English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

We revisit the identification argument of Kirkeboen et al. (2016) who showedhow one may combine instruments for multiple unordered treatments withinformation about individuals' ranking of these treatments to achieveidentification while allowing for both observed and unobserved heterogeneity intreatment effects. We show that the key assumptions underlying theiridentification argument have testable implications. We also provide a newcharacterization of the bias that may arise if these assumptions are violated.Taken together, these results allow researchers not only to test the underlyingassumptions, but also to argue whether the bias from violation of theseassumptions are likely to be economically meaningful. Guided and motivated bythese results, we estimate and compare the earnings payoffs to post-secondaryfields of study in Norway and Denmark. In each country, we apply theidentification argument of Kirkeboen et al. (2016) to data on individuals'ranking of fields of study and field-specific instruments from discontinuitiesin the admission systems. We empirically examine whether and why the payoffs tofields of study differ across the two countries. We find strong cross-countrycorrelation in the payoffs to fields of study, especially after removing fieldswith violations of the assumptions underlying the identification argument.

Instrumental variables with unordered treatments: Theory and evidence from returns to fields of study