The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Making The Most Out Of Programme Evaluations and Social Experiments: Accounting For Heterogeneity in Programme Impacts
Abstract
The conventional approach to social programme evaluation focuses on estimating mean impacts of programmes. Yet many interesting questions regarding the political economy of programmes, the distribution of programme benefits and the option values conferred on programme participants require knowledge of the distribution of impacts, or features of it. This paper presents evidence that heterogeneity in response to programmes is empirically important and that classical probability inequalities are not very informative in producing estimates or bounds on the distribution of programme impacts. We explore two methods for supplementing the information in these inequalities based on assumptions about participant decision-making processes and about the strength in dependence between outcomes in the participation and non-participation states. Dependence is produced as a consequence of rational choice by participants. We test for stochastic rationality among programme participants and present and implement methods for estimating the option values of social programmes.
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
Cited by
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009) · doi:10.1515/9781400829828 · Cited by 9,467
SOME PRACTICAL GUIDANCE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING
Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2008) · Journal of Economic Surveys · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.x · Cited by 6,238
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
Self-citationRecent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation
Imbens, G. W., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2009) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.47.1.5 · Cited by 4,926
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
Nonparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Under Exogeneity: A Review
Imbens, G. W. (2004) · Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/003465304323023651 · Cited by 2,994
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
THE ESTIMATION OF CAUSAL EFFECTS FROM OBSERVATIONAL DATA
Winship, C., & Morgan, S. L. (1999) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.659 · Cited by 890
Using matching, instrumental variables and control functions to estimate economic choice models
Heckman, J., & Navarro-Lozano, S. (2004) · Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/003465304323023660 · Cited by 768
Self-citationInference on Counterfactual Distributions
(2013) · Econometrica · doi:10.3982/ecta10582 · Cited by 601
Selection and Comparative Advantage in Technology Adoption
(2011) · Econometrica · doi:10.3982/ecta7749 · Cited by 543
Is universal child care leveling the playing field?
Havnes, T., & Mogstad, M. (2015) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.04.007 · Cited by 326
The Labor Market Impacts of Youth Training in the Dominican Republic
Card, D., Ibarrarán, P., Regalia, F., Rosas-Shady, D., & Soares, Y. (2011) · Journal of Labor Economics · doi:10.1086/658090 · Cited by 225
The Effects of Two Influential Early Childhood Interventions on Health and Healthy Behaviour
Conti, G., Heckman, J. J., & Pinto, R. (2016) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.1111/ecoj.12420 · Cited by 213
Self-citationAbbring, J. H., & Heckman, J. J. (2007) · Handbook of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/s1573-4412(07)06072-2 · Cited by 122
Self-citationQuantile treatment effects in difference in differences models with panel data
Callaway, B., & Li, T. (2019) · Quantitative Economics · doi:10.3982/qe935 · Cited by 110
Microeconometrics with partial identification
(2020) · Handbook of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/bs.hoe.2020.05.002 · Cited by 99
Bonhomme, S., & Sauder, U. (2011) · Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/rest_a_00164 · Cited by 58
Sharp bounds on the variance in randomized experiments
Aronow, P. M., Green, D. P., & Lee, D. K. K. (2014) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/13-aos1200 · Cited by 49
Metadata
- Authors
- Heckman, J. J., Smith, J., & Clements, N.
- Venue
- The Review of Economic Studies
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1997-10-01
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 487-535
- ISSN
- 0034-6527 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-937X
- OpenAlex
- W2029696430
- Cited by
- 915
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.42
- Type
- journal article
- 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
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.
