Abstract:We consider identification of peer effects under peer group miss-specification. Two leading cases are missing data and peer group uncertainty. Missing data can take the form of some individuals being entirely absent from the data. The researcher need not have any information on missing individuals and need not even know that they are missing. We show that peer effects are nevertheless identifiable under mild restrictions on the probabilities of observing individuals, and propose a GMM estimator to estimate the peer effects. In practice this means that the researcher need only have access to an individual level sample with group identifiers. Group uncertainty arises when the relevant peer group for the outcome under study is unknown. We show that peer effects are nevertheless identifiable if the candidate groups are nested within one another and propose a non-linear least squares estimator. We conduct a Monte-Carlo experiment to demonstrate our identification results and the performance of the proposed estimators, and apply our method to study peer effects in the career decisions of junior lawyers.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
This paper attempts to address two major challenges faced when studying peer effects, which may lead to mis - specification of peer groups:
1. **Missing data problem**: Standard methods require researchers to have access to group - level data that includes the outcomes and characteristics of all members. However, such data are often proprietary or have restricted access, and widely available individual - level survey data cannot be used. Without group - level data, in empirical practice, either individuals with missing peer data will be removed, resulting in sample selection and information loss; or only non - missing peers will be used, leading to measurement error. If researchers are unaware of peer missingness, measurement error will also occur. The author proposes a solution that can correct measurement error and make full use of available information.
2. **Group uncertainty problem**: Researchers must select relevant peer groups from a set of candidate group structures. For example, in a study based on Dartmouth roommate data, it is unclear whether peer effects operate at the room level or the floor level. For different outcomes (such as academic achievement and fraternity membership), the relevant groups may be different. In empirical practice, robustness tests are usually carried out by re - estimating peer effects for each candidate group, but this method assumes that the relevant group is the same (i.e., deterministic) for all individuals, which is not the case in reality. The author proposes a solution based on a random peer - group structure to address this problem.
The paper addresses the above two problems by showing that missing data and group uncertainty are examples of a broader class of mis - specification, in which the specified peer - group members are a subset of the (true) group members. Under subset mis - specification, the author shows how to use assumptions that allow inference of the group - size distribution to identify peer effects and proposes corresponding GMM estimators and nonlinear least - squares estimators. Through Monte Carlo experiments, the author demonstrates that ignoring missing data and group uncertainty can lead to large biases, but these biases can be corrected by the estimators they propose.
In addition, the paper applies the proposed method to study the career decisions of young lawyers and finds that an increase in the proportion of high - ability peers increases the likelihood that lawyers will exit the local legal market, which is consistent with the adverse - comparison model. The author further applies their method and shows that similar estimates and qualitative conclusions can be obtained even with only individual - level sample data. Finally, the author studies whether peer effects operate at the firm level or the firm - cohort level and finds significant heterogeneity among different firms in terms of relevant peer groups.