1932

Abstract

We survey the recent, fast-growing literature on peer effects in networks. An important recurring theme is that the causal identification of peer effects depends on the structure of the network itself. In the absence of correlated effects, the reflection problem is generally solved by network interactions even in nonlinear, heterogeneous models. By contrast, microfoundations are generally not identified. We discuss and assess the various approaches developed by economists to account for correlated effects and network endogeneity in particular. We classify these approaches in four broad categories: random peers, random shocks, structural endogeneity, and panel data. We review an emerging literature relaxing the assumption that the network is perfectly known. Throughout, we provide a critical reading of the existing literature and identify important gaps and directions for future research.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-020320-033926
2020-08-02
2024-06-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/economics/12/1/annurev-economics-020320-033926.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-020320-033926&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Advani A, Malde B. 2018. Credibly identifying social effects: accounting for network formation and measurement error. J. Econ. Surv. 32:1016–44
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexander C, Piazza M, Mekos D, Valente T 2001. Peers, schools, and adolescent cigarette smoking. J. Adolesc. Health 29:22–30
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Angelucci M, De Giorgi G 2009. Indirect effects of an aid program: How do cash transfers affect ineligibles' consumption. Am. Econ. Rev. 99:486–508
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Angrist J. 2014. The perils of peer effects. Labour Econ 30:98–108
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Angrist JD, Lavy V. 1999. Using Maimonides' rule to estimate the effect of class size on scholastic achievement. Q. J. Econ. 114:533–75
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Arcidiacono P, Foster G, Goodpaster N, Kinsler J 2012. Estimating spillovers using panel data, with an application to the classroom. Quant. Econ. 3:421–70
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Arduini T, Patacchini E, Rainone E 2015. Parametric and semiparametric IV estimation of network models with selectivity EIEF Work. Pap. Ser. 1509, Einaudi Inst. Econ. Finance Rome, Italy:
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Arduini T, Patacchini E, Rainone E 2019a. Identification and estimation of network models with different between and within-group interactions Work. Pap., Univ. Bologna, Bologna Italy:
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Arduini T, Patacchini E, Rainone E 2019b. Treatment effects with heterogeneous externalities. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. In press. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2019.1592755
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  10. Aronow PM, Samii C. 2017. Estimating average causal effects under general interference. Ann. Appl. Stat. 11:1912–47
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Athey S, Eckles D, Imbens GW 2018. Exact p-values for network interference. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 113:230–40
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Auerbach E. 2019. Identification and estimation of a partially linear regression model using network data arXiv:1903.09679 [econ.EM]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Badev A. 2018. Nash equilibria on (un)stable networks arXiv:1901.00373 [cs.SI]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Banerjee A, Chandrasekhar AG, Duflo E, Jackson MO 2013. The diffusion of microfinance. Science 341:1236498
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Banerjee AV, Chandrasekhar AG, Duflo E, Jackson MO 2018. Changes in social network structure in response to exposure to formal credit markets Work. Pap., Mass. Inst. Technol Cambridge:
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Beugnot J, Fortin B, Lacroix G, Villeval MC 2019. Gender and peer effects on performance in social networks. Eur. Econ. Rev. 113:207–24
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Blume LE, Brock WA, Durlauf SN, Jayaraman R 2015. Linear social interactions models. J. Political Econ. 123:444–96
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bonacich P. 1987. Power and centrality: a family of measures. Am. J. Sociol. 92:1170–82
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Boucher V. 2016. Conformism and self-selection in social networks. J. Public Econ. 136:30–44
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Boucher V, Bramoullé Y, Djebbari H, Fortin B 2014. Do peers affect student achievement? Evidence from Canada using group size variation. J. Appl. Econom. 29:91–109
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Boucher V, Fortin B. 2016. Some challenges in the empirics of the effects of networks. See Bramoullé et al. 2016 277–302
  22. Boucher V, Houndetoungan A. 2019. Estimating peer effects using partial network data Work. Pap., Univ. Laval Quebec City, Can.:
