Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Einsatzmöglichkeiten der Matching Methode zur Berücksichtigung von Selbstselektion

  • State-of-the-Art-Artikel
  • Published:
Journal für Betriebswirtschaft Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Häufig ist es von Interesse, den Effekt der Teilnahme an einer Massnahme auf eine Ergebnisvariable zu untersuchen. Um jedoch eine Kausalität adäquat evaluieren zu können, müssen Selbstselektionseffekte berücksichtigt werden. Hierfür wird die Matching Methode vorgeschlagen. Bei der Matching Methode besteht das Ziel darin, durch die Bildung von Paaren von Teilnehmern und Nicht-Teilnehmern den Effekt der Teilnahme an einer Massnahme auf eine Ergebnisvariable zu bewerten. Dieser Beitrag stellt unterschiedliche Varianten der Matching Methode vor und vergleicht diese. Der Beitrag zeigt damit, wie bei betriebswirtschaftlichen Problemen Selbstselektionseffekte angemessen berücksichtigt werden können.

Abstract

In many situations it is of interest to determine the impact of a specific treatment on an outcome variable. In order to evaluate the causality between treatment and outcome variable, self-selection effects have to be taken into consideration. An approach to account for these self-selection effects is the matching method. The aim of the matching method is to evaluate the impact of a specific treatment on the outcome variable by building pairs of participants and non-participants of the treatment. This article illustrates and compares different specifications of the matching method and demonstrates how self-selection can be accounted for in managerial problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Literatur

  1. Ashenfelter O (1978) Estimating the effect of training programs on earnings. Rev Econ Stat 60:47–57

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ashenfelter O, Rouse C (1998) Income, schooling, and ability: Evidence from a new sample of identical twins. Q J Econ: 253–284

  3. Barabas J (2004) How deliberation affects policy opinions. Am Polit Sci Rev 98:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bjorklund A, Moffitt R (1987) The estimation of wage gains and welfare gains in self-selection models. Rev Econ Stat 69:42–49

    Google Scholar 

  5. Black DA, Smith J (2004) How robust is the evidence on the effects of college quality? Evidence from matching. J Econometrics 121:99–124

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boston Consulting Group (2001) The multichannel consumer – The need to integrate online and offline channels in Europe. Boston

  7. Bortz J (1999) Statistik für Sozialwissenschaftler. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

  8. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (2003) 138 Milliarden Euro für aktive Arbeitsmarktpolitik im Osten. Pressemitteilung vom 8. April 2003. http://www.soliserv.de/presse-arbeitsamt_2quartal-03.htm, abgerufen am 1. November 2004

  9. Christensen B, Clement M, Albers S, Guldner S (2004) Zur Relevanz der Kontrollgruppenauswahl in der empirischen Forschung: Eine Analyse am Beispiel der Erfolgswirkung der Academy Awards im Filmgeschäft. Working paper, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel

  10. Cox D, Wermuth N (2004) Causality: A statistical view. Int Stat Rev 72:285–305

    Google Scholar 

  11. D’Agostino R (1998) Tutorial in biostatics: Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 17:2265–2281

    Google Scholar 

  12. Degeratu A, Rangaswamy A, Wu J (2000) Consumer choice behavior in online and traditional supermarkets: The effects of brand name, price and other search attributes. Int J Res Marketing 17:55–78

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dehejia RH, Wahba S (2002) Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Rev Econ Stat 84:151–161

    Google Scholar 

  14. Edwards D (2000) Introduction to graphical modelling. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

  15. Erdem T, Keane M, Sun B (1999) Missing price and coupon availability data in scanner panels: Correcting for the self-selection bias in the choice model parameters. J Econometrics 89:177–196

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fitzenberger B, Speckesser S (2003) Weiterbildungsmassnahmen in Ostdeutschland: Ein Misserfolg der Arbeitsmarktpolitik? In: Schmähl W (Hrsg) Wechselwirkungen zwischen Arbeitsmarkt und sozialer Sicherung (Soziale Sicherung und Arbeitsmarkt, Bd. 294). Duncker und Humblot, Berlin, S. 51–81

  17. Granger C (1969) Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 37:424–438

    Google Scholar 

  18. Heckman J (1976) The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection, and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models. Ann Econ Soc Meas 5:475–492

    Google Scholar 

  19. Heckman J (1978) Dummy endogenous variables in a simultaneous equations system. Econometrica 46:931–960

    Google Scholar 

  20. Heckman J (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47:152–162

    Google Scholar 

  21. Heckman J, Ichimura H, Smith J, Todd P (1996) Sources of selection bias in evaluating social programs: An interpretation of conventional measures and evidence on the effectiveness of matching as a program evaluation method. Proc Natl Acad Sci 93:13416–13420

