Differences-in-Differences

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Different Methods of Impact Evaluation
Advertisements

1 Difference in Difference Models Bill Evans Spring 2008.
Review of Identifying Causal Effects Methods of Economic Investigation Lecture 13.
#ieGovern Impact Evaluation Workshop Istanbul, Turkey January 27-30, 2015 Measuring Impact 1 Non-experimental methods 2 Experiments Vincenzo Di Maro Development.
Methods of Economic Investigation Lecture 2
Random Assignment Experiments
Presented by Malte Lierl (Yale University).  How do we measure program impact when random assignment is not possible ?  e.g. universal take-up  non-excludable.
The counterfactual logic for public policy evaluation