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Bramoullé Y. 2013. A comment on social networks and the identification of peer effects by P. Goldsmith-Pinkham & G. W. Imbens. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 31:264–66
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Bramoullé Y, Djebbari H, Fortin B 2009. Identification of peer effects through social networks. J. Econom. 150:41–55
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Bramoullé Y, Galeotti A, Rogers B 2016. The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Networks Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Bramoullé Y, Kranton R. 2016. Games played on networks. See Bramoullé et al. 2016 83–112
  27. Breza E, Chandrasekhar AG. 2019. Social networks, reputation, and commitment: evidence from a savings monitors experiment. Econometrica 87:175–216
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Brock WA, Durlauf SN. 2001. Discrete choice with social interactions. Rev. Econ. Stud. 68:235–60
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Brollo F, Kaufmann KM, Ferrara EL 2018. Learning spillovers in conditional welfare programs: evidence from Brazil Discuss. Pap. 050, Collab. Res. Cent. Transregio 224, Univ. Mannheim Mannheim, Ger.:
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Caeyers B, Fafchamps M. 2019. Exclusion bias in the estimation of peer effects Work. Pap., Stanford Univ Stanford, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Calvó-Armengol A, Patacchini E, Zenou Y 2009. Peer effects and social networks in education. Rev. Econ. Stud. 76:1239–67
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Carrell SE, Sacerdote BI, West JE 2013. From natural variation to optimal policy? The importance of endogenous peer group formation. Econometrica 81:855–82
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Chandrasekhar A, Lewis R. 2016. Econometrics of sampled networks Work. Pap., Stanford Univ Stanford, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Chandrasekhar AG. 2016. Econometrics of network formation. See Bramoullé et al. 2016 303–57
  35. Chandrasekhar AG, Jackson MO. 2018. A network formation model based on subgraphs Work. Pap., Stanford Univ Stanford, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Cohen-Cole E, Liu X, Zenou Y 2018. Multivariate choices and identification of social interactions. J. Appl. Econom. 33:165–78
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Comola M, Prina S. 2019. Treatment effect accounting for network changes. Rev. Econ. Stat. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Conti G, Galeotti A, Müller G, Pudney S 2013. Popularity. J. Hum. Resourc. 48:1072–94
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Cools A, Fernández R, Patacchini E 2019. Girls, boys, and high achievers NBER Work. Pap 25763
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Crépon B, Duflo E, Gurgand M, Rathelot R, Zamora P 2013. Do labor market policies have displacement effects? Evidence from a clustered randomized experiment. Q. J. Econ. 128:531–80
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Davezies L, d'Haultfoeuille X, Fougère D 2009. Identification of peer effects using group size. Econom. J. 12:397–413
    [Google Scholar]
  42. De Giorgi G, Frederiksen A, Pistaferri L 2020. Consumption network effects. Rev. Econ. Stud. 87:130–63
    [Google Scholar]
  43. De Giorgi G, Pellizzari M, Redaelli S 2010. Identification of social interactions through partially overlapping peer groups. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 2:241–75
    [Google Scholar]
  44. de Paula Á 2013. Econometric analysis of games with multiple equilibria. Annu. Rev. Econ. 5:107–31
    [Google Scholar]
  45. de Paula Á 2017. Econometrics of network models. Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Eleventh World Congress 1 B Honoré, A Pakes, M Piazzesi, L Samuelson 268–323 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  46. de Paula Á, Rasul I, Souza P 2018. Recovering social networks from panel data: identification, simulations and an application Work. Pap. CWP17/18, Univ. Coll. London London:
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Dieye R, Djebbari H, Barrera-Osorio F 2014. Accounting for peer effects in treatment response IZA Discuss. Pap. 8340, Inst. Labor Econ Bonn, Ger.:
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Dieye R, Fortin B. 2017. Gender peer effect heterogeneity in obesity Work. Pap., Univ. Laval Quebec City, Can.:
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Duflo E, Saez E. 2002. Participation and investment decisions in a retirement plan: the influence of colleagues'choices. J. Public Econ. 85:121–48
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Epple D, Romano RE. 2011. Peer effects in education: a survey of the theory and evidence. Handbook of Social Economics 1: J Benhabib, A Bisin, MO Jackson 1053–163 Amsterdam: North-Holland
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Fafchamps M. 2015. Causal effects in social networks. Rev. Econ. 66:657–86
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Falk A, Ichino A. 2006. Clean evidence on peer effects. J. Labor Econ. 24:39–57
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Feld J, Zolitz U. 2017. Understanding peer effects: on the nature, estimation, and channels of peer effects. J. Labor Econ. 35:387–428
