Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies

Abadie, A., Diamond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2010). Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California's Tobacco Control Program. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105(490), 493-505.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

2010

Volume

105

Issue

490

Pages

493-505

DOI

10.1198/jasa.2009.ap08746

DOI registrant

Taylor & Francis

Link

https://doi.org/10.1198/jasa.2009.ap08746

Cited from

statistics_experimental_design

Cited by

3 citations across 3 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Counterfactual Subtraction
  • Consider the synthetic-control estimator for the effect of a state-level cigarette tax on per-capita consumption.

    This sourceConstructs a donor-weighted synthetic counterfactual matched on pre-policy trends and reads the post-policy gap (with placebo tests) as the treatment effect.

Domain-specific

• Natural Experiment
  • regression discontinuity (Thistlethwaite and Campbell 1960 on National Merit Scholarships), instrumental variables (Angrist 1990 using Vietnam draft lottery numbers as an instrument for military service), Mendelian randomisation (Smith and Ebrahim 2003 using genotype at conception as an instrument for exposure), and synthetic control (Abadie et al. 2010).

    Supported in partVerified against the source

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

Mechanisms

• Synthetic Control Method
  • The synthetic control approach, as applied by Abadie, Diamond, and Hainmueller, assembles a donor pool of states without comparable programs and solves for the weights on those states that best reproduce California's cigarette sales and its predictors across the years before 1988.

Verification

Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 3 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Was it audited? Yes. A second, independent pass read the citation against the article text and recorded a verdict.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:2e4b5741d4ac · see in the full table