class: title-slide <br><br><br> # Lecture 2 ## Introduction to Structural Models ### Tyler Ransom ### ECON 6343, University of Oklahoma --- # Today and next class - What is a structural model? - Examples - What steps are required to write a research paper that uses a structural model? - Computational steps --- # Attribution Some of today's material is based on [these excellent slides](https://www.dropbox.com/s/8kwtwn30dyac18s/intro.pdf) by Phil Haile (Yale) If the link above is broken, try finding them on Haile's teaching page [here](https://sites.google.com/view/philhaile/home/teaching) --- # Causality: the goal of econometrics - In any econometric endeavor, the goal is to uncover causal relationships - Causality is crucial because it's the only way to know the effects of a policy - e.g. what is the effect of reading to my child on her cognitive development? - we can't answer this by simply looking at `\(Corr(\text{read to child}, \text{cog. test score})\)` - this correlation is contaminated by omitted variable bias: - parents who regularly read to their children likely also regularly do other things favorable to child development --- # Causality requires a counterfactual - Causality is defined in terms of a .hi[counterfactual] - what would've been the outcome if everything were the same except the policy? - this is the notion of _ceteris paribus_ in principles of economics - theory says quantity demanded will decrease if price increases, _ceteris paribus_ - what is child's test score if everything were the same _except_ regular reading time? - .hi["Causal effect":] difference between reality and the most plausible counterfactual - There are many ways to estimate a causal effect --- # Three types of empirical work in econ (Haile, 2024) 1. .hi[Measurement] - Document facts about observable quantities - e.g. what is the average earnings difference between college and HS graduates? 2. .hi[Model Testing] - test a theoretical model's results against actual data - e.g. does Bayesian Nash Equilibirium explain bidding at oil auctions? 3. .hi[Model Estimation for Counterfactuals] - Estimate parameters of a _data generating process_ (DGP) which are assumed to be invariant to policy changes or other counterfactuals - e.g. by how much would prices rise if two firms merged? --- # Trading off assumptions and results Below is a nice illustration of how stronger assumptions lead to stronger conclusions (Mahoney, 2022) .center[  ] --- # Brief history of the term "structural" - Dates back to Hurwicz (1950) and Koopmans and Reiersol (1950) - A .hi[structure] is a data generating process - i.e. a set of functional or probabilistic relationships between observable and latent variables which implies a joint distribution of the observables - The goal of structural estimation, then, is to estimate the parameters of the DGP - This allows us to make counterfactual comparisons, i.e. perform causal inference - Note that "structural" here refers to basically all of modern econometrics --- # Brief history of the term "reduced form" - The term .hi[reduced form] refers to solving a structural model - The structural model may have endogenous variables on both sides of the equation - But the reduced form puts all endogenous variables on the left hand side - All exogenous variables and error terms are on the right hand side - Classic example: supply and demand - Two equations, two endogenous variables (price, quantity) - In equilibrium, reduced form has `\(P\)` and `\(Q\)` as respective LHS variables - RHS contains observable and unobservable determinants of S and D --- # How these terms tend to be used today - Reduced form tends to refer to linear models estimated by RCT, IV, DID, RDD, etc. - Methods that try to exploit randomization (or quasi-randomization) - Synonymous with the phrase "identification strategy" - Structural tends to refer to non-linear models that are more difficult to estimate - Methods that make explicit the (typically large) set of maintained assumptions - Methods that focus on settings where RCTs would be infeasible - Both of these terms are misnomers, but this is how they are used today - For the rest of these slides, I'm going to misuse them (like most others today) - See Haile (2019) for more semantic details --- # Structural vs. Reduced Form Methods - There is a lot of animosity between structural and reduced-form practitioners - Keane (2010) calls reduced-form methods "atheoretic" - others refer to reduced-form or