1 / 18

Difference-in-Difference

Difference-in-Difference. Development Workshop. Typical problem in proving causal effects. U sing differences to estimate causal effects in experimental data (treatment+control groups)

keira
Télécharger la présentation

Difference-in-Difference

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Difference-in-Difference Development Workshop

  2. Typical problem in proving causal effects • Using differences to estimate causal effects in experimental data (treatment+control groups) • Wish: ‘treatment’ and ‘control’ group can be assumed to be similar in every way except receipt of treatment • This may be very difficult to do

  3. A Weaker Assumption is.. • In absence of treatment, difference between ‘treatment’ and ‘control’ group is constant over time • With this assumption can use observations on treatment and control group pre- and post-treatment to estimate causal effect • Idea • Difference pre-treatment is ‘normal’ difference • Difference post-treatment is ‘normal’ difference + causal effect • Difference-in-difference is causal effect

  4. A Treatment y C B Control Pre- Post- Time Graphically…

  5. What is D-in-D estimate? • Standard differences estimator is AB • But ‘normal’ difference estimated as CB • Hence D-in-D estimate is AC • Note: assumes trends in outcome variables the same for treatment and control groups • This is not testable • Two periods (before and after) crucial

  6. The Grand Experiment (Snow) • Water supplied to households by competing private companies • Sometimes different companies supplied households in same street • In south London two main companies: • Lambeth Company (water supply from Thames Ditton, 22 miles upstream) • Southwark and Vauxhall Company (water supply from Thames)

  7. In 1853/54 cholera outbreak • Death Rates per 10000 people by water company • Lambeth 10 • Southwark and Vauxhall 150 • Might be water but perhaps other factors • Snow compared death rates in 1849 epidemic • Lambeth 150 • Southwark and Vauxhall 125 • In 1852 Lambeth Company had changed supply from Hungerford Bridge

  8. What would be good estimate of effect of clean water?

  9. Card and Krueger (1994) • Basic microeconomic theory of the firm: factor demand curves slope downwards. • Hence, if minimum wages arebinding, we would expect employment to fall if minimum wage is raised. • Natural experiment: New Jersey raising its minimum wage from $4.25 to$5.05 on 1 April 1992 while the minimum wage in neighbouring Pennsylvaniaremained unchanged. • Data: wages and employment in 65 fast-foodrestaurants in Pennsylvania and 284 in New Jersey in Feb/March 1992 (i.e. before therise in the NJ minimum wage) and in Nov/Dec 1992 (i.e. after the rise). • Difference-in-difference design to investigate the impact of minimum wages onemployment.

  10. What data we have? • 698 observations • Sheet: an identifier for each restaurant (each has two observations, pre- and post-) • NJ: dummy for whether a NJ restaurant • After: dummy for whether post- observation • Njafter: nj*after • Fte: full-time equivalent employment • Dfte: change in full-time equivalent employment

  11. Tabulate command • Tabulate in STATA: • tabulate var (or tab var) – just a simple table • tab var, g(newvar) – generating a new variable • tab var, su(othervar) – summarising some other variable

  12. Let’s get our first DinD estimator • tabulate nj after, su(fte) means Whyisnt’ thisenough?

  13. Going from means to statistics  • reg dfte nj

  14. … and with robust standard errors • reg dfte nj • reg dfte nj, robust

  15. An alternative specification … • reg fte nj after njafter, robust Soit’s not „n” (dof)…

  16. Alternative specifications… • reg fte nj after njafter, cl(sheet) • xtreg fte nj after njafter, fe i(sheet) • Any key differences? • Should there be any?

  17. Suppose we’d like to observe many estimations • STATA commands for results-sets • Guy named Roger Newson • estimates store • outreg (works mostly with regressions) • parmest/parmby

  18. Summary • A very useful and widespread approach • Validity does depend on assumption that trends would have been the same in absence of treatment • Can use other periods to see if this assumption is plausible or not • Uses 2 observations on same individual – most rudimentary form of panel data

More Related