PreprintCited by 1Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesEvaluation and Performance AssessmentSpatial and Panel Data Analysis

Causal Duration Analysis With Diff‐in‐Diff

Open access
Deaner, Ben, Ku, Hyejin·2024·arXiv

Abstract

In economic program evaluation, it is common to obtain panel data in which outcomes are indicators that an individual has reached an absorbing state. For example, they may indicate whether an individual has exited a period of unemployment, passed an exam, left a marriage, or had their parole revoked. The parallel trends assumption that underpins difference-in-differences generally fails in such settings. We suggest identifying conditions similar to those of difference-in-differences, but which apply to hazard rates rather than mean outcomes. These alternative assumptions motivate estimators that retain the simplicity and transparency of standard diff-in-diff, and corresponding specification tests. Our approach can be adapted to include general linear restrictions between the hazard rates of different groups, motivating duration analogues of the triple differences and synthetic control methods. We apply our procedures to examine the impact of a policy that increased the generosity of unemployment benefits, using a cross-cohort comparison.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2405.05220

Cites

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?

  • Other work has adapted parallel trends to survival analysis with time-to-event data by formalizing a hazard-rate version of parallel trends.

    “Other work has adapted the parallel trends assumption to a survival analysis with time-to-event data, formalizing a version of parallel trends on hazard rates [70, 71].”

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Abadie, Alberto. 2005. Semiparametric Difference-in-Differences Estimators. Review of Economic Studies, 72, 1-19.
  2. Abadie, Alberto, & Gardeazabal, Javier. 2003. The Economic Costs of Conflict: A Case Study of the Basque Country. American Economic Review, 93, 113- 132.
  3. Abadie, Alberto, Diamond, Alexis, & Hainmueller, Jens. 2015. Comparative Politics and the Synthetic Control Method. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 495-510.
  4. Abbring, Jaap H., & Heckman, James J. 2007. Handbook of Econometrics. North-Holland, Amsterdam. Chap. Chapter 72 Econometric Evaluation of Social Programs, Part III: Distributional Treatment Effects, Dynamic Treat- ment Effects, Dynamic Discrete Choice, and General Equilibrium Policy Eval- uation, pages 5145-5303.
  5. Arendt, Jacob, Dustmann, Christian, & Ku, Hyejin. 2024. Permanent Resi- dency and Refugee Immigrants' Skill Investment. Journal of Labor Economics (Forthcoming).
  6. Ashenfelter, Orley, & Greenstone, Michael. 2004. Estimating the Value of a Statistical Life: The Importance of Omitted Variables and Publication Bias. Journal of Political Economy, 94, 454-460.
  7. Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., & Mullainathan, S. 2004. How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119, 249-275.
  8. Bhuller, Manudeep, Dahl, Gordon B., Løken, Katrine V., & Mogstad, Magne. 2020. Incarceration, Recidivism, and Employment. Journal of Political Econ- omy, 128, 1269-1324.
  9. Blundell, Richard, & Costa Dias, Monica. 2009. Alternative Approaches to Evaluation in Empirical Microeconomics. The Journal of Human Resources, 44, 565-640.
  10. Blundell, Richard W., Dias, Monica Costa, Meghir, Costas, & Van Reenen, John. 2004. Evaluating the employment impact of a mandatory job search program. Journal of the European Economic Association, 4, 569-606.
  11. Card, David E., Chetty, Raj, & Weber, Andrea. 2007. Cash-on-hand and com- peting models of intertemporal behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 4, 1511-1560.
  12. Chetty, Raj. 2008. Moral Hazard versus Liquidity and Optimal Unemployment Insurance. Journal of political Economy, 116, 173-234.
  13. Cox, D. R. 1972. Regression Models and Life-Tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 34, 187-202.
  14. de Chaisemartin, Clément, & D'Haultfœuille, Xavier. 2023. Two-way fixed effects and differences-in-differences with heterogeneous treatment effects: a survey. The Econometrics Journal, 26, C1-C30.
  15. Eissa, Nada. 1996. Empirical Foundations of Household Taxation. University of Chicago Press. Chap. Labor Supply and the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, pages 5-38.
  16. Fang, Zheng. 2019. Inference on directionally differentiable functions. The Review of Economic Studies, 1, 377-412.
  17. Friedberg, Leora. 1998. Did unilateral divorce raise divorce rates? American Economic Review, 3, 608-627.
  18. Gruber, J., & Poterba, J. 1994. Tax Incentives and the Decision to Purchase Health Insurance: Evidence from the Self-Employed. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109, 701-733.
  19. Gruber, Jonathan. 2004. Is Making Divorce Easier Bad for Children? The Long-Run Implications of Unilateral Divorce. Journal of Labor Economics, 22, 799-833.
  20. Hunt, Jennifer. 1995. The effect of unemployment compensation on unemploy- ment duration in Germany. Journal of Labor Economics, 1, 88-120.
  21. Katz, Lawrence F., & Meyer, Bruce D. 1990. The impact of the potential duration of unemployment benefits on the duration of unemployment. Journal of Public Economics, 41, 45-72.
  22. Khan, Shakeeb, & Tamer, Elie. 2010. Irregular identification, support condi- tions, and inverse weight estimation. Econometrica, 78(6), 2021-2042.
  23. Lalive, Rafael. 2007. Unemployment Benefits, Unemployment Duration, and Post-Unemployment Jobs: A Regression Discontinuity Approach. American Economic Review, 97, 108-112.
  24. Lalive, Rafael, Ours, Jan Van, & Zwimuller, Josef. 2006. How Changes in Financial Incentives Affect the Duration of Unemployment. The Review of Economic Studies, 73, 1009-1038.
  25. Lichter, Andreas, & Schiprowski, Amelie. 2021. Benefit duration, job search behavior and re-employment. Journal of Public Economics, 193, 104326.
  26. Puhani, Patrick A. 2011. The treatment effect, the cross difference, and the interaction term in nonlinear "difference-in-differences" models. Economics Letters, 115, 85-87.
  27. Rose, Evan K. 2021. Who Gets a Second Chance? Effectiveness and Equity in Supervision of Criminal Offenders. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 136, 1199-1253.
  28. Roth, Jonathan, Sant'Anna, Pedro H. C., Bilinski, Alyssa, & Poe, John. 2023. What's trending in difference-in-differences? A synthesis of the recent econo- metrics literature. Journal of Econometrics, 235, 2218-2244.
  29. Schmidt, Peter, & Witte, Ann Dryden. 1989. Predicting criminal recidivism using 'split population' survival time models. Journal of Econometrics, 40, 141-159.
  30. Schmieder, J. F., von Wachter, T., & Bender, S. 2012. The Effects of Extended Unemployment Insurance Over the Business Cycle: Evidence from Regression Discontinuity Estimates Over 20 Years. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127, 701-752.
  31. Schmieder, Johannes F., von Wachter, Till, & Bender, Stefan. 2016. The Effect of Unemployment Benefits and Nonemployment Durations on Wages. Amer- ican Economic Review, 106, 739-777.
  32. Wolfers, Justin. 2006. Did Unilateral Divorce Laws Raise Divorce Rates? A Reconciliation and New Results. American Economic Review, 96, 1802-1820.
  33. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2023. Simple approaches to nonlinear difference-in- differences with panel data. The Econometrics Journal, 3, C31-C66.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Deaner, B., & Ku, H.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
OpenAlex
W4396817245
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Spatial and Panel Data Analysis
Keywords
difference-in-differences, parallel trends assumption, hazard function, panel data, triple difference, synthetic control method, unemployment benefits, policy evaluation, cross-cohort comparison

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