behavioral approaches as "cuteonomics" - Angrist and Pischke (2009) titled their book _Mostly Harmless Econometrics_ - implying that structural methods include "harmful" econometrics (Lewbel, 2019) - In fact, .hi[we need both] methodological approaches to answer policy questions --- # Structural vs. Reduced Form Methods - Blundell (2010) outlines three broad concerns determining what method to use: 1. The nature of the question to be answered 2. The type and quality of data available 3. The mechanism by which individuals are allocated or receive the policy - i.e. random assignment or obeying rules of economic theory (like utility max.) "Just as an experiment needs to be carefully designed, the identification of a structural economic model needs to be carefully argued." "Poorly designed quasi-experiments have little to offer, but so too do poorly focused structural estimations." --- # Structural vs. Reduced Form Methods - As an observation, our profession under-invests in structural methods - I believe this is mainly because their implementation can be difficult - For every structural paper produced, 5 or 6 RF papers could be produced - This matters for publishing, tenure, and training the next generation - Nonetheless, structural methods can be immensely useful - But they take longer, so their science progresses relatively more slowly --- # RCT as structural estimation - All causal inference is structural in nature (as correctly defined) - Structural estimation need not be difficult; models need not be complex - An RCT is a structural model that can be evaluated _descriptively_ - No fancy econometrics needed: just compute `\(\overline{y}_{\text{Treatment}} - \overline{y}_{\text{Control}}\)` - This is because great effort was expended at the randomization step - The experimenters had a (structural) model in mind when defining treatment --- # Not every DGP can be evaluated by RCT - Some causal questions of interest can't be answered with an RCT - For a variety of reasons, experimentation may be too costly, unethical, etc. - e.g. can't randomize a merger of two large firms, or a person's height - Without randomization, we have to rely on observational data - This requires more complex econometric methods to estimate the DGP - Need to explicitly specify how unobservables relate to other parts of model --- # Key parameters of any economic model - As mentioned above, we assume that DGP parameters are policy-invariant - These parameters tend to be related to .hi[economic fundamentals]: - commodities - demographics - preferences - production technology - information and expectations - space (includes networks & social interactions) --- # Reading-to-Children Example: Reduced-form example - A .hi[reduced-form] (as misused today) approach would look like the following: 1. recruit a group of families to participate in a reading study 2. randomize into "no-read" and "read" groups 3. after some period of time, give their children a cognitive test 4. compare the average scores of children across each of the groups --- # Reading-to-Children Example: Structural approach - A .hi[structural] (as misused today) approach would look like the following: 1. write a model of child skill formation (Cunha, Heckman, and Schennach, 2010) 2. gather data on parental and child time use and child test scores 3. estimate the parameters of the child skill formation model 4. use model to simulate counterfactual policies (e.g. where reading is set to 0) 5. compare average scores in counterfactual and status quo --- # Reading-to-Children Example: Hybrid approach - A hybrid approach would do the following: 1. estimate the skill formation parameters 2. leverage randomization to better estimate/validate the model - e.g. by allowing for identification of a parameter previously not identifiable - e.g. recover randomization-implied ATE using structural parameter estimates 4. use the validated structural model to explore other counterfactuals - A great example of this hybrid approach is Delavande and Zafar (2019) --- # What is identification? (Lewbel, 2019) - .hi[Identification:] model parameters being _uniquely determined_ from the _observable population_ that generates the data - identification is never a question about a sample of data - it is a question about the population from which the sample is drawn - there are many different terms for identification in econometrics - but the unifying definition is the one given above - Lewbel (2019) lists 33 