Regression discontinuity design and its applications to Science of Science: A survey
, and
Jun 07, 2023
About this article
Article Category: Research Paper
Published Online: Jun 07, 2023
Page range: 43 - 65
Received: Mar 31, 2023
Accepted: Apr 03, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2023-0008
Keywords
© 2023 Meiling Li et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Figure 1.
![Illustrations of RDD. (a) The continuity framework, and (b) the local randomization framework. The figure depicts the expected outcomes conditional on the running variable Xi, denoted by E[Yi(1)│Xi=x] and E[Yi(0)│Xi=x]. τSRD and τSLR represent the causal effect using these two frameworks at the cutoff c in the window [c−Δ, c+Δ], respectively. This figure is adapted from (Cattaneo & Titiunik, 2022).](https://sciendo-parsed.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/647210d8215d2f6c89dba7f3/j_jdis-2023-0008_fig_001.jpg?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA6AP2G7AKOUXAVR44%2F20250908%2Feu-central-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20250908T200054Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Signature=015e03e7258bc509f6153eb3cd164b4a0b1b2f58f3edcac232ff87c324650285&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&x-amz-checksum-mode=ENABLED&x-id=GetObject)
Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Regression discontinuity estimation of the effect of HS funding on mortality_ Robust standard errors are in parentheses,
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variable | Mean | Nonparametric estimator | Parametric | |||
Flexible linear | Flexible quadratic | |||||
Bandwidth or poverty range | 9 | 18 | 36 | 8 | 16 | |
Main results | ||||||
Number of countries | 524 | 954 | 2,161 | 482 | 858 | |
Mortality, Ages 5-9 (%) | 2.252 | −1.895 |
−1.198 |
−1.114 |
−2.201 |
−2.558 |
Mortality, Ages 25+(%) | 132.626 | 2.204 |
6.016 |
5.872 |
2.091 |
2.574 |
The survey of studies that utilize RDD_ Context reveals the settings of the focal paper_ Outcome(s) means the dependent variable of the focal paper_ Treatment(s) is the treatment variable in the focal paper_ In practice, the treatment variable is a binary variable_ Running variable(s) is the forcing variable for individuals_
Context | Outcome(s) | Treatment(s) | Running Variable(s) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Economics | ||||
Yi et al. ( |
Great Famine in China | Risk tolerance and entrepreneurship in adulthood | Experiencing early-life hardship | Location |
García-Jimeno et al. ( |
Women’s Temperance Crusade in American |
Collective action decisions | Affective information networks | Location |
Akhtari et al. ( |
The politically motivated replacement of personnel in the schools in Brazil | The quality of public education provision by the government | Political turnover | Share of Votes |
Van Der Klaauw ( |
East Coast college’s aid | College enrollment | Offering financial aid | Aid allocation decisions |
Education | ||||
Davies et al. ( |
Reform of increasing the minimum school leaving age in England | Risk of diabetes and mortality | Remaining in school | Time |
Huang et al. ( |
Great Famine in China | Cognition estimated by episodic memory survey | Completion of primary school | Year of birth and entering primary schooling |
Clark et al. ( |
Reform of increasing the minimum school leaving age in England | Adult mortality and health | Remaining in school | Time |
Science of Science or Innovation Studies | ||||
Seeber et al. ( |
Scientists’ promotion in Italian higher Education system | Scientists’ number of self-citations | Undergoing the introduction of the habilitation procedure | Time |
Wang et al. (Y. |
Early-career setback, NIH R01 grant applications | Future Career outcomes |
Receiving the R01 grant | Priority score |
Bol et al. ( |
Innovation Research Incentives Scheme for early career scientists, Netherlands | Winning a midcareer grant | Winning the early career award | Evaluation scores |
Bronzini et al. ( |
Firms’ R&D subsidy in northern Italy | Investment spending of firms | Receiving funding | Priority score |
Jacob et al. ( |
NIH R01 grant applications | Subsequent publications and citations | Receiving an NIH research grant | Priority score |
Jacob et al. ( |
NIH postdoctoral training grants | Subsequent publications and citations | Receiving an NIH postdoctoral training grant | Priority score |
Counties Characteristic_ Column 1 represents county-level data, including the county poverty rate in 1960, mortality of children aged 5 to 9, and people aged 25 and older in 1973-1983_ Counties with a 1960 poverty rate of 49_198% to 59_198% are the control group, while counties with a 1960 poverty rate of 59_1984% to 69_1984% are the treatment group, i_e_, the poorest counties funded by the HS funding program_
County-level data | Counties with 1960 poverty 49.198% to 59.198 | Counties with 1960 poverty 59.1984% to 69.1984 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. of observations (counties) | 347 | 228 | ||||
Mean | Std | Mean | Std. | |||
County Poverty Rate 1960 (%) | 54.08 | 2.861 | 63.40 | 2.644 | ||
Mortality, Ages 5-9, 1973-1983 (%) | 3.044 | 5.897 | 2.316 | 4.566 | ||
Mortality, Ages 25+, 1973-1983 (%) | 132.5 | 30.96 | 135.7 | 30.53 |