How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates?

Most Difference-in-Difference (DD) papers rely on many years of data and focus on serially correlated outcomes. Yet almost all these papers ignore the bias in the estimated standard errors that serial correlation introduce4s. This is especially troubling because the independent variable of interest in DD estimation (e.g., the passage of law) is itself very serially correlated, which will exacerbate the bias in standard errors. 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 for this estimate. The standard errors are severely biased: with about 20 years of data, DD estimation finds an 'effect' significant at the 5% level of up to 45% of the placebo laws. Two very simple techniques can solve this problem for large sample sizes. The first technique consists in collapsing the data and ignoring the time-series variation altogether; the second technique is to estimate standard errors while allowing for an arbitrary covariance structure between time periods. We also suggest a third technique, based on randomization inference testing methods, which works well irrespective of sample size. This technique uses the empirical distribution of estimated effects for placebo laws to form the test distribution.

[1]  G. Kézdi Robust Standard Error Estimation in Fixed-Effects Panel Models , 2003 .

[2]  Jeffrey M. Wooldridge,et al.  Cluster-Sample Methods in Applied Econometrics , 2003 .

[3]  Jeffrey M. Woodbridge Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , 2002 .

[4]  Daniel F. McCaffrey,et al.  Bias reduction in standard errors for linear regression with multi-stage samples , 2002 .

[5]  Jeffrey M. Wooldridge,et al.  Solutions Manual and Supplementary Materials for Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , 2003 .

[6]  Seth Krantz,et al.  Discussion , 1998, Neuroscience.

[7]  Lawrence F. Katz,et al.  What We Know and Do Not Know About the Natural Rate of Unemployment , 1996 .

[8]  Paul R. Rosenbaum,et al.  6 Observational studies and nonrandomized experiments , 1996, Design and analysis of experiments.

[9]  David A. Jaeger,et al.  Problems with Instrumental Variables Estimation when the Correlation between the Instruments and the Endogenous Explanatory Variable is Weak , 1995 .

[10]  A. Case,et al.  Unnatural Experiments? Estimating the Incidence of Endogenous Policies , 1994 .

[11]  P. Rosenbaum Hodges-Lehmann Point Estimates of Treatment Effect in Observational Studies , 1993 .

[12]  Brent R. Moulton An Illustration of a Pitfall in Estimating the Effects of Aggregate Variables on Micro Unit , 1990 .

[13]  M. Nerlove,et al.  Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects , 1988 .

[14]  W. Newey,et al.  A Simple, Positive Semi-Definite, Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelationconsistent Covariance Matrix , 1986 .

[15]  H. White,et al.  Some heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimators with improved finite sample properties☆ , 1985 .

[16]  H. White Asymptotic theory for econometricians , 1985 .

[17]  Gary Solon,et al.  Estimating Autocorrelations in Fixed-Effects Models , 1984 .

[18]  Thomas MaCurdy,et al.  The use of time series processes to model the error structure of earnings in a longitudinal data analysis , 1982 .

[19]  Nicholas M. Kiefer,et al.  Estimation of fixed effect models for time series of cross-sections with arbitrary intertemporal covariance , 1980 .