Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Matching Estimators

  • Chapter
Microeconometrics

Part of the book series: The New Palgrave Economics Collection ((NPHE))

Abstract

Matching is a widely used non-experimental method of evaluation that can be used to estimate the average effect of a treatment or programme intervention. The method compares the outcomes of programme participants with those of matched non-participants, where matches are chosen on the basis of similarity in observed characteristics. One of the main advantages of matching estimators is that they typically do not require specifying the functional form of the outcome equation and are therefore not susceptible to misspecification bias along that dimension. Traditional matching estimators pair each programme participant with a single matched non-participant (see, for example, Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1983), whereas more recently developed estimators pair programme participants with multiple non-participants and use weighted averaging to construct the matched outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  • Abadie, A. and Imbens, G. 2006a. On the failure of the bootstrap for matching estimators. Technical Working Paper No. 325. Cambridge, MA: NBER.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Abadie, A. and Imbens, G. 2006b. Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica 74, 235–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angrist, J. and Lavy, V. 2001. Does teacher training affect pupil learning? Evidence from matched comparisons in Jerusalem public schools. Journal of Labor Economics 19, 343–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behrman, J., Cheng, Y. and Todd, P. 2004. Evaluating preschool programs when length of exposure to the program varies: a nonparametric approach. Review of Economics and Statistics 86, 108–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S. and Ravallion, M. 2003. Hidden impact? Ex-post evaluation of an anti-poverty program. Policy Research Working Paper No. 3049. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, W. and Rubin, D. 1973. Controlling bias in observational studies. Sankyha 35, 417–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dehejia, R. and Wahba, S. 1999. Causal effects in non-experimental studies: reevaluating the evaluation of training programs. Journal of the American Statistical Association 94, 1053–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehejia, R. and Wahba, S. 2002. Propensity score matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Review of Economics and Statistics 84, 151–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, A. and Sekhon, J.S. 2005. Genetic matching for estimating causal effects: a general multivariate matching method for achieving balance in observational studies. Working paper, Department of Political Science, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R. 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eichler, M. and Lechner, M. 2002. An evaluation of public employment programmes in the East German state of Sachsen-Anhalt. Labour Economics 9, 143–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, J. 1992a. Design adaptive nonparametric regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association 87, 998–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, J. 1992b. Local linear regression smoothers and their minimax efficiencies. Annals of Statistics 21, 196–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R.A. 1935. Design of Experiments. New York: Hafner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedlander, D. and Robins, P. 1995. Evaluating program evaluations: new evidence on commonly used nonexperimental methods. American Economic Review 85, 923–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galiani, S., Gertler, P. and Schargrodsky, E. 2005. Water for life: the impact of the privatization of water services on child mortality in Argentina. Journal of Political Economy 113, 83–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gertler, P., Levine, D. and Ames, M. 2004. Schooling and parental death. Review of Economics and Statistics 86, 211–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, J. 1998. On the role of the propensity score in efficient estimation of average treatment effects. Econometrica 66, 315–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J., Ichimura, H. and Todd, P. 1997. Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: evidence from evaluating a job training program. Review of Economic Studies 64, 605–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J., Ichimura, H. and Todd, P. 1998. Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. Review of Economic Studies 65, 261–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J., Lalonde, R. and Smith, J. 1999. The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs. In Handbook of Labor Economics, vol. 3A, ed. O. Ashenfelter and D. Card. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J., Smith, J. and Clements, N. 1997. Making the most out of social experiments: accounting for heterogeneity in programme impacts. Review of Economic Studies 64, 487–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J. and Todd, P. 1995. Adapting propensity score matching and selection models to choice-based samples. Manuscript, Department of Economics, University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J., Ichimura, H., Smith, J. and Todd, P. 1996. Sources of selection bias in evaluating social programs: an interpretation of conventional measures and evidence on the effectiveness of matching as a program evaluation method. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93, 13416–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J., Ichimura, H., Smith, J. and Todd, P. 1998. Characterizing selection bias using experimental data. Econometrica 66, 1017–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirano, K., Imbens, G. and Ridder, G. 2003. Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score. Econometrica 71, 1161–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirano, K. and Imbens, G. 2004. The propensity score with continuous treatments. In Applied Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference from Incomplete Data Perspectives, ed. A. Gelman and X.L. Meng. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, P.W. 1986. Statistics and causal inference (with discussion). Journal of the American Statistical Association 81, 945–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, J.L. 1992. A smoothed maximum score estimator for the binary response model. Econometrica 60, 505–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, J.L. 2003. The bootstrap. Handbook of Econometrics, vol. 5, ed. J.J. Heckman and E.E. Learner. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ichimura, H. 1993. Semiparametric least squares and weighted SLS estimation of single index models. Journal of Econometrics 58, 71–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imbens, G. 2000. The role of the propensity score in estimating dose-response functions. Biometrika 87, 706–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jalan, J. and Ravallion, M. 1999. Efficient estimation of average treatment effects: evidence for Argentina’s Trabajar program. Policy Research Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jalan, J. and Ravallion, M. 2003. Does piped water reduce diarrhea for children in rural India. Journal of Econometrics111, 153–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, R.W. and Spady, R.H. 1993. An efficient semiparametric estimator for binary response models. Econometrica 61, 387–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaLonde, R. 1986. Evaluating the econometric evaluations of training programs with experimental data. American Economic Review 76, 604–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavy, V. 2002. Evaluating the effects of teachers’ group performance incentives on pupil achievement. Journal of Political Economics 110, 1286–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavy, V. 2004. Performance pay and teachers’ effort, productivity and grading ethics. Working Paper No. 10622. Cambridge, MA: NBER.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lechner, M. 2001. Identification and estimation of causal effects of multiple treatments under the conditional independence assumption. In Econometric Evaluations of Active Labor Market Policies in Europe, ed. M. Lechner and F. Pfeiffer. Heidelberg: Physica.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Manski, C. 1973. Maximum score estimation of the stochastic utility model of choice. Journal of Econometrics 3, 205–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manski, C. and Lerman, S. 1977. The estimation of choice probabilities from choice-based samples. Econometrica 45, 1977–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, P. 1988. Root-N consistent nonparametric regression. Econometrica 56, 931–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. and Rubin, D. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70, 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. and Rubin, D. 1985. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. American Statistician 39, 33–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D.B. 1974. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology 66, 688–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, B.W. 1986. Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. London: Chapman and Hall.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. and Todd, P. 2005. Does matching overcome Lalonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators? Journal of Econometrics 125, 305–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Petra E. Todd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA

    Steven N. Durlauf

  2. Cornell University, USA

    Lawrence E. Blume

Copyright information

© 2010 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Todd, P.E. (2010). Matching Estimators. In: Durlauf, S.N., Blume, L.E. (eds) Microeconometrics. The New Palgrave Economics Collection. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230280816_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation