Some practical issues in the evaluation of heterogeneous labour market programmes by matching methods

By M. Lechner. 2002

405 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Summary. Recently several studies have analysed active labour market policies by using a recently proposed matching estimator for multiple programmes. Since there is only very limited practical experience with this estimator, this paper checks its sensitivity with respect to issues that are of practical importance in this kind of evaluation study. The estimator turns out to be fairly robust to several features that concern its implementation. Furthermore, the paper demonstrates that the matching approach per se is no panacea for solving all the problems of evaluation studies, but that its success depends critically on the information that is available in the data. Finally, a comparison with a bootstrap distribution provides some justification for using a simplified approximation of the distribution of the estimator that ignores its sequential nature.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bfcdc9727873678995c4f0fd967d6671bb778c8c

How researchers see this paper

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

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Bias-Corrected Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects (2011, background): “Identification conditions for matching estimators are also discussed in Hahn (1998), Dehejia and Wahba (1999), Lechner (2002), and Imbens (2004), among others.”
Sequential Matching Estimation of Dynamic Causal Models (2004, positive): “For example, evaluating programmes of the active labour market policy Gerfin and Lechner (2002) circumvent the problem of a single individual participating in several programmes sequentially by estimating the effect of the first programme only.”
A Microeconometric Evaluation of Rehabilitation of Long-term Sickness in Sweden (2004, methodology): “This approximation turned out to be fairly accurate compared to bootstrap quantiles (see Lechner, 2002b ).”
Unemployed and their caseworkers: should they be friends or foes? (2010, neutral): “Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983), Lechner (2002) , Black and Smith (2004), Imbens (2004), or Ham and”
The effects of public support schemes on small and medium enterprises (2015, methodology): “In this paper we adapt the approach used in Lechner (2002) and Czarnitzki et al. (2011) who combined the propensity matching and Mahalanobis matching in the following way: in step 1 the propensity score is computed, and in step 2 the Mahalanobis matching on the basis of the computed propensity…”
Capital Flow Management Measures: What Are They Good For? (2014, neutral): “See Lim et al. (2011) for the determinants of a country’s use of macroprudential measures.”
The Curse and Blessing of Training the Unemployed in a Changing Economy: The Case of East Germany After Unification (2007, neutral): “Fifth, individual information about the unemployed as assessed by the caseworker (like in Gerfin and Lechner, 2002) is missing.”
Remittances, household expenditure and investment in Guatemala (2005, background): “This literature has shown that the pairwise comparison of treatments is enough to identify Average Treatment Effects on the Treated (ATT) (Lechner, 2002).”
Does Subsidised Temporary Employment Get the Unemployed Back to Work? An Econometric Analysis of Two Different Schemes (2002, methodology): “To make meaningful comparisons to those unemployed entering a programme, we use an approach suggested in Lechner (2002b): For each nonparticipant a hypothetical programme starting date is predicted by relevant information available in Dec, 1997.”
New Evidence on the Effects of Job Creation Schemes in Germany - a Matching Approach with Threefold Heterogeneity (2004, methodology): “…= b(x), ∀x ∈ χ.10 (3) Given that, the ATET (here: effect of treatment m compared with treatment l on the participants in treatment m) can be written as (Lechner (2002a)): θml0 = E(Y m | S = m) − EP l|ml [E{Y l | P l|ml(X), S = l} | S = m], (4) where: P l|ml(x) = P l|ml(S = l | S ∈ l, m, X = x) =…”
The effect of investor origin on firm performance: Domestic and foreign direct investment in the United States (2011, methodology): “Given themultiple treatment alternatives, the analysis focuses on pairwise average treatment effects following Gerfin and Lechner (2002) and Imbens (2000).”
On the Failure of the Bootstrap for Matching Estimators (2006, background): “and Dynarski (2004), Dehejia and Wahba (1999, 2002), Galasso and Ravaillon (2003), Guarcello, Mealli, and Rosati (2003), Heckman, Ichimura and Todd (1997), Ichino and Becker (2002), Imai (2005), Jalan and Ravallion (1999), Lechner (2002) , Myers, Olsen, Seftor, Young, and Tuttle (2002) Pradhan, and”