different terms from the econometrics literature (I include all of the terms on the penultimate slide of this deck) --- # More formal definition (Lewbel, 2019) - Let `\(\theta\)` denote a set of unknown parameters that we would like to learn about, and ideally, estimate - e.g. regressor coefficients, average treatment effects, or error distributions - identification asks what could be learned about parameters `\(\theta\)` from observable data - if we knew the population that data are drawn from, would `\(\theta\)` be known? - if not, what could be learned about `\(\theta\)`? --- # Why is identification important? (Lewbel, 2019) - The study of identification logically precedes estimation, inference, and testing - For `\(\theta\)` to be identified, alternative values of `\(\theta\)` must imply different distributions of the observable data - If `\(\theta\)` is not identified, then we cannot hope to find a consistent estimator for `\(\theta\)` - More generally, identification failures complicate statistical analyses of models, so recognizing lack of identification, and searching for restrictions that suffice to attain identification, are fundamentally important problems in econometric modeling --- # Reduced-form vs. Structural Identification - How is "identification" used differently in reduced-form vs. structural econometrics? - In reduced-form econometrics (a.k.a. causal modeling): - Typically talk of an "identification strategy" (i.e. randomization setup) - Focus is on estimation of treatment effects, not "deep parameters" - Relies on randomization from some kind of randomized or natural experiment - In structural econometrics: - Typically talk of "establishing identification" (i.e. sufficient variation in data) - In complex models, can be difficult to do without imposing more assumptions --- # The Credibility Revolution (Angrist and Pischke, 2009) - What makes an identification strategy credible? - Identification means separating selection from treatment - This is best done when treatment is randomized - Randomization is also how the natural sciences make discoveries - Typically done via controlled experiments - The closer a reduced-form model is to an RCT, the better (Note that controlled experiments are impossible to do with humans) --- # Examples of Identification Strategies - Randomized experiments, field experiments, lab experiments - Instrumental variables, regression discontinuity - Difference in differences, synthetic control methods - Matching methods (nearest neighbor, propensity score, ...) - OLS that does not suffer from omitted variable bias - These are almost exclusively estimated using linear econometric models - Credibility is proportional to the "cleanliness" of randomization - You'll often hear about whether something is "cleanly" identified --- # Credible Structural Models - What makes a structural model credible? - At the very least, the model should .hi["fit the data"] (i.e. reproduce key patterns) - But that is usually a low bar to clear, so additional criteria are required - Results should also "make sense" (i.e. conform to economic theory) - e.g. An upward-sloping demand curve would violate this criterion - or a result that says agents prefer lower income or fewer profits - Typically requires modeling heterogeneity in preferences or productivity - Another difficulty: separating preferences from constraints --- # Structural Methods - Unlike reduced-form methods, there is not a set "toolkit" of techniques - Rather, structural modeling is a bit _ad hoc_ or a bit "Wild West" - Whereas RF methods almost exclusively focus on linear econometric models, - Structural methods overwhelmingly require use of non-linear econometric models - e.g. discrete choice models, fixed point mappings for equilibrium models, etc. - Structural models are typically estimated by GMM or Maximum Likelihood - Computational know-how helps speed up the process of estimating these models - These topics will be the focus of this class --- # Structural papers in various fields of econ - .hi[Labor:] Keane and Wolpin (1997), education investment decisions - .hi[IO:] Berry, Levinsohn, and Pakes (1995), demand estimation using market-level data - .hi[Urban:] Ahlfeldt, Redding, Sturm et al. (2015), estimation of spatial agglomeration - .hi[Environmental:] Rudik (2020), quantify uncertainty in environmental IAMs - .hi[Public:] Bayer, McMillan, Murphy et al. (2016), dynamic Tiebout sorting model - .hi[Macro:] all DSGE models - .hi[International:] Jin and Shen (2020), coordination of sovereign debt --- # Internal and External Validity - .hi[Internal validity] refers to "how causal" an estimated parameter is - "This approach is internally valid" `\(\Rightarrow\)` no selection bias - .hi[External validity] refers to generalizability of estimates to new contexts - Typically, RF approaches are very good at internal validity but not at external validity - On the other hand, if economic agents behave similarly across contexts, structural models can be externally valid - RF and structural methods used together can improve both internal and external validity --- # Example: Internal vs. External Validity - Suppose we want to measure earth's gravitational force, `\(g\)` - We can measure `\(g\)` by timing how long it takes various objects to fall some distance - We can do this with objects of varying mass and of varying fall distances - Using this data, we can estimate earth's `\(g\)` - But what about the `\(g\)` on Mars? Or some other planet? - For this we need a model of what exactly determines `\(g\)` - (A planet's mass and proximity to other large objects) - This model will tell us what `\(g\)` is on planets we haven't yet visited --- # 33 terms for identification .pull-left[ .smallest[ - Bayesian identification - causal identification - essential identification - eventual identification - exact identification - first order identification - frequentist identification - generic identification - global identification - identification arrangement - identification at infinity - identification by construction - identification of bounds - ill-posed identification - irregular identification - local identification ] ] .pull-right[ .smallest[ - nearly weak identification - nonparametric identification - non-robust identification - nonstandard weak identification - overidentification - parametric identification - partial identification - point identification - sampling identification - semiparametric identification - semi-strong identification - set identification - strong identification - structural identification - thin set identification - underidentification - weak identification ] ] --- # References .tinier[ Ackerberg, D. A. (2003). "Advertising, Learning, and Consumer Choice in Experience Good Markets: An Empirical Examination". In: _International Economic Review_ 44.3, pp. 1007-1040. DOI: [10.1111/1468-2354.t01-2-00098](https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1468-2354.t01-2-00098). Adams, R. P. (2018). _Model Selection and Cross Validation_. Lecture Notes. Princeton University. URL: [https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall18/cos324/files/model-selection.pdf](https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall18/cos324/files/model-selection.pdf). Ahlfeldt, G. M., S. J. Redding, D. M. Sturm, et al. (2015). "The Economics of Density: Evidence From the Berlin Wall". In: _Econometrica_ 83.6, pp. 2127-2189. DOI: [10.3982/ECTA10876](https://doi.org/10.3982%2FECTA10876). Altonji, J. G., T. E. Elder, and C. R. Taber (2005). "Selection on Observed and Unobserved Variables: Assessing the Effectiveness of Catholic Schools". In: _Journal of Political Economy_ 113.1, pp. 151-184. DOI: [10.1086/426036](https://doi.org/10.1086%2F426036). Altonji, J. G. and C. R. Pierret (2001). "Employer Learning and Statistical Discrimination". In: _Quarterly Journal of Economics_ 116.1, pp. 313-350. DOI: [10.1162/003355301556329](https://doi.org/10.1162%2F003355301556329). Angrist, J. D. and A. B. Krueger (1991). "Does Compulsory School Attendance Affect Schooling and Earnings?" In: _Quarterly Journal of Economics_ 106.4, pp. 979-1014. DOI: [10.2307/2937954](https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2937954). Angrist, J. D. and J. Pischke (2009). _Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion_. Princeton University Press. ISBN: 0691120358. Arcidiacono, P. (2004). "Ability Sorting and the Returns to College Major". In: _Journal of Econometrics_ 121, pp. 343-375. DOI: [10.1016/j.jeconom.2003.10.010](https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jeconom.2003.10.010). Arcidiacono, P., E. Aucejo, A. Maurel, et al. (2016). _College Attrition and the Dynamics of Information Revelation_. Working Paper. Duke University. URL: [https://tyleransom.github.io/research/CollegeDropout2016May31.pdf](https://tyleransom.github.io/research/CollegeDropout2016May31.pdf). Arcidiacono, P., E. Aucejo, A. Maurel, et