randomized evaluations: applications kenny ajayi september 22, 2008 global poverty and impact...

64
Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Upload: colin-spencer

Post on 08-Jan-2018

217 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Review  Causation and Correlation (5 factors)  X → Ycausality  Y → Xreverse causality  X → Y and Y → Xsimultaneity  Z → X and Z → Yomitted variables / confounding  X ‽ Y spurious correlation  Reduced-form relationship between X and Y

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Randomized Evaluations:Applications

Kenny AjayiSeptember 22, 2008

Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Page 2: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Review

Causation and Correlation (5 factors) X → Y Y → X X → Y and Y → X Z → X and Z → Y

X ‽ Y

Page 3: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Review

Causation and Correlation (5 factors) X → Y causality Y → X reverse causality X → Y and Y → X simultaneity Z → X and Z → Y omitted variables /

confounding X ‽ Y spurious correlation

Reduced-form relationship between X and Y

Page 4: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Review

Exogenous

Page 5: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Review

Exogenous

Endogenous

Page 6: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Review

Exogenous

Endogenous

External Validity

Page 7: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Review

Exogenous

Endogenous

External Validity

Natural Experiment

Page 8: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Practical Applications

Noncompliance

Cost Benefit Analysis

Theory and Mechanisms

Page 9: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Kling, Liebman and Katz (2007)

Do neighborhoods affect their residents?

Page 10: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Do neighborhoods affect their residents?

Positively

Page 11: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Do neighborhoods affect their residents?

Positively Social connections, role models, security, community

resources

Page 12: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Do neighborhoods affect their residents?

Positively Social connections, role models, security, community

resources Negatively

Page 13: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Do neighborhoods affect their residents?

Positively Social connections, role models, security, community

resources Negatively

Discrimination, competition with advantaged peers

Page 14: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Do neighborhoods affect their residents?

Positively Social connections, role models, security, community

resources Negatively

Discrimination, competition with advantaged peers Not at all

Page 15: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Do neighborhoods affect their residents?

Positively Social connections, role models, security, community

resources Negatively

Discrimination, competition with advantaged peers Not at all

Only family influences, genetic factors, individual human capital investments or broader non-neighborhood environment matter

Page 16: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Do neighborhoods affect their residents?

What is Y?

Page 17: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Do neighborhoods affect their residents?

What is Y? Adults

Self sufficiency Physical & mental health

Youth Education (reading/math test scores) Physical & mental health Risky behavior

Page 18: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Kling, Liebman and Katz (2007)

Do neighborhoods affect their residents? X → Y causality Y → X reverse causality X → Y and Y → X simultaneity Z → X and Z → Y omitted variables /

confounding X ‽ Y spurious correlation

Page 19: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Neighborhood Effects

Natural Experiment

Page 20: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Neighborhood Effects

Natural Experiment Hurricane Katrina

Can we randomly assign people to live in different neighborhoods?

Page 21: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Neighborhood Effects

Natural Experiment Hurricane Katrina

Can we randomly assign people to live in different neighborhoods? Sort of…

Page 22: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Moving to Opportunity

Solicit volunteers to participate Randomly assign each volunteer an

option Control Section 8 Section 8 with restriction (low poverty neighborhood)

Volunteers decide whether to move Compliers: use voucher Non-compliers: don’t move

Page 23: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Moving to Opportunity

Page 24: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Non-random Participation

Why is this OK? Volunteers presumably care about their

neighborhood environment, so should be the target when thinking about uptake for the use of housing vouchers

BUT Results might not generalize to other populations

with different characteristics

Page 25: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Treatment and Compliance

With perfect compliance: Pr(X=1│Z=1)=1 Pr(X=1│Z=0)=0

With imperfect compliance: 1>Pr(X=1│Z=1)>Pr(X=1│Z=0)>0 

Where X - actual treatmentZ - assigned treatment

Page 26: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Some Econometrics

Intention-to-treat (ITT) Effects Differences between treatment and control group

means

Page 27: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Some Econometrics

Intention-to-treat (ITT) Effects Differences between treatment and control group means

ITT = E(Y|Z = 1) – E(Y|Z = 0)

Y - outcome Z - assigned treatment

Page 28: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Some Econometrics

Intention-to-treat (ITT) Effects Writing this relationship in mathematical notation

Y = Zπ1 + Wβ1 + ε1

Individual wellbeing (Y) depends on whether or not the individual is assigned to treatment (Z), baseline characteristics

(W), and whether or not the individual got lucky (ε)

π1 - effect of being assigned to treatment group = (effect of actually moving) x (compliance rate)

Page 29: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Some Econometrics

Effect of Treatment on the Treated (TOT)

Differences between treatment and control group means

Differences in compliance for treatment and control groups

Page 30: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Some Econometrics

Effect of Treatment on the Treated (TOT) Differences between treatment and control group meansDifferences in compliance for treatment and control groups

TOT = “Wald Estimator” = E(Y|Z = 1) – E(Y|Z = 0)E(X|Z = 1) – E(X|Z = 0)

Y - outcome Z - assigned treatment

X - actual treatment (i.e. compliance)

Page 31: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Some More Econometrics

Estimate TOT using instrumental variables Use offer of a MTO voucher as an instrument for

MTO voucher use

Page 32: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Some More Econometrics

Estimate TOT using instrumental variables Use offer of a MTO voucher as an instrument for

MTO voucher use. In mathematical notation:(1) X = Zρd + Wβd + εd

1. Predict whether people use voucher (X), given their assigned treatment (Z) and observable characteristics (W)

Page 33: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Some More Econometrics

Estimate TOT using instrumental variables Use offer of a MTO voucher as an instrument for MTO

voucher use. In mathematical notation:(1) X = Zρd + Wβd + εd

(2) Y = Xγ2 + Wβ2 + ε2

1. Predict whether people use voucher (X), given their assigned treatment (Z) and observable characteristics (W)

2. Estimate how much individual wellbeing (Y) depends on predicted compliance (X) and observable characteristics (W)

Page 34: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Some Econometrics

Effect of Treatment on the Treated (TOT)

Writing the reduced-form relationship in mathematical notation Y = Xγ2 + Wβ2 + ε2

Individual wellbeing (Y) depends on whether or not the individual complies with treatment (X), baseline

characteristics (W), and whether or not the individual got lucky (ε)

Note: γ2- effect of actually moving (i.e. compliance) = effect of being assigned to treatment

group compliance rate

Page 35: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Moving to Opportunity

Page 36: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Moving to Opportunity

INTENTION TO TREAT

Page 37: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Moving to Opportunity

EFFECT OF TREATMENT ON THE TREATED

Page 38: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Results Positive effects

Teenage girls Adult mental health

Negative effects Teenage boys

No effects Adult economic self-sufficiency & physical health Younger children

Increasing effects for lower poverty rates

Page 39: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Limitations

Can’t fully separate relocation effect from neighborhood effect

Can’t observe spillovers into receiving neighborhoods

Page 40: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Some Thoughts

We can still estimate impacts in cases where we don’t have full compliance

Policies sometimes target people who are different from the general population (i.e. those more likely to take up a program)

BUT We have to be careful about generalizing

these results for other populations (external validity)

Page 41: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Practical Applications

Noncompliance

Cost Benefit Analysis

Theory and Mechanisms

Page 42: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Duflo, Kremer & Robinson (2008)

Why don’t Kenyan farmers use fertilizer?

Page 43: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Duflo, Kremer & Robinson (2008)

Why don’t Kenyan farmers use fertilizer? Low returns High cost Preference for traditional farming methods Lack of information

Page 44: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Is Fertilizer Use Profitable?

What is Y (outcome)? Crop yield Rate of return over the season

What is X (observed)? Fertilizer Hybrid seed

Page 45: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Is Fertilizer Use Profitable?

What is Z (unobserved)?

Page 46: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Is Fertilizer Use Profitable?

What is Z (unobserved)? Farmer experience/ability Farmer resources Weather Soil quality Market conditions

Page 47: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Correlation or Causation?

Fertilizer Use (X) and Crop Yield (Y)

Page 48: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Correlation or Causation?

Fertilizer Use (X) and Crop Yield (Y)

X → Y causality Y → X reverse causality X → Y and Y → X simultaneity Z → X and Z → Y omitted variables /

confounding X ‽ Y spurious correlation

Page 49: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Fertilizer Experiment

How could we test the effect of fertilizer use on crop yield using randomization?

Page 50: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Fertilizer Experiment

Randomly select participating farmers Measure 3 adjacent equal-sized plots on

each farm Randomly assign farming package for

each plot Top dressing fertilizer (T1) Fertilizer and hybrid seed (T2) Traditional seed (C)

Weigh each plot’s yield at harvest

Page 51: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Fertilizer Experiment

Calculate rate of return over the season:

value of value oftreatment - comparison - value ofplot output plot output input

RR = ----------------------------------------------------------- - 100

value of input

Page 52: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Results

Page 53: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Results

Page 54: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Results

Page 55: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Some Thoughts

More comprehensive package increased yieldBUT Lower cost package had highest rate of return

Lab results don’t always apply in the field

Think about the COSTS and BENEFITS

Page 56: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Practical Applications

Noncompliance

Cost Benefit Analysis

Theory and Mechanisms

Page 57: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Karlan and Zinman (2007)

What is the optimal loan contract?

Page 58: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Objectives

Profitability Gross Revenue Repayment

Targeted Access Poor households Female microentrepreneurs

Sustainability

Page 59: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Theory of Change

Loan Profitscontract

Mechanisms How do we expect a change to affect the outcome? What assumptions are we making? Can we test if they are true?

Page 60: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Loan Offer Experiment

What is Y? Take-up Loan size Default

What is X? Interest rate Maturity

How sensitive are borrowers to interest rates and maturities?

Page 61: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Loan Offer Experiment

Page 62: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Results

Downward sloping demand curves

Loan size more responsive to loan maturity than to interest rate

Page 63: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Some Limitations

Again, results apply only to people who had previously borrowed from the lender.

Elasticities apply to direct mail solicitations and might not hold for other loan offer methods

Page 64: Randomized Evaluations: Applications Kenny Ajayi September 22, 2008 Global Poverty and Impact Evaluation

Final Thoughts

Randomized evaluation can have many applications beyond merely looking at reduced-form relationships between

X and Y