You are here:

Tiebout sorting, aggregation and the estimation of peer group effects
ARTICLE

Economics of Education Review Volume 20, Number 3 ISSN 0272-7757 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

Growing up in a higher socioeconomic status neighborhood and attending school with socioeconomically advantaged classmates is associated with better academic, social, and labor market outcomes. The extent to which this association reflects a causal relationship is much debated, and the conclusions reached often depend upon the estimation method used to account for the endogeneity of school and neighborhood choice. This paper uses a sample of students from the High School and Beyond Longitudinal Survey to examine whether the use of aggregate county and metropolitan area level data as instruments for school peer group background ameliorates the problem of endogeneity bias. The pattern of estimates does not support the belief that aggregation reduces specification error in the estimation of peer group effects.

Citation

Rivkin, S.G. Tiebout sorting, aggregation and the estimation of peer group effects. Economics of Education Review, 20(3), 201-209. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved September 1, 2024 from .

This record was imported from Economics of Education Review on March 1, 2019. Economics of Education Review is a publication of Elsevier.

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(00)00032-7

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Brown v. Board of Education (1954). 347 US 483.
  2. Card, D., & Krueger, A. (1996). School resources and student outcomes: An overview of the literature and new evidence from North and South Carolina . Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10, pp. 31-50.
  3. Case, A., & Katz, L. (1991). The company you keep: The effects of family and neighborhood on disadvantaged youths. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 3705.
  4. Crane, J. (1991). The epidemic theory of ghettos and neighborhood effects on dropping out and teenage child rearing . American Journal of Sociology, 56, pp. 1226-1259.
  5. Coleman, J. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
  6. Evans, W., Oates, W., & Schwab, R. (1992). Measuring peer group effects: A study of teenage behavior . Journal of Political Economy, 100, pp. 966-991.
  7. Grogger, J. (1996). School expenditures and post-schooling earnings: Evidence from the high school and beyond . Review of Economics and Statistics, 78, pp. 628-637.
  8. Hanushek, E., Rivkin, S., & Taylor, L. (1996). Aggregation and the estimated effects of school resources . Review of Economics and Statistics, 78, pp. 611-627.
  9. Hanushek, E., Kain, J., Markman, J., & Rivkin, S. (1999). Peer group effects on student achievement. Mimeo.
  10. Jencks, C., & Mayer, S. (1990). The social consequences of growing up poor . Inner-city poverty in the United States Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  11. Katz, L., Kling, J., & Liebman, J. (1997). Moving to opportunity in Boston: Early impacts of housing mobility programs. Mimeo, Harvard University.
  12. Ladd, H., & Ludwig, J. (1997). The effects of MTO on educational opportunities in Baltimore: early evidence. Working paper, Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.
  13. Ludwig, J., Duncan, G., & Hirschfield, P. (1998). Urban poverty and juvenile crime: evidence from a randomized housing-mobility experiment. Working paper.
  14. Maddala, G.S. (1983). Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics.
  15. Moffit, R. (1995). Selection bias adjustment in treatment-effects models as a method of aggregation. 1995 Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, 234–238.
  16. Moffitt, R. (1998). Policy interventions, low level equilibria, and social interactions. Working paper.
  17. Peterson's Guide to Four Year Colleges (1983). Princeton: Peterson's Guides.
  18. Rivkin, S. (1995). Black/white differences in schooling and employment . Journal of Human Resources, 30, pp. 826-852.
  19. Rivkin, S., & Woglom, G. (1999). Testing the validity of instruments: a cautionary note. Amherst College.
  20. Rosenbaum, J. (1992). Black pioneers—Do their moves to the suburbs increase economic opportunity for mothers and children? . Housing Policy Debate, 2, pp. 1179-1213.
  21. Stinchcombe, A. (1969). Environment: The cumulation of effects is yet to be understood . Harvard Educational Review, 39, pp. 511-522.
  22. Tiebout, C. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures . Journal of Political Economy, 64, pp. 416-424.
  23. US Department of Commerce (1980). Census of Population and Housing (United States): Public Use Microdata A Sample. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.
  24. US Department of Education, Center for Education Statistics (1986). High School and Beyond, 1980: Sophomore Base Year, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Follow-up Surveys. Produced by National Opinion Research Center.
  25. Wilson, W.J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References