CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 43Family Dynamics and RelationshipsGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFamily and Matrimonial Law

The Fragility of Estimated Effects of Unilateral Divorce Laws on Divorce Rates

Open access
Lee, Jin Young, Solon, Gary·2011·National Bureau of Economic Research
DOI 10.3386/w16773
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Following an influential article by Friedberg (1998), Wolfers (2006) explored the sensitivity of Friedberg's results to allowing for dynamics in the response of divorce rates to the adoption of unilateral divorce laws.We in turn explore the sensitivity of Wolfers's results to variations in estimation method and functional form, and we find that the results are extremely fragile.We conclude first that the impact of unilateral divorce laws remains unclear.Second, extending Wolfers's methodological insight about sensitivity of differences-in-differences estimation to allowance for dynamic response, we suggest that identification in differences-in-differences research becomes weaker in the presence of dynamics, especially in the presence of unit-specific time trends.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3386/w16773

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 detrended estimator is akin to a regression discontinuity design in that it relies less on variation at the beginning or end of the panel because this variation is absorbed by the trends.

    “This is, as Lee and Solon (2011) point out, akin to a regression discontinuity design in that the estimator relies less on variation at the beginning or end of the panel because this variation is absorbed by the trends.”

    From Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing (2021) · cites this paper as Lee and Solon (2011)

    In II. Summary and Discussion (page not provided), Lee and Solon describe a differences-in-differences design with unit-specific time trends as a type of regression discontinuity design, identified by a jump at policy adoption. The passage does not say that variation at the beginning or end of the panel is absorbed by the trends or quantify how much less the estimator relies on it. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Angrist, Joshua D., and Jörn-Steffen Pischke. 2009. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  2. Arellano, Manuel. 1987. "Computing Robust Standard Errors for Within-Groups Estimators." Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 49(4): 431-4.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lee, J. Y., & Solon, G.
Affiliations
Michigan State University (US)
Venue
National Bureau of Economic Research
Publisher
National Bureau of Economic Research
Published
2011-02
DOI
10.3386/w16773
OpenAlex
W3022262307
Cited by
42
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
Type
report
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Family and Matrimonial Law
Keywords
divorce rates, difference-in-differences, dynamic response, identification, functional form

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