More on Monotone Instrumental Variables

Econometric analyses of treatment response often use instrumental variable (IV) assumptions to identify treatment effects. The traditional IV assum ption holds that mean response is constant acros s the subpopulations of persons with different values of an observed covariate. Manski and Pepper (2000) introduced monotone instrumental variable (MIV) assumptions, which replace equalities with weak inequalities. This paper presents further ana lysis of the MIV idea. We use an e xplicit response m odel to en hance understanding of the content of MIV and traditional IV assumptions. We study the identifying power of MIV assumptions when combined with the homogeneous linear response assumption maintained in many studies of treatment response. We also consider estimation of MIV bounds, with particular attention to finite-sample bias. This paper was prepared for the tenth anniversary issue of the Econometric Journal. Our research on monotone in strumental variables (MIVs) was first circulated in 1998, th e y ear that the journal beg an publication. We are grateful for this opportunity to report further findings on MIVs and, in doing so, to mark the tenth anniversary of both the journal and the subject. We have benefitted from the comments of a referee. Manski’s research was supported in part by NSF Grant SES-0549544.

[1]  C. Manski.  Nonparametric Bounds on Treatment Effects , 1989 .

[2]  Francesca Molinari,et al.  Asymptotic Properties for a Class of Partially Identified Models , 2006 .

[3]  Adam M. Rosen,et al.  Confidence Sets for Partially Identified Parameters that Satisfy a Finite Number of Moment Inequalities , 2006 .

[4]  David A. Jaeger,et al.  Problems with Instrumental Variables Estimation when the Correlation between the Instruments and the Endogenous Explanatory Variable is Weak , 1995 .

[5]  M. Sobel,et al.  Identification Problems in the Social Sciences. , 1996 .

[6]  C. Manski,et al.  Monotone Instrumental Variables with an Application to the Returns to Schooling , 1998 .

[7]  C. Manski,et al.  Inference on Regressions with Interval Data on a Regressor or Outcome , 2002 .

[8]  Richard Startz,et al.  The Distribution of the Instrumental Variables Estimator and its T-Ratiowhen the Instrument is a Poor One , 1988 .

[9]  Brent Kreider,et al.  Inferring Disability Status from Corrupt Data , 2001 .

[10]  Libertad González.  Nonparametric Bounds on the Returns to Language Skills , 2004, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[11]  Philip A. Haile,et al.  Inference with an Incomplete Model of English Auctions , 2000, Journal of Political Economy.

[12]  Brent Kreider,et al.  Partially Identifying Treatment Effects with an Application to Covering the Uninsured , 2009, The Journal of Human Resources.

[13]  Tjalling C. Koopmans,et al.  Studies in Econometric Method , 1954 .

[14]  Brent Kreider,et al.  Disability and Employment: Reevaluating the Evidence in Light of Reporting Errors , 2002 .

[15]  J. Horowitz,et al.  Nonparametric Analysis of Randomized Experiments with Missing Covariate and Outcome Data , 2000 .

[16]  J. Stock,et al.  Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments , 1994 .

[17]  V. Chernozhukov,et al.  Estimation and Confidence Regions for Parameter Sets in Econometric Models , 2007 .

[18]  Martin Schellhorn,et al.  Nonparametric Bounds on the Effect of Deductibles in Health Care Insurance on Doctor Visits - Swiss Evidence , 2005, Health economics.

[19]  C. Manski.  Monotone Treatment Response , 2009, Identification for Prediction and Decision.

[20]  C. Nelson,et al.  The Distribution of the Instrumental Variables Estimator and its T-Ratiowhen the Instrument is a Poor One , 1988 .

[21]  R. Blundell,et al.  Changes in the Distribution of Male and Female Wages Accounting for Employment Composition Using Bounds , 2004, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[22]  C. Manski.  Partial Identification of Probability Distributions , 2003 .

[23]  Charles F. Manski,et al.  Identification for Prediction and Decision , 2008 .