al. (2025). "College Attrition and the Dynamics of Information Revelation". In: _Journal of Political Economy_ 133.1. DOI: [10.1086/732526](https://doi.org/10.1086%2F732526). Arcidiacono, P. and J. B. Jones (2003). "Finite Mixture Distributions, Sequential Likelihood and the EM Algorithm". In: _Econometrica_ 71.3, pp. 933-946. DOI: [10.1111/1468-0262.00431](https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1468-0262.00431). Arcidiacono, P., J. Kinsler, and T. Ransom (2022b). "Asian American Discrimination in Harvard Admissions". In: _European Economic Review_ 144, p. 104079. DOI: [10.1016/j.euroecorev.2022.104079](https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.euroecorev.2022.104079). Arcidiacono, P., J. Kinsler, and T. Ransom (2022a). "Legacy and Athlete Preferences at Harvard". In: _Journal of Labor Economics_ 40.1, pp. 133-156. DOI: [10.1086/713744](https://doi.org/10.1086%2F713744). Arcidiacono, P. and R. A. Miller (2011). "Conditional Choice Probability Estimation of Dynamic Discrete Choice Models With Unobserved Heterogeneity". In: _Econometrica_ 79.6, pp. 1823-1867. DOI: [10.3982/ECTA7743](https://doi.org/10.3982%2FECTA7743). Arroyo Marioli, F., F. Bullano, S. Kucinskas, et al. (2020). _Tracking R of COVID-19: A New Real-Time Estimation Using the Kalman Filter_. Working Paper. medRxiv. DOI: [10.1101/2020.04.19.20071886](https://doi.org/10.1101%2F2020.04.19.20071886). Ashworth, J., V. J. Hotz, A. Maurel, et al. (2021). "Changes across Cohorts in Wage Returns to Schooling and Early Work Experiences". In: _Journal of Labor Economics_ 39.4, pp. 931-964. DOI: [10.1086/711851](https://doi.org/10.1086%2F711851). Attanasio, O. P., C. Meghir, and A. Santiago (2011). "Education Choices in Mexico: Using a Structural Model and a Randomized Experiment to Evaluate PROGRESA". In: _Review of Economic Studies_ 79.1, pp. 37-66. DOI: [10.1093/restud/rdr015](https://doi.org/10.1093%2Frestud%2Frdr015). Aucejo, E. M. and J. James (2019). "Catching Up to Girls: Understanding the Gender Imbalance in Educational Attainment Within Race". In: _Journal of Applied Econometrics_ 34.4, pp. 502-525. DOI: [10.1002/jae.2699](https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fjae.2699). Baragatti, M., A. Grimaud, and D. Pommeret (2013). "Likelihood-free Parallel Tempering". In: _Statistics and Computing_ 23.4, pp. 535-549. DOI: [ 10.1007/s11222-012-9328-6](https://doi.org/%2010.1007%2Fs11222-012-9328-6). Bayer, P., R. McMillan, A. Murphy, et al. (2016). "A Dynamic Model of Demand for Houses and Neighborhoods". In: _Econometrica_ 84.3, pp. 893-942. DOI: [10.3982/ECTA10170](https://doi.org/10.3982%2FECTA10170). Begg, C. B. and R. Gray (1984). "Calculation of Polychotomous Logistic Regression Parameters Using Individualized Regressions". In: _Biometrika_ 71.1, pp. 11-18. DOI: [10.1093/biomet/71.1.11](https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fbiomet%2F71.1.11). Beggs, S. D., N. S. Cardell, and J. Hausman (1981). "Assessing the Potential Demand for Electric Cars". In: _Journal of Econometrics_ 17.1, pp. 1-19. DOI: [10.1016/0304-4076(81)90056-7](https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0304-4076%2881%2990056-7). Berry, S., J. Levinsohn, and A. Pakes (1995). "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium". In: _Econometrica_ 63.4, pp. 841-890. URL: [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2171802](http://www.jstor.org/stable/2171802). Blass, A. A., S. Lach, and C. F. Manski (2010). "Using Elicited Choice Probabilities to Estimate Random Utility Models: Preferences for Electricity Reliability". In: _International Economic Review_ 51.2, pp. 421-440. DOI: [10.1111/j.1468-2354.2010.00586.x](https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1468-2354.2010.00586.x). Blundell, R. (2010). "Comments on: ``Structural vs. Atheoretic Approaches to Econometrics'' by Michael Keane". In: _Journal of Econometrics_ 156.1, pp. 25-26. DOI: [10.1016/j.jeconom.2009.09.005](https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jeconom.2009.09.005). Bresnahan, T. F., S. Stern, and M. Trajtenberg (1997). "Market Segmentation and the Sources of Rents from Innovation: Personal Computers in the Late 1980s". In: _The RAND Journal of Economics_ 28.0, pp. S17-S44. DOI: [10.2307/3087454](https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3087454). Brien, M. J., L. A. Lillard, and S. Stern (2006). "Cohabitation, Marriage, and Divorce in a Model of Match Quality". In: _International Economic Review_ 47.2, pp. 451-494. DOI: [10.1111/j.1468-2354.2006.00385.x](https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1468-2354.2006.00385.x). Card, D. (1995). "Using Geographic Variation in College Proximity to Estimate the Return to Schooling". In: _Aspects of Labor Market Behaviour: Essays in Honour of John Vanderkamp_. Ed. by L. N. Christofides, E. K. Grant and R. Swidinsky. