IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2507.12690.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

NA-DiD: Extending Difference-in-Differences with Capabilities

Author

Listed:
  • Stanis{l}aw M. S. Halkiewicz

Abstract

This paper introduces the Non-Additive Difference-in-Differences (NA-DiD) framework, which extends classical DiD by incorporating non-additive measures the Choquet integral for effect aggregation. It serves as a novel econometric tool for impact evaluation, particularly in settings with non-additive treatment effects. First, we introduce the integral representation of the classial DiD model, and then extend it to non-additive measures, therefore deriving the formulae for NA-DiD estimation. Then, we give its theoretical properties. Applying NA-DiD to a simulated hospital hygiene intervention, we find that classical DiD can overestimate treatment effects, f.e. failing to account for compliance erosion. In contrast, NA-DiD provides a more accurate estimate by incorporating non-linear aggregation. The Julia implementation of the techniques used and introduced in this article is provided in the appendices.

Suggested Citation

  • Stanis{l}aw M. S. Halkiewicz, 2025. "NA-DiD: Extending Difference-in-Differences with Capabilities," Papers 2507.12690, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2507.12690
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.12690
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clément de Chaisemartin & Xavier D'Haultfœuille, 2020. "Two-Way Fixed Effects Estimators with Heterogeneous Treatment Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(9), pages 2964-2996, September.
    2. Clément de Chaisemartin & Xavier D’Haultfoeuille & Yannick Guyonvarch, 2019. "Fuzzy differences-in-differences with Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 19(2), pages 435-458, June.
    3. Mustapha Ridaoui & Michel Grabisch, 2016. "Choquet integral calculus on a continuous support and its applications," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 26(1), pages 73-93.
    4. Brantly Callaway, 2022. "Difference-in-Differences for Policy Evaluation," Papers 2203.15646, arXiv.org.
    5. Stanislaw Heilpern, 2002. "Using Choquet integral in economics," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 53-73, January.
    6. Zappia, Carlo, 2021. "Leonard Savage, The Ellsberg Paradox, And The Debate On Subjective Probabilities: Evidence From The Archives," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 169-192, June.
    7. Gilboa, Itzhak, 1987. "Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 65-88, February.
    8. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    9. repec:hal:pseose:hal-01373325 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2016. "Fuzzy Measures and Integrals in MCDA," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrgott & José Rui Figueira (ed.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 553-603, Springer.
    11. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    12. Dubey, Subodh & Cats, Oded & Hoogendoorn, Serge & Bansal, Prateek, 2022. "A multinomial probit model with Choquet integral and attribute cut-offs," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 140-163.
    13. Keiran Sharpe, 2023. "On the Ellsberg and Machina paradoxes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(4), pages 539-573, November.
    14. Anders Fredriksson & Gustavo Magalhães de Oliveira, 2019. "Impact evaluation using Difference-in-Differences," RAUSP Management Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 54(4), pages 519-532, October.
    15. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-01411987 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ralph W. Bailey & Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey, 2005. "Ambiguity and Public Good Provision in Large Societies," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 7(5), pages 741-759, December.
    2. Kiyohiko G. Nishimura & Hiroyuki Ozaki, 2001. "Search under the Knightian Uncertainty," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-112, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    3. Andreas Lehnert & Wayne Passmore, 1999. "Pricing systemic crises: monetary and fiscal policy when savers are uncertain," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 1999-33, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    4. Junyi Chai & Zhiquan Weng & Wenbin Liu, 2021. "Behavioral Decision Making in Normative and Descriptive Views: A Critical Review of Literature," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, October.
    5. Dong, Xueqi, 2021. "Uncertainty Aversion and Convexity in Portfolio Choice," MPRA Paper 108264, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Ehud Lehrer, 2009. "A new integral for capacities," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 39(1), pages 157-176, April.
    7. Yoram Halevy & Vincent Feltkamp, 2005. "A Bayesian Approach to Uncertainty Aversion," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(2), pages 449-466.
    8. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2023. "Source and rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(4), pages 949-981, May.
    9. Faro, José Heleno & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2019. "Dynamic objective and subjective rationality," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(1), January.
    10. Marcello Basili, 2006. "A Rational Decision Rule with Extreme Events," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1721-1728, December.
    11. Yehuda Izhakian, 2012. "Ambiguity Measurement," Working Papers 12-01, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    12. Negi, Shekhar Singh & Torra, Vicenç, 2022. "Δ-Choquet integral on time scales with applications," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    13. Aurélien Baillon & Zhenxing Huang & Asli Selim & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Measuring Ambiguity Attitudes for All (Natural) Events," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1839-1858, September.
    14. Echenique, Federico & Miyashita, Masaki & Nakamura, Yuta & Pomatto, Luciano & Vinson, Jamie, 2022. "Twofold multiprior preferences and failures of contingent reasoning," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    15. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    16. Amit Kothiyal & Vitalie Spinu & Peter Wakker, 2014. "An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 1-17, February.
    17. Craig Webb, 2010. "Agreeing to spin the subjective roulette wheel: Bargaining with subjective mixtures," Economics Discussion Paper Series 1005, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    18. Bryan Routledge & Stanley Zin, 2009. "Model Uncertainty and Liquidity," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 12(4), pages 543-566, October.
    19. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2013. "Two examples of ambiguity aversion," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 206-208.
    20. Sebastian Schweighofer-Kodritsch, 2024. "Bounded Rationality, Beliefs, and Behavior," Berlin School of Economics Discussion Papers 0037, Berlin School of Economics.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2507.12690. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.