    Google Scholar 

  22. Heckman J, Ichimura H, Smith J, Todd P (1998) Characterizing selection bias using experimantal data. Econometrica 66:1017–1098

    Google Scholar 

  23. Heckman J, Ichimura H, Todd P (1998) Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. Rev Econ Stud 65:261–294

    Google Scholar 

  24. Heckman J, LaLonde R, Smith J (1999) The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs. In: Ashenfelter O, Card D (Hrsg) Handbook of Labor Economics, vol. III. Amsterdam, S. 1865–2097

  25. Heckman J, Navarro-Lozano S (2004) Using matching, instrumental variables, and control functions to estimate economic choice models. Rev Econ Stat 86:30–57

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hitt LM, Frei FX (2002) Do better customers utilize electronic distribution channels? The case of PC banking. Manag Sci 48:732–748

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hujer R, Caliendo M, Radic D (2001) Nobody knows ... how do different evaluation estimators perform in a simulated labour market experiment? Working paper, Universität Frankfurt

  28. Hujer R, Caliendo M, Radic D (2003) Methods and limitations of evaluation and impact research. Report on VET Research in Europe, CEDEFOP Project 0730. Working paper, Universität Frankfurt

  29. Hujer R, Maurer K-O, Wellner M (1997) The impact of training on unemployment duration in West Germany – Combining a discrete hazard rate model with matching techniques. Working paper, Universität Frankfurt

  30. Imbens G (2004) Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. Rev Econ Stat 86:4–29

    Google Scholar 

  31. LaLonde R (1986) Evaluating the econometric evaluations of training programs with experimental data. Am Econ Rev 76:604–620

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lauritzen S (1999) Causal inference from graphical models. Research report R-99-2021, Aalborg University. http://www.math.aau.dk/research/reports/R-99-2021.ps, abgerufen am 7. Februar 2005

  33. Lechner M (1998) Mikroökonomische Evaluationsstudien: Anmerkungen zu Theorie und Praxis. In: Pfeiffer F, Pohlmeier W (Hrsg) Qualifikation, Weiterbildung und Arbeitsmarkterfolg. Baden-Baden, S. 13–38

  34. Lechner M (2002) Program heterogeneity and propensity score matching: An application to the evaluation of active labor market policies. Rev Econ Stat 84:205–220

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lee L-F (2000) Self-selection. In: Baltagi B (Hrsg) A companion to theoretical econometrics. Oxford, S. 384–409

  36. Rässler S (2002) Statistical matching. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

  37. Rosenbaum P, Rubin D (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70:41–55

    Google Scholar 

  38. Rosenbaum P, Rubin D (1985) Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat 39:33–38

    Google Scholar 

  39. Roy A (1951) Some thoughts on the distribution of earnings. Oxford Econ Pap 3:135–145

  40. Rubin D (1974) Estimating causal effects to treatments in randomised and nonrandomised studies. J Educational Psychol 66:688–701

    Google Scholar 

  41. Rubin D (1990) Comment on “Neyman (1923) and causal inference in experiments and observational studies”. Stat Sci 5:472–480

    Google Scholar 

  42. Singer B (1986) Self-selection and performance-based ratings: A case study in program evaluation. In: Wainer H (Hrsg) Drawing inference from self-selected samples. New York, S. 29–62

  43. Smith J, Todd P (2000) Does matching overcome lalondes critique of nonexperimental estimators? Working paper, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Philadelphia

  44. Wehrling R (2002) Retail E-banking: Tinkering pays off. ABA Banking J: 11–23

  45. Wooldridge J (2003) Introductory econometrics – A modern approach. Mason

  46. Zettelmeyer F, Morton FS, Silvia-Risso J (2001) Cowboys or cowards: Why are internet car prices lower? NBER working paper 8667. National Bureau of Economic Research, Berkeley

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Electronic Commerce, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Mertonstr. 17, 60054, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Sonja Gensler, Bernd Skiera & Martin Böhm

Authors
  1. Sonja Gensler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bernd Skiera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martin Böhm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sonja Gensler.

Additional information

JEL classifications

C40, C21, M31

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gensler, S., Skiera, B. & Böhm, M. Einsatzmöglichkeiten der Matching Methode zur Berücksichtigung von Selbstselektion. JfB 55, 37–62 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-005-0010-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-005-0010-3

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation