Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California's Tobacco Control Program

被引:2804
作者
Abadie, Alberto [1 ]
Diamond, Alexis [2 ]
Hainmueller, Jens [3 ]
机构
[1] Harvard Univ, John F Kennedy Sch Govt, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
[2] Int Finance Corp, Washington, DC 20433 USA
[3] MIT, Dept Polit Sci, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
关键词
Observational studies; Proposition; 99; Tobacco control legislation; Treatment effects; DIFFERENCE-IN-DIFFERENCES; CIGARETTE CONSUMPTION; WORKPLACE SMOKING; IMPACT; BANS; INFERENCE; INDUSTRY;
D O I
10.1198/jasa.2009.ap08746
中图分类号
O21 [概率论与数理统计]; C8 [统计学];
学科分类号
020208 ; 070103 ; 0714 ;
摘要
Building on an idea in Abadie and Gardeazabal (2003), this article investigates the application of synthetic control methods to comparative case studies. We discuss the advantages of these methods and apply them to study the effects of Proposition 99, a large-scale tobacco control program that California implemented in 1988. We demonstrate that. following Proposition 99, tobacco consumption fell markedly in California relative to a comparable synthetic control region. We estimate that by the year 2000 annual per-capita cigarette sales in California were about 26 packs lower than what they would have been in the absence of Proposition 99. Using new inferential methods proposed in this article, we demonstrate the significance of our estimates. Given that many policy interventions and events of interest in social sciences take place at an aggregate level (countries, regions. cities, etc.) and affect a small number of aggregate units, the potential applicability of synthetic control methods to comparative case studies is very large, especially in situations where traditional regression methods are not appropriate.
引用
收藏
页码:493 / 505
页数:13
相关论文
共 41 条
  • [1] The economic costs of conflict: A case study of the Basque Country
    Abadie, A
    Gardeazabal, J
    [J]. AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2003, 93 (01) : 113 - 132
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2002, Springer Series in Statistics
  • [3] [Anonymous], 1999, HDB LABOR EC
  • [4] *ANRF, 2009, MUN 100 SMOK LAWS
  • [5] Identification and inference in nonlinear difference-in-differences models
    Athey, S
    Imbens, GW
    [J]. ECONOMETRICA, 2006, 74 (02) : 431 - 497
  • [6] An empirical analysis of milk addiction
    Auld, MC
    Grootendorst, P
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2004, 23 (06) : 1117 - 1133
  • [7] THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY, STATE-POLITICS, AND TOBACCO EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA
    BEGAY, ME
    TRAYNOR, M
    GLANTZ, SA
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 1993, 83 (09) : 1214 - 1221
  • [8] How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates?
    Bertrand, M
    Duflo, E
    Mullainathan, S
    [J]. QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 2004, 119 (01) : 249 - 275
  • [9] BRESLOW L, 1993, ANNU REV PUBL HEALTH, V14, P585
  • [10] *CA DEP HLTH SERV, 2006, FAST FACTS PS 11