CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4,926Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesEvaluation and Performance AssessmentSpatial and Panel Data Analysis

Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation

Open access
Imbens, Guido W, Wooldridge, Jeffrey M·2009·Journal of Economic Literature
DOI 10.1257/jel.47.1.5
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Many empirical questions in economics and other social sciences depend on causal effects of programs or policies. In the last two decades, much research has been done on the econometric and statistical analysis of such causal effects. This recent theoretical literature has built on, and combined features of, earlier work in both the statistics and econometrics literatures. It has by now reached a level of maturity that makes it an important tool in many areas of empirical research in economics, including labor economics, public finance, development economics, industrial organization, and other areas of empirical microeconomics. In this review, we discuss some of the recent developments. We focus primarily on practical issues for empirical researchers, as well as provide a historical overview of the area and give references to more technical research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1257/jel.47.1.5

Cites

375 of 375 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The live experiment was designed to measure the model's impact on realized income using a difference-in-differences statistical procedure.

    “The live experiment was specifically designed to measure the model's impact on that metric by using a difference-in-differences statistical procedure - see Stock and Watson (2003) for a textbook discussion and see Imbens and Wooldridge (2009) for a survey on the use of difference-in-differences for program evaluation.”

    From Clearance Pricing Optimization for a Fast-Fashion Retailer (2012) · cites this paper as Imbens and Wooldridge (2009)

  • The propensity score and entropy weighting match treatment and control groups on a wider range of individual- and school-level characteristics.

    “Moreover, we match treatment and control groups on a wider range of individual- and school-level characteristics using reweighting on the propensity of treatment (68) and maximum-entropy balancing (69).”

    From Learning loss due to school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021) · cites this paper as [68]

  • Adjusting treatment and comparison groups for differences in observed covariates removes all biases in comparisons between treated and comparison units.

    “All these labels referred to some variant of the assumption that adjusting treatment and comparison groups for differences in observed covariates X (i.e., pretreatment variables) removed all biases in comparisons between treated and comparison units (Imbens & Wooldridge, 2009).”

    From Interventions to improve the labour market outcomes of youth: A systematic review of training, entrepreneurship promotion, employment services and subsidized employment interventions (2017) · cites this paper as Imbens & Wooldridge, 2009

  • Because extension participation is voluntary and discussion groups may attract more motivated farmers with better performances, concerns remain regarding time-varying unobserved heterogeneity.

    “because extension participation is voluntary and discussion groups may attract more motivated farmers with better performances, concerns remain regarding time-varying unobserved heterogeneity (Imbens and Wooldridge, 2009).”

    From Extension and management pathways for enhanced farm sustainability: evidence from Irish dairy farms (2023) · cites this paper as Imbens and Wooldridge, 2009

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Angrist, J., and S. Pischke (2008), Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricists' Companion, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
  2. Barnow, B.S., G.G. Cain and A.S. Goldberger (1980), "Issues in the Analysis of Selectivity Bias,"in Evaluation Studies , vol. 5, ed. by E. Stromsdorfer and G. Farkas. San Francisco: Sage.
  3. Blundell, R., and T. MaCurdy, (2000): "Labor Supply," Handbook of Labor Economics, O. Ashenfelter and D. Card, eds., North Holland: Elsevier, 2000, 1559-1695.
  4. Chen, X., (2007), "Large Sample Sieve Estimation of Semi-Nonparametric Models, "in J. Heckman and E. Leamer eds. Handbook of Labor Economics, vol. 6B, Chapter 76, 5549-5632. New York: Elsevier Science.
  5. Engle, R., D. Hendry, and J.-F. Richard, (1983) "Exogeneity,"Econometrica, 51(2): 277-304.
  6. Flores, C. (2005), PhD Thesis, Chapter 2, Department of Economics, University of California, Berke- ley.
  7. Hamermesh, D., and J. Biddle (1994) "Beauty and the Labor Market,"American Economic Review, 84(5): 1174-1194.
  8. Heckman, J., and J. Hotz, (1989), "Alternative Methods for Evaluating the Impact of Training Programs", (with discussion), Journal of the American Statistical Association., Vol. 84, No. 804, 862-874.
  9. Horowitz, J., (2002), "The Bootstrap,"Handbook of Econometrics, Vol. 5, Heckman and Leamer (eds.), Elsevier, North Holland.
  10. Hotz, V. J., G. Imbens, and J. Klerman, (2006), "The Long-Term Gains from GAIN: A Re- Analysis of the Impacts of the California GAIN Program,"Journal of Labor Economics.
  11. Ichimura, H., and P. Todd (2007), "Implementing Nonparametric and Semiparametric Estimators, "in J. Heckman and E. Leamer eds. Handbook of Econometrics, vol. 6B, Chapter 74, 5369-5468. New York: Elsevier Science.
  12. Lalonde, R.J., (1986), "Evaluating the Econometric Evaluations of Training Programs with Experi- mental Data,"American Economic Review, 76, 604-620.
  13. McCrary, J., 2007, Testing for Manipulation of the Running Variable in the Regression Discontinuity Design, Journal of Econometrics, this issue.
  14. Meyer, B., K. Viscusi and D. Durbin, (1995), "Workers' Compensation and Injury Duration: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," American Economic Review, Vol. 85, No. 3, 322-340.
  15. Morgan, S. and C. Winship, (2007), Counterfactuals and Causal Inference, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  16. Politis, D., J. Romano,, and M. Wolff, (1999), Subsampling, Springer Verlag.
  17. Rosenbaum, P., (1995), Observational Studies, Springer Verlag, New York.
  18. Rubin, D. (2006), Matched Sampling for Causal Effects, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  19. Smith, J. A. and P. E. Todd, (2005), "Does Matching Address LaLonde's Critique of Nonexperi- mental Estimators,"Journal of Econometrics, 125(1-2), 305-353.
  20. Wooldridge, J., (2007), "Inverse Probability Weighted M-Estimators for General Missing Data Prob- lems," forthcoming, Journal of Econometrics.
  21. Zhao, Z., (2004), "Using Matching to Estimate Treatment Effects: Data Requirements, Matching Metrics and an Application,"forthcoming, review of economics and statistics.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Imbens, G. W., & Wooldridge, J. M.
Affiliations
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Economic Literature
Publisher
American Economic Association
Published
2009-03-01
Volume
47
Issue
1
Pages
5-86
ISSN
0022-0515 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1257/jel.47.1.5
OpenAlex
W3121385028
Cited by
4,926
References
375
Citations by year
2026: 313 · 2025: 400 · 2024: 319 · 2023: 303 · 2022: 298 · 2021: 325 · 2020: 351 · 2019: 346 · 2018: 331 · 2017: 289 · 2016: 270 · 2015: 284 · 2014: 273 · 2013: 224 · 2012: 201
FWCI
164.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Economic Literature (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Spatial and Panel Data Analysis
Keywords
program evaluation, causal effects, causal inference, policy evaluation, labor economics, public finance, development economics, industrial organization

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