A Microeconometric Evaluation of Rehabilitation of Long-term Sickness in Sweden

By Markus Frölich, Almas Heshmati, M. Lechner. 2004

117 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0cc1ff0a49bbe065434a3c7a8eb48d3129e911db

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Evaluation of credit guarantee policy using propensity score matching (2009, methodology): “To deal with the selectivity issue, we adopt propensity score matching techniques, which has been developed in labor economics (Dehejia and Wahba, 1999, 2002; Frölich et al., 2004; Heckman et al., 1997; Smith, 2000), and recently has been applied to firm-level studies (Arnold and Hussinger, 2005; Ya”
Estimating treatment effects for discrete outcomes when responses to treatment vary: an application to Norwegian vocational rehabilitation programs (2005, methodology): “…are typically education (classroom training), formal on-the-job training in manufacturing sector firms, and wage subsidies.26 The training ARTICLE IN PRESS 25There have been evaluation studies of rehabilitation programs in Sweden, see Heshmati and Engstr .om (2001) and Frolich et al. (2004).”
Some practical issues in the evaluation of heterogeneous labour market programmes by matching methods (2002, methodology): “Among those studies were also two econometric studies by Lalive et al. (2000) and Ger®n and Lechner (2000).”
The use of propensity score matching in the evaluation of active labour market policies (2002, background): “However, enforcement of the common support can result in the loss of a sizeable proportion of the treated population, especially when considering multiple-treatment programmes For example, Gerfin & Lechner (2000) reject 14 per cent of their sample, while Frölich et al. (2000) reject 27 per cent.”
Programme Evaluation with Multiple Treatments (2004, methodology): “…the more bureaucratic, rule-based and deterministic the programme selection process is10 and the more parties are involved that (truthfully) report their judgements about the individual’s characteristics and behaviour (e.g. case worker’s and physician’s judgements in Frölich et al. (2000)).”