Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

We study the external validity of instrumental variable estimation. The key assumption we impose for external validity is conditional external unconfoundedness among compliers, which means that the treatment effect and target selection are independent among compliers conditional on covariates. We study this assumption with a case study about the impact of solid-fuel usage on women’s average cooking time. Among the six countries examined, we find no statistical evidence that the assumptions required for external validity are violated for four countries (Ethiopia, Honduras, Kenya, and Zambia), but in Cambodia and Nepal, we find low external validity. These results provide suggestive evidence that the assumptions required for external validity are violated for these two countries.

Keywords

external validity instrumental variable generalization prediction solid fuel impact time usage developing countries

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abadie

(2003). Semiparametric instrumental variable estimation of treatment response models. Journal of Econometrics, 113(2), 231–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-4076(02)00201-4

Afridi

Debnath

Dinkelman

Sareen

(2023). Time for clean energy? Cleaner fuels and women’s time in home production. The World Bank Economic Review, 37(2), 283–304. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhac031

Allcott

(2015). Site selection bias in program evaluation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(3), 1117–1165. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjv015

Angrist

J. D.

Fernandez-Val

(2010). Extrapolate-ing: External validity and overidentification in the late framework. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w16566

Angrist

J. D.

Imbens

G. W.

Rubin

D. B.

(1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91(434), 444–455. https://doi.org/10.2307/2291629

Angrist

J. D.

Pischke

J. S.

(2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press.

Angrist

J. D.

Pischke

J.-S.

(2010). The credibility revolution in empirical economics: How better research design is taking the con out of econometrics. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(2), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.24.2.3

Balietti

Datta

(2017). The impact of indoor solid fuel use on the stunting of Indian children. [Unpublished Manuscript], Center for International Development. Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

Bergeron

Tourek

Weigel

J. L.

(2024). The state capacity ceiling on tax rates: Evidence from randomized tax abatements in the DRC. Econometrica, 92(4), 1163–1193. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA19959

10.

Bertanha

Imbens

G. W.

(2020). External validity in fuzzy regression discontinuity designs. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 38(3), 593–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2018.1546590

11.

Bhatia

Angelou

(2015). Beyond connections: Energy access redefined. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/24368.

12.

Hotz

V. J.

Imbens

G. W.

Mortimer

J. H.

(2005). Predicting the efficacy of future training programs using past experiences at other locations. Journal of Econometrics, 125(1), 241–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.04.009

13.

Imbens

G. W.

Crump

Hotz

V. J.

Mitnik

(2009). Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects. Biometrika, 96(1), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/asn055

14.

Imbens

G. W.

(2010). Better LATE than nothing: Some comments on deaton (2009) and heckman and urzua (2009). Journal of Economic Literature, 48(2), 399–423. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.48.2.399

15.

International Energy Agency, International Renewable Energy Agency, United Nations Statistics Division, World Bank, & World Health Organization . (2024). Tracking SDG 7: The energy progress report 2024.

16.

Khandker

S. R.

Samad

H. A.

Ali

Barnes

D. F.

(2014). Who benefits most from rural electrification? Evidence in India. Energy Journal, 35(2), 75–96. https://doi.org/10.5547/01956574.35.2.4

17.

Krishnapriya

Chandrasekaran

Jeuland

Pattanayak

S. K.

(2021). Do improved cookstoves save time and improve gender outcomes? Evidence from six developing countries. Energy Economics, 102, Article 105456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105456

18.

Kurata

Takahashi

Hibiki

(2020). Gender differences in associations of household and ambient air pollution with child health: Evidence from household and satellite-based data in Bangladesh. World Development, 128, Article 104779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104779

19.

Leamer

E. E.

(1983). Let’s take the con out of econometrics. The American Economic Review, 73(1), 31–43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1803924.

20.

Persson

Tabellini

(2009). Democratic capital: The nexus of political and economic change. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 1(2), 88–126. https://doi.org/10.1257/mac.1.2.88

21.

Stuart

E. A.

Rhodes

(2017). Generalizing treatment effect estimates from sample to population: A case study in the difficulties of finding sufficient data. Evaluation Review, 41(4), 357–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X16660663

22.

Azam

(2023). Does access to liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) reduce the household burden of women? Evidence from India. Energy Economics, 119, Article 106529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106529

23.

Tipton

(2013). Improving generalizations from experiments using propensity score subclassification: Assumptions, properties, and contexts. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 38(3), 239–266. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998612441947

24.

Tipton

(2014). How generalizable is your experiment? An index for comparing experimental samples and populations. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 39(6), 478–501. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998614558486

25.

Tipton

Hallberg

Hedges

L. V.

Chan

(2017). Implications of small samples for generalization: Adjustments and rules of thumb. Evaluation Review, 41(5), 472–505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X16655665

26.

Tipton

Peck

L. R.

(2017). A design-based approach to improve external validity in welfare policy evaluations. Evaluation Review, 41(4), 326–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X16655656

27.

Verma

Anjali P

Imelda (2022). Clean energy access: Gender disparity, health and labour supply. The Economic Journal, 133(650), 845–871. https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueac057

28.

Williams

K. N.

Kephart

J. L.

Fandiño-Del-Rio

Simkovich

S. M.

Koehler

Harvey

S. A.

Checkley

CHAP trial Investigators . (2020). Exploring the impact of a liquefied petroleum gas intervention on time use in rural Peru: A mixed methods study on perceptions, use, and implications of time savings. Environment International, 145, Article 105932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105932

29.

Yokoo

H.-F.

Arimura

T. H.

Chattopadhyay

Katayama

(2023). Subjective risk belief function in the field: Evidence from cooking fuel choices and health in India. Journal of Development Economics, 161, Article 103000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2022.103000

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.86 MB

External Validity in an Instrumental Variable Setting

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material