How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates?
Preprint
- 1 October 2001
- preprint
- Published by Elsevier in SSRN Electronic Journal
Abstract
Most Difference-in-Difference (DD) papers rely on many years of data and focus on serially correlated outcomes. Yet almost all these papers ignore the bias in the estimated standard errors that serial correlation introduces. This is especially troubling because the independent variable of interest in DD estimation (e.g., the passage of law) is itself very serially correlated, which will exacerbate the bias in standard errors. 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 for this estimate. The standard errors are severely biased: with about 20 years of data, DD estimation finds an "effect" significant at the 5% level of up to 45% of the placebo laws. Two very simple techniques can solve this problem for large sample sizes. The first technique consists in collapsing the data and ignoring the time-series variation altogether; the second technique is to estimate standard errors while allowing for an arbitrary covariance structure between time periods. We also suggest a third technique, based on randomization inference testing methods, which works well irrespective of sample size. This technique uses the empirical distribution of estimated effects for placebo laws to form the test distribution.Keywords
This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- Inference with Difference-in-Differences and Other Panel DataThe Review of Economics and Statistics, 2007
- Semiparametric Difference-in-Differences EstimatorsThe Review of Economic Studies, 2005
- Labor Supply: A Review of Alternative ApproachesHandbook of Labor Economics, 1999
- 6 Observational studies and nonrandomized experimentsPublished by Elsevier ,1996
- Natural and Quasi-Experiments in EconomicsJournal of Business & Economic Statistics, 1995
- Hodges-Lehmann Point Estimates of Treatment Effect in Observational StudiesJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1993
- An Illustration of a Pitfall in Estimating the Effects of Aggregate Variables on Micro UnitsThe Review of Economics and Statistics, 1990
- A Simple, Positive Semi-Definite, Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance MatrixEconometrica, 1987
- The use of time series processes to model the error structure of earnings in a longitudinal data analysisJournal of Econometrics, 1982
- Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed EffectsEconometrica, 1981