The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bounding Causal Effects Using Data from a Contaminated Natural Experiment: Analysing the Effects of Teenage Childbearing
Abstract
In this paper, we consider what can be learned about causal effects when one uses a contaminated instrumental variable. In particular, we consider what inferences can be made about the causal effect of teenage childbearing on a teen mother's subsequent outcomes when we use the natural experiment of miscarriages to form an instrumental variable for teen births. Miscarriages might not meet all of the conditions required for an instrumental variable to identify such causal effects for all of the observations in our sample. However, it is an appropriate instrumental variable for some women, namely those pregnant women who experience a random miscarriage. Although information from typical data sources does not allow one to identify these women, we show that one can adapt results from Horowitz and Manski (1995) on identification with data from contaminated samples to construct informative bounds on the causal effect of teenage childbearing. We use these bounds to re-examine the effects of early chilbearing on the teen mother's subsequent educational and labour market attainment as considered in Hotz, McElroy and Sanders (1995a, 1995b). Consistent with their study, these bounds indicate that women who have births as teens have higher labour market earnings and hours worked compared to what they would have attained if their childbearing had been delayed.
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
Accounting for No-Shows in Experimental Evaluation Designs
Bloom, H. S. (1984) · Evaluation Review · doi:10.1177/0193841x8400800205 · Cited by 532
Sources of Identifying Information in Evaluation Models
Angrist, J., & Imbens, G. (1991) · doi:10.3386/t0117 · Cited by 72
Cited by
Recent 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
Measurement Error in Survey Data
Bound, J., Brown, C., & Mathiowetz, N. (2001) · Handbook of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/s1573-4412(01)05012-7 · Cited by 893
Inference with “Difference in Differences” with a Small Number of Policy Changes
Conley, T. G., & Taber, C. R. (2011) · Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/rest_a_00049 · Cited by 633
The effects of motherhood timing on career path
Miller, A. R. (2011) · Journal of Population Economics · doi:10.1007/s00148-009-0296-x · Cited by 573
Why is the teen birth rate in the United States so high and why does it matter?
Kearney, M. S., & Levine, P. B. (2012) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.26.2.141 · Cited by 319
Metadata
- Authors
- Hotz, V. J., Mullin, C. H., & Sanders, S. G.
- Venue
- The Review of Economic Studies
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1997-10-01
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 575-603
- ISSN
- 0034-6527 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-937X
- OpenAlex
- W2135344848
- Cited by
- 255
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 8.55
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bounding Causal Effects Using Data from a Contaminated Natural Experiment: Analysing the Effects of Teenage Childbearing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2971732
- The paper
- Hotz, V. J., Mullin, C. H., & Sanders, S. G. (1997). Bounding Causal Effects Using Data from a Contaminated Natural Experiment: Analysing the Effects of Teenage Childbearing. The Review of Economic Studies. https://doi.org/10.2307/2971732
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.