REVIEW 5 cited by
Two-stage differences in differences
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
abstract
A recent literature has shown that when adoption of a treatment is staggered and average treatment effects vary across groups and over time, difference-in-differences regression does not identify an easily interpretable measure of the typical effect of the treatment. In this paper, I extend this literature in two ways. First, I provide some simple underlying intuition for why difference-in-differences regression does not identify a group$\times$period average treatment effect. Second, I propose an alternative two-stage estimation framework, motivated by this intuition. In this framework, group and period effects are identified in a first stage from the sample of untreated observations, and average treatment effects are identified in a second stage by comparing treated and untreated outcomes, after removing these group and period effects. The two-stage approach is robust to treatment-effect heterogeneity under staggered adoption, and can be used to identify a host of different average treatment effect measures. It is also simple, intuitive, and easy to implement. I establish the theoretical properties of the two-stage approach and demonstrate its effectiveness and applicability using Monte-Carlo evidence and an example from the literature.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
Robust Inference for Weighted Estimands
The paper constructs minimax-bias estimators and uniformly valid confidence intervals for weighted estimands by bounding differences via parameter heterogeneity and weight distance.
-
Beyond Parallel Trends in Staggered Difference-in-Differences: Identification under Higher-Order Parallelism
The paper establishes point identification of cohort-specific and aggregate treatment effects in staggered DiD under a hierarchy of higher-order parallel trends conditions, with an aggregation theorem for mixed-order ...
-
The Double-edged Effect of Banning Generative AI on Online Question-and-Answer Communities: Evidence from Stack Exchange
AIGC bans raise question volume ~13% while cutting the share of questions with accepted answers inside eight hours by ~3.3 percentage points, effects confined to non-STEM Stack Exchange communities.
-
Doubly robust local projections difference-in-differences
DRLPDID is a doubly robust extension of LP-DiD that preserves the local-stack ATT target and is consistent when either the untreated-outcome regression or the treatment-probability model is correct.
-
Beyond Parallel Trends in Staggered Difference-in-Differences: Identification under Higher-Order Parallelism
A staggered difference-in-differences estimator that identifies treatment effects by extrapolating a pre-treatment polynomial gap, instead of requiring a flat gap.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.