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Fortin B, Lacroix G, Villeval MC 2007. Tax evasion and social interactions. J. Public Econ. 91:2089–112
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Goldsmith-Pinkham P, Imbens GW. 2013. Social networks and the identification of peer effects. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 31:253–64
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Graham BS. 2008. Identifying social interactions through conditional variance restrictions. Econometrica 76:643–60
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Graham BS. 2015. Methods of identification in social networks. Annu. Rev. Econ. 7:465–85
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Graham BS. 2017. An econometric model of network formation with degree heterogeneity. Econometrica 85:1033–63
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Graham BS. 2018. Identifying and estimating neighborhood effects. J. Econ. Lit. 56:450–500
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Griffith A. 2019a. Name your friends, but only five? The importance of censoring in peer effects estimates using network data Work. Pap., Univ Washington, Seattle:
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Griffith A. 2019b. Random assignment with non-random peers: a structural approach to counterfactual treatment assessment Work. Pap., Univ Washington, Seattle:
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Hanushek EA, Kain JF, Markman JM, Rivkin SG 2003. Does peer ability affect student achievement. J. Appl. Econom. 18:527–44
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Hausman JA, Newey WK, Taylor WE 1987. Efficient estimation and identification of simultaneous equation models with covariance restrictions. Econometrica 55:849–74
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Hoekstra M, Mouganie P, Wang Y 2018. Peer quality and the academic benefits to attending better schools. J. Labor Econ. 36:841–84
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Hoxby CM. 2000. The effects of class size on student achievement: new evidence from population variation. Q. J. Econ. 115:1239–85
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Hsieh CS, Lee LF. 2016. A social interactions model with endogenous friendship formation and selectivity. J. Appl. Econom. 31:301–19
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Hsieh CS, Lee LF, Boucher V 2019. Specification and estimation of network formation and network interaction models with the exponential probability distribution Work. Pap., Chin. Univ. Hong Kong Hong Kong:
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Hsieh CS, van Kippersluis H 2018. Smoking initiation: peers and personality. Quant. Econ. 9:825–63
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Hudgens MG, Halloran ME. 2008. Toward causal inference with interference. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 103:832–42
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Jackson MO. 2013. Unraveling peers and peer effects: comments on Goldsmith-Pinkham and Imbens' “Social Networks and the Identification of Peer Effects.”. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 31:270–73
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Jackson MO, Zenou Y. 2015. Games on networks. Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications 4 HP Young, S Zamir 95–163 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Johnsson I, Moon HR. 2019. Estimation of peer effects in endogenous social networks: control function approach arXiv:1709.10024v3 [econ.EM]
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Kline B, Tamer E. 2019. Econometric analysis of models with social interactions Work. Pap., Harvard Univ Cambridge, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Kreager DA, Rulison K, Moody J 2011. Delinquency and the structure of adolescent peer groups. Criminology 49:95–127
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Kremer M, Miguel E. 2007. The illusion of sustainability. Q. J. Econ. 122:1007–65
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Krueger AB. 2003. Economic considerations and class size. Econ. J. 113:F34–63
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Laschever R. 2013. The doughboys networks: social interactions and labor market outcomes of World War I veterans Work. Pap., Univ. Ill Urbana-Champaign:
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Lee LF. 2007. Identification and estimation of econometric models with group interactions, contextual factors and fixed effects. J. Econom. 140:333–74
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Lee LF, Li J, Lin X 2014. Binary choice models with social network under heterogeneous rational expectations. Rev. Econ. Stat. 96:402–17
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Lee LF, Liu X, Lin X 2010. Specification and estimation of social interaction models with network structures. Econom. J. 13:145–76
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Li T, Zhao L. 2016. A partial identification subnetwork approach to discrete games in large networks: an application to quantifying peer effects Work. Pap., Vanderbilt Univ Nashville, TN:
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Lin X. 2010. Identifying peer effects in student academic achievement by spatial autoregressive models with group unobservables. J. Labor Econ. 28:825–60
