Use when the causal identification strategy is the bottleneck for a Journal of Public Economics (JPubE) manuscript — bunching at tax kinks/notches, regression kink (RKD), DID off reform rollout, IV from policy instruments, RDD at eligibility thresholds. Stress-tests the design against public-finance norms before tables are drafted.
Scanned 6/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jpube-identification-strategy --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Jpube Identification Strategy?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-jpube-identification-strategy)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: jpube-identification-strategy
description: Use when the causal identification strategy is the bottleneck for a Journal of Public Economics (JPubE) manuscript — bunching at tax kinks/notches, regression kink (RKD), DID off reform rollout, IV from policy instruments, RDD at eligibility thresholds. Stress-tests the design against public-finance norms before tables are drafted.
---
# Identification Strategy (jpube-identification-strategy)
## When to trigger
- The empirical core is OLS + controls with an undefended causal claim
- A reform DID uses two-way fixed effects (TWFE) on staggered timing
- A bunching estimate lacks a defensible counterfactual density
- An IV's policy instrument has an unargued exclusion restriction
- You are unsure the design clears the JPubE public-finance bar
## The JPubE identification bar
JPubE rewards **credible identification of a policy-relevant parameter**, evaluated by public-finance specialists under single anonymized review (a minimum of two reviewers, with author identity known to them). Because the field's payoff is usually a behavioral elasticity feeding a welfare formula, the design must pin down the response to a tax, transfer, or program rule cleanly. The credibility ranking referees implicitly apply (strong → weaker):
1. **Bunching / notch designs** at a known kink or eligibility threshold, recovering an elasticity from excess mass
2. **RDD / RKD** at a sharp policy cutoff (eligibility, benefit schedule kink)
3. **DID / event study** off a credibly exogenous reform rollout, with modern estimators
4. **IV** with a policy instrument, strong first stage, and a defended exclusion restriction
5. **Selection-on-observables** — acceptable only as a complement, rarely as the spine
JPubE's comparative advantage is the **policy-induced discontinuity** — a tax kink, a benefit cliff, a reform date — so make the identifying variation an institutional feature a reader can see.
## Branch paths
### Branch A: Bunching at kinks / notches
- Estimate excess mass against a smooth counterfactual fit away from the kink; report the implied elasticity.
- Round-number / focal-point diagnostics; bin-width and excluded-region robustness.
- For notches, address the dominated region and optimization frictions; bound attenuation from frictions.
### Branch B: RDD / RKD
- McCrary / Cattaneo–Jansson–Ma density test for manipulation at the cutoff.
- Optimal bandwidth (Calonico–Cattaneo–Titiunik), bias-corrected CIs, bandwidth robustness.
- For RKD, identify off the slope change in the policy schedule; placebo kinks and covariate smoothness.
### Branch C: DID / event study off a reform
- Staggered adoption? Move beyond TWFE — Callaway–Sant'Anna, Sun–Abraham, or de Chaisemartin–D'Haultfœuille; report a Goodman-Bacon decomposition.
- Clean pre-trends via an event-study plot; cluster at the level of treatment (often state/jurisdiction).
### Branch D: IV from a policy instrument
- First-stage F strong; weak-IV-robust inference (Anderson–Rubin) where needed.
- Exclusion argued in three registers: theory, institutional detail, falsification.
- Report reduced form and OLS; state the LATE / compliers interpretation.
## Checklist
- [ ] Policy-induced identifying variation named in one sentence and defended as exogenous
- [ ] Design-appropriate diagnostics done (excess-mass fit / density / first-stage F / pre-trends)
- [ ] Modern estimator used where TWFE would be biased (staggered reform)
- [ ] Inference matched to assignment level (often jurisdiction); few-cluster handling
- [ ] Frictions / manipulation / placebo tests reported
- [ ] The recovered parameter maps to the welfare quantity the paper claims
## Anti-patterns
- Bunching with an arbitrary excluded region chosen to maximize the estimate
- TWFE on staggered reform timing with no heterogeneity-bias discussion
- IV that is "policy shock × lagged endogenous variable" with no exclusion argument
- An elasticity identified locally but sold as a global structural parameter
## Output format
```
【Design】bunching / RDD / RKD / DID / IV / other
【Identifying variation】one sentence (the policy discontinuity)
【Diagnostics done】[excess-mass fit, density, first-stage F, pre-trends, ...]
【Diagnostics missing】[...]
【Inference】clustering level + few-cluster handling
【Parameter → welfare】elasticity / sufficient stat mapped? [Y/N]
【Next step】jpube-data-analysis
```
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!