Cited by 7Urban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesSchool Choice and PerformanceHealth disparities and outcomes

Evaluating Contradictory Experimental and Non-Experimental Estimates of Neighborhood Effects on Economic Outcomes for Adults

Open access
Harding, David, Sanbonmatsu, Lisa, Duncan, Greg, Gennetian, Lisa, Katz, Lawrence, Kessler, Ronald, Kling, Jeffrey, Sciandra, Matthew +1 more·2021·National Bureau of Economic Research

Abstract

Although non-experimental studies find robust neighborhood effects on adults, such findings have been challenged by results from the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) residential mobility experiment.Using a within-study comparison design, this paper compares experimental and nonexperimental estimates from MTO and a parallel analysis of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID).Striking similarities were found between non-experimental estimates based on MTO and PSID.No clear evidence was found that different estimates are related to duration of adult exposure to disadvantaged neighborhoods, non-linear effects of neighborhood conditions, magnitude of the change in neighborhood context, frequency of moves, treatment effect heterogeneity, or measurement, although uncertainty bands around our estimates were sometimes large.One other possibility is that MTO-induced moves might have been unusually disruptive, but results are inconsistent for that hypothesis.Taken together, the findings suggest that selection bias might account for evidence of neighborhood effects on adult economic outcomes in nonexperimental studies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3386/w28454

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • The effects of Moving to Opportunity were much smaller than observational differences in outcomes between children across neighborhoods.

    “That said, the effects were much smaller than observational differences in outcomes between children across neighborhoods (Harding et al. 2021).”

    From Educational Inequality* (2022) · cites this paper as Harding et al. 2021

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Harding, D., Sanbonmatsu, L., Duncan, G., Gennetian, L., Katz, L., Kessler, R., Kling, J., Sciandra, M., & Ludwig, J.
Affiliations
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
  • Congressional Budget Office (US)
Venue
National Bureau of Economic Research
Published
2021-02
OpenAlex
W4251303311
Cited by
7
References
5
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1
Type
report
Language
en
Open access
Locations
National Bureau of Economic Research (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0527615, 1157698)
  • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (C-CHI-00808)
  • Smith Richardson Foundation
  • Sid W. Richardson Foundation
  • Sage Foundation
  • University of Michigan
  • National Institutes of Health (1157698)
  • Center for Health Administration Studies
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH077026)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD069609)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Urban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
Keywords
neighborhood effects, Moving to Opportunity, residential mobility, selection bias, Panel Study of Income Dynamics, disadvantaged neighborhoods, treatment effect heterogeneity

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