David J Harding, Lisa Sanbonmatsu, Greg J Duncan, Lisa A Gennetian, Lawrence F Katz, Ronald C Kessler, Jeffrey R Kling, Matthew Sciandra, Jens Ludwig
{"title":"评估关于邻里关系对成人经济成果影响的实验性和非实验性估计之间的矛盾。","authors":"David J Harding, Lisa Sanbonmatsu, Greg J Duncan, Lisa A Gennetian, Lawrence F Katz, Ronald C Kessler, Jeffrey R Kling, Matthew Sciandra, Jens Ludwig","doi":"10.1080/10511482.2021.1881985","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although non-experimental studies find robust neighborhood effects on adults, such findings have been challenged by results from the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) residential mobility experiment. Using a within-study comparison design, this paper compares experimental and non-experimental estimates from MTO and a parallel analysis of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). Striking similarities were found between non-experimental estimates based on MTO and PSID. No clear evidence was found that different estimates are related to duration of adult exposure to disadvantaged neighborhoods, non-linear effects of neighborhood conditions, magnitude of the change in neighborhood context, frequency of moves, treatment effect heterogeneity, or measurement, although uncertainty bands around our estimates were sometimes large. One other possibility is that MTO-induced moves might have been unusually disruptive, but results are inconsistent for that hypothesis. Taken together, the findings suggest that selection bias might account for evidence of neighborhood effects on adult economic outcomes in non-experimental studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":47744,"journal":{"name":"Housing Policy Debate","volume":"33 2","pages":"453-486"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10511482.2021.1881985","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"EVALUATING CONTRADICTORY EXPERIMENTAL AND NON-EXPERIMENTAL ESTIMATES OF NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECTS ON ECONOMIC OUTCOMES FOR ADULTS.\",\"authors\":\"David J Harding, Lisa Sanbonmatsu, Greg J Duncan, Lisa A Gennetian, Lawrence F Katz, Ronald C Kessler, Jeffrey R Kling, Matthew Sciandra, Jens Ludwig\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10511482.2021.1881985\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Although non-experimental studies find robust neighborhood effects on adults, such findings have been challenged by results from the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) residential mobility experiment. Using a within-study comparison design, this paper compares experimental and non-experimental estimates from MTO and a parallel analysis of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). Striking similarities were found between non-experimental estimates based on MTO and PSID. No clear evidence was found that different estimates are related to duration of adult exposure to disadvantaged neighborhoods, non-linear effects of neighborhood conditions, magnitude of the change in neighborhood context, frequency of moves, treatment effect heterogeneity, or measurement, although uncertainty bands around our estimates were sometimes large. One other possibility is that MTO-induced moves might have been unusually disruptive, but results are inconsistent for that hypothesis. Taken together, the findings suggest that selection bias might account for evidence of neighborhood effects on adult economic outcomes in non-experimental studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47744,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Housing Policy Debate\",\"volume\":\"33 2\",\"pages\":\"453-486\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10511482.2021.1881985\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Housing Policy Debate\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2021.1881985\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/4/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Housing Policy Debate","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2021.1881985","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/4/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
尽管非实验性研究发现邻里关系对成年人有很强的影响,但 "向机会迈进"(MTO)居住流动性实验的结果对这些结论提出了质疑。本文采用研究内比较设计,比较了 MTO 的实验和非实验估计结果,以及对收入动态面板研究(PSID)的平行分析。结果发现,基于 MTO 和 PSID 的非实验估计值之间存在惊人的相似性。没有发现明确的证据表明,不同的估计值与成年人接触贫困社区的时间长短、社区条件的非线性影响、社区环境变化的程度、搬迁频率、治疗效果的异质性或测量有关,尽管我们估计值周围的不确定性带有时很大。还有一种可能性是,由 MTO 引起的搬迁可能具有非同寻常的破坏性,但这一假设的结果并不一致。综上所述,研究结果表明,选择偏差可能是非实验研究中邻里关系对成人经济结果影响的证据。
EVALUATING CONTRADICTORY EXPERIMENTAL AND NON-EXPERIMENTAL ESTIMATES OF NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECTS ON ECONOMIC OUTCOMES FOR ADULTS.
Although non-experimental studies find robust neighborhood effects on adults, such findings have been challenged by results from the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) residential mobility experiment. Using a within-study comparison design, this paper compares experimental and non-experimental estimates from MTO and a parallel analysis of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). Striking similarities were found between non-experimental estimates based on MTO and PSID. No clear evidence was found that different estimates are related to duration of adult exposure to disadvantaged neighborhoods, non-linear effects of neighborhood conditions, magnitude of the change in neighborhood context, frequency of moves, treatment effect heterogeneity, or measurement, although uncertainty bands around our estimates were sometimes large. One other possibility is that MTO-induced moves might have been unusually disruptive, but results are inconsistent for that hypothesis. Taken together, the findings suggest that selection bias might account for evidence of neighborhood effects on adult economic outcomes in non-experimental studies.
期刊介绍:
Housing Policy Debate provides a venue for original research on U.S. housing policy. Subjects include affordable housing policy, fair housing policy, land use regulations influencing housing affordability, metropolitan development trends, and linkages among housing policy and energy, environmental, and transportation policy. Housing Policy Debate is published quarterly. Most issues feature a Forum section and an Articles section. The Forum, which highlights a current debate, features a central article and responding comments that represent a range of perspectives. All articles in the Forum and Articles sections undergo a double-blind peer review process.