[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpb/discus/329.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Sorting around the discontinuity threshold: The case of a neighbourhood investment programme

Author

Listed:
  • Sander Gerritsen
  • Bas ter Weel
  • Dinand Webbink
Abstract
In the Netherlands, a neighbourhood investment programme was implemented in 2008. It consisted of large scale neighbourhood investments in social and physical infrastructure aimed at improving the living conditions in 40 disadvantaged neighbourhoods (Vogelaarwijken). In the period 2008-2011 the Dutch government invested 216 million Euros, while an additional amount of one billion Euros was invested by housing corporations. Such investment programmes have been evaluated using several different econometric techniques. A popular way to estimate treatment effects is by making use of regression discontinuity (RD) designs. One of the main reasons for this is that variation around the cut-off value, which determines assignment to the treatment, can be considered as good as random. The reason for this is that those who take part in the programme have no control over the assignment. However, knowledge about the assignment rule might influence the assignment to the treatment and thereby invalidate the key assumption that individuals on either side of the discontinuity threshold are similar. This research documents a case of sorting disadvantaged areas into the neighbourhood investment programme. Policymakers at the national level, who designed and implemented the assignment rules for the policy in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, sorted areas into and out of the programme in such a way that there exists a large discontinuity in the share of non-Western immigrants at the discontinuity threshold. At the threshold value for the assignment to the treatment we find a large and statistically significant gap in the proportion of non-Western immigrants of between 11 and 21 percentage points. Moreover, there exists non-compliance with a bias toward removing areas with lower shares of non-Western immigrants from the treatment group. The violation of a continuous distribution around the discontinuity threshold of this important characteristic could be due to the way the selection process of neighbourhoods has been carried out. Politicians at the national level demanded that there had to be a list of 40 eligible neighbourhoods. To determine the 40 neighbourhoods, a two-step procedure has been used. In the first step, a preliminary list of 40 neighbourhoods was created based on the most disadvantaged postal code areas (PCAs) according to the ‘quality’ index. Because most neighbourhoods consist of multiple adjacent PCAs, policymakers sometimes merged PCAs with different rank numbers to create a neighbourhood. This opens possibilities of adding lower-ranked PCAs to an already identified neighbourhood. When we move down the list of PCAs, it is possible to add more PCAs beyond the point at which 40 geographical areas have been identified as neighbourhoods. This process continues until a PCA from a different geographical area is next on the list and would become neighbourhood number 41. We show that neighbourhood 41 is indeed in another city. In the second step, a number of PCAs were removed from and added to this list to obtain a final list of 40 eligible neighbourhoods. We show that the added neighbourhoods are not close to the discontinuity threshold. We illustrate the bias of the RD estimates when using the official cut-off. We find that the estimates from RD models that do not take account of the endogenous sorting differ from the estimates from RD models that do account for the endogenous sorting. We also show that a different selection process of 40 neighbourhoods does not lead to a discontinuity in the share of non-Western immigrants. Finally, we cannot rule out that the result of selecting 40 neighbourhoods in this way is a coincidence. Using the same procedure to select 30 neighbourhoods does not yield the same discontinuities.

