A Note on Why Quarter of Birth is Not a Valid Instrument for Educational Attainment
MPRA Paper from University Library of Munich, Germany
In their justification for using entrance cutoff dates and compulsory education laws as a natural experiment, the authors of Angrist and Krueger (1991) rightly give much attention to the effectiveness of compulsory attendance laws. However, the authors do not give proper attention to the decisions made by parents. If redshirting is commonplace and nonrandom, as it is in the ECLS-K data set, then the identifying assumption of monotonicity does not hold, and their identification scheme does not work. This problem is distinct from those discussed in Bound and Jaeger (2000).
JEL-codes: I20 I21 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-edu, nep-hrm and nep-lab
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5168/1/MPRA_paper_5168.pdf original version (application/pdf)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pra:mprapa:5168
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in MPRA Paper from University Library of Munich, Germany Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Joachim Winter ().