Two-stage differences in differences

DOI10.48550/ARXIV.2207.05943arXiv2207.05943MaRDI QIDQ66355FDOQ66355

John Gardner

Publication date: 13 July 2022

Abstract: A recent literature has shown that when adoption of a treatment is staggered and average treatment effects vary across groups and over time, difference-in-differences regression does not identify an easily interpretable measure of the typical effect of the treatment. In this paper, I extend this literature in two ways. First, I provide some simple underlying intuition for why difference-in-differences regression does not identify a group$imes$period average treatment effect. Second, I propose an alternative two-stage estimation framework, motivated by this intuition. In this framework, group and period effects are identified in a first stage from the sample of untreated observations, and average treatment effects are identified in a second stage by comparing treated and untreated outcomes, after removing these group and period effects. The two-stage approach is robust to treatment-effect heterogeneity under staggered adoption, and can be used to identify a host of different average treatment effect measures. It is also simple, intuitive, and easy to implement. I establish the theoretical properties of the two-stage approach and demonstrate its effectiveness and applicability using Monte-Carlo evidence and an example from the literature.

Cited In (1)

• did2s

This page was built for publication: Two-stage differences in differences

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q66355)