Partial identification of average treatment effects on the treated through difference-in-differences

被引:2
|
作者
Fan, Yanqin [1 ]
Manzanares, Carlos A. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Washington, Dept Econ, Box 353330, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[2] Vanderbilt Univ, Dept Econ, 221 Kirkland Hall, Nashville, TN 37235 USA
关键词
Copula; cross-sectional data; identified interval; instrumental variable; matched subsample; monotone rearrangement inequality; C14; C21; C26; EMPLOYMENT; BOUNDS; DISTRIBUTIONS; SETS;
D O I
10.1080/07474938.2017.1308036
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
The difference-in-differences (DID) method is widely used as a tool for identifying causal effects of treatments in program evaluation. When panel data sets are available, it is well-known that the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) is point-identified under the DID setup. If a panel data set is not available, repeated cross sections (pretreatment and posttreatment) may be used, but may not point-identify the ATT. This paper systematically studies the identification of the ATT under the DID setup when posttreatment treatment status is unknown for the pretreatment sample. This is done through a novel application of an extension of a continuous version of the classical monotone rearrangement inequality which allows for general copula bounds. The identifying power of an instrumental variable and of a matched subsample' is also explored. Finally, we illustrate our approach by estimating the effect of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991 on employment outcomes of the disabled.
引用
收藏
页码:1057 / 1080
页数:24
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [22] Estimating causal effects: considering three alternatives to difference-in-differences estimation
    O’Neill S.
    Kreif N.
    Grieve R.
    Sutton M.
    Sekhon J.S.
    Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 2016, 16 (1-2) : 1 - 21
  • [23] Prosecutors and crime deterrence: Evidence from a difference-in-differences analysis with staggered treatment
    Bielen, Samantha
    JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 2024, 90
  • [24] Using Difference-in-Differences to Identify Causal Effects of COVID-19 Policies
    Goodman-Bacon, Andrew
    Marcus, Jan
    SURVEY RESEARCH METHODS, 2020, 14 (02): : 153 - 157
  • [25] The Effects of free primary education in Democratic Republic of Congo: A difference-in-differences approach
    Kodila-Tedika, Oasis
    Otchia, Christian S.
    REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS, 2022, 26 (04) : 2109 - 2120
  • [26] An optimal transport approach to estimating causal effects via nonlinear difference-in-differences
    Torous, William
    Gunsilius, Florian
    Rigollet, Philippe
    JOURNAL OF CAUSAL INFERENCE, 2024, 12 (01)
  • [27] Effects of the BRI on Sustainable Development Evidence from a Panel Difference-In-Differences Method
    Huang J.
    Qin P.
    Zhao X.
    Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences, 2024, 9 (01)
  • [28] The effects of earthquake exposure on preparedness in the short and long term: a difference-in-differences estimation
    Habibi, Hanna
    Feld, Jan
    NATURAL HAZARDS, 2020, 104 (02) : 1443 - 1463
  • [29] Using propensity scores in difference-in-differences models to estimate the effects of a policy change
    Stuart E.A.
    Huskamp H.A.
    Duckworth K.
    Simmons J.
    Song Z.
    Chernew M.E.
    Barry C.L.
    Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 2014, 14 (4) : 166 - 182
  • [30] The effects of a Smart Logistics policy on carbon emissions in China: A difference-in-differences analysis
    Pan, Xiongfeng
    Li, Mengna
    Wang, Mengyang
    Zong, Tianjiao
    Song, Malin
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART E-LOGISTICS AND TRANSPORTATION REVIEW, 2020, 137