Estimating the Technology of Cognitive and Noncognitive Skill Formation
by Flavio Cunha, James J. Heckman, Susanne Schennach
(January 2010)
Abstract:
This paper formulates and estimates multistage production functions for children's cognitive and noncognitive skills. Skills are determined by parental environments and investments at different stages of childhood. We estimate the elasticity of substitution between investments in one period and stocks of skills in that period to assess the benefits of early investment in children compared to later remediation. We establish nonparametric identification of a general class of production technologies based on nonlinear factor models with endogenous inputs. A by-product of our approach is a framework for evaluating childhood and schooling interventions that does not rely on arbitrarily scaled test scores as outputs and recognizes the differential effects of the same bundle of skills in different tasks. Using the estimated technology, we determine optimal targeting of interventions to children with different parental and personal birth endowments. Substitutability decreases in later stages of the life cycle in the production of cognitive skills. It increases slightly in later stages of the life cycle in the production of noncognitive skills. This finding has important implications for the design of policies that target the disadvantaged. For some configurations of disadvantage and for some outcomes, it is optimal to invest relatively more in the later stages of childhood than in earlier stages.
3 comments:
"Substitutability [for parent's endowments] decreases in later stages of the life cycle in
the production of cognitive skills. It increases slightly in later stages of the life cycle in the
production of noncognitive skills"
"The optimal investment strategy to maximize aggregate schooling attainment is to target the most disadvantaged at younger ages. The optimal strategy favors later investment over early investment if the goal is to reduce crime"
Presumably these statements are bounded to the age range considered; 0-14. So "later" in the "life-cycle" (throughout the paper) actually means from about age seven to 14? Is this correct?
I'm curious as to why the authors have ignored discussing the implications of not including adolescence in the analysis -- a considerable period of development and investment. If the reader is meant to assume that the trend continues for ages 15-17, which could be excused, this could be made explicit. If the reader is meant to ignore this period of development, this too could be made explicit. It'd avoid confusion.
Can anyone clear this up?
I'm guessing the corresponding author might be able to help..
anyone willing to provide backup if I dare?
Send a detailed comment to the author Peter if you have worked through this. Any author welcomes comments on their paper.
Post a Comment