Cited by 110Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesSpatial and Panel Data AnalysisLabor market dynamics and wage inequality

Quantile treatment effects in difference in differences models with panel data

Open access
Callaway, Brantly, Li, Tong·2019·Quantitative Economics

Abstract

This paper considers identification and estimation of the Quantile Treatment Effect on the Treated (QTT) under a straightforward distributional extension of the most commonly invoked Mean Difference in Differences Assumption used for identifying the Average Treatment Effect on the Treated (ATT). Identification of the QTT is more complicated than the ATT though because it depends on the unknown dependence (or copula) between the change in untreated potential outcomes and the initial level of untreated potential outcomes for the treated group. To address this issue, we introduce a new Copula Stability Assumption that says that the missing dependence is constant over time. Under this assumption and when panel data is available, the missing dependence can be recovered, and the QTT is identified. We use our method to estimate the effect of increasing the minimum wage on quantiles of local labor markets' unemployment rates and find significant heterogeneity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3982/qe935

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Condition (5) is non-nested with the distributional DiD models of Bonhomme and Sauder (2011) and Callaway and Li (2019).

    “It is also straightforward to show that condition (5) is non-nested with the distributional DiD models of Bonhomme and Sauder (2011) and Callaway and Li (2019).”

    From When Is Parallel Trends Sensitive to Functional Form? (2023) · cites this paper as Callaway and Li (2019)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 83 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Callaway, B., & Li, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Mississippi (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
Corresponding author
Callaway, Brantly
Venue
Quantitative Economics
Published
2019
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
1579-1618
ISSN
1759-7323 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2770372583
Cited by
110
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
3.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Quantitative Economics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
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 › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
Keywords
difference-in-differences, panel data, identification, potential outcomes, treatment effect heterogeneity, minimum wage, unemployment rate, local labor markets

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