Monotone Treatment Response

By Charles F. Manski. Identification for Prediction and Decision, 2009

392 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This paper investigates what may be learned about treatment response when it is assumed that response functions are monotone, semimonotone, or concave-monotone. Nothing is assumed about the process of treatment selection and cross-individual restrictions on response are not imposed. The idea is to determine, for every member of the population, the response functions that pass through the realized (treatment, outcome) pair and that are consistent with the assumption imposed. These findings are then aggregated to determine what can be learned about the population distribution of response. The analysis is applied to the econometrics of demand and production.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Marketing, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/859f07fd9dc0b6800dce35d2bb65564acc6210f8

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 Marketing

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Partial Identification Methods for Evaluating Food Assistance Programs: A Case Study of the Causal Impact of SNAP on Food Insecurity (2017, positive): “The Monotone Treatment Response (MTR) assumption (Manski 1997) formalizes this idea: ð9Þ FIð1Þ FIð0Þ: Instead of imposing this restriction for all households, we consider a weaker variant in which the restriction holds, on average, conditional on the true value of the treatment, S .”
Partial identification of spread parameters (2010, methodology): “But one could refine worst-case bounds by adapting assumptions like monotone treatment response (Manski (1997)) and monotone treatment selection (Manski and Pepper (2000)).”
Instrumental variables and the sign of the average treatment effect (2019, neutral): “Remark 2.3 A stronger version of Assumption 2.3 in which it is assumed further that the direction of the monotonicity is known a priori is referred to as the “monotone treatment response” assumption by Manski (1997) and Manski and Pepper (2000).”
The Economics of Food Insecurity in the United States (2011, background): “The first is the Monotone Treatment Response (MTR) assumption (Manski, 1997).”
PARTIAL IDENTIFICATION OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF TREATMENT EFFECTS AND ITS CONFIDENCE SETS (2009, methodology): “AU:2 The references (Manski, 1997; Galichon and Henry, 2006; Stoye, 2008; Beresteanu and Molinari, 2006) have not been included in the reference list.”
Partial Identification of Local Average Treatment Effects With an Invalid Instrument (2013, background): “…treatment effect (but not of the © 2013 American Statistical Association Journal of Business & Economic Statistics October 2013, Vol. 31, No. 4 DOI: 10.1080/07350015.2013.822760 534 sign of the individual treatment effects, as in the articles by Manski 1997; Manski and Pepper 2000, among others).”
Nonparametric Instrumental Variable Estimation Under Monotonicity (2015, background): “Condition (3) is not related to the MIV assumption in the influential work by Manski and Pepper (2000) which requires the function w 7→ E[ε|W = w] to be increasing.”
Identification of treatment response with social interactions (2012, methodology): “J J J Considering individualistic treatment response, Manski (1997), Corollaries S1.”
Intersection bounds: estimation and inference (2009, background): “Similarly, bounds implied by restrictions such as monotone treatment response, monotone treatment selection, and monotone instrumental variables, as in Manski (1997) and Manski and Pepper (2000), also take the form of intersection bounds.”
How Do Right-to-Carry Laws Affect Crime Rates? Coping with Ambiguity Using Bounded-Variation Assumptions (2015, background): “For example, in most markets, economists are comfortable assuming demand is downward sloping even though the market data cannot reveal the demand function (see Manski, 1997).”
Econometric Evaluation of Social Programs, Part II: Using the Marginal Treatment Effect to Organize Alternative Econometric Estimators to Evaluate Social Programs, and to Forecast their Effects in New Environments (2007, neutral): “We consider imposing the assumption of comparative advantage in the decision 180 Examples of bounding analysis include Balke and Pearl (1997), Heckman, Smith and Clements (1997), Manski (1989, 1990, 1997, 2003) and Robins (1989).”