Cited by 616Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods and InferenceSpatial and Panel Data Analysis

The Nonparametric Identification of Treatment Effects in Duration Models

Abbring, Jaap H., van den Berg, Gerard J.·2003·Econometrica

Abstract

This paper analyzes the specification and identification of causal multivariate duration models. We focus on the case in which one duration concerns the point in time a treatment is initiated and we are interested in the effect of this treatment on some outcome duration. We define “no anticipation of treatment” and relate it to a common assumption in biostatistics. We show that (i) no anticipation and (ii) randomized treatment assignment can be imposed without restricting the observational data. We impose (i) but not (ii) and prove identification of models that impose some structure. We allow for dependent unobserved heterogeneity and we do not exploit exclusion restrictions on covariates. We provide results for both single-spell and multiple-spell data. The timing of events conveys useful information on the treatment effect.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1468-0262.00456

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The no-anticipation assumption is important for identification of τ2 because otherwise changes in outcomes for the treated group between periods 1 and 2 could reflect anticipatory effects in period 1 as well as the causal effect in period 2.

    “This is important for identification of τ 2 , since otherwise the changes in the outcome for the treated group between period 1 and 2 could reflect not just the causal effect in period t ' 2 but also the anticipatory effect in period t ' 1 (Abbring and van den Berg, 2003; Malani and Reif, 2015).”

    From What's trending in difference-in-differences? A synthesis of the recent econometrics literature (2023) · cites this paper as Abbring and van den Berg, 2003

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abbring, J. H., & van den Berg, G. J.
Affiliations
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
Econometrica
Published
2003-09
Volume
71
Issue
5
Pages
1491-1517
ISSN
  • 0012-9682 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-0262
OpenAlex
W2069757101
Cited by
616
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 31
FWCI
20.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Econometrica (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Spatial and Panel Data Analysis
Keywords
treatment effects, duration models, nonparametric identification, causal inference, unobserved heterogeneity, event timing, treatment initiation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review