Empirical Economics

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 111–133 | Cite as

A parametric control function approach to estimating the returns to schooling in the absence of exclusion restrictions: an application to the NLSY

  • Lídia FarréEmail author
  • Roger Klein
  • Francis Vella


An innovation which bypasses the need for instruments when estimating endogenous treatment effects is identification via conditional second moments. The most general of these approaches is Klein and Vella (J Econom 154:154–164, 2010), which models the conditional variances semiparametrically. While this is attractive, as identification is not reliant on parametric assumptions for variances, the nonparametric aspect of the estimation may discourage practitioners from its use. This paper outlines how the estimator can be implemented parametrically. The use of parametric assumptions is accompanied by a large reduction in computational and programming demands. We illustrate the approach by estimating the return to education using a sample drawn from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. Accounting for endogeneity increases the estimate of the return to education from 6.8 to 11.2%.


Return to education Heteroskedasticity Endogeneity 

JEL Classification

J31 C31 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Angrist J, Krueger AB (1991) Does compulsory school attendance affect schooling and earnings. Q J Econ 106: 979–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blackburn ML, Neumark D (1995) Are OLS estimates of the return to schooling biased downward? Another look. Rev Econ Stat 77(2): 217–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cameron S, Heckman J (2001) The dynamics of educational attainment for Black, Hispanic, and White males. J Polit Econ 109(3): 455–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cameron S, Taber C (2004) Estimation of educational borrowing constraints using returns to schooling. J Polit Econ 112: 132–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Card D et al (1995) Using geographic variation in college proximity to estimate the returns to schooling. In: Christofiedes LN (eds) Aspects of labour market behavior: essays in honor of John Vanderkamp. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp 201–221Google Scholar
  6. Card D (1995) Earnings, schooling and ability revisited. In: Polachek SW (eds) Research in labor economics. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 23–48Google Scholar
  7. Card D (1999) The causal effect of education on earnings. In: Ashenfelter O, Card D (eds) Handbook of labor economics, vol 3A, Chap. 30. Elsevier Science/North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  8. Card D (2001) Estimating the return to schooling: progress on some persistent econometric problems. Econometrica 69: 1127–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carneiro P, Lee S (2008) Changes in college enrolment and wage inequality: distinguishing price and composition effects, UCL Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen SH (2008) Estimating the variance of wages in the presence of selection and unobserved heterogeneity. Rev Econ Stat 90(2): 275–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cunha F, Heckman J (2007) The technology of skill formation. Am Econ Rev 97(2): 31–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dolton P, Vignoles A (2000) The incidence and effects of overeducation in the UK graduate labour market. Econ Educ Rev 19(2): 179–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duflo E (2001) Schooling and labor market consequences of school construction in Indonesia: evidence from an unusual policy experiment. Am Econ Rev 91(4): 795–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Groot W, van den Brink HM (2000) Overeducation in the labor market: a meta-analysis. Econ Educ Rev 19(2): 149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harmon C, Walker I (1995) Estimates of the economic return to schooling for the United Kingdom. Am Econ Rev 85: 1278–1286Google Scholar
  16. Heckman J, Urzua S, Vytlacil E (2006) Understanding instrumental variables in models with essential heterogeneity. Rev Econ Stat 88(3): 389–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heckman J, Vytlacil E (1998) Instrumental variables methods for the correlated random coefficient model. J Hum Resour 33(4): 974–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hogan V, Rigobon R (2002) Using heteroscedasticity to estimate the returns to education. NBER Working Papers 9145Google Scholar
  19. Ichimura H (1993) Semiparametric least squares (SLS) and weighted SLS estimation of single index models. J Econom 58: 71–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kane T, Rouse C (1995) Labor-Market returns to two- and four-year college. Am Econ Rev 85(3): 600–614Google Scholar
  21. Klein R, Vella F (2010) Estimating a class of triangular simultaneous equations models without exclusion restrictions. J Econom 154: 154–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klein R, Vella F (2009) Estimating the eturn to endogenous schooling decisions for Australian workers via conditional second moment. J Hum Resour 44(4): 1047–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kling JR (2001) Interpreting instrumental variable estimates of the returns to schooling. J Bus Econ Stat 19: 358–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Newey W, Powell J, Vella F (1999) Nonparametric estimation of triangular simultaneous equation models. Econometrica 67: 565–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oreopoulos P (2008) Should we raise the minimum school leaving age to help disadvantaged youth? Evidence from recent changes to compulsory schooling in the United States. In: Gruber J (eds) An economic framework for understanding and assisting disadvantaged youth. NBER, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  26. Rigobon R (1999) Identification through heteroskedasticity. Rev Econ Stat 85: 777–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rubb S (2002) Overeducation in the labor market: a comment and re-analysis of a meta-analysis. Econ Educ Rev 22(6): 621–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rummery S, Vella F, Verbeek M (1999) Estimating the returns to education for Australian youth via rank-order instrumental variables. Labour Econ 6: 777–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vella F, Gregory RG (1996) Selection bias and human capital investment: estimating the rates of return to education for young males. Labour Econ 3: 197–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vella F, Verbeek M (1997) Using rank order as an instrumental variable: an application to the return to schooling. CES Discussion Paper 97.10, K.U. LeuvenGoogle Scholar
  31. Wooldridge JM (2003) Further results on instrumental variables estimation of average treatment effects in the correlated random coefficient model. Econ Lett 79: 185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut d’Anàlisi Econòmica, Campus UABBellaterraSpain
  2. 2.Rutgers UniversityNewarkUSA
  3. 3.Georgetown UniversistyWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations