Table 6 Treatment effects of legalization
|
Parametera |
Parametricb Method______ |
Polynomial Method________ |
Nonparametric Method I_____ |
Nonparametric Method II_____ |
|
ATET |
0.1043 |
0.2385 |
0.2635 |
0.2538 |
|
ATEU |
0.1002 |
0.1784 |
0.1459 |
0.1616 |
|
ATE |
0.1020 |
0.2069 |
0.1978 |
0.2031 |
|
Sorting gain |
____________0.0023 |
__________0.0316 |
________0.0657 |
________0.0507 |
aA test for essential heterogeneity in the treatment effects yielded an F-statistic (p value) of 18.19 (0.0000),
indicating self-selection arising from heterogeneous and unobserved gains for individuals in the sample (See
Heckman, Urzua and Vytlacil, 2006). bThe extent of selection bias is gauged with a comparison of the OLS and
parametric model results: selection bias = OLS-ATET= 0.0359-0.1043= -0.0684. It shows that the OLS estimate of
the average effect of legalization on earnings is downward biased, indicating a 3.6% average earnings gain relative
to the 10% average gain suggested by the ATET estimate in the parametric method. The overall bias (OLS-ATE) is
-0.0661.
□ Untreated (D=0) □ Treated (D=1)
Figure 1 Frequency of propensity score by legal status
26
More intriguing information
1. Peer Reviewed, Open Access, Free2. The English Examining Boards: Their route from independence to government outsourcing agencies
3. Ein pragmatisierter Kalkul des naturlichen Schlieβens nebst Metatheorie
4. Education Research Gender, Education and Development - A Partially Annotated and Selective Bibliography
5. Yield curve analysis
6. The name is absent
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. The name is absent
10. Estimated Open Economy New Keynesian Phillips Curves for the G7