Fuzzy Differences-in-Differences
Open accessAbstract
In many applications of the dierences-in-dierences (DID) method, the treatment increases more in the treatment group, but some units are also treated in the control group. In such fuzzy designs, a popular estimator of treatment eects is the DID of the outcome divided by the DID of the treatment, or OLS and 2SLS regressions with time and group xed eects estimating weighted averages of this ratio across groups. We start by showing that when the treatment also increases in the control group, this ratio estimates a causal eect only if treatment eects are homogenous in the two groups. Even when the distribution of treatment is stable, it requires that the eect of time be the same on all counterfactual outcomes. As this assumption is not always applicable, we propose two alternative estimators. The rst estimator relies on a generalization of common trends assumptions to fuzzy designs, while the second extends the changes-in-changes estimator of Athey & Imbens (2006). When the distribution of treatment changes in the control group, treatment eects are partially identied. Finally, we prove that our estimators are asymptotically normal and use them to revisit applied papers using fuzzy designs.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Related results appeared earlier in Theorems S1 and S2 of the Supplementary Material of de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfœuille (2015).
“Related results have appeared earlier in Theorems S1 and S2 of the Supplementary Material of de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfœuille (2015).”
From Two-Way Fixed Effects and Differences-in-Differences with Heterogeneous Treatment Effects: A Survey (2022) · cites this paper as de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfœuille (2015)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Two-Way Fixed Effects and Differences-in-Differences with Heterogeneous Treatment Effects: A Survey
de Chaisemartin, C., & D'Haultfoeuille, X. (2022) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w29734 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- De Chaisemartin, C., D'Haultfoeuille, X., De Chaisemartin, C., & D'Haultfoeuille, X.
- Venue
- Unknown
- Publisher
- Unknown
- Published
- 2015
- OpenAlex
- W3123021196
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- ageconsearch.umn.edu
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Keywords
- local average treatment effect, treatment effect estimation, treatment effect heterogeneity, asymptotic normality, estimands
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