Abstract
A fundamental challenge in impact evaluations that rely on a quasi-experimental design is to define a control group that accurately refl ects the counterfactual situation. Our aim is to evaluate empirically the performance of a range of approaches that are widely used in economic research. In particular, we compared three diff erent types of matching algorithms (optimal, greedy and nonparametric). These techniques were applied in the evaluation of the impact of the MARENA programme (Manejo de Recursos Naturales en Cuencas Prioritarias), a natural resource management programme implemented in Honduras between 2004 and 2008. The key findings are: (a) optimal matching did not produce better-balanced matches than greedy matching; and (b) programme impact calculated from nonparametric matching regressions, such as kernel or local linear regressions, yielded more consistent outcomes. Our impact results are similar to those previously reported in the literature, and we can conclude that the MARENA programme had a significant, positive impact on beneficiaries.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
