X and Y that you can explain with the IV ZZ is related to X but all effects of Z on Y go THROUGH X, you’ve isolated a causal effect of X on Y by isolating just the causal part of X and ignoring all the back doors!Z is binary, get difference in Y divided by difference in XY and explained Xlibrary(AER)
#US income and consumption data 1950-1993
data(USConsump1993)
USC93 <- as.data.frame(USConsump1993)
#lag() gets the observation above; here the observation above is last year
IV <- USC93 %>% mutate(lastyr.invest = lag(income) - lag(expenditure)) %>%
group_by(cut(lastyr.invest,breaks=10)) %>%
summarize(exp = mean(expenditure),inc = mean(income))
cor(IV$exp,IV$inc)## [1] 0.9993985
Remediation, Persistence, other things.RemC) as an instrument for “Actually in remediation” (RemA)RemC to Pers?RemC is based on the location where you live, loc -> RemC. What else might be related to where you live?price affect use?price for the same procedure varies wildly between peopleincome, employment, what else?family injury is an instrument for pricecapitalization, and the Russell 2000 indexes the next top 2000price?cap - just big enough for the 1000 and you’re on the 1000, not quite there and you’re on the R2000cap and also your priceabove is an IV for being listed on R2000EZ)” tax incentives on employment? Draw the diagram!EZcommittee, increasing the chances of getting an EZ for their district? IV! (controlling for the rep, we’re looking before/after here, like diff-in-diff)Z is related to XZ to Y must be closedZ to Y must go through X