Instrumental variables (IV) tackle endogeneity in regression analysis by using exogenous variation in treatment variables. This method relies on relevance and exogeneity conditions, with instruments often stemming from natural experiments, policy changes, or geographic variations.

The Local Average Treatment Effect (LATE) represents the average effect for compliers – units whose treatment status changes due to the instrument. LATE differs from the Average Treatment Effect (ATE) and requires careful interpretation, especially when treatment effects are heterogeneous across subpopulations.

Valid Instruments for Causal Inference

more resources to help you study

practice questions

Relevance and Exogeneity Conditions

• Instrumental variables (IV) address endogeneity issues in regression analysis by providing exogenous variation in the treatment variable
• Relevance condition requires correlation between the instrument and endogenous explanatory variable, controlling for other exogenous variables
• Exogeneity condition mandates instrument uncorrelation with error term in structural equation
  • Instrument affects outcome only through its effect on endogenous variable
• Potential instruments stem from natural experiments, policy changes, or geographic variations (minimum wage laws, distance to schools)
• Instrument validity often relies on theoretical arguments and institutional knowledge rather than definitive statistical proof
• Over-identification tests (Sargan-Hansen test) assess instrument validity when instruments outnumber endogenous variables
• Weak instruments with low correlation to endogenous variable lead to biased estimates
  • Avoid weak instruments in IV analysis to ensure reliable results

Finding and Evaluating Instruments

• Natural experiments provide potential instruments (weather patterns affecting crop yields)
• Policy changes offer exogenous variation (changes in compulsory schooling laws)
• Geographic variations serve as instruments (distance to colleges affecting education levels)
• Evaluate instrument strength using first-stage regression results
• Consider potential violations of exclusion restriction
  • Instrument may affect outcome through channels other than endogenous variable
• Assess instrument relevance by examining correlation with endogenous variable
• Conduct sensitivity analyses to test robustness of IV results to different instrument choices

LATE in Instrumental Variables

Understanding Local Average Treatment Effect

• Local Average Treatment Effect (LATE) represents average treatment effect for complier subpopulation
  • Compliers are units whose treatment status changes due to instrument
• LATE differs from Average Treatment Effect (ATE) by applying only to complier subgroup
• Monotonicity assumption underlies LATE concept
  • Instrument affects all units in same direction (increases or decreases treatment probability)
• LATE becomes particularly relevant with heterogeneous treatment effects
  • Impact varies across different subpopulations (urban vs. rural areas)
• Careful consideration of specific complier group affected by instrument required for LATE interpretation
• LATE may closely approximate ATE when instrument affects large portion of population
  • Universal policy changes affecting majority of population

Implications and Limitations of LATE

• LATE provides causal effect estimate for specific subpopulation (compliers)
• Generalizability of LATE to broader population may be limited
  • Consider characteristics of complier group compared to overall population
• LATE interpretation crucial for proper understanding of IV estimates
• Potential for treatment effect heterogeneity across subpopulations
  • LATE may differ from treatment effects for always-takers or never-takers
• Importance of clearly communicating LATE concept in research findings
• Consider multiple instruments to estimate different LATEs and assess effect heterogeneity
• Acknowledge limitations of LATE when drawing policy implications from IV results

Interpreting IV Regression Results

Analyzing Coefficient Estimates

• Second-stage coefficients represent causal effect of endogenous variable on outcome
• Compare magnitude and direction of IV coefficient to OLS estimate
  • Assess nature and extent of endogeneity bias
• Standard errors in IV regression typically larger than OLS
  • Reflects added uncertainty from using instrument
• Evaluate statistical significance using confidence intervals and p-values
• Consider economic significance of estimated effects
  • Magnitude of effect relative to outcome variable scale
• Interpret coefficients in context of specific LATE estimated
• Compare IV results to other estimation methods (difference-in-differences, regression discontinuity)

Assessing Robustness and Validity

• Conduct robustness checks using alternative instruments or specifications
• Perform sensitivity analyses to assess impact of potential violations of IV assumptions
• Compare results across different subsamples or time periods
• Evaluate stability of estimates to inclusion of additional control variables
• Consider potential sources of bias in IV estimates (weak instruments, heterogeneous effects)
• Assess plausibility of estimated effects based on theoretical expectations and prior literature
• Clearly communicate assumptions underlying IV approach and discuss potential violations

Instrument Strength Assessment

First-Stage F-Statistic Analysis

• First-stage F-statistic measures strength of relationship between instrument and endogenous variable
• Rule of thumb suggests F-statistic should exceed 10 for single endogenous regressor
  • Indicates sufficiently strong instrument
• Weak instruments lead to biased IV estimates and unreliable inference, even in large samples
• Calculate F-statistic as test of null hypothesis that coefficients on instruments are jointly zero in first-stage regression
• For multiple endogenous variables or instruments, consider more complex measures
  • Cragg-Donald statistic or Kleibergen-Paap statistic provide alternatives
• Interpret F-statistic considering number of instruments and endogenous variables
  • Critical values may differ in these cases
• Report first-stage results, including F-statistic, for transparency and validity assessment

Advanced Instrument Strength Considerations

• Examine partial R-squared of instruments in first-stage regression
• Consider Stock-Yogo critical values for more precise weak instrument tests
• Evaluate instrument strength across different subsamples or specifications
• Assess potential for many weak instruments problem in overidentified models
• Consider using limited information maximum likelihood (LIML) estimation for improved performance with weak instruments
• Explore recent developments in weak instrument robust inference methods
• Conduct power calculations to determine sample size needed for reliable IV estimation