A Market Interpretation of Treatment Effects

Markets, likened to an invisible hand, often appear to contradict econometric assumptions that rule out spillovers of one person’s treatment on another’s outcomes. This paper provides a simple statistical framework highlighting that controls are indirectly affected by the treatment through the market. Further, the effect of the treatment on the treated reveals only part of the consequence for the treated of treating the entire market. When combined with economic theory, our framework leads to a new application of Marshall’s Laws of Derived Demand that relates econometric estimates of treatment effects in the marketplace to the substitution and scale effects of demand theory. We show how treatment-effect estimators can diverge – both in magnitude and direction – from the causal effects of treatment on the treated or counterfactual policies treating all market participants. The framework shows how the consequences of targeted treatments reveal the effects of marketwide treatments, and the role of market frictions in that inference. Examples from labor, public finance, economic geography, development, and the macro literature on the “missing intercept” are provided.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Finance and Economics Discussion Series
Published
2024-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17016/feds.2024.096
Primary Topic
Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Market Interpretation of Treatment Effects

Robert Minton, Casey B. Mulligan
Finance and Economics Discussion Series
Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
article

A Market Interpretation of Treatment Effects

Robert Minton, Casey B. Mulligan
article en

Abstract

Markets, likened to an invisible hand, often appear to contradict econometric assumptions that rule out spillovers of one person’s treatment on another’s outcomes. This paper provides a simple statistical framework highlighting that controls are indirectly affected by the treatment through the market. Further, the effect of the treatment on the treated reveals only part of the consequence for the treated of treating the entire market. When combined with economic theory, our framework leads to a new application of Marshall’s Laws of Derived Demand that relates econometric estimates of treatment effects in the marketplace to the substitution and scale effects of demand theory. We show how treatment-effect estimators can diverge – both in magnitude and direction – from the causal effects of treatment on the treated or counterfactual policies treating all market participants. The framework shows how the consequences of targeted treatments reveal the effects of marketwide treatments, and the role of market frictions in that inference. Examples from labor, public finance, economic geography, development, and the macro literature on the “missing intercept” are provided.

Finance and Economics Discussion Series(2024-096)
Federal Reserve (US), Federal Reserve Board of Governors (US), University of Chicago (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 70%
Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

A Market Interpretation of Treatment Effects — Robert Minton, Casey B. Mulligan · Finance and Economics Discussion Series (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS