Recent Perspectives on the Regression Discontinuity Design

  • Richard Berk


The regression discontinuity design was originally proposed in 1960 as a powerful alternative to randomized experiments. It has been little used since. Over the past decade, however, the design has been increasingly and successfully employed by economists in a variety of studies. In this paper, the fundamentals of the regression-discontinuity are discussed. Recent advances are emphasized.

Even in these early formulations, the design was simple and powerful. However, there were few applications and apparently only four published studies with significant crime and justice content (Berk and Rauma 1983; Berk and de Leeuw 1999; Chen and Shapiro 2007; Berk et al. 2010). Over the past 15 years, a number of economists have extended the design (Imbens and Lemieux 2008b; Imbens and Kalyanaraman 2009) and applied it in a wide variety of settings (Imbens and Lemieux 2008a; Lee and Lemieux 2009). An account of how and why interest in the regression discontinuity design has varied over the years can be found in recent paper by Thomas Cook (Cook 2008).

In this chapter, the fundamentals of the regression discontinuity design are considered. Some recent advances are highlighted. The discussion begins with brief introduction to the ways in which statisticians think about causal inference. Then, the classic regression discontinuity design is examined. Newer material follows.


Response Function Average Treatment Effect Assignment Variable Estimate Treatment Effect Assignment Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Work on this paper was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation: SES-0437169, “Ensemble methods for Data Analysis in the Behavioral, Social and Economic Sciences.”


  1. Berk RA (2008a) Statistical learning from a regression perspective. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Berk RA (2008b) Forecasting methods in crime and justice. In: Hagan J, Schepple KL, Tyler TR (eds) Annual review of law and social science. Annual reviews, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  3. Berk RA, de Leeuw J (1999) An evaluation of California’s inmate classification system using a generalized regression discontinuity design. J Am Stat Assoc 94(448):1045–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berk RA, Rauma D (1983) Capitalizing on nonrandom assignment to treatments: a regression discontinuity evaluation of a crime control program. J Am Stat Assoc 78(381):21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berk RA, Brown L, Zhao L (2009) Statistical inference after model selection. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, forthcoming, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Statistics, Working Paper (under review)Google Scholar
  6. Berk RA, Barnes G, Ahlman L, Kurtz E (2010) When second best is good enough: a comparison between a true experiment and a regression discontinuity quasiexperiment. University of Pennsylvania, Department of Statistics. Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowman AW, Pope R, Ismail B (2004) Detecting discontinuities in nonparametric regression curves and surfaces. Stat Comput 16:377–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (2005) Microeconometrics: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell DT, Stanley JC (1963) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Houghton Miffin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen MK, Shapiro JM (2007) Do harsher prison conditions reduce recidivism? A discontinuity-based approach. Am Law Econ Rev 9(1):1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook TD (2008) ’Waiting for life to arrive:’ A history of the regression-discontinuity design in psychology, statistics, and economics. J Econom 142:636–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cook RD, Weisberg S (1999) Applied regression analysis including computing and graphics. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fan J, Gijbels I (1996) Local polynomial regression modeling and its applications. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Freedman DA (2008) Diagnostics cannot have much power against general alternatives.
  15. Goldberger AS (1972) Selection bias in evaluating treatment effects: some formal illustrations. Madison, WI. Unpublished manuscriptGoogle Scholar
  16. Hastie TJ, Tibshirani RJ (1990) Generalized additive models. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Hastie TJ, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2009) The elements of statistical learning, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holland P (1986) Statistics and causal inference. J Am Stat Assoc 8:945–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoenig JM, Heisey DM (2001) The abuse of power: the pervasive fallacy of power calculation for data analysis. Am Stat 55:19–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Imbens G, Kalyanaraman K (2009) Optimal bandwidth choice for the regression discontinuity estimator. Harvard University, Department of Economics, Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  21. Imbens G, Lemieux T (2008a) Special issue editors’ introduction: The regression discontinuity design – theory and applications. J Econom 142:615–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Imbens G, Lemieux T (2008b) Regression discontinuity designs: a guide to practice. J Econom 142:611–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee DS, Lemieux T (2009) Regression discontinuity designs in economics. National Bureau of Economic Research: working paper #14723Google Scholar
  24. Leeb H, Pötscher BM (2006) Can one estimate the conditional distribution of post-model-selection estimators? Ann Stat 34(5):2554–2591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Neyman J (1923) Sur Les Applications de la Thorie des Probabilits aux Experiences Agricoles: Essai des Principes. Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych10:151. In PolishGoogle Scholar
  26. Rubin D (1974) Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J Educ Psychol 66:688–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thistlewaite DL, Campbell DT (1960) Regression-discontinuity analysis: an alternative to the ex-post facto design. J Educ Psychol 51:309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Trochim WMK (1984) Research design for program evaluation. Sage Publications, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  29. Trochim WMK (2001) Regression discontinuity design. In: Smelser NJ, Bates PB (eds) International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences, vol 19. 12940–12945, Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Westfall PH, Young SS (1993) Resampling based multiple testing. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Berk
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of StatisticsThe Wharton School, University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations