ECONOMETRICS

Scientific publications in management science are increasingly relying on program evaluation techniques, which therefore need to be part of the standard training of graduate management students.

The course will endow the students with the basic tools to deal with causal questions. The students will familiarize with the most used program evaluation techniques and more in general will be able to address the identification and estimation issues arising in the quasi- experimental and non-experimental context.

Maths, probability, statistics.

1. The experimental ideal and the selection problem, [AP] pp. 11-24.
2. The anatomy of linear regression, [AP] pp. 27-48.
3. Using the linear model to describe causal relationship, [AP] pp. 51-68.
4. Regression meets matching, [AP] pp. 69-77.
5. The fundamental role of propensity score in observational studies, [AP]
pp. 80-91.
6. Instrumental variables and causality, [AP] pp. 113-121.
7 . Two-stage least squares, [AP] pp. 121-127, [AP] pp. 138-147, [AP] pp.
190-192, [AP] pp. 205-216.
8. The Wald Estimator, [AP] pp. 127-133.
9. Instrumental variables with heterogeneous potential outcome, [AP] pp.
150-172.
10. Fixed effects, [AP] pp. 221-227 and [SS].
11. Diff-in-diff and event studies design, [AP] pp. 227-243.
12. RD design, [AP] pp. 251-267.

[AP] Angrist J.D. and S. Pischke, Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion, 2009, Princeton University Press.
de Chaisemartin, C., & D'Haultfœuille, X. (2020). Two-way fixed effects estimators with heterogeneous treatment effects. American Economic Review, 110, 2964–2996.
Schmidheiny, K. and S.Siegloch, On event studies and distributed-lags in two-way fixed effects models: Identification, equivalence, and generalization, Journal of Applied Econometrics, in press.
Wooldridge, J.M. , Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, 2002, The MIT press.

Written exam

written

Decree of November 3, 1999, No. 509 of the Ministry of University and Scientific and Technological Research establishes in Article 5, paragraph 4, that:
"The credits corresponding to each educational activity are acquired by the student upon passing the exam or another form of assessment, provided that the evaluation of the student's performance is carried out in accordance with the procedures set out in Article 11, paragraph 7, letter d)."
Furthermore, Article 11, paragraph 7, letter d, states that:
"University teaching regulations, in compliance with the statutes, also govern the organizational aspects of teaching activities common to study programs, with particular reference to the methods by which the student's individual performance is assessed, which must in any case be expressed using a grade out of thirty for exams and out of one hundred and ten for the final test, with possible honors."
It follows, first of all, that university teaching regulations cannot adopt a grading scale different from that established by law, nor can they establish correspondences between grades expressed out of thirty and qualitative judgments, as these would be entirely arbitrary. However, the credits corresponding to each educational activity may be acquired by the student if the grade is at least 18 out of 30.
Grades below 18 are therefore insufficient to warrant the acquisition of the corresponding educational credits.
Furthermore, in accordance with the legal provisions, the highest achievable grade is 30 out of 30 with honors.
Given all this, it is evident that a higher level of performance corresponds to a higher grade, and that the grade will be assigned in a way that maximizes the accuracy in assessing the student's performance, through the scores assigned to the exercises that make up the exam.

In person lecturing