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. The name is absent2. Towards a Strategy for Improving Agricultural Inputs Markets in Africa
3. Studies on association of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi with gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus and its effect on improvement of sorghum bicolor (L.)
4. Design and investigation of scalable multicast recursive protocols for wired and wireless ad hoc networks
5. The name is absent
6. DISCUSSION: ASSESSING STRUCTURAL CHANGE IN THE DEMAND FOR FOOD COMMODITIES
7. On s-additive robust representation of convex risk measures for unbounded financial positions in the presence of uncertainty about the market model
8. The use of formal education in Denmark 1980-1992
9. The name is absent
10. The Dynamic Cost of the Draft