Welfare at Risk: Distributionally Robust Bounds for Policy Evaluation
福利风险:政策评价的分布稳健界AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
本页为预印本版本;arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历,都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对,只展示已核实例,档案仍可能误合并。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要围绕政策因果福利变化的分布、尾部损失与部分识别界展开。
福利风险:政策评价的分布稳健界AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
This paper develops a framework to study how the welfare effects of policy interventions are distributed across individuals when those effects are not directly observed. We bound the superquantile of individual welfare changes by the superquantile of conditional average welfare changes, which is typically identified, revealing how gains and losses are spread across the population. We also bound the share of the population whose welfare loss from the policy exceeds any given threshold --- a distribution-free counterpart to average cost--benefit analysis, closer to a poverty-rate measure of policy harm than to a mean welfare effect. We further extend both bounds to allow for ambiguity in the analyst's knowledge of the distribution of observable characteristics: a non-robust bound estimated on one population can be systematically overoptimistic when applied to a different target population, while the robust version, with its ambiguity radius chosen commensurate with the shift, restores a valid guarantee. We illustrate the method in generalized Roy models with subjective participation costs, bounding not only the distribution of welfare changes in the overall population but also, in a result new to this literature, the entire distribution of welfare (and of participation costs) among those who select into treatment --- the treatment-on-the-treated distribution, not merely its mean. We connect these results to the multi-outcome IV framework of \cite{Heckman_Urzua_Vytlacil_2006_REStat}, showing our robust bounds are immune to the instrument-sensitivity problem they document