Front-Door Difference-in-Differences Estimators

被引:11
|
作者
Glynn, Adam N. [1 ]
Kashin, Konstantin [2 ]
机构
[1] Emory Univ, Dept Polit Sci, 327 Tarbutton Hall,1555 Dickey Dr, Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
[2] Harvard Univ, Inst Quantitat Social Sci, 1737 Cambridge St, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
关键词
EMPIRICAL-RESEARCH; CAUSAL DIAGRAMS; TURNOUT; PARTICIPATION; CONSEQUENCES; DETERMINANTS; CONVENIENCE; ELECTION; PROGRAM; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1111/ajps.12311
中图分类号
D0 [政治学、政治理论];
学科分类号
0302 ; 030201 ;
摘要
We develop front-door difference-in-differences estimators as an extension of front-door estimators. Under one-sided noncompliance, an exclusion restriction, and assumptions analogous to parallel trends assumptions, this extension allows identification when the front-door criterion does not hold. Even if the assumptions are relaxed, we show that the front-door and front-door difference-in-differences estimators may be combined to form bounds. Finally, we show that under one-sided noncompliance, these techniques do not require the use of control units. We illustrate these points with an application to a job training study and with an application to Florida's early in-person voting program. For the job training study, we show that these techniques can recover an experimental benchmark. For the Florida program, we find some evidence that early in-person voting had small positive effects on turnout in 2008. This provides a counterpoint to recent claims that early voting had a negative effect on turnout in 2008.
引用
收藏
页码:989 / 1002
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条