<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Alexander Torgovitsky | Macro Paper Warehouse</title><link>https://macropaperwarehouse.com/authors/alexander-torgovitsky/</link><description>Alexander Torgovitsky</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en-us</language><atom:link href="https://macropaperwarehouse.com/authors/alexander-torgovitsky/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Selection in Surveys: Using Randomized Incentives to Detect and Account for Nonresponse Bias</title><link>https://macropaperwarehouse.com/papers/selection-in-surveys-using-randomized-incentives-to-detect-and-account-for-nonresponse-bias/</link><guid>https://macropaperwarehouse.com/papers/selection-in-surveys-using-randomized-incentives-to-detect-and-account-for-nonresponse-bias/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;This paper addresses nonresponse bias in surveys — the distortion that arises when survey participants differ systematically from nonparticipants in ways that correlate with the survey&amp;rsquo;s outcomes of interest. The authors develop and apply methods to detect and correct for nonresponse bias using randomized financial incentives embedded in the survey design itself.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The empirical application is the &amp;ldquo;Norge i Koronatid&amp;rdquo; (NiK) survey, conducted by Statistics Norway in April–May 2020 to study the immediate labor market consequences of Norway&amp;rsquo;s COVID-19 lockdown. The NiK survey has two features that make it unusually well-suited for studying nonresponse bias: (1) it is linked to full-population administrative data, providing a verifiable ground truth for the entire Norwegian adult population; and (2) survey invitees were randomly assigned to one of five financial incentive levels (0%, 1%, 5%, 7%, or 10% probability of receiving a 1,000 NOK prepaid card), generating exogenous variation in participation rates. The final sample of 10,000 randomly drawn adults achieved a 47.4% participation rate.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>When is TSLS Actually LATE?</title><link>https://macropaperwarehouse.com/papers/when-is-tsls-actually-late/</link><guid>https://macropaperwarehouse.com/papers/when-is-tsls-actually-late/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;This paper asks: when does two-stage least squares (TSLS) with covariates actually estimate a local average treatment effect (LATE) — a non-negatively weighted average of causal effects for compliers only? The authors show that the answer is: almost never in practice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The paper&amp;rsquo;s central theoretical result (Theorem 1) is that a linear IV estimand is weakly causal — meaning it cannot have the wrong sign relative to all underlying treatment effects — if and only if the IV specification has &amp;ldquo;rich covariates,&amp;rdquo; defined as the condition that the linear projection of the instrument onto the covariates, L[Z|X], equals the true conditional mean E[Z|X] at every covariate value. Saturated specifications (nonparametric covariate control) always satisfy rich covariates. Outside of two special cases — saturated covariates or an instrument that is mean-independent of covariates — rich covariates is an implicit parametric assumption that can fail.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>