Frontiers: A Simple Forward Difference-in-Differences Method

被引:1
|
作者
Li, Kathleen T. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas Austin, McCombs Sch Business, Austin, TX 78712 USA
基金
美国安德鲁·梅隆基金会;
关键词
causal effects; quasi-experimental methods; forward difference-in-differences; inference; average treatment effects on the treated; retailing; ONLINE; MODELS;
D O I
10.1287/mksc.2022.0212
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
The difference-in-differences (DID) method is the most widely used tool to answer causal questions from quasiexperimental data in marketing and the broader social sciences. Because assignment to treatment in quasiexperiments is not random, the selection of proper control units is critically important for estimating the causal effect. DID requires that the treatment unit's outcomes would have been parallel to the average of the control units' outcomes in the absence of treatment. However, this DID parallel trends assumption is likely to be violated when assignment to the treatment and control groups is not random. We propose a simple forward difference-in-differences (Forward DID) method that uses a forward selection algorithm to flexibly select a relevant subset of control units. The Forward DID has several advantages. First, it can be widely applied and suitable even when DID is too restrictive. Second, Forward DID can accommodate any number of control units. Third, there are no overfitting concerns because Forward DID only needs to estimate one parameter after identifying a subset of control units. Fourth, Forward DID has computational advantages over algorithms that consider all possible subsets of control units. Finally, we establish consistency and develop inference theory, which is applicable to both stationary and non stationary data. We demonstrate the usefulness of the Forward DID method and compare it with the alternative methods using simulations and an application to store openings.
引用
收藏
页码:267 / 279
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Simple approaches to nonlinear difference-in-differences with panel data
    Wooldridge, Jeffrey M.
    [J]. ECONOMETRICS JOURNAL, 2023, 26 (03): : C31 - C66
  • [2] Augmented Difference-in-Differences
    Li, Kathleen T.
    Van den Bulte, Christophe
    [J]. MARKETING SCIENCE, 2023, 42 (04) : 746 - 767
  • [3] Synthetic Difference-in-Differences
    Arkhangelsky, Dmitry
    Athey, Susan
    Hirshberg, David A.
    Imbens, Guido W.
    Wager, Stefan
    [J]. AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2021, 111 (12): : 4088 - 4118
  • [4] Generalized Difference-in-Differences
    Richardson, David B.
    Ye, Ting
    Tchetgen, Eric J. Tchetgen
    [J]. EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2023, 34 (02) : 167 - 174
  • [5] Difference-in-Differences Hedonics
    Banzhaf, H. Spencer
    [J]. JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 2021, 129 (08) : 2385 - 2414
  • [6] A simple and trustworthy asymptotic t test in difference-in-differences regressions
    Liu, Cheng
    Sun, Yixiao
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ECONOMETRICS, 2019, 210 (02) : 327 - 362
  • [7] A Tutorial on Applying the Difference-in-Differences Method to Health Data
    Rothbard, Sarah
    Etheridge, James C.
    Murray, Eleanor J.
    [J]. CURRENT EPIDEMIOLOGY REPORTS, 2024, 11 (02) : 85 - 95
  • [8] A Tutorial on Applying the Difference-in-Differences Method to Health Data
    Rothbard, Sarah
    Etheridge, James C.
    Murray, Eleanor J.
    [J]. CURRENT EPIDEMIOLOGY REPORTS, 2024, 11 (02) : 85 - 95
  • [9] Rejoinder to "Instrumented difference-in-differences"
    Ye, Ting
    Ertefaie, Ashkan
    Flory, James
    Hennessy, Sean
    Small, Dylan S.
    [J]. BIOMETRICS, 2023, 79 (02) : 601 - 603
  • [10] Difference-in-differences for categorical outcomes
    Graves, John A.
    Fry, Carrie
    McWilliams, J. Michael
    Hatfield, Laura A.
    [J]. HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2022, 57 (03) : 681 - 692