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Cardell, N. S. (1997). "Variance Components Structures for the Extreme-Value and Logistic Distributions with Application to Models of Heterogeneity". In: _Econometric Theory_ 13.2, pp. 185-213. URL: [https://www.jstor.org/stable/3532724](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3532724). Caucutt, E. M., L. Lochner, J. Mullins, et al. (2020). _Child Skill Production: Accounting for Parental and Market-Based Time and Goods Investments_. Working Paper 27838. National Bureau of Economic Research. DOI: [10.3386/w27838](https://doi.org/10.3386%2Fw27838). Chen, X., H. Hong, and D. Nekipelov (2011). "Nonlinear Models of Measurement Errors". In: _Journal of Economic Literature_ 49.4, pp. 901-937. DOI: [10.1257/jel.49.4.901](https://doi.org/10.1257%2Fjel.49.4.901). Chintagunta, P. K. (1992). "Estimating a Multinomial Probit Model of Brand Choice Using the Method of Simulated Moments". In: _Marketing Science_ 11.4, pp. 386-407. DOI: [10.1287/mksc.11.4.386](https://doi.org/10.1287%2Fmksc.11.4.386). Cinelli, C. and C. Hazlett (2020). "Making Sense of Sensitivity: Extending Omitted Variable Bias". In: _Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology)_ 82.1, pp. 39-67. DOI: [10.1111/rssb.12348](https://doi.org/10.1111%2Frssb.12348). Coate, P. and K. Mangum (2019). _Fast Locations and Slowing Labor Mobility_. Working Paper 19-49. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. Cunha, F., J. J. Heckman, and S. M. Schennach (2010). "Estimating the Technology of Cognitive and Noncognitive Skill Formation". In: _Econometrica_ 78.3, pp. 883-931. DOI: [10.3982/ECTA6551](https://doi.org/10.3982%2FECTA6551). Cunningham, S. (2021). _Causal Inference: The Mixtape_. Yale University Press. URL: [https://www.scunning.com/causalinference_norap.pdf](https://www.scunning.com/causalinference_norap.pdf). Delavande, A. and C. F. Manski (2015). "Using Elicited Choice Probabilities in Hypothetical Elections to Study Decisions to Vote". In: _Electoral Studies_ 38, pp. 28-37. DOI: [10.1016/j.electstud.2015.01.006](https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.electstud.2015.01.006). Delavande, A. and B. Zafar (2019). "University Choice: The Role of Expected Earnings, Nonpecuniary Outcomes, and Financial Constraints". In: _Journal of Political Economy_ 127.5, pp. 2343-2393. DOI: [10.1086/701808](https://doi.org/10.1086%2F701808). Diegert, P., M. A. Masten, and A. Poirier (2025). _Assessing Omitted Variable Bias when the Controls are Endogenous_. arXiv. DOI: [10.48550/ARXIV.2206.02303](https://doi.org/10.48550%2FARXIV.2206.02303). Erdem, T. and M. P. Keane (1996). "Decision-Making under Uncertainty: Capturing Dynamic Brand Choice Processes in Turbulent Consumer Goods Markets". In: _Marketing Science_ 15.1, pp. 1-20. DOI: [10.1287/mksc.15.1.1](https://doi.org/10.1287%2Fmksc.15.1.1). Evans, R. W. (2018). _Simulated Method of Moments (SMM) Estimation_. QuantEcon Note. University of Chicago. URL: [https://notes.quantecon.org/submission/5b3db2ceb9eab00015b89f93](https://notes.quantecon.org/submission/5b3db2ceb9eab00015b89f93). Farber, H. S. and R. Gibbons (1996). "Learning and Wage Dynamics". In: _Quarterly Journal of Economics_ 111.4, pp. 1007-1047. DOI: [10.2307/2946706](https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2946706). Fu, C., N. Grau, and J. Rivera (2020). _Wandering Astray: Teenagers' Choices of Schooling and Crime_. Working Paper. University of Wisconsin-Madison. URL: [https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~cfu/wander.pdf](https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~cfu/wander.pdf). Gillingham, K., F. Iskhakov, A. Munk-Nielsen, et al. (2022). "Equilibrium Trade in Automobiles". In: _Journal of Political Economy_. DOI: [10.1086/720463](https://doi.org/10.1086%2F720463). Haile, P. (2019). _``Structural vs. Reduced Form'' Language and Models in Empirical Economics_. Lecture Slides. Yale University. URL: [http://www.econ.yale.edu/~pah29/intro.pdf](http://www.econ.yale.edu/~pah29/intro.pdf). Haile, P. (2024). _Models, Measurement, and