CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 410Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesSpatial and Panel Data AnalysisEvaluation and Performance Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Balancing, Regression, Difference-In-Differences and Synthetic Control Methods: A Synthesis

Open access
Doudchenko, Nikolay, Imbens, Guido·2016·National Bureau of Economic Research
DOI 10.3386/w22791
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In a seminal paper Abadie et al (2010) develop the synthetic control procedure for estimating the effect of a treatment, in the presence of a single treated unit and a number of control units, with pre-treatment outcomes observed for all units.The method constructs a set of weights such that covariates and pre-treatment outcomes of the treated unit are approximately matched by a weighted average of control units.The weights are restricted to be nonnegative and sum to one, which allows the procedure to obtain the weights even when the number of lagged outcomes is modest relative to the number of control units, a setting that is not uncommon in applications.In the current paper we propose a more general class of synthetic control estimators that allows researchers to relax some of the restrictions in the ADH method.We allow the weights to be negative, do not necessarily restrict the sum of the weights, and allow for a permanent additive difference between the treated unit and the controls, similar to difference-in-difference procedures.The weights directly minimize the distance between the lagged outcomes for the treated and the control units, using regularization methods to deal with a potentially large number of possible control units.

Overview

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/w22791

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 22 references

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Michihito Ando and F Sävje. Hypothesis testing with the synthetic control method. In European Economic Association and Econometric Society Meeting, pages 1-35, 2013.
  2. Joshua Angrist and Steve Pischke. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricists' Companion. Princeton University Press, 2008.
  3. Susan Athey, Guido Imbens, and Stefan Wager. Efficient inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions via approximate residual balancing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.07125, 2016. · arXiv
  4. David Card. The impact of the mariel boatlift on the miami labor market. Industrial and Labor Relation, 43(2):245-257, 1990.
  5. Jens Hainmueller. Entropy balancing for causal effects: A multivariate reweighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies. Political Analysis, 20(1):25-46, 2012.
  6. Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, and Jerome Friedman. The Elements of Statistical Learning. New York: Springer, 2009.
  7. Paul W Holland. Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(396):945-970, 1986.
  8. Guido W Imbens and Donald B Rubin. Causal Inference in Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences. Cambridge University Press, 2015.
  9. Donald B Rubin. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(5):688-701, 1974.
  10. Donald B Rubin. Matched sampling for causal effects. Cambridge University Press, 2006.
  11. Vadim von Brzeski, Matt Taddy, and David Draper. Causal inference in repeated observational studies: A case study of ebay product releases. arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.03940, 2015. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 409

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Doudchenko, N., & Imbens, G.
Affiliations
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
ORCID
Imbens, Guido
Venue
National Bureau of Economic Research
Publisher
National Bureau of Economic Research
Published
2016-10
DOI
10.3386/w22791
OpenAlex
W2540009304
Cited by
410
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 72 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 3
Type
report
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Spatial and Panel Data Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
synthetic control method, treatment effect estimation, regularization, difference-in-differences, regression discontinuity design

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