- 04 Apr 2021 19:30
#15164782
Yeah but the 2003 paper looks at a single country with regions as donors and a fairly impactful event, i.e. terrorism.
In fact all 3 Abadie papers look at impactful events in their context, Basque terrorism, German reunification, Proposition 99. Unlike that wealth tax in France.
Using the same donor pool for France and Germany seems perfectly reasonable. They could have looked at structural shocks in the sample period like Abadie does. The inclusion of Mexico is curious though, especially since they exclude Turkey and Chile for being too dissimilar in income and wealth.
You mean pension funds?
wat0n wrote:Well, in the 2003 paper the pre-treatment period is 20 years and they extrapolate up to year 22. It's not that crazy, to be honest - and here I would say it's actually relevant since it's hard to tell what's going on at the end in the France vs synthetic comparison.
Yeah but the 2003 paper looks at a single country with regions as donors and a fairly impactful event, i.e. terrorism.
In fact all 3 Abadie papers look at impactful events in their context, Basque terrorism, German reunification, Proposition 99. Unlike that wealth tax in France.
wat0n wrote:You could then simply remove the predictor variables were France is an outlier (or close to be one) in the pre- or -post-treatment periods (or both, but if an important selected variable was an outlier in the pre-treatment period you should see the synthetic France having a low pre-treatment fit), if that's a pressing concern - you can even automatize this process. But even then, I'd only do it after looking at what was selected without doing anything, at least the R packages will also tell you the variable weights. I haven't read that 2014 paper but I'm not sure it's wise to just use the same donor countries and variables for Germany on France without doing some analysis.
I also don't think Mexico could be easily regarded as being similar to France before 1982 (or 1994 for that matter).
Using the same donor pool for France and Germany seems perfectly reasonable. They could have looked at structural shocks in the sample period like Abadie does. The inclusion of Mexico is curious though, especially since they exclude Turkey and Chile for being too dissimilar in income and wealth.
wat0n wrote:Why not? You could make the case the owed future SS payments are part of your assets... And so it would undermine one of the arguments for a wealth tax (the controversial claim that wealth inequality has actually increased over time).
You mean pension funds?