the Language of Empirical Economics_. Lecture Slides. Yale University. URL: [https://www.dropbox.com/s/8kwtwn30dyac18s/intro.pdf](https://www.dropbox.com/s/8kwtwn30dyac18s/intro.pdf). Heckman, J. J., J. Stixrud, and S. Urzua (2006). "The Effects of Cognitive and Noncognitive Abilities on Labor Market Outcomes and Social Behavior". In: _Journal of Labor Economics_ 24.3, pp. 411-482. DOI: [10.1086/504455](https://doi.org/10.1086%2F504455). Hotz, V. J. and R. A. Miller (1993). "Conditional Choice Probabilities and the Estimation of Dynamic Models". In: _The Review of Economic Studies_ 60.3, pp. 497-529. DOI: [10.2307/2298122](https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2298122). Hurwicz, L. (1950). "Generalization of the Concept of Identification". In: _Statistical Inference in Dynamic Economic Models_. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 245-257. Ishimaru, S. (2022). _Geographic Mobility of Youth and Spatial Gaps in Local College and Labor Market Opportunities_. Working Paper. Hitotsubashi University. James, J. (2011). _Ability Matching and Occupational Choice_. Working Paper 11-25. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. James, J. (2017). "MM Algorithm for General Mixed Multinomial Logit Models". In: _Journal of Applied Econometrics_ 32.4, pp. 841-857. DOI: [10.1002/jae.2532](https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fjae.2532). Jin, H. and H. Shen (2020). "Foreign Asset Accumulation Among Emerging Market Economies: A Case for Coordination". In: _Review of Economic Dynamics_ 35.1, pp. 54-73. DOI: [10.1016/j.red.2019.04.006](https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.red.2019.04.006). Keane, M. P. (2010). "Structural vs. Atheoretic Approaches to Econometrics". In: _Journal of Econometrics_ 156.1, pp. 3-20. DOI: [10.1016/j.jeconom.2009.09.003](https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jeconom.2009.09.003). Keane, M. P. and K. I. Wolpin (1997). "The Career Decisions of Young Men". In: _Journal of Political Economy_ 105.3, pp. 473-522. DOI: [10.1086/262080](https://doi.org/10.1086%2F262080). Koopmans, T. C. and O. Reiersol (1950). "The Identification of Structural Characteristics". In: _The Annals of Mathematical Statistics_ 21.2, pp. 165-181. URL: [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2236899](http://www.jstor.org/stable/2236899). Kosar, G., T. Ransom, and W. van der Klaauw (2022). "Understanding Migration Aversion Using Elicited Counterfactual Choice Probabilities". In: _Journal of Econometrics_ 231.1, pp. 123-147. DOI: [10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.07.056](https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jeconom.2020.07.056). Krauth, B. (2016). "Bounding a Linear Causal Effect Using Relative Correlation Restrictions". In: _Journal of Econometric Methods_ 5.1, pp. 117-141. DOI: [10.1515/jem-2013-0013](https://doi.org/10.1515%2Fjem-2013-0013). Lang, K. and M. D. Palacios (2018). _The Determinants of Teachers' Occupational Choice_. Working Paper 24883. National Bureau of Economic Research. DOI: [10.3386/w24883](https://doi.org/10.3386%2Fw24883). Lee, D. S., J. McCrary, M. J. Moreira, et al. (2020). _Valid t-ratio Inference for IV_. Working Paper. arXiv. URL: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.05058](https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.05058). Lewbel, A. (2019). "The Identification Zoo: Meanings of Identification in Econometrics". In: _Journal of Economic Literature_ 57.4, pp. 835-903. DOI: [10.1257/jel.20181361](https://doi.org/10.1257%2Fjel.20181361). Mahoney, N. (2022). "Principles for Combining Descriptive and Model-Based Analysis in Applied Microeconomics Research". In: _Journal of Economic Perspectives_ 36.3, pp. 211-22. DOI: [10.1257/jep.36.3.211](https://doi.org/10.1257%2Fjep.36.3.211). McFadden, D. (1978). "Modelling the Choice of Residential Location". In: _Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models_. Ed. by A. Karlqvist, L. Lundqvist, F. Snickers and J. W. Weibull. