Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Jamie Fogel

Publications and source records attributed to Jamie Fogel.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Experimentally Validated Digital Twins: Evaluating Workforce Training Programs in the Age of Big Data

Modern program evaluation prioritizes evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) because prior research found that observational estimates of program impacts often diverge substantially from experimental benchmarks. We revisit this finding --- which was based on small survey datasets --- in the era of large-scale administrative data. Using anonymized income tax records covering all American adults between 1999 and 2025, we estimate the effects of workforce training programs on earnings by using machine learning models to predict counterfactuals from rich data on prior work histories, demographics, and residential locations. Rather than testing whether our observational estimates are unbiased, we use 37 RCTs to estimate the distribution of their bias. We find that our machine learning estimates closely match the RCT estimates, with root mean squared error (RMSE) comparable to that of the RCTs themselves. Our method reduces RMSE by 60% relative to parametric estimators used in prior work because our larger samples and richer covariates permit more flexible, higher-dimensional models of the counterfactual. Applying our method to a broader set of sites and enrollment years beyond the experimental sample, we find that treatment effects on earnings vary substantially across locations and over time, even within a given program. Programs that place more participants into target-sector jobs generate the largest earnings gains, with impacts that persist even after participants leave their initial jobs. These findings provide guidance for improving job training programs and, more broadly, illustrate a scalable approach to program evaluation that uses observational data to construct experimentally validated ``digital twins.''

econ.GN↗

Detailed Gender Wage Gap Decompositions: Controlling for Worker Unobserved Heterogeneity Using Network Theory

Recent advances in the literature of decomposition methods in economics have allowed for the identification and estimation of detailed wage gap decompositions. In this context, building reliable counterfactuals requires using tighter controls to ensure that similar workers are correctly identified by making sure that important unobserved variables such as skills are controlled for, as well as comparing only workers with similar observable characteristics. This paper contributes to the wage decomposition literature in two main ways: (i) developing an economic principled network based approach to control for unobserved worker skills heterogeneity in the presence of potential discrimination; and (ii) extending existing generic decomposition tools to accommodate for potential lack of overlapping supports in covariates between groups being compared, which is likely to be the norm in more detailed decompositions. We illustrate the methodology by decomposing the gender wage gap in Brazil.

econ.EM↗

What is a Labor Market? Classifying Workers and Jobs Using Network Theory

This paper develops a new data-driven approach to characterizing latent worker skill and job task heterogeneity by applying an empirical tool from network theory to large-scale Brazilian administrative data on worker--job matching. We microfound this tool using a standard equilibrium model of workers matching with jobs according to comparative advantage. Our classifications identify important dimensions of worker and job heterogeneity that standard classifications based on occupations and sectors miss. The equilibrium model based on our classifications more accurately predicts wage changes in response to the 2016 Olympics than a model based on occupations and sectors. Additionally, for a large simulated shock to demand for workers, we show that reduced form estimates of the effects of labor market shock exposure on workers' earnings are nearly 4 times larger when workers and jobs are classified using our classifications as opposed to occupations and sectors.

econ.GN↗