IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/glodps/172.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Alternatives to Polynomial Trend-Corrected Differences-In-Differences Models

Author

Listed:
  • Vandenberghe, Vincent

Abstract

A common problem with differences-in-differences (DD) estimates is the failure of the parallel-trend assumption. To cope with this, most authors include polynomial (linear, quadratic…) trends among the regressors, and estimate the treatment effect as a once-in-a-time trend shift. In practice that strategy does not work very well, because inter alia the estimation of the trend uses post-treatment data. An extreme case is when sample covers only one period before treatment and many after. Then the trend's estimate relies almost completely on post-treatment developments, and absorbs most of the treatment effect. What is needed is a method that i) uses pre-treatment observations to capture linear or non-linear trend differences, and ii) extrapolates these to compute the treatment effect. This paper shows how this can be achieved using a fully-flexible version of the canonical DD equation. It also contains an illustration using data on a 1994-2000 EU programme that was implemented in the Belgian province of Hainaut.

Suggested Citation

  • Vandenberghe, Vincent, 2018. "Alternatives to Polynomial Trend-Corrected Differences-In-Differences Models," GLO Discussion Paper Series 172, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:glodps:172
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/173223/1/GLO-DP-0172.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timothy Besley & Robin Burgess, 2004. "Can Labor Regulation Hinder Economic Performance? Evidence from India," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 119(1), pages 91-134.
    2. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2009. "Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 8769.
    3. Vincent Vandenberghe, 2016. "Treatment-Effect Identification Without Parallel paths An illustration in the case of Objective 1- Hainaut/Belgium, 1994-2006," Working Papers CEB 16-051, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    4. David H. Autor, 2003. "Outsourcing at Will: The Contribution of Unjust Dismissal Doctrine to the Growth of Employment Outsourcing," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 21(1), pages 1-42, January.
    5. Leora Friedberg, 1998. "Did Unilateral Divorce Raise Divorce Rates? Evidence from Panel Data," NBER Working Papers 6398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Justin Wolfers, 2006. "Did Unilateral Divorce Laws Raise Divorce Rates? A Reconciliation and New Results," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1802-1820, December.
    7. Mora, Ricardo & Reggio, Iliana, 2012. "Treatment effect identification using alternative parallel assumptions," UC3M Working papers. Economics we1233, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vandenberghe, Vincent, 2018. "Treatment-effect identification without parallel paths," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW), vol. 12, pages 1-19.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Treatment-Effect Analysis; Differences-in-Differences Models; Correction for trend differences;

    JEL classification:

    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • C4 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics
    • C5 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling

    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:zbw:glodps:172. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/glaboea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.