How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates?

被引:6057
作者
Bertrand, M [1 ]
Duflo, E
Mullainathan, S
机构
[1] Univ Chicago, Grad Sch Business, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
[2] Natl Bur Econ Res, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
[3] Ctr Econ Policy Res, London, England
[4] MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1162/003355304772839588
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Most papers that employ Differences-in-Differences estimation (DD) use many years of data and focus on serially correlated outcomes but ignore that the resulting standard errors are inconsistent. To illustrate the severity of this issue, we randomly generate placebo laws in state-level data on female wages from the Current Population Survey. For each law, we use OLS to compute the DD estimate of its "effect" as well as the standard error of this estimate. These conventional DD standard errors severely understate the standard deviation of the estimators: we find an "effect" significant at the 5 percent level for up to 45 percent of the placebo interventions. We use Monte Carlo simulations to investigate how well existing methods help solve this problem. Econometric corrections that place a specific parametric form on the time-series process do not perform well. Bootstrap (taking into account the autocorrelation of the data) works well when the number of states is large enough. Two corrections based on asymptotic approximation of the variance-covariance matrix work well for moderate numbers of states and one correction that collapses the time series information into a "pre"-and "post"-period and explicitly takes into account the effective sample size works well even for small numbers of states.
引用
收藏
页码:249 / 275
页数:27
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]  
ABADIE A, 2000, SEMIPARAMETRIC DIFFE
[2]  
ARELLANO M, 1987, OXFORD B ECON STAT, V49, P431
[3]  
ATHEY S, 2002, T0280 NAT BUR EC RES
[4]  
BELL R, 2002, BIAS REDUCTION STAND
[5]   How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? [J].
Bertrand, M ;
Duflo, E ;
Mullainathan, S .
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 2004, 119 (01) :249-275
[6]   Unnatural experiments? Estimating the incidence of endogenous policies [J].
Besley, T ;
Case, A .
ECONOMIC JOURNAL, 2000, 110 (467) :F672-F694
[7]   What we know and do not know about the natural rate of unemployment [J].
Blanchard, O ;
Katz, LF .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES, 1997, 11 (01) :51-72
[8]  
BLANCHARD OJ, 1992, BROOKINGS PAP ECO AC, P1
[9]  
Blundell R, 1999, Handbook of Labor Economics, V3, P1559, DOI [DOI 10.1016/S1573-4463(99)03008-4, 10.1016/S1573-4463, DOI 10.1016/S1573-4463]
[10]   PROBLEMS WITH INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLES ESTIMATION WHEN THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE INSTRUMENTS AND THE ENDOGENOUS EXPLANATORY VARIABLE IS WEAK [J].
BOUND, J ;
JAEGER, DA ;
BAKER, RM .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, 1995, 90 (430) :443-450