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 75-96. McFadden, D. (1989). "A Method of Simulated Moments for Estimation of Discrete Response Models Without Numerical Integration". In: _Econometrica_ 57.5, pp. 995-1026. DOI: [10.2307/1913621](https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1913621). URL: [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1913621](http://www.jstor.org/stable/1913621). Mellon, J. (2020). _Rain, Rain, Go Away: 137 Potential Exclusion-Restriction Violations for Studies Using Weather as an Instrumental Variable_. Working Paper. University of Manchester. URL: [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3715610](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3715610). Miller, R. A. (1984). "Job Matching and Occupational Choice". In: _Journal of Political Economy_ 92.6, pp. 1086-1120. DOI: [10.1086/261276](https://doi.org/10.1086%2F261276). Mincer, J. (1974). _Schooling, Experience and Earnings_. New York: Columbia University Press for National Bureau of Economic Research. Ost, B., W. Pan, and D. Webber (2018). "The Returns to College Persistence for Marginal Students: Regression Discontinuity Evidence from University Dismissal Policies". In: _Journal of Labor Economics_ 36.3, pp. 779-805. DOI: [10.1086/696204](https://doi.org/10.1086%2F696204). Oster, E. (2019). "Unobservable Selection and Coefficient Stability: Theory and Evidence". In: _Journal of Business & Economic Statistics_ 37.2, pp. 187-204. DOI: [10.1080/07350015.2016.1227711](https://doi.org/10.1080%2F07350015.2016.1227711). Pischke, S. (2007). _Lecture Notes on Measurement Error_. Lecture Notes. London School of Economics. URL: [http://econ.lse.ac.uk/staff/spischke/ec524/Merr_new.pdf](http://econ.lse.ac.uk/staff/spischke/ec524/Merr_new.pdf). Ransom, M. R. and T. Ransom (2018). "Do High School Sports Build or Reveal Character? Bounding Causal Estimates of Sports Participation". In: _Economics of Education Review_ 64, pp. 75-89. DOI: [10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.04.002](https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.econedurev.2018.04.002). Ransom, T. (2022). "Labor Market Frictions and Moving Costs of the Employed and Unemployed". In: _Journal of Human Resources_ 57.S, pp. S137-S166. DOI: [10.3368/jhr.monopsony.0219-10013R2](https://doi.org/10.3368%2Fjhr.monopsony.0219-10013R2). Rudik, I. (2020). "Optimal Climate Policy When Damages Are Unknown". In: _American Economic Journal: Economic Policy_ 12.2, pp. 340-373. DOI: [10.1257/pol.20160541](https://doi.org/10.1257%2Fpol.20160541). Rust, J. (1987). "Optimal Replacement of GMC Bus Engines: An Empirical Model of Harold Zurcher". In: _Econometrica_ 55.5, pp. 999-1033. URL: [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1911259](http://www.jstor.org/stable/1911259). Shalizi, C. R. (2019). _Advanced Data Analysis from an Elementary Point of View_. Cambridge University Press. URL: [http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~cshalizi/ADAfaEPoV/ADAfaEPoV.pdf](http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~cshalizi/ADAfaEPoV/ADAfaEPoV.pdf). Smith Jr., A. A. (2008). "Indirect Inference". In: _The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics_. Ed. by S. N. Durlauf and L. E. Blume. Vol. 1-8. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: [10.1007/978-1-349-58802-2](https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-1-349-58802-2). URL: [http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/palgrave7.pdf](http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/palgrave7.pdf). Stinebrickner, R. and T. Stinebrickner (2014a). "Academic Performance and College Dropout: Using Longitudinal Expectations Data to Estimate a Learning Model". In: _Journal of Labor Economics_ 32.3, pp. 601-644. DOI: [10.1086/675308](https://doi.org/10.1086%2F675308). Stinebrickner, R. and T. R. Stinebrickner (2014b). "A Major in Science? Initial Beliefs and Final Outcomes for College Major and Dropout". In: _Review of Economic Studies_ 81.1, pp. 426-472. DOI: [10.1093/restud/rdt025](https://doi.org/10.1093%2Frestud%2Frdt025). Su, C. and K. L. Judd (2012). "Constrained Optimization Approaches to Estimation of Structural Models". In: _Econometrica_ 80.5, pp. 2213-2230. DOI: [10.3982/ECTA7925](https://doi.org/10.3982%2FECTA7925). Train, K. (2009). _Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation_. 2nd ed. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9780521766555. Wiswall, M. and B. Zafar (2018). "Preference for the Workplace, Investment in Human Capital, and Gender". In: _Quarterly Journal of Economics_ 133.1, pp. 457-507. DOI: [10.1093/qje/qjx035](https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fqje%2Fqjx035). Young, A. (2020). _Consistency without Inference: Instrumental Variables in Practical Application_. Working Paper. London School of Economics. ]