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Liu X. 2017. Identification of peer effects via a root estimator. Econ. Lett. 156:168–71
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Liu X, Lee LF 2010. GMM estimation of social interaction models with centrality. J. Econom. 159:99–115
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Liu X, Patacchini E, Rainone E 2017. Peer effects in bedtime decisions among adolescents: a social network model with sampled data. Econom. J. 20:S103–25
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Liu X, Patacchini E, Zenou Y 2014. Endogenous peer effects: local aggregate or local average. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 103:39–59
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Manresa E. 2016. Estimating the structure of social interactions using panel pata Work. Pap., Mass. Inst. Technol. Sloan Sch. Manag Cambridge:
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Manski C. 2000. Economic analysis of social interactions. J. Econ. Perspect. 14:115–36
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Manski CF. 1993. Identification of endogenous social effects: the reflection problem. Rev. Econ. Stud. 60:531–42
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Manski CF. 2013. Identification of treatment response with social interactions. Econom. J. 16:S1–23
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Mas A, Moretti E. 2009. Peers at work. Am. Econ. Rev. 99:112–45
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Masten MA. 2018. Random coefficients on endogenous variables in simultaneous equations models. Rev. Econ. Stud. 85:1193–250
    [Google Scholar]
  93. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM 2001. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27:415–44
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Mele A. 2017. A structural model of dense network formation. Econometrica 85:825–50
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Miguel E, Kremer M. 2004. Worms: identifying impacts on education and health in the presence of treatment externalities. Econometrica 72:159–217
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Moffitt RA. 2001. Policy intervention, low-level equilibria, and social interaction. Social Dynamics D Steven, P Young 45–82 Cambridge: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Nakajima R. 2007. Measuring peer effects on youth smoking behaviour. Rev. Econ. Stud. 74:897–935
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Nicoletti C, Salvanes KG, Tominey E 2018. The family peer effect on mothers' labor supply. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 10:206–34
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Ord K. 1975. Estimation methods for models of spatial interaction. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 70:120–26
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Patnam M. 2013. Corporate networks and peer effects in firm policies: evidence from India Work. Pap., Univ. Cambridge Cambridge, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Pereda-Fernandez S, Zacchia P. 2019. Identification of social effects with endogenous networks and covariates: theory and simulations Work. Pap., Banca d'Italia Rome:
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Qu X, Lee LF 2015. Estimating a spatial autoregressive model with an endogenous spatial weight matrix. J. Econom. 184:209–32
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Rose CD. 2016. Identification of spillover effects using panel data Work. Pap., Toulouse Sch. Econ Toulouse, Fr.:
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Rose CD. 2017. Identification of peer effects through social networks using variance restrictions. Econom. J. 20:S47–60
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Rubin DB. 1978. Bayesian inference for causal effects: the role of randomization. Ann. Stat. 6:34–58
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Sacerdote B. 2001. Peer effects with random assignment: results for Dartmouth roommates. Q. J. Econ. 116:681–704
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Sacerdote B. 2011. Peer effects in education: How might they work, how big are they and how much do we know thus far?. Handbook of the Economics of Education 3 E Hanushek, S Machin, L Woessmann 249–77 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Salmivalli C. 2010. Bullying and the peer group: a review. Aggress. Violent Behav. 15:112–20
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Tauchmann H, Lenz S, Requate T, Schmidt C 2013. Tobacco and alcohol: complements or substitutes. Empir. Econ. 45:539–66
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Trogdon JG, Nonnemaker J, Pais J 2008. Peer effects in adolescent overweight. J. Health Econ. 27:1388–99
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Vazquez-Bare G. 2017. Identification and estimation of spillover effects in randomized experiments arXiv:1711.02745 [econ.EM]
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Zacchia P. 2019. Knowledge spillovers through networks of scientists. Rev. Econ. Stud. In press. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdz033
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-020320-033926
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error