首页> 外文OA文献 >A Note on Why Quarter of Birth is Not a Valid Instrument for Educational Attainment
【2h】

A Note on Why Quarter of Birth is Not a Valid Instrument for Educational Attainment

机译:关于为什么出生季度不是教育程度的有效工具的说明

摘要

In their justification for using entrance cutoff dates and compulsory education laws as a natural experiment, the authors of Angrist and Krueger (1991) rightly give much attention to the effectiveness of compulsory attendance laws. However, the authors do not give proper attention to the decisions made by parents. If redshirting is commonplace and nonrandom, as it is in the ECLS-K data set, then the identifying assumption of monotonicity does not hold, and their identification scheme does not work. This problem is distinct from those discussed in Bound and Jaeger (2000).
机译:Angrist and Krueger(1991)的作者正确地将入学截止日期和义务教育法作为自然实验的依据,正确地关注了义务教育法的有效性。但是,作者没有适当注意父母的决定。如果像ECLS-K数据集中那样,红衫军是司空见惯的,并且是非随机的,则单调性的识别假设不成立,并且其识别方案也不起作用。这个问题不同于Bound和Jaeger(2000)中讨论的问题。

著录项

  • 作者

    Aliprantis Dionissi;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2007
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 {"code":"en","name":"English","id":9}
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号