arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2601.00279

What Is a Causal Effect When Firms Interact? Counterfactuals and Interdependence

Abstract

Many empirical studies estimate causal effects in environments where economic units interact through spatial or network connections. In such settings, outcomes are jointly determined, and treatment induced shocks propagate across economically connected units. A growing literature highlights identification challenges in these models and questions the causal interpretation of estimated spillovers. This paper argues that the problem is more fundamental. Under interdependence, causal effects are not uniquely defined objects even when the interaction structure is correctly specified or consistently learned, and even under ideal identifying conditions. We develop a causal framework for firm-level economies in which interaction structures are unobserved but can be learned from predetermined characteristics. We show that learning the network, while necessary to model interdependence, is not sufficient for causal interpretation. Instead, causal conclusions hinge on explicit counterfactual assumptions governing how outcomes adjust following a treatment change. We formalize three economically meaningful counterfactual regimes partial equilibrium, local interaction, and network, consistent equilibrium, and show that standard spatial autoregressive estimates map into distinct causal effects depending on the counterfactual adopted. We derive identification conditions for each regime and demonstrate that equilibrium causal effects require substantially stronger assumptions than direct or local effects. A Monte Carlo simulation illustrates that equilibrium and partial-equilibrium effects differ mechanically even before estimation, and that network feedback can amplify bias when identifying assumptions fail. Taken together, our results clarify what existing spatial and network estimators can and cannot identify and provide practical guidance for empirical research in interdependent economic environments

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mariluz Mate. 2026-01-01. What Is a Causal Effect When Firms Interact? Counterfactuals and Interdependence. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.00279

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN