arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 1804.01208

Should We Adjust for the Test for Pre-trends in Difference-in-Difference Designs?

Abstract

The common practice in difference-in-difference (DiD) designs is to check for parallel trends prior to treatment assignment, yet typical estimation and inference does not account for the fact that this test has occurred. I analyze the properties of the traditional DiD estimator conditional on having passed (i.e. not rejected) the test for parallel pre-trends. When the DiD design is valid and the test for pre-trends confirms it, the typical DiD estimator is unbiased, but traditional standard errors are overly conservative. Additionally, there exists an alternative unbiased estimator that is more efficient than the traditional DiD estimator under parallel trends. However, when in population there is a non-zero pre-trend but we fail to reject the hypothesis of parallel pre-trends, the DiD estimator is generally biased relative to the population DiD coefficient. Moreover, if the trend is monotone, then under reasonable assumptions the bias from conditioning exacerbates the bias relative to the true treatment effect. I propose new estimation and inference procedures that account for the test for parallel trends, and compare their performance to that of the traditional estimator in a Monte Carlo simulation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Jonathan Roth. 2018-04-04. Should We Adjust for the Test for Pre-trends in Difference-in-Difference Designs?. https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.01208

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Identification in Linear Quantile Panel Models

This paper studies identification in linear quantile panel models with unrestricted individual heterogeneity when the number of time periods is fixed and small. We impose strict exogeneity, whereby the conditional quantile restriction holds given the individual's complete regressor history and latent individual effect, but otherwise allow the disturbances to be arbitrarily dependent over time.

econ.EM

Experimental Design for Policy Choice

We show how to optimally design experiments when the resulting data will be used to choose a welfare-maximizing policy subject to constraints. A decision maker seeks to maximize Bayes expected welfare by choosing a policy whose effects depend on an unknown finite-dimensional parameter. The decision maker has access to a first wave of experimental data with a fixed design but may choose the design of a second wave that will be collected before choosing the policy. The resulting experimental design--policy choice problem is a very high-dimensional dynamic program that is generally intractable in finite samples. We propose a tractable approximation based on the limit experiment and show it is asymptotically optimal using a new asymptotic representation theorem for adaptive experiments with continuous treatments. We apply the method to a conditional cash transfer experiment and demonstrate the potential for large gains from tailoring the experiment to the policy choice.

econ.EM

Designing Spatial Treatments

Spatial treatments are interventions assigned to locations potentially distinct from those of the responding units. We study their optimal design under a general model in which a unit's response diminishes with distance to a treated site. Our estimand of interest is an ``uncontaminated'' effect equal to the average impact of a single intervention site over all hypothetical sites. We propose a novel design based on a Mat\'{e}rn point process which separates treatments by a distance of at least $r$. A larger choice of $r$ reduces bias by separating interventions but increases variance by reducing their numerosity. We choose $r$ to maximize the rate of convergence of a Horvitz-Thompson estimator and prove that this is minimax rate-optimal. We provide weak conditions under which the estimator is asymptotically normal and propose a variance estimator.

econ.EM