Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/236380 
Year of Publication: 
2021
Series/Report no.: 
IZA Discussion Papers No. 14349
Publisher: 
Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), Bonn
Abstract: 
In this paper I revisit the interpretation of the linear instrumental variables (IV) estimand as a weighted average of conditional local average treatment effects (LATEs). I focus on a practically relevant situation in which additional covariates are required for identification while the reduced-form and first-stage regressions implicitly restrict the effects of the instrument to be homogeneous, and are thus possibly misspecified. I show that the weights on some conditional LATEs are negative and the IV estimand is no longer interpretable as a causal effect under a weaker version of monotonicity, i.e. when there are compliers but no defiers at some covariate values and defiers but no compliers elsewhere. The problem of negative weights disappears in the overidentified specification of Angrist and Imbens (1995) and in an alternative method, termed "reordered IV," that I also develop. Even if all weights are positive, the IV estimand in the just identified specification is not interpretable as the unconditional LATE parameter unless the groups with different values of the instrument are roughly equal sized. I illustrate my findings in an application to causal effects of college education using the college proximity instrument. The benchmark estimates suggest that college attendance yields earnings gains of about 60 log points, which is well outside the range of estimates in the recent literature. I demonstrate that this result is driven by the existence of defiers and the presence of negative weights. Corrected estimates indicate that attending college causes earnings to be roughly 20% higher.
Subjects: 
causal interpretability
instrumental variables
local average treatment effect
model misspecification
monotonicity
treatment effect heterogeneity
two-stage least squares
JEL: 
C21
C25
C26
I26
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size
385.9 kB





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.