Cited by 768Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesSpatial and Panel Data AnalysisSchool Choice and Performance

Using matching, instrumental variables and control functions to estimate economic choice models

Heckman, James, Navarro-Lozano, Salvador·2004·Review of Economics and Statistics

Abstract

This paper investigates four topics. (1) It examines the different roles played by the propensity score (the probability of selection into treatment) in matching, instrumental variable, and control function methods. (2) It contrasts the roles of exclusion restrictions in matching and selection models. (3) It characterizes the sensitivity of matching to the choice of conditioning variables and demonstrates the greater robustness of control function methods to misspecification of the conditioning variables. (4) It demonstrates the problem of choosing the conditioning variables in matching and the failure of conventional model selection criteria when candidate conditioning variables are not exogenous in a sense defined in this paper.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/003465304323023660

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Using simulation and parametric analysis, Heckman and Navarro-Lozano (2004) and Wooldridge (2009) confirmed the bias-raising potential of certain covariates in propensity-score methods.

    “Using simulation and parametric analysis, Heckman and Navarro-Lozano (2004) and Wooldridge (2009) indeed confirmed the bias-raising potential of certain covariates in propensity-score methods.”

    From Causal inference in statistics: An overview (2009) · cites this paper as Heckman and Navarro-Lozano, 2004

  • Heckman and Navarro-Lozano (2004) and Wooldridge (2009) confirmed the bias-raising potential of certain covariates in propensity-score methods.

    “Using simulation and parametric analysis, Heckman and Navarro-Lozano (2004) and Wooldridge (2009) indeed confirmed the bias-raising potential of certain covariates in propensity-score methods.”

    From An Introduction to Causal Inference (2010) · cites this paper as Heckman and Navarro-Lozano (2004)

  • The analysis modeled the hazard of having high sugar availability rates in each country and used this constructed hazard variable in a Heckman selection model to explicitly control for potential unobserved selection bias.

    “We also modeled the hazard of having high sugar availability rates in each country, and used this constructed hazard variable to explicitly control for potential unobserved selection bias (a “Heckman selection model”, see Text S1) [29].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heckman, J., & Navarro-Lozano, S.
Affiliations
American Bar Foundation (US)
Venue
Review of Economics and Statistics
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2004-02
Volume
86
Issue
1
Pages
30-57
ISSN
  • 0034-6535 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-9142
OpenAlex
W3122304594
Cited by
768
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 43 · 2012: 43
FWCI
32.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Review of Economics and Statistics (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Spatial and Panel Data Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
Keywords
propensity score, matching, instrumental variables, control functions, exclusion restriction, conditioning variables, model selection, selection model

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review