Search for: All records

There are many kinds of exogeneity assumptions. How should researchers choose among them? When exogeneity is imposed on an unobservable like a potential outcome, we argue that the form of exogeneity should be chosen based on the kind of selection on unobservables it allows. Consequently, researchers can assess the plausibility of any exogeneity assumption by studying the distributions of treatment given the unobservables that are consistent with that assumption. We use this approach to study two common exogeneity assumptions: quantile and mean independence. We show that both assumptions require a kind of nonmonotonic relationship between treatment and the potential outcomes. We discuss how to assess the plausibility of this kind of treatment selection. We also show how to define a new and weaker version of quantile independence that allows for monotonic selection on unobservables. We then show the implications of the choice of exogeneity assumption for identification. We apply these results in an empirical illustration of the effect of child soldiering on wages. 

What should researchers do when their baseline model is falsified? We recommend reporting the set of parameters that are consistent with minimally nonfalsified models. We call this the falsification adaptive set (FAS). This set generalizes the standard baseline estimand to account for possible falsification. Importantly, it does not require the researcher to select or calibrate sensitivity parameters. In the classical linear IV model with multiple instruments, we show that the FAS has a simple closed‐form expression that only depends on a few 2SLS coefficients. We apply our results to an empirical study of roads and trade. We show how the FAS complements traditional overidentification tests by summarizing the variation in estimates obtained from alternative nonfalsified models.