The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Alternative approaches to evaluation in empirical microeconomics
Abstract
This paper reviews a range of the most popular policy evaluation methods in empirical microeconomics: social experiments, natural experiments, matching methods, instrumental variables, discontinuity design and control functions. It discusses the identification of both the traditionally used average parameters and more complex distributional parameters. In each case, the necessary assumptions and the data requirements are considered. The adequacy of each approach is discussed drawing on the empirical evidence from the education and labor market policy evaluation literature. We also develop an education evaluation model which we use to carry through the discussion of each alternative approach. A full set of STATA datasets are provided free online which contain Monte-Carlo replications of the various specifications of the education evaluation model. There are also a full set of STATA .do files for each of the estimation approaches described in the paper. The .do-files can be used together with the datasets to reproduce all the results in the paper.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error
Heckman, J. J. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912352 · Cited by 28,779
Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects
Nickell, S. (1981) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1911408 · Cited by 8,735
Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training programme
Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. E. (1997) · The Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.2307/2971733 · Cited by 5,486
Fisher, R. A. (1936) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.1.3923.554-a · Cited by 4,980
Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects
Imbens, G. W., & Angrist, J. D. (1994) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/2951620 · Cited by 4,101
Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator
Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. (1998) · Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.1111/1467-937x.00044 · Cited by 3,807
Does matching overcome lalonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators?
A. Smith, J., & E. Todd, P. (2005) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.04.011 · Cited by 3,176
Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data
Heckman, J., Ichimura, H., Smith, J., & Todd, P. (1998) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/2999630 · Cited by 2,286
Estimating the Effect of Training Programs on Earnings
Ashenfelter, O. (1978) · The Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.2307/1924332 · Cited by 1,515
Identification and Inference in Nonlinear Difference-in-Differences Models
Athey, S., & Imbens, G. W. (2006) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00668.x · Cited by 1,084
Cited by
Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects
Abadie, A., & Imbens, G. W. (2006) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00655.x · Cited by 2,908
Instruments, Randomization, and Learning about Development
Deaton, A. (2010) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.48.2.424 · Cited by 1,286
No Taxation without Information: Deterrence and Self-Enforcement in the Value Added Tax
Pomeranz, D. (2015) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20130393 · Cited by 822
Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation
Imbens, G., & Wooldridge, J. (2008) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w14251 · Cited by 533
Econometric Methods for Program Evaluation
Abadie, A., & Cattaneo, M. D. (2018) · Annual Review of Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-080217-053402 · Cited by 431
Metadata
- Authors
- Blundell, R., & Costa Dias, M.
- Publisher
- Institute for Fiscal Studies
- Published
- 2008-10-14
- OpenAlex
- W2138752415
- Cited by
- 881
- References
- 12
- Type
- report
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Alternative approaches to evaluation in empirical microeconomics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1920/wp.cem.2008.2608
- The paper
- Blundell, R., & Costa Dias, M. (2008). Alternative approaches to evaluation in empirical microeconomics. https://doi.org/10.1920/wp.cem.2008.2608
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
