Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Difference-in-differences (DID) research designs usually rely on variation of treatment timing such that, after making an appropriate parallel trends assumption, one can identify, estimate, and make inference about causal effects. In practice, however, different DID procedures rely on different parallel trends assumptions (PTAs), and recover different causal parameters. In this paper, we focus on staggered DID (also referred as event studies) and discuss the role played by the PTA in terms of identification and estimation of causal parameters. We document a “robustness” versus “efficiency” trade-off in terms of the strength of the underlying PTA and argue that practitioners should be explicit about these trade-offs whenever using DID procedures. We propose new DID estimators that reflect these trade-offs and derive their large sample properties. We illustrate the practical relevance of these results by assessing whether the transition from federal to state management of the Clean Water Act affects compliance rates.
Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists – University of Chicago Press
Published: Mar 1, 2021
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.