New Evidence on the Finite Sample Properties of Propensity Score Matching and Reweighting Estimators

Currently available asymptotic results in the literature suggest that matching estimators have higher variance than reweighting estimators. The extant literature comparing the finite sample properties of matching to specific reweighting estimators, however, has concluded that reweighting performs far worse than even the simplest matching estimator. We resolve this puzzle. We show that the findings from the finite sample analyses are not inconsistent with asymptotic analysis, but are very specific to particular choices regarding the implementation of reweighting, and fail to generalize to settings likely to be encountered in actual empirical practice. In the DGPs studied here, reweighting typically outperforms propensity score matching.

[1]  G. S. Maddala,et al.  Disequilibrium, self-selection, and switching models , 1986 .

[2]  B. McCall,et al.  The Grocery Stores Wage Distribution: A Semi-Parametric Analysis of the Role of Retailing and Labor Market Institutions , 2001 .

[3]  Petra E. Todd,et al.  Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator , 1998 .

[4]  Markus Frlich,et al.  Finite-Sample Properties of Propensity-Score Matching and Weighting Estimators , 2004, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[5]  J. Hahn.  On the Role of the Propensity Score in Efficient Semiparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects , 1998 .

[6]  Theo Gasser,et al.  Data Adaptive Ridging in Local Polynomial Regression , 2000 .

[7]  James J. Heckman,et al.  Alternative methods for evaluating the impact of interventions: An overview , 1985 .

[8]  Xiaohong Chen,et al.  Semiparametric efficiency in GMM models with auxiliary data , 2007, 0705.0069.

[9]  J. Dinardo,et al.  Labor Market Institutions and the Distribution of Wages, 1973-1992: A Semiparametric Approach , 1996 .

[10]  Rajeev Dehejia,et al.  Program Evaluation as a Decision Problem , 1999 .

[11]  Martin Biewen.  Measuring the Effects of Socio-Economic Variables on the Income Distribution: An Application to the East German Transition Process , 2001, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[12]  Hedley Rees,et al.  Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. , 1985 .

[13]  R. Oaxaca.  Male-Female Wage Differentials in Urban Labor Markets , 1973 .

[14]  Jeffrey A. Smith,et al.  Does Matching Overcome Lalonde's Critique of Nonexperimental Estimators? , 2000 .

[15]  G. Imbens,et al.  Efficient Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Using the Estimated Propensity Score , 2000 .

[16]  A. Blinder.  Wage Discrimination: Reduced Form and Structural Estimates , 1973 .

[17]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[18]  J. Heckman,et al.  Longitudinal Analysis of Labor Market Data: Alternative methods for evaluating the impact of interventions , 1985 .

[19]  G. Imbens,et al.  Large Sample Properties of Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects , 2004 .

[20]  James J. Heckman,et al.  Longitudinal Analysis of Labor Market Data , 1985 .

[21]  R. Muirhead.  Aspects of Multivariate Statistical Theory , 1982, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics.

[22]  James J. Heckman,et al.  Longitudinal Analysis of Labor Market Data: Frontmatter , 1985 .

[23]  J. Wishart.  THE GENERALISED PRODUCT MOMENT DISTRIBUTION IN SAMPLES FROM A NORMAL MULTIVARIATE POPULATION , 1928 .

[24]  Shakeeb Khan,et al.  Irregular Identification, Support Conditions, and Inverse Weight Estimation , 2010 .

[25]  J. Lunceford,et al.  Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[26]  W. Newey,et al.  Semiparametric Efficiency Bounds , 1990 .

[27]  D. Freedman,et al.  Weighting Regressions by Propensity Scores , 2008, Evaluation review.

[28]  Matías Busso,et al.  Finite Sample Properties of Semiparametric Estimators of Average Treatment Effects ∗ , 2008 .