Assessing the Impact of Financial Aids to Firms: Causal Inference in the presence of Interference

Arpino, Bruno and Mattei, Alessandra (2013): Assessing the Impact of Financial Aids to Firms: Causal Inference in the presence of Interference.

Abstract

We consider policy evaluations when SUTVA is violated because of the presence of interference among units. We propose to explicitly model interactions as a function of units characteristics. Our approach is applied to the evaluation of a policy implemented in Tuscany (a region in Italy) on small handicraft firms. Results show that the benefits from the policy are reduced when treated firms are subject to high levels of interference. Moreover, the average causal effect is slightly underestimated when interference is ignored. These findings point to the importance of considering possible interference among units when evaluating and planning policy interventions.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Causal inference, Interference, Policy evaluation, Potential outcomes, SUTVA
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C2 - Single Equation Models ; Single Variables > C21 - Cross-Sectional Models ; Spatial Models ; Treatment Effect Models ; Quantile Regressions; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C5 - Econometric Modeling > C54 - Quantitative Policy Modeling

References

M. Almus and D. Czarnitzki. The effects of public r&d subsidies on firms’ innovation activities: The case of eastern germany. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 21(2):226–36, 2003.

E. Battistin, A. Gavosto, and E. Rettore. Why do subsidised firms survive longer? an evaluation of a program promoting youth entrepreneurship in italy. In Econometric Evaluation of Labour Market Policies, pages 153–181. Springer, 2001.

M. Bia and A. Mattei. Assessing the effect of the amount of financial aids to piedmont firms using the generalized propensity score. Statistical Methods and Applications, 21(4):485– 516, 2012.

M. Blackwell, S. M. Iacus, G King, and G. Porro. Cem: Coarsened exact matching in stata. The Stata Journal, 9:524–546, 2009.

W. A. Brock and S. N. Durlauf. Interactions-based models. In Handbook of Econometrics, volume 5. 2001.

R. Bronzini and G. De Blasio. Evaluating the impact of investment incentives: The case of italy’s law 488/1992. Journal of Urban Economics, 60(2):327–349, 2006.

M. De Castris and G. Pellegrini. Evaluation of spatial effects of capital subsidies in the south of italy. Regional Studies, 46(4):525–538, 2012.

R. H. Dehejia and S. Wahba. Causal effects in non-experimental studies: re-evaluating the evaluation of training programs. Journal of the American Association, 94(448):10053–1062, 1999.

N. Duch, D. Montolio, and M. Mediavilla. Evaluating the impact of public subsidies on a firms performance: a two-stage quasi-experimental approach. Investigaciones regionales, 16:143–165, 2009.

M. Eberhardt, C. Helmers, and H. Strauss. Do spillovers matter when estimating private returns to R&D? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(2):436–448, 2013.

D. J Greiner and D. B Rubin. Causal effects of perceived immutable characteristics. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(3):775–785, 2011.

K. Hirano and W. G. Imbens. The propensity score with continuous treatments. In A. Gelman and X.L. Meng, editors, Applied Bayesian modeling and causal inference from incompletedata perspectives, volume 226164, pages 73–84. Wiley Hoboken, NJ, 2004.

D. E Ho, K. Imai, G. King, and E. A Stuart. Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political analysis, 15(3):199–236, 2007.

G. Hong and S. W. Raudenbush. Evaluating kindergarten retention policy: A case study of causal inference for multilevel observational data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101:901–910, 2006.

M. G. Hudgens and M. E. Halloran. Toward causal inference with interference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103:832–842, 2008.

S. M. Iacus, G King, and G. Porro. Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Political Analysis, pages 1–24, 2012.

K. Imai and D.A. Van Dyk. Causal inference with general treatment regimes: generalizing the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, pages 854–866, 2004.

G. W. Imbens. The role of the propensity score in estimating dose-response functions. Biometrika, 87:706–710, 2000.

G. W. Imbens. Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effetcs under exogeneity: A review. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86:4–29, 2004.

E. Kao, R. Toulis, E. Airoldi, and B. D. Rubin. Causal estimation of peer influence effects. Paper presented at the NIPS 2012 Workshop ‘Social Network and Social Media Analysis: Methods, Models and Applications. 2012.

T. Klette, J. Møen, and Z. Griliches. Do subsidies to commercial R&D reduce market failures? microeconometric evaluation studies. Research Policy, 29(4):471–495, 2000.

M. Lechner. Identification and estimation of causal effects of multiple treatments under the conditional independence assumption. In Michael Lechner and Friedhelm Pfeiffer, editors, Econometric Evaluation of Labour Market Policies, volume 13 of ZEW Economic Studies, pages 43–58. Physica-Verlag HD, 2001.

A. Mattei and V. Mauro. Valutazione di politiche per le imprese artigiane, 2007.

G. Pellegrini and C. Carlucci. Gli effetti della legge 488/92: una valutazione dell’impatto occupazionale sulle imprese agevolate. Rivista italiana degli economisti, 8(2):267–286, 2003.

P. R Rosenbaum. Interference between units in randomized experiments. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102:191–200, 2007.

P. R. Rosenbaum and D. B. Rubin. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1):41–55, 1983.

P. R. Rosenbaum and D. B. Rubin. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. American Statistician, 3:33–38, 1985.

D. B. Rubin. Discussion of “randomization analysis of experimental data: the Fisher randomization test” by D. Basu. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75:591–593, 1980.

D. B. Rubin. Comment: “Neyman (1923) and causal inference in experiments and observational”. Statistical Science, 5:472–480, 1990.

M. E Sobel. What do randomized studies of housing mobility demonstrate?: Causal inference in the face of interference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101:1398–1407, 2006.

E. A. Stuart. Estimating causal effects using school-level data sets. Educational Researcher, 36(4):187–198, 2007.

T. Takalo, T. Tanayama, and O. Toivanen. Estimating the benefits of targeted r&d subsidies. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(1):255–272, 2013.

E. J. Tchetgen Tchetgen and T. J. VanderWeele. On causal inference in the presence of interference. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 21:55–75, 2012.

N. Verbitsky and S. W. Raudenbush. Causal inference in spatial settings. 2004.

J. M Wooldridge and G. W. Imbens. Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature, 47:5–86, 2009.