What do randomized studies of housing mobility demonstrate?: Causal inference in the face of interference

被引:279
作者
Sobel, Michael E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Columbia Univ, New York, NY 10027 USA
关键词
causal inference; interference; neighborhood effects; stable unit treatment value assumption;
D O I
10.1198/016214506000000636
中图分类号
O21 [概率论与数理统计]; C8 [统计学];
学科分类号
020208 ; 070103 ; 0714 ;
摘要
During the past 20 years, social scientists using observational studies have generated a large and inconclusive literature on neighborhood effects. Recent workers have argued that estimates of neighborhood effects based on randomized studies of housing mobility, such as the "Moving to Opportunity" (MTO) demonstration, are more credible. These estimates are based on the implicit assumption of no interference between units; that is, a subject's value on the response depends only on the treatment to which that subject is assigned, not on the treatment assignments of other subjects. For the MTO studies, this assumption is not reasonable. Although little work has been done on the definition and estimation of treatment effects when interference is present, interference is common in studies of neighborhood effects and in many other social settings (e.g., schools and networks), and when data from such studies are analyzed under the "no-interference assumption," very misleading inferences can result. Furthermore, the consequences of interference (e.g., spillovers) should often be of great substantive interest, even though little attention has been paid to this. Using the MTO demonstration as a concrete context, this article develops a framework for causal inference when interference is present and defines a number of causal estimands of interest. The properties of the usual estimators of treatment effects, which are unbiased and/or consistent in randomized studies without interference, are also characterized. When interference is present, the difference between a treatment group mean and a control group mean (unadjusted or adjusted for covariates) estimates not an average treatment effect, but rather the difference between two effects defined on two distinct subpopulations. This result is of great importance, for a researcher who fails to recognize this could easily infer that a treatment is beneficial when in fact it is universally harmful.
引用
收藏
页码:1398 / 1407
页数:10
相关论文
共 52 条
[1]   Using sibling data to estimate the impact of neighborhoods on children's educational outcomes [J].
Aaronson, D .
JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES, 1998, 33 (04) :915-946
[2]  
Anderson E., 1999, CODE STREET DECENCY
[3]  
Angrist JD, 1996, J AM STAT ASSOC, V91, P444, DOI 10.2307/2291629
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1958, Planning of Experiments
[5]  
[Anonymous], REV EC STAT
[6]   WORKINGS OF A CITY - LOCATION, EDUCATION, AND PRODUCTION [J].
BENABOU, R .
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 1993, 108 (03) :619-652
[7]   Equity and efficiency in human capital investment: The local connection [J].
Benabou, R .
REVIEW OF ECONOMIC STUDIES, 1996, 63 (02) :237-264
[8]  
Blume Lawrence., 2001, Social Dynamics, P15
[9]   GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION OF POVERTY AND RISK TO CHILDREN IN URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS [J].
COULTON, CJ ;
PANDEY, S .
AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST, 1992, 35 (03) :238-257
[10]   THE EPIDEMIC THEORY OF GHETTOS AND NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECTS ON DROPPING OUT AND TEENAGE CHILDBEARING [J].
CRANE, J .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, 1991, 96 (05) :1226-1259