Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Bayesian Versus Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Treatment Effects in Bivariate Probit Instrumental Variable Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2018

Abstract

Bivariate probit models are a common choice for scholars wishing to estimate causal effects in instrumental variable models where both the treatment and outcome are binary. However, standard maximum likelihood approaches for estimating bivariate probit models are problematic. Numerical routines in popular software suites frequently generate inaccurate parameter estimates and even estimated correctly, maximum likelihood routines provide no straightforward way to produce estimates of uncertainty for causal quantities of interest. In this note, we show that adopting a Bayesian approach provides more accurate estimates of key parameters and facilitates the direct calculation of causal quantities along with their attendant measures of uncertainty.

Type
Research Notes
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

*

Florian M. Hollenbach is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University, 2010 Allen Building, 4348 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4348 (fhollenbach@tamu.edu). Jacob M. Montgomery, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis, Campus Box 1063, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130 (jacob.montgomery@wustl.edu). Adriana Crespo-Tenorio, Lead Researcher, Facebook, 1 Hacker Way, Menlo Park, CA 94025 (adrianact@fb.com). Previous versions of this paper were presented at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association in Chicago, the 2013 Summer Meeting of the Society of Political Methodology at the University of Virginia, and the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Portions of this research were conducted with high performance research computing resources provided by Texas A&M University (http://hprc.tamu.edu). The authors are grateful for helpful comments from Kosuke Imai, Kevin Quinn, Marc Ratkovic, Justin Esarey, and a helpful audience at Washington University in St. Louis. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.15

References

Angrist, Joshua D., Imbens, Guido W., and Rubin, Donald B.. 1996. ‘Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables’. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91(434):444455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angrist, Joshua D., and Pischke, Jörn-Steffen. 2009. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, Kevin, and Nickerson, David W.. 2009. ‘Who is Mobilized to Vote? A Re-Analysis of 11 Field Experiments’. American Journal of Political Science 53(1):116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, W. Steven. 2010. ‘Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Perry Preschool Program and its Policy Implications’. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 7(4):333342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J., and Lenz, Gabriel S.. 2011. ‘Education and Political Participation: Exploring the Causal Link’. Political Behavior 33(3):357373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cederman, Lars-Erik, Hug, Simon, Schadel, Andreas, and Wucherpfennig, Julian. 2015. ‘Territorial Autonomy in the Shadow of Conflict: Too Little, Too Late?American Political Science Review 109(2):354370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chib, Siddhartha. 2003. ‘On Inferring Effects of Binary Treatments with Unobserved Confounders’. In José M. Bernardo, M.J. Bayarri, A. Philip Dawid, James O. Berger, David Heckerman, Adrian F.M. Smith and Mike West (eds), Bayesian Statistics, vol. 7 6584. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chib, Siddhartha, and Greenberg, Edward. 2007. ‘Semiparametric Modeling and Estimation of Instrumental Variable Models’. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 16(1):86114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chib, Siddhartha, Greenberg, Edward, and Jeliazkov, Ivan. 2009. ‘Estimation of Semiparametric Models in the Presence of Endogeneity and Sample Selection’. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 18(2):321348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, David A. and Sekhon, Jasjeet S.. 2010. ‘Endogeneity in Probit Response Models’. Political Analysis 18(2):138150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuhrmann, Matthew, and Sechser, Todd S.. 2014. ‘Signaling Alliance Commitments: Hand-Tying and Sunk Costs in Extended Nuclear Deterrence’. American Journal of Political Science 58(4):919935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P.. 2000. ‘The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment’. American Political Science Review 94(3):653663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanushek, Eric A. 1999. ‘Some Findings From an Independent Investigation of the Tennessee STAR Experiment and From Other Investigations of class size effects’. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 21(2):143163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, James J., Moon, Seong Hyeok, Pinto, Rodrigo, Savelyev, Peter A., and Yavitz, Adam. 2010. ‘The Rate of Return to the HighScope Perry Preschool Program’. Journal of Public Economics 94(1):114128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, Matthew D., and Gelman, Andrew. 2014. ‘The No-U-Turn Sampler: Adaptively Setting Path Lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo’. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 15(1):15931623.Google Scholar
Kahne, Joseph, and Bailey, Kim. 1999. ‘The Role of Social Capital in Youth Development: The Case of “I Have a Dream” Programs’. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 21(3):321343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maves, Jessica, and Braithwaite, Alex. 2013. ‘Autocratic Institutions and Civil Conflict Contagion’. Journal of Politics 75(2):478490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, Paul R., and Rubin, Donald B.. 1983. ‘Assessing Sensitivity to an Unobserved Binary Covariate in an Observational Study with Binary Outcome’. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 45(2):212218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Donald B. 1974. ‘Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies’. Journal of Educational Psychology 66(5):688701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sondheimer, Rachel Milstein, and Green, Donald P.. 2010. ‘Using Experiments to Estimate the Effects of Education on Voter Turnout’. American Journal of Political Science 54(1):174189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sovey, Allison J., and Green, Donald P.. 2010. ‘Instrumental Variables Estimation in Political Science: A Readers’ Guide’. American Journal of Political Science 55(1):188200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wucherpfennig, Julian, Hunziker, Philipp, and Cederman, Lars-Erik. 2016. ‘Who Inherits the State? Colonial Rule and Postcolonial Conflict’. American Journal of Political Science 60(4):882898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hollenbach et al. Dataset

Link

Hollenbach et al. supplementary material

Hollenbach et al. supplementary material 1

PDF 280 KB

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 41
Total number of PDF views: 218 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 23rd April 2018 - 26th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-898fc554b-54xgk Total loading time: 0.474 Render date: 2021-01-26T17:04:03.214Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Bayesian Versus Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Treatment Effects in Bivariate Probit Instrumental Variable Models
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Bayesian Versus Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Treatment Effects in Bivariate Probit Instrumental Variable Models
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Bayesian Versus Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Treatment Effects in Bivariate Probit Instrumental Variable Models
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *