Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

What's Trending in Difference-in-Differences? A Synthesis of the Recent Econometrics Literature

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2201.01194 v3 pith:ODVGJJFI submitted 2022-01-04 econ.EM stat.ME

classification econ.EMstat.ME
keywords canonicaleconometricsrecentadvancesdifference-in-differencesliteraturesomeadvanced
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
abstract

This paper synthesizes recent advances in the econometrics of difference-in-differences (DiD) and provides concrete recommendations for practitioners. We begin by articulating a simple set of ``canonical'' assumptions under which the econometrics of DiD are well-understood. We then argue that recent advances in DiD methods can be broadly classified as relaxing some components of the canonical DiD setup, with a focus on $(i)$ multiple periods and variation in treatment timing, $(ii)$ potential violations of parallel trends, or $(iii)$ alternative frameworks for inference. Our discussion highlights the different ways that the DiD literature has advanced beyond the canonical model, and helps to clarify when each of the papers will be relevant for empirical work. We conclude by discussing some promising areas for future research.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Identification of dynamic treatment effects when treatment histories are partially observed

    econ.EM 2025-01 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    A robust DID estimator recovers path-dependent treatment effects with partially missing treatment histories whenever any two of outcome, propensity, and missingness models are correct.

  2. Good Controls Gone Bad: Difference-in-Differences with Covariates

    econ.EM 2024-12 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper introduces the common causal covariates (CCC) assumption and a saturated 'DID-INT' estimator that is unbiased when covariate effects vary by group and time, but the heterogeneity claim is not proven.

Pith tools