2 жыл бұрын
2 жыл бұрын
2 жыл бұрын
2 жыл бұрын
2 жыл бұрын
2 жыл бұрын
2 жыл бұрын
2 жыл бұрын
2 жыл бұрын
2 жыл бұрын
2 жыл бұрын
Пікірлер
@idzzk8050 12 сағат бұрын
thank you
@ItsKhabib 11 күн бұрын
Thanks! Now it explains a lot!
@heinzbongwasser2715 Ай бұрын
nice explanation helped me good job
@ben_elsner Ай бұрын
Thanks. Great name btw
@tobiwagner338 Ай бұрын
Great video, very comprehensive. Have you read the paper of ujhelyi (2014) about the introduction of merit-based systems in us states? If so, what is your opinion of the identification strategy. The author applies a standard TWFE method which does not account for heterogeneous treatment effects or time variant effects so I think the estimated coefficients are not very accurate. Neither does the author consider spillover effects.
@ben_elsner Ай бұрын
I wasn't aware of that paper but it looks interesting. We're all scientists, so we should criticise one another's work. However, one should also assess a paper based on when it was written. A paper published in 2014 was probably written in 2010, which means that many of the new DiD methods were not there yet and the problems not fully known. Angrist & Pischke came out in 2009; so that's a good reflection of the state-of-the-art knowledge of the time. Much of the newer DiD literature started around 2018. Also, you don't know what additional results the author showed to the referees before the paper was accepted. No paper is perfect and given that this one was published in a very good journal, it probably has its merits. If you were to write such a paper in 2024, you would have to write it differently and use different techniques, but the same will be true 10/20/30 etc years from now. Methods change over time, as does the way we write papers.
@tobiwagner338 Ай бұрын
Okay thank you for your quick response. What do think about the Endogeneity problem inherent in this paper. Could one make a point concerning Simultaneity bias? Or in general is the strict exogeneity assumption valid? One could very elegantly circumvent those issues with a IV approach. But I have a hard time finding such an IV that stays exogenous but is no weak instrument..
@ben_elsner Ай бұрын
@@tobiwagner338 Apologies, I can't comment on single papers. In general, a term such as "strict exogeneity" is not helpful for (most) causal inference. That's a statistical term. The identification assumptions with DiD are parallel trends and no anticipation. If both hold (and there is no heterogeneous treatment effects or staggered rollout ;)) the DiD model identifies the ATT. Simultaneity can also be a problem (because it is unclear what the treatment is!), but solving this with IV is tricky because good IVs are hard to be found.
@annawilson3824 Ай бұрын
12:08
@lingfongchung2 Ай бұрын
Great step by step lecture! I have a very clear understanding after only listening once.
@user-xc1ng2nv3p Ай бұрын
the BEST video for staggered DID on KZbin
@annawilson3824 2 ай бұрын
6:41
@annawilson3824 2 ай бұрын
35:54
@annawilson3824 2 ай бұрын
16:10
@muhammadkatif2720 2 ай бұрын
In class, while studying this, I thought this was some very difficult thing in my advanced econometric class. However, the way you teach, makes it very simple and it is not difficult at all. If only my professor taught it like this.
@nicolasrfn8319 3 ай бұрын
Great Video!
@annawilson3824 4 ай бұрын
25:30
@ahmetzahit4167 4 ай бұрын
Thank you so much, totally understood :))))
@julievoyron4947 4 ай бұрын
This is truly an incredible series of videos!! Thank you so much !
@ludo3941 5 ай бұрын
If I understood correctly the final section of your video, we define the relations we believe there are in the world and then we use normal stathistical methods of calculating correlation. Then, considering our DAG definition and correctly stratifying the data, the "correlation" we calculated is the actual relationship of the data. If that's correct, could you point to a paper or section of those textbooks that says this?
