How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?
Top Cited Papers
- 1 February 2004
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in The Quarterly Journal of Economics
- Vol. 119 (1), 249-275
- https://doi.org/10.1162/003355304772839588
Abstract
Most papers that employ Differences-in-Differences estimation (DD) use many years of data and focus on serially correlated outcomes but ignore that the resulting standard errors are inconsistent. To illustrate the severity of this issue, we randomly generate placebo laws in state-level data on female wages from the Current Population Survey. For each law, we use OLS to compute the DD estimate of its “effect” as well as the standard error of this estimate. These conventional DD standard errors severely understate the standard deviation of the estimators: we find an “effect” significant at the 5 percent level for up to 45 percent of the placebo interventions. We use Monte Carlo simulations to investigate how well existing methods help solve this problem. Econometric corrections that place a specific parametric form on the time-series process do not perform well. Bootstrap (taking into account the autocorrelation of the data) works well when the number of states is large enough. Two corrections based on asymptotic approximation of the variance-covariance matrix work well for moderate numbers of states and one correction that collapses the time series information into a “pre”- and “post”-period and explicitly takes into account the effective sample size works well even for small numbers of states.Keywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2004
- Robust Standard Error Estimation in Fixed-Effects Panel ModelsSSRN Electronic Journal, 2003
- Unnatural Experiments? Estimating the Incidence of Endogenous PoliciesThe Economic Journal, 2000
- Causal Parameters and Policy Analysis in Economics: A Twentieth Century Retrospective*The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2000
- What We Know and Do Not Know About the Natural Rate of UnemploymentJournal of Economic Perspectives, 1997
- Problems with Instrumental Variables Estimation When the Correlation Between the Instruments and the Endogeneous Explanatory Variable is WeakJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1995
- Natural and Quasi-Experiments in EconomicsJournal of Business & Economic Statistics, 1995
- A Simple, Positive Semi-Definite, Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance MatrixEconometrica, 1987
- Some heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimators with improved finite sample propertiesJournal of Econometrics, 1985
- Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed EffectsEconometrica, 1981