i'm sure it is mentioned (probably in our paper somewhere). The costs and
benefits are not methodological; they are more of a choice about what
quantity of interest you are willing to try to estimate.
Gary
--
*Gary King* - Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor - Director,
IQSS <http://iq.harvard.edu/> - Harvard University
GaryKing.org - King(a)Harvard.edu - @KingGary <https://twitter.com/kinggary> -
617-500-7570 - Assistant <king-assist(a)iq.harvard.edu>du>: 617-495-9271
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Ignacio Martinez <ignacio82(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Thanks a lot Gary. Is there any literature that talks
about this case? I
imagine that there are plus and minuses to those approaches.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 2:04 PM Gary King <king(a)harvard.edu> wrote:
> one simple possibility is to switch 0s to 1s and 1s to 0s. if that
> really won't work for you, then you could match with (a lot of)
> replacement.
>
> Gary
> --
> *Gary King* - Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor - Director,
> IQSS <http://iq.harvard.edu/> - Harvard University
>
GaryKing.org - King(a)Harvard.edu - @KingGary
> <https://twitter.com/kinggary> - 617-500-7570 <(617)%20500-7570> -
> Assistant <king-assist(a)iq.harvard.edu>du>: 617-495-9271 <(617)%20495-9271>
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Ignacio Martinez <ignacio82(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Is there a paper that talks about matching when the sample has more
> treatment observations than control observations? Is there an algorithm
> that works better for this case? Can somebody explain to me why optimal
> matching does not work at all in this case?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ignacio
>
>
>