@ben_elsner 4 ай бұрын
That's one way of using DAGs, correct. It is difficult, however, to include all possible relationships in a DAG, which is why we often use DAGs to clarify why we should or shouldn't adjust for certain variables (i.e. distinguish between confounders, mediators and colliders), but we would exploit natural experiments that cut through most the confounders. For a more detailed explanation I recommend Nick Huntington-Klein's book The Effect. He explains in great detail and with many examples how one uses DAGs in practice.
@ludo3941 4 ай бұрын
@@ben_elsner Tyvm
@annawilson3824 5 ай бұрын
44:01 Robust F-statistics
@annawilson3824 5 ай бұрын
19:00
@taakoedemageorge6144 5 ай бұрын
Very good presentation. It enriches by teaching of Public Sector and Welfare Economics for first years students of Bachelor of Science in Natural Resource Economics
@rrrocky1200 5 ай бұрын
Sir, is Progressive Tax System a product of 2nd Fundamental Welfare Theorem..
@annawilson3824 5 ай бұрын
33:13
@annawilson3824 6 ай бұрын
26:00
@annawilson3824 6 ай бұрын
13:00
@adityarazpokhrel7626 6 ай бұрын
Wonderful. Learnt a lot.
@jonathanolsson5197 7 ай бұрын
Ben, you single-handedly helped me pass my econometrics MSc course. I watched all videos after being referred by Loise, and it made much more sense than the in-class lectures. You're the man!
@arikatz123 7 ай бұрын
Great explanation. Thank you!
@philhwang151 8 ай бұрын
Dear Professor, I am a student studying econometrics in South Korea. Specifically, I am interested in topics related to instrumental variables (IV). Your online lectures are wonderful sources for studying causal inference, and I truly appreciate them! I have a question about the exclusion restriction. In one of your slides, you mentioned that this assumption is untestable. I’ve come across many lecture materials stating the same. However, in Hansen’s econometrics textbook, I found an overidentification (Sargan-Hansen) test, which sets the null hypothesis as an exclusion restriction. I’m curious if it is possible to test the exclusion restriction using the overidentification test. I don’t quite understand the difference between the two tests. Thank you!
@ben_elsner 8 ай бұрын
Hi! The J-Test (Sargan-Hansen) is not applicable in most applications because we only have one instrument for one endogenous regressor. In that case (which is called "just identified"), one cannot test whether the instrument is exogenous. All we can do is bring good arguments why this might be the case (and remember: you need to bring good arguments in favour of conditional independence AND the exclusion restriction). Tests for overidentifying restrictions like Sargan-Hansen can be used in overidentified models, i.e. in models where the number of IVs exceeds the number of endogenous regressors (as is the case in Hansen's GMM estimator). In that case, one needs one instrument that is definitely exogenous and then one can test whether the other m-1 instruments are exogenous as well. But that has very few applications in contemporary applied micro. I would not recommend using any test where the null hypothesis is that a regressor or instrument is exogenous (such as Hausmann or Sargan-Hansen). You should assume that the regressor of interest IS endogenous and then explain why in your empirical setting, under certain conditions, it can be considered exogenous. I hope this helps. Ben
@philhwang151 8 ай бұрын
@@ben_elsner Thank you for your kind reply! So, the bottom line is that the J-test assumes that one instrument MUST be exogenous, and it tests that other instruments are also exogenous as long as at least one instrument IS exogenous. Thank you! I understand!
@ben_elsner 8 ай бұрын
@@philhwang151 yes exactly. You need one instrument that is valid beyond any doubt and then you can test the exogeneity of the remaining instruments. That is almost impossible in most settings (with the exception of some combined IVs like Shift-Share IVs).
@girget123 8 ай бұрын
Thank u so much sir 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻♥️✨
@girget123 8 ай бұрын
Love you sir ❤❤❤❤
@normiesss 9 ай бұрын
thank you for the insight!!! it help me to understand more about public economics in college
@RealHesk 11 ай бұрын
Thanks a lot for this. I am preparing for my final exam in 4 days time.
