Empirical Economics

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 1–31 | Cite as

Radius matching on the propensity score with bias adjustment: tuning parameters and finite sample behaviour

Article

Abstract

Using a simulation design that is based on empirical data, a recent study by Huber et al. (J Econom 175:1–21, 2013) finds that distance-weighted radius matching with bias adjustment as proposed in Lechneret et al. (J Eur Econ Assoc 9:742–784, 2011) is competitive among a broad range of propensity score-based estimators used to correct for mean differences due to observable covariates. In this companion paper, we further investigate the finite sample behaviour of radius matching with respect to various tuning parameters. The results are intended to help the practitioner to choose suitable values of these parameters when using this method, which has been implemented in the software packages GAUSS, STATA and R.

Keywords

Propensity score matching Radius matching Selection on observables Empirical Monte Carlo study Finite sample properties 

JEL Classification

C21 

References

  1. Abadie A, Imbens GW (2006) Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica 74:235–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abadie A, Imbens GW (2008) On the failure of the bootstrap for matching estimators. Econometrica 76:1537–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Behncke S, Frölich M, Lechner M (2010a) Unemployed and their case workers: should they be friends or foes? J R Stat Soc Ser A 173:67–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behncke S, Frölich M, Lechner M (2010b) A caseworker like me: does the similarity between unemployed and caseworker increase job placements? Econ J 120:1430–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blundell R, Costa Dias M (2009) Alternative approaches to evaluation in empirical microeconomics. J Hum Resour 44:565–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Busso M, DiNardo J, McCrary J (2009a) Finite sample properties of semiparametric estimators of average treatment effects. J Bus Econ Stat 27:397–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Busso M, DiNardo J, McCrary J (2009b) New evidence on the finite sample properties of propensity score matching and reweighting estimators, IZA Discussion Paper, 3998Google Scholar
  8. Crump RK, Hotz VJ, Imbens GW, Mitnik OA (2009) Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects. Biometrika 96:187–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dehejia RH, Wahba S (1999) Causal effects in non-experimental studies: reevaluating the evaluation of training programmes. J Am Stat Assoc 94:1053–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dehejia RH, Wahba S (2002) Propensity score: matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Rev Econ Stat 84:151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diamond A, Sekhon JS (2008) Genetic matching for estimating causal effects: a general multivariate matching method for achieving balance in observational studies. Mimeo, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  12. Efron B (1979) Bootstrap methods: another look at the Jackknife. Ann Stat 7:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frölich M (2004) Finite-sample properties of propensity-score matching and weighting estimators. Rev Econ Stat 86:77–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frölich M (2005) Matching estimators and optimal bandwidth choice. Stat Comput 15:197–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frölich M (2007) Nonparametric IV estimation of local average treatment effects with covariates. J Econom 139:35–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Graham BS, Pinto C, Egel D (2012) Inverse probability tilting for moment condition models with missing data. Rev Econ Stud 79:1053–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heckman JJ, Ichimura H, Todd P (1998) Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. Rev Econ Stud 65:261–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heckman JJ, Ichimura H, Smith J, Todd P (1998) Characterizing selection bias using experimental data. Econometrica 66:1017–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heckman JJ, LaLonde R, Smith J (1999) The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs. In: Ashenfelter O, Card D (eds) Handbook of labour economics. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 1865–2097Google Scholar
  20. Hirano K, Imbens GW, Ridder G (2003) Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score. Econometrica 2003:1161–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ho D, Imai K, King G, Stuart E (2007) Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference, political analysis, pp 199–236. 15 Aug 2007Google Scholar
  22. Horowitz JL (2001) The bootstrap. In: Heckman JJ, Leamer E (eds) Handbook of econometrics. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 3159–3228Google Scholar
  23. Horvitz D, Thompson D (1952) A generalization of sampling without replacement from a finite population. J Am Stat Assoc 47:663–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huber M (2012) Identification of average treatment effects in social experiments under alternative forms of attrition. J Educ Behav Stat 37:443–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huber M, Lechner M, Wunsch C (2013) The performance of estimators based on the propensity score. J Econom 175:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huber M, Lechner M, Wunsch C (2011) Does leaving welfare improve health? Evid Ger Health Econ 20:484–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Imbens GW (2004) Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: a review. Rev Econ Stat 86:4–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Imbens GW, Wooldridge JM (2009) Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. J Econ Lit 47:5–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Joffe MM, Ten Have TR, Feldman HI, Kimmel SE (2004) Model selection, confounder control, and marginal structural models. Am Stat 58:272–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Khwaja A, Salm GPM, Trogdon JG (2010) A comparison of treatment effects estimators using a structural model of AMI treatment choices and severity of illness information from hospital charts. J Appl Econom. doi:10.1002/Jae.1181
  31. Lechner M (2009) Long-run labour market and health effects of individual sports activities. J Health Econ 28:839–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lechner M, Wunsch C (2009a) Active labour market policy in East Germany: waiting for the economy to take off. Econ Trans 17:661–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lechner M, Wunsch C (2009b) Are training programs more effective when unemployment is high? J Lab Econ 27:653–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lechner M, Miquel R, Wunsch C (2011) Long-run effects of public sector sponsored training in West Germany. J Eur Econ Assoc 9:742–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lechner M, Strittmatter A (2014) Practical procedures to deal with common support problems in matching estimation. Mimeo,Google Scholar
  36. Lee S, Whang Y-J (2009) Nonparametric tests of conditional treatment effects, Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper 1740Google Scholar
  37. MacKinnon JG (2006) Bootstrap methods in econometrics. Econ Rec 82:2–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Robins JM, Mark SD, Newey WK (1992) Estimating exposure effects by modelling the expectation of exposure conditional on confounders. Biometrics 48:479–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1985) Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat 39:33–38Google Scholar
  41. Rubin DB (1974) Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J Educ Psychol 66:688–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rubin DB (1979) Using multivariate matched sampling and regression adjustment to control bias in observational studies. J Am Stat Assoc 74:318–328Google Scholar
  43. Silverman BW (1986) Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Chapman and Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wunsch C, Lechner M (2008) What did all the money do? On the general ineffectiveness of recent West German Labour Market Programmes. Kyklos 61:134–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Huber
    • 1
  • Michael Lechner
    • 1
  • Andreas Steinmayr
    • 1
  1. 1.Swiss Institute for Empirical Economic Research (SEW)University of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations