| Popis: |
Consider a very general setting in which data on an outcome of interest is collected in two `groups' at two time periods, with certain group-periods deemed `treated' and others `untreated'. A special case is the canonical Difference-in-Differences (DiD) setting in which one group is treated only in the second period while the other is treated in neither period. Then it is well known that under a parallel trends assumption across the two groups the classic DiD formula (subtracting the average change in the outcome across periods in the treated group by the average change in the outcome across periods in the untreated group) identifies the average treatment effect on the treated in the second period. But other relations between group, period, and treatment are possible. For example, the groups might be demographic (or other baseline covariate) categories with all units in both groups treated in the second period and none treated in the first, i.e. a pre-post design. Or one group might be treated in both periods while the other is treated in neither. In these non-canonical settings (lacking a control group or a pre-period), some researchers still compute DiD estimators, while others avoid causal inference altogether. In this paper, we will elucidate the group-period-treatment scenarios and corresponding parallel trends assumptions under which a DiD formula identifies meaningful causal estimands and what those causal estimands are. We find that in non-canonical settings, under a group parallel trends assumption the DiD formula identifies effect heterogeneity in the treated across groups or across time periods (depending on the setting). |
