This paper considers causal inference and sample selection bias in non-experimental settings in which: (i) few units in the non-experimental comparison group are comparable to the treatment units; and (ii) selecting a subset of comparison units similar to the treatment units is difficult because units must be compared across a high-dimensional set of pretreatment characteristics. We discuss the use of propensity score matching methods, and implement them using data from the NSW experiment. Following Lalonde (1986), we pair the experimental treated units with non-experimental comparison units from the CPS and PSID, and compare the estimates of the treatment effect obtained using our methods to the benchmark results from the experiment. For both comparison groups, we show that the methods succeed in focusing attention on the small subset of the comparison units comparable to the treated units and, hence, in alleviating the bias due to systematic differences between the treated and comparison units.

This paper concerns the empirical basis of causation, and addresses the following issues: 1. the clues that might prompt people to perceive causal relationships in uncontrolled observations. 2. the task of inferring causal models from these clues, and 3. whether the models inferred tell us anything useful about the causal mechanisms that underly the observations. We propose a minimal-model semantics of causation, and show that, contrary to common folklore, genuine causal influences can be distinguished from spurious covariations following standard norms of inductive reasoning. We also establish a sound characterization of the conditions under which such a distinction is possible. We provide an effective algorithm for inferred causation and show that, for a large class of data the algorithm can uncover the direction of causal influences as defined above. Finally, we address the issue of non-temporal causation. 1 Introduction The study of causation is central to the understanding of hum...

Abstract not found

Although published works rarely include causal estimates from more than a few model specifications, authors usually choose the presented estimates from numerous trial runs readers never see. Given the often large variation in estimates across choices of control variables, functional forms, and other modeling assumptions, how can researchers ensure that the few estimates presented are accurate or representative? How do readers know that publications are not merely demonstrations that it is possible to find a specification that fits the author’s favorite hypothesis? And how do we evaluate or even define statistical properties like unbiasedness or mean squared error when no unique model or estimator even exists? Matching methods, which offer the promise of causal inference with fewer assumptions, constitute one possible way forward, but crucial results in this fast-growing methodological

ABayesian network is a probabilistic representation for uncertain relationships, which has proven to be useful for modeling real-world problems. When there are many potential causes of a given e ect, however, both probability assessment and inference using a Bayesian network can be di cult. In this paper, we describe causal independence, a collection of conditional independence assertions and functional relationships that are often appropriate to apply to the representation of the uncertain interactions between causes and e ect. We show how the use of causal independence in a Bayesian network can greatly simplify probability assessment aswell as probabilistic inference. 1

This paper considers semiparametric identification of structural dynamic discrete choice models and models for dynamic treatment effects. Time to treatment and counterfactual outcomes associated with treatment times are jointly analyzed. We examine the implicit assumptions of the dynamic treatment model using the structural model as a benchmark. For the structural model we show the gains from using cross equation restrictions connecting choices to associated measurements and outcomes. In the dynamic discrete choice model, we identify both subjective and objective outcomes, distinguishing ex post and ex ante outcomes. We show how to identify agent information sets.

Introduction The introduction of Bayesian networks (Pearl 1986b) and associated local computation algorithms (Lauritzen and Spiegelhalter 1988, Shenoy and Shafer 1990, Jensen, Lauritzen and Olesen 1990) has initiated a renewed interest for understanding causal concepts in connection with modelling complex stochastic systems. It has become clear that graphical models, in particular those based upon directed acyclic graphs, have natural causal interpretations and thus form a base for a language in which causal concepts can be discussed and analysed in precise terms. As a consequence there has been an explosion of writings, not primarily within mainstream statistical literature, concerned with the exploitation of this language to clarify and extend causal concepts. Among these we mention in particular books by Spirtes, Glymour and Scheines (1993), Shafer (1996), and Pearl (2000) as well as the collection of papers in Glymour and Cooper (1999). Very briefly, but fundamentally,

We present a definition of cause and effect in terms of decision-theoretic primitives and thereby provide a principled foundation for causal reasoning. Our definition departs from the traditional view of causation in that causal assertions may vary with the set of decisions available. We argue that this approach provides added clarity to the notion of cause. Also in this paper, we examine the encoding of causal relationships in directed acyclic graphs. We describe a special class of influence diagrams, those in canonical form, and show its relationship to Pearl's representation of cause and effect. Finally, we show how canonical form facilitates counterfactual reasoning. 1. Introduction Knowledge of cause and effect is crucial for modeling the affects of actions. For example, if we observe a statistical correlation between smoking and lung cancer, we can not conclude from this observation alone that our chances of getting lung cancer will change if we stop smoking. If, however, we als...

This paper addresses microeconometric evaluation by matching methods when the programs under consideration are heterogeneous. Assuming that selection into the different sub-programs and the potential outcomes are independent given observable characteristics, estimators based on different propensity scores are compared and applied to the analysis of active labor market policies in the Swiss region of Zurich. Furthermore, the issues of heterogeneous effects and aggregation are addressed. The results suggest that an approach that incorporates the possibility of having multiple programs can be an informative tool in applied work.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) has dominated causal analysis in the social and behavioral sciences since the 1960s. Currently, many SEM practitioners are having difficulty articulating the causal content of SEM and are seeking foundational answers.