). We derive sharp bounds on some causal parameters under these two sets of relaxed LATE assumptions. Finally, we apply our method to revisit the random information experiment conducted in Bursztyn, Gonz\'alez, and Yanagizawa-Drott (2020) and find that the standard LATE assumptions are jointly incompatible in this application. We then estimate the robust identified sets under the two sets of relaxed assumptions.
appendix boundary found by appendix_command · 40% of the source is main text. Read the extracted text to check this.
The works this paper leans on most, across its whole bibliography — not restricted to papers in our corpus. Ranked by composite intensity, which combines how often a work is mentioned, how many sections mention it, and how much of that falls in the main text rather than the appendix.
| Reference | Intensity | Mentions | Sections | Main text | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Li, Lixiong, Désiré Kédagni, and Ismaël Mourifié (2024) Discordant Relaxations of Misspecified Models | 1.000 | 8 | 3 | 100% |
| 2 | Mourifié, Ismael and Yuanyuan Wan (2017) Testing Local Average Treatment Effect Assumptions | 0.928 | 4 | 3 | 100% |
| 3 | Bursztyn, Leonardo, Alessandra L González, and David Yanagizawa-Drott (2020) Misperceived social norms: Women working outside the home in Saudi Arabia | 0.909 | 12 | 5 | 75% |
| 4 | Kwon, Soonwoo and Jonathan Roth (2024) Testing Mechanisms | 0.874 | 6 | 2 | 100% |
| 5 | Kitagawa, Toru (2021) The identification region of the potential outcome distributions under instrument independence | 0.874 | 5 | 2 | 100% |
| 6 | Heckman, James J. and Edward Vytlacil (2005) Structural equations, treatment effects, and econometric policy evaluation | 0.843 | 3 | 3 | 100% |
| 7 | Huber, Martin, Lukas Laffers, and Giovanni Mellace (2017) Sharp IV Bounds on Average Treatment Effects on the Treated and Other Populations Under Endogeneity and Noncompliance | 0.811 | 4 | 2 | 100% |
| 8 | Lee, David S (2009) Training, Wages, and Sample Selection: Estimating Sharp Bounds on Treatment Effects | 0.794 | 6 | 3 | 50% |
| 9 | Kitagawa, Toru (2015) A Test for Instrument Validity | 0.737 | 3 | 2 | 100% |
| 10 | Noack, Claudia (2021) Sensitivity of LATE Estimates to Violations of the Monotonicity Assumption | 0.737 | 3 | 2 | 100% |
Showing the top 10 of 35 scored citations.
arXiv econ.EM papers that cite this one, ranked by how heavily they lean on it.
| Citing paper | Intensity | Mentions | Sections | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pairwise Valid Instruments | 0.794 | 6 | 4 |