Suggested Citation

  • Sander Gerritsen & Bas ter Weel & Dinand Webbink, 2016. "Sorting around the discontinuity threshold: The case of a neighbourhood investment programme," CPB Discussion Paper 329, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpb:discus:329
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cpb.nl/sites/default/files/publicaties/download/cpb-discussion-paper-329-sorting-around-discontinuity-treshold.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2010. "The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design Is Taking the Con out of Econometrics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 24(2), pages 3-30, Spring.
    2. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2009. "Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 8769.
    3. Bubb, Ryan & Kaufman, Alex, 2014. "Securitization and moral hazard: Evidence from credit score cutoff rules," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-18.
    4. Patrick Bayer & Fernando Ferreira & Robert McMillan, 2007. "A Unified Framework for Measuring Preferences for Schools and Neighborhoods," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115(4), pages 588-638, August.
    5. Emmanuel Saez, 2010. "Do Taxpayers Bunch at Kink Points?," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 2(3), pages 180-212, August.
    6. Vogl, Tom S., 2014. "Race and the politics of close elections," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 101-113.
    7. Edward L. Glaeser & Joshua D. Gottlieb, 2008. "The Economics of Place-Making Policies," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 39(1 (Spring), pages 155-253.
    8. Matias Busso & Jesse Gregory & Patrick Kline, 2013. "Assessing the Incidence and Efficiency of a Prominent Place Based Policy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(2), pages 897-947, April.
    9. Horn, Keren Mertens, 2015. "Can improvements in schools spur neighborhood revitalization? Evidence from building investments," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 108-118.
    10. Hahn, Jinyong & Todd, Petra & Van der Klaauw, Wilbert, 2001. "Identification and Estimation of Treatment Effects with a Regression-Discontinuity Design," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(1), pages 201-209, January.
    11. David S. Lee & Thomas Lemieux, 2010. "Regression Discontinuity Designs in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(2), pages 281-355, June.
    12. Freedman, Matthew, 2015. "Place-based programs and the geographic dispersion of employment," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1-19.
    13. Lee, David S., 2008. "Randomized experiments from non-random selection in U.S. House elections," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 142(2), pages 675-697, February.
    14. McCrary, Justin, 2008. "Manipulation of the running variable in the regression discontinuity design: A density test," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 142(2), pages 698-714, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sander Gerritsen & Dinand Webbink & Bas Weel, 2017. "Sorting Around the Discontinuity Threshold: The Case of a Neighbourhood Investment Programme," De Economist, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 101-128, March.
    2. Gerritsen, Sander & Webbink, Dinand & ter Weel, Bas, 2016. "Sorting around the Discontinuity Threshold: The Case of a Neighbourhood Investment Programme," IZA Discussion Papers 9838, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Sander Gerritsen & Bas ter Weel & Dinand Webbink, 2016. "Sorting around the discontinuity threshold: The case of a neighbourhood investment programme," CPB Discussion Paper 329.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    4. Blaise Melly & Rafael Lalive, 2020. "Estimation, Inference, and Interpretation in the Regression Discontinuity Design," Diskussionsschriften dp2016, Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft.
    5. Baum-Snow, Nathaniel & Ferreira, Fernando, 2015. "Causal Inference in Urban and Regional Economics," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: Gilles Duranton & J. V. Henderson & William C. Strange (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 3-68, Elsevier.
    6. Vergolini, Loris & Zanini, Nadir, 2015. "Away, but not too far from home. The effects of financial aid on university enrolment decisions," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 91-109.
    7. Behaghel, Luc & Lorenceau, Adrien & Quantin, Simon, 2015. "Replacing churches and mason lodges? Tax exemptions and rural development," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 1-15.
    8. Mauricio Villamizar‐Villegas & Freddy A. Pinzon‐Puerto & Maria Alejandra Ruiz‐Sanchez, 2022. "A comprehensive history of regression discontinuity designs: An empirical survey of the last 60 years," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 1130-1178, September.
    9. Eva Dettmann & Matthias Brachert & Mirko Titze, 2016. "Identifying the Effects of Place-Based Policies - Causal Evidence from Germany," CESifo Working Paper Series 5901, CESifo.
    10. Slotwinski, Michaela & Schmidheiny, Kurt, 2014. "Behavioral Responses to Local Tax Rates: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from a Foreigners Tax Scheme in Switzerland," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100292, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    11. Hans R. A. Koster & Jos van Ommeren, 2019. "Place-Based Policies and the Housing Market," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 101(3), pages 400-414, July.
    12. Maximilian v. Ehrlich & Tobias Seidel, 2018. "The Persistent Effects of Place-Based Policy: Evidence from the West-German Zonenrandgebiet," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 344-374, November.
    13. Titze, Mirko & Dettmann, Eva & Brachert, Matthias, 2016. "Identifying the effects of place-based policies – Evidence from Germany," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145735, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    14. Jerch, Rhiannon & Kahn, Matthew E. & Li, Shanjun, 2017. "The efficiency of local government: The role of privatization and public sector unions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 95-121.
    15. Bartalotti Otávio, 2019. "Regression Discontinuity and Heteroskedasticity Robust Standard Errors: Evidence from a Fixed-Bandwidth Approximation," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-26, January.
    16. Joshua D. Angrist, 2022. "Empirical Strategies in Economics: Illuminating the Path From Cause to Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(6), pages 2509-2539, November.
    17. Bugni, Federico A. & Canay, Ivan A., 2021. "Testing continuity of a density via g-order statistics in the regression discontinuity design," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 221(1), pages 138-159.
    18. repec:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa13p303 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Owen Ozier, 2018. "The Impact of Secondary Schooling in Kenya: A Regression Discontinuity Analysis," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 53(1), pages 157-188.
    20. Daniel Höhmann, 2017. "The effect of legislature size on public spending: evidence from a regression discontinuity design," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 173(3), pages 345-367, December.
    21. Gabriel Ehrlich & Jeffrey Perry, 2015. "Do Large-Scale Refinancing Programs Reduce Mortgage Defaults? Evidence From a Regression Discontinuity Design: Working Paper 2015-06," Working Papers 50871, Congressional Budget Office.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • D70 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - General
    • R58 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Regional Development Planning and Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cpb:discus:329. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cpbgvnl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.