@jiakaur1315 8 ай бұрын
how did it go
@JK-xg9gn Жыл бұрын
I'm an Econ PhD student, and my specialization is in macro. I didn't have much luck to learn this topic systematically in my department even though I need this tool for my research. Thank you so much for your effort in this amazing work and upload all the teaching materials for free! I learned a lot from your course.
@ben_elsner Жыл бұрын
Happy to hear that! There is more to come over the next few months...
@user-gf3ov2io1u Жыл бұрын
helps a lot
@lynx2082 Жыл бұрын
Thank you sir, this was very helpful.
@hasibniaz9916 Жыл бұрын
Thanks Sir
@no_yaar_naveen Жыл бұрын
Thanks from India , Understood very well, nice explanation.
@richardgreen7225 Жыл бұрын
FAIR FEDERAL TAXES: - Armed forces should be funded by a tax on individual and business capital. This is the same principle we apply to funding police and fire protection at the local level. (i.e. TAX WEALTH to fund DoD, CIA, NSA, VA, FBI, SS, Coast Guard, customs, border patrol, DEA, ATF, federal marshals, ...). - USA should tax business revenue (not profit) to the extent necessary to fund Federal business services (DoA, DoC, DoD(R&D), DoE, HUD, DoI, DoJ, DoL, USPS, DoS, DoT, ...). Federal services with identifiable customers should be funded via fees. (e.g. parks, forests, Interstate highways, ATC, NRC, FERC, ...). - Personal income should only be taxed to fund the few federal services that directly benefit people. (e.g. Medicare, Dept. of Health and Human Services, CDC, ...). A personal income tax provides a way for citizens to hire other citizens to do work that benefits everyone. The personal income tax revenue should match that part of the Federal payroll (including contractors) to fund the few federal services that directly benefit people. Aside: It is a bad idea to fund operations with debt. Debt should only be used to "buy now, pay later (as used) " on durable infrastructure that cannot be funded by service fees. (e.g. school buildings, highways, storm drains, ecological improvements). If the Federal Debt exceeds the properly depreciated value of Federally-owned durable infrastructure, we should TAX WEALTH to restore the balance.
@bassbass9175 Жыл бұрын
Thank you for uploading all the lectures. I am planning to go through your lectures this summer with your slides. Again, thank you!
@RR-og4ut Жыл бұрын
Thanks a lot Sir.
@paulavillaverde8419 Жыл бұрын
thank you so much
@paulavillaverde8419 Жыл бұрын
you’re doing god’s work, thank you!
@matheusjunqueira4381 Жыл бұрын
I can't explain how much your classes have been helping me, you make this subject a way more easier to understand and your explanations are excellent. Thank you so much for sharing it
@ben_elsner Жыл бұрын
Happy to hear! Spread the word.
@c.comploj3775 Жыл бұрын
This playlist is a gold mine for PhD students. Thanks again, Ben.
@ben_elsner Жыл бұрын
Happy to hear you found it useful. Spread the word!
@jiseonchoi4291 Жыл бұрын
It is easy to follow. Thank you!
@c.comploj3775 Жыл бұрын
What paper is Lee et al. (2020) at 38:50? Please add journal name in such citations.
@ben_elsner Жыл бұрын
When the video was recorded this was a WP. It‘s now in the AER www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20211063. Videos cannot be edited but that‘s what the comments are for.
@cghema718 Жыл бұрын
Thank you sir
@c.comploj3775 Жыл бұрын
This is the best verbal explanation of LATE anywhere after 6 years of study.
@c.comploj3775 Жыл бұрын
I like your videos. But the ads really disturb. I know it is your decision, but I think you can have an impact. Ben Lambert on KZbin brought me to economics. But he also has no ads. So if you have ads, I would advise to keep them low, because you want to have more students watch.
@ben_elsner Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it.
@elijahcheon3482 Жыл бұрын
Thank you for the video lectures! its helping me greatly for revision!!
@somya1v30 Жыл бұрын
Thq sir ....🤗🤗