Better LATE Than Nothing: Some Comments on Deaton (2009) and Heckman and Urzua (2009)
Guido W. Imbens
|
| Article Citation |
Imbens, Guido W.. 2010. "Better LATE Than Nothing: Some Comments on Deaton (2009) and Heckman and Urzua (2009)." Journal of Economic Literature, 48(2): 399–423.
DOI:10.1257/jel.48.2.399
|
| Abstract |
Two recent papers, Deaton (2009) and Heckman and Urzua (2009), argue against
what they see as an excessive and inappropriate use of experimental and quasi-experimental methods in empirical work in economics in the last decade. They specifically question the increased use of instrumental variables and natural experiments in labor
economics and of randomized experiments in development economics. In these comments, I will make the case that this move toward shoring up the internal validity of estimates, and toward clarifying the description of the population these estimates are
relevant for, has been important and beneficial in increasing the credibility of empirical work in economics. I also address some other concerns raised by the Deaton and
Heckman-Urzua papers. (JEL C21, C31)
|
| Article Full-Text Access |
|
| Authors |
Imbens, Guido W. (Harvard U)
|
| JEL Classifications |
C21: Single Equation Models; Single Variables: Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models; Quantile Regressions
C31: Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models: Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models; Quantile Regressions
|
|
|
|
