Difference in difference models
Download
1 / 30

Difference in Difference Models - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 326 Views
  • Updated On :

Difference in Difference Models. Bill Evans Spring 2008. Difference in difference models. Maybe the most popular identification strategy in applied work today Attempts to mimic random assignment with treatment and “comparison” sample Application of two-way fixed effects model .

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Difference in Difference Models' - Faraday


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Difference in difference models

Difference in Difference Models

Bill Evans

Spring 2008


Difference in difference models1
Difference in difference models

  • Maybe the most popular identification strategy in applied work today

  • Attempts to mimic random assignment with treatment and “comparison” sample

  • Application of two-way fixed effects model


Problem set up
Problem set up

  • Cross-sectional and time series data

  • One group is ‘treated’ with intervention

  • Have pre-post data for group receiving intervention

  • Can examine time-series changes but, unsure how much of the change is due to secular changes


Y

True effect = Yt2-Yt1

Estimated effect = Yb-Ya

Yt1

Ya

Yb

Yt2

ti

t1

t2

time



Difference in difference models2
Difference in difference models

  • Basic two-way fixed effects model

    • Cross section and time fixed effects

  • Use time series of untreated group to establish what would have occurred in the absence of the intervention

  • Key concept: can control for the fact that the intervention is more likely in some types of states


Three different presentations
Three different presentations

  • Tabular

  • Graphical

  • Regression equation



Y

Treatment effect=

(Yt2-Yt1) – (Yc2-Yc1)

Yc1

Yt1

Yc2

Yt2

control

treatment

t1

t2

time


Key assumption
Key Assumption

  • Control group identifies the time path of outcomes that would have happened in the absence of the treatment

  • In this example, Y falls by Yc2-Yc1 even without the intervention

  • Note that underlying ‘levels’ of outcomes are not important (return to this in the regression equation)


Y

Yc1

Treatment effect=

(Yt2-Yt1) – (Yc2-Yc1)

Yc2

Yt1

control

Treatment

Effect

Yt2

treatment

t1

t2

time


  • In contrast, what is key is that the time trends in the absence of the intervention are the same in both groups

  • If the intervention occurs in an area with a different trend, will under/over state the treatment effect

  • In this example, suppose intervention occurs in area with faster falling Y


Y absence of the intervention are the same in both groups

Estimated treatment

Yc1

Yt1

Yc2

control

True treatment effect

Yt2

True

Treatment

Effect

treatment

t1

t2

time


Basic econometric model
Basic Econometric Model absence of the intervention are the same in both groups

  • Data varies by

    • state (i)

    • time (t)

    • Outcome is Yit

  • Only two periods

  • Intervention will occur in a group of observations (e.g. states, firms, etc.)


  • Three key variables absence of the intervention are the same in both groups

    • Tit =1 if obs i belongs in the state that will eventually be treated

    • Ait =1 in the periods when treatment occurs

    • TitAit -- interaction term, treatment states after the intervention

  • Yit = β0 + β1Tit + β2Ait + β3TitAit + εit


Y it 0 1 t it 2 a it 3 t it a it it
Y absence of the intervention are the same in both groups it = β0 + β1Tit + β2Ait + β3TitAit + εit


More general model
More general model absence of the intervention are the same in both groups

  • Data varies by

    • state (i)

    • time (t)

    • Outcome is Yit

  • Many periods

  • Intervention will occur in a group of states but at a variety of times


  • u absence of the intervention are the same in both groups i is a state effect

  • vt is a complete set of year (time) effects

  • Analysis of covariance model

  • Yit = β0 + β3 TitAit + ui + λt + εit


What is nice about the model
What is nice about the model absence of the intervention are the same in both groups

  • Suppose interventions are not random but systematic

    • Occur in states with higher or lower average Y

    • Occur in time periods with different Y’s

  • This is captured by the inclusion of the state/time effects – allows covariance between

    • ui and TitAit

    • λt and TitAit


  • Group effects absence of the intervention are the same in both groups

    • Capture differences across groups that are constant over time

  • Year effects

    • Capture differences over time that are common to all groups


Meyer et al
Meyer et al. absence of the intervention are the same in both groups

  • Workers’ compensation

    • State run insurance program

    • Compensate workers for medical expenses and lost work due to on the job accident

  • Premiums

    • Paid by firms

    • Function of previous claims and wages paid

  • Benefits -- % of income w/ cap


  • Typical benefits schedule absence of the intervention are the same in both groups

    • Min( pY,C)

    • P=percent replacement

    • Y = earnings

    • C = cap

    • e.g., 65% of earnings up to $400/month


  • Concern: absence of the intervention are the same in both groups

    • Moral hazard. Benefits will discourage return to work

  • Empirical question: duration/benefits gradient

  • Previous estimates

    • Regress duration (y) on replaced wages (x)

  • Problem:

    • given progressive nature of benefits, replaced wages reveal a lot about the workers

    • Replacement rates higher in higher wage states


  • Y absence of the intervention are the same in both groups i = Xiβ + αRi + εi

  • Y (duration)

  • R (replacement rate)

  • Expect α > 0

  • Expect Cov(Ri, εi)

    • Higher wage workers have lower R and higher duration (understate)

    • Higher wage states have longer duration and longer R (overstate)


Solution
Solution absence of the intervention are the same in both groups

  • Quasi experiment in KY and MI

  • Increased the earnings cap

    • Increased benefit for high-wage workers

      • (Treatment)

    • Did nothing to those already below original cap (comparison)

  • Compare change in duration of spell before and after change for these two groups


Model
Model absence of the intervention are the same in both groups

  • Yit = duration of spell on WC

  • Ait = period after benefits hike

  • Hit = high earnings group (Income>E3)

  • Yit = β0 + β1Hit + β2Ait + β3AitHit + β4Xit’ + εit

  • Diff-in-diff estimate is β3


Questions to ask
Questions to ask? absence of the intervention are the same in both groups

  • What parameter is identified by the quasi-experiment? Is this an economically meaningful parameter?

  • What assumptions must be true in order for the model to provide and unbiased estimate of β3?

  • Do the authors provide any evidence supporting these assumptions?


ad