Advertisement

Quasi-experiments

  • Jean-Michel Josselin
  • Benoît Le Maux
Chapter

Abstract

Quasi-experimental evaluation estimates the causal impact of an intervention based on observational data. The approach differs from a randomized controlled experiment in that the subjects are not randomly assigned between a treatment and a control group. Hence, the issue is to find a proper comparison group, the so-called counterfactual, that resembles the treatment group in everything but the fact of receiving the intervention (Sect. 14.1). Several methods exist. The differences in differences method uses panel data and calculates the effect of an intervention by comparing the changes in outcome over time between the treated and non-treated groups (Sect. 14.2). Propensity score matching relies on the estimation of scores (probability of participating in the treatment) to select and pair subjects with similar characteristics. The impact is then computed as the difference in means between the two selected groups (Sect. 14.3). Regression discontinuity design compares subjects in the vicinity of a cutoff point around which the intervention is dispensed. The underlying assumption is that subjects lying closely on either side of the threshold share similar characteristics (Sect. 14.4). Last, instrumental variable estimation addresses the problem of endogeneity in individual participation (Sect. 14.5). Examples are provided all along this chapter, with detailed R-CRAN programs, to provide the reader with a complete description of these approaches.

Keywords

Differences in differences Propensity score matching Regression discontinuity Instrumental variables 

References

  1. Ashenfelter, O., & Card, D. (1985). Using the longitudinal structure of earnings to estimate the effect of training programs. Review of Economics and Statistics, 67, 648–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basmann, R. L. (1957). A generalized classical method of linear estimation of coefficients in a structural equation. Econometrica, 25, 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. European Commission. (2013). Evalsed sourcebook: Method and techniques. Brussels: EC.Google Scholar
  4. Hirano, K., & Imbens, G. (2004). The propensity score with continuous treatments. In Missing data and Bayesian methods. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Imbens, G. (2014). Instrumental variables: An econometrician’s perspective (NBER Working Papers 19983). National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  6. Imbens, G. W., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 5–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Khandker, S. R., Koolwal, G. B., & Samad, H. A. (2010). Handbook on impact evaluation: Quantitative methods and practices. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  8. Lee, D. S., & Lemieux, T. (2010). Regression discontinuity designs in economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 48, 281–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McCrary, J. (2008). Manipulation of the running variable in the regression discontinuity design: A density test. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 698–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sargan, J. (1958). The estimation of economic relationships using instrumental variables. Econometrica, 26, 393–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Stock, J. H., & Trebbi, F. (2003). Retrospectives: Who invented instrumental variable regression? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17, 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Theil, H. (1953). Estimation and simultaneous correlation in complete equation systems. Central Planning Bureau: The Hague.Google Scholar
  14. Thistlewaite, D. L., & Campbell, D. T. (1960). Regression-discontinuity analysis: An alternative to the ex-post facto experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wright, P. G. (1915). Moore’s economic cycles. Quarterly Journal of Economics., 29, 631–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Michel Josselin
    • 1
  • Benoît Le Maux
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of Rennes 1RennesFrance

Personalised recommendations