Abstract
Matching is a widely used non-experimental method of evaluation that can be used to estimate the average effect of a treatment or programme intervention. The method compares the outcomes of programme participants with those of matched non-participants, where matches are chosen on the basis of similarity in observed characteristics. One of the main advantages of matching estimators is that they typically do not require specifying the functional form of the outcome equation and are therefore not susceptible to misspecification bias along that dimension. Traditional matching estimators pair each programme participant with a single matched non-participant (see, for example, Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1983), whereas more recently developed estimators pair programme participants with multiple non-participants and use weighted averaging to construct the matched outcomes.
Keywords
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliography
Abadie, A. and Imbens, G. 2006a. On the failure of the bootstrap for matching estimators. Technical Working Paper No. 325. Cambridge, MA: NBER.
Abadie, A. and Imbens, G. 2006b. Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica 74, 235–67.
Angrist, J. and Lavy, V. 2001. Does teacher training affect pupil learning? Evidence from matched comparisons in Jerusalem public schools. Journal of Labor Economics 19, 343–69.
Behrman, J., Cheng, Y. and Todd, P. 2004. Evaluating preschool programs when length of exposure to the program varies: a nonparametric approach. Review of Economics and Statistics 86, 108–32.
Chen, S. and Ravallion, M. 2003. Hidden impact? Ex-post evaluation of an anti-poverty program. Policy Research Working Paper No. 3049. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Cochran, W. and Rubin, D. 1973. Controlling bias in observational studies. Sankyha 35, 417–46.
Dehejia, R. and Wahba, S. 1999. Causal effects in non-experimental studies: reevaluating the evaluation of training programs. Journal of the American Statistical Association 94, 1053–62.
Dehejia, R. and Wahba, S. 2002. Propensity score matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Review of Economics and Statistics 84, 151–61.
Diamond, A. and Sekhon, J.S. 2005. Genetic matching for estimating causal effects: a general multivariate matching method for achieving balance in observational studies. Working paper, Department of Political Science, Berkeley.
Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R. 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall.
Eichler, M. and Lechner, M. 2002. An evaluation of public employment programmes in the East German state of Sachsen-Anhalt. Labour Economics 9, 143–86.
Fan, J. 1992a. Design adaptive nonparametric regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association 87, 998–1004.
Fan, J. 1992b. Local linear regression smoothers and their minimax efficiencies. Annals of Statistics 21, 196–216.
Fisher, R.A. 1935. Design of Experiments. New York: Hafner.
Friedlander, D. and Robins, P. 1995. Evaluating program evaluations: new evidence on commonly used nonexperimental methods. American Economic Review 85, 923–37.
Galiani, S., Gertler, P. and Schargrodsky, E. 2005. Water for life: the impact of the privatization of water services on child mortality in Argentina. Journal of Political Economy 113, 83–120.
Gertler, P., Levine, D. and Ames, M. 2004. Schooling and parental death. Review of Economics and Statistics 86, 211–25.
Hahn, J. 1998. On the role of the propensity score in efficient estimation of average treatment effects. Econometrica 66, 315–31.
Heckman, J., Ichimura, H. and Todd, P. 1997. Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: evidence from evaluating a job training program. Review of Economic Studies 64, 605–54.
Heckman, J., Ichimura, H. and Todd, P. 1998. Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. Review of Economic Studies 65, 261–94.
Heckman, J., Lalonde, R. and Smith, J. 1999. The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs. In Handbook of Labor Economics, vol. 3A, ed. O. Ashenfelter and D. Card. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Heckman, J., Smith, J. and Clements, N. 1997. Making the most out of social experiments: accounting for heterogeneity in programme impacts. Review of Economic Studies 64, 487–536.
Heckman, J. and Todd, P. 1995. Adapting propensity score matching and selection models to choice-based samples. Manuscript, Department of Economics, University of Chicago.
Heckman, J., Ichimura, H., Smith, J. and Todd, P. 1996. Sources of selection bias in evaluating social programs: an interpretation of conventional measures and evidence on the effectiveness of matching as a program evaluation method. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93, 13416–20.
Heckman, J., Ichimura, H., Smith, J. and Todd, P. 1998. Characterizing selection bias using experimental data. Econometrica 66, 1017–98.
Hirano, K., Imbens, G. and Ridder, G. 2003. Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score. Econometrica 71, 1161–89.
Hirano, K. and Imbens, G. 2004. The propensity score with continuous treatments. In Applied Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference from Incomplete Data Perspectives, ed. A. Gelman and X.L. Meng. New York: Wiley.
Holland, P.W. 1986. Statistics and causal inference (with discussion). Journal of the American Statistical Association 81, 945–70.
Horowitz, J.L. 1992. A smoothed maximum score estimator for the binary response model. Econometrica 60, 505–32.
Horowitz, J.L. 2003. The bootstrap. Handbook of Econometrics, vol. 5, ed. J.J. Heckman and E.E. Learner. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Ichimura, H. 1993. Semiparametric least squares and weighted SLS estimation of single index models. Journal of Econometrics 58, 71–120.
Imbens, G. 2000. The role of the propensity score in estimating dose-response functions. Biometrika 87, 706–10.
Jalan, J. and Ravallion, M. 1999. Efficient estimation of average treatment effects: evidence for Argentina’s Trabajar program. Policy Research Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Jalan, J. and Ravallion, M. 2003. Does piped water reduce diarrhea for children in rural India. Journal of Econometrics111, 153–73.
Klein, R.W. and Spady, R.H. 1993. An efficient semiparametric estimator for binary response models. Econometrica 61, 387–422.
LaLonde, R. 1986. Evaluating the econometric evaluations of training programs with experimental data. American Economic Review 76, 604–20.
Lavy, V. 2002. Evaluating the effects of teachers’ group performance incentives on pupil achievement. Journal of Political Economics 110, 1286–387.
Lavy, V. 2004. Performance pay and teachers’ effort, productivity and grading ethics. Working Paper No. 10622. Cambridge, MA: NBER.
Lechner, M. 2001. Identification and estimation of causal effects of multiple treatments under the conditional independence assumption. In Econometric Evaluations of Active Labor Market Policies in Europe, ed. M. Lechner and F. Pfeiffer. Heidelberg: Physica.
Manski, C. 1973. Maximum score estimation of the stochastic utility model of choice. Journal of Econometrics 3, 205–28.
Manski, C. and Lerman, S. 1977. The estimation of choice probabilities from choice-based samples. Econometrica 45, 1977–88.
Robinson, P. 1988. Root-N consistent nonparametric regression. Econometrica 56, 931–54.
Rosenbaum, P. and Rubin, D. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70, 41–55.
Rosenbaum, P. and Rubin, D. 1985. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. American Statistician 39, 33–8.
Rubin, D.B. 1974. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology 66, 688–701.
Silverman, B.W. 1986. Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. London: Chapman and Hall.
Smith, J. and Todd, P. 2005. Does matching overcome Lalonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators? Journal of Econometrics 125, 305–53.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2010 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Todd, P.E. (2010). Matching Estimators. In: Durlauf, S.N., Blume, L.E. (eds) Microeconometrics. The New Palgrave Economics Collection. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230280816_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230280816_15
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-230-23881-7
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-28081-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave Media & Culture CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)