Identifying peer states for transportation policy analysis with an application to New York's handheld cell phone ban

Transportmetrica A: Transport Science

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 1-14

  Sampaio, Breno ^a  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF PERNAMBUCO   (Brazil)

Author keywords

cell phone ban; peer states; synthetic control; transportation policy

Indexed keywords

CELL PHONE; COMPARISON GROUP; CONVEX COMBINATIONS; IDENTIFICATION PROBLEM; PEER STATES; POLICY-ORIENTED; SYNTHETIC CONTROL; TRANSPORTATION POLICIES;

MOBILE PHONES; TELECOMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT; TRANSPORTATION;

CELLULAR TELEPHONES;

EID: 84893421172     PISSN: 23249935     EISSN: 23249943     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/18128602.2012.688073     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Abadie, A., Diamond, A., Hainmueller, J 2010 Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: estimating the effect of California's tobacco control programJournal of the American Statistical Association 104, 493-505 doi: 10.1198/jasa.2009.ap08746
2. Abadie, A., Gardeazabal, J 2003 The economic costs of conflict: a case study of the Basque countryThe American Economic Review 93, 113-132 doi: 10.1257/000282803321455188
3. Angrist, JD., Pischke, J-S 2009 Mostly harmless econometrics: an empiricist's companion Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
4. Belot, M., Vandenberghe, C 2011 Grade retention and educational attainment. Education Economics forthcoming
5. Blalock, G., Kadiyali, V., Simon, DH 2009 Driving fatalities after 9/11: a hidden cost of terrorism. Applied Economics 41, 1717-1729 doi: 10.1080/00036840601069757
6. Caird, JK., 2008 A meta-analysis of the effects of cell phones on driver performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention 40, 1282-1293 doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2008.01.009
7. Cohen, JT., Graham, JD 2003 A revised economic analysis of restrictions on the use of cell phones while driving. Risk Analysis 23, 5-17 doi: 10.1111/1539-6924.00286
8. Hartgen, D., Neumann, LPerformance: a TQ point/counterpoint exchange with David T. Hartgen and Lance A. Neumann. Transportation200256, 5-19
9. Hendren, P., Niemeier, DA 2008 Identifying peer states for transportation system evaluation & policy analyses. Transportation 35, 445-465 doi: 10.1007/s11116-008-9158-8
10. Holland, P1986 Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association 81, 945-970 doi: 10.1080/01621459.1986.10478354
11. Imbens, G., Wooldridge, JM 2009 Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature 47, 5-86 doi: 10.1257/jel.47.1.5
12. Laberge-Nadeau, C., 2003 Wireless telephones and the risk of road crashes. Acciddent Analysis and Prevention 35, 649-660 doi: 10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00043-X
13. McCartt, AT., Geary, LL 2004. Longer term effects of New York state's law on drivers' handheld cell phone use. Injury Prevention 10, 11-15 doi: 10.1136/ip.2003.003731
14. McEvoy, SP., 2005 Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study. British Medical Journal 331, doi:10.1136/bmj.38537.397512.55 (published 12 July 2005)
15. Nannicini, T., Ricciuti, R 2010 Autocratic transitions to growthCESifo Working Paper No. 2967
16. Nikolaev, AG., Robbins, JM., Jacobson, SH 2010 Evaluating the impact of legislation prohibiting handheld cell phone use while driving. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 44, 182-193
17. Redelmeier, DA., Tibshirani, RJ 1997 Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. New England Journal of Medicine336, 453-458 doi: 10.1056/NEJM199702133360701
18. Sampaio, B 2010 On the identification of the effect of prohibiting handheld cell phone use while driving: comment. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 44, 766-770
19. Strayer, DL., Drews, FA 2004. Profiles in driver distraction: effects of cell phone conversations on younger and old drivers. Human Factors46, 640-649 doi: 10.1518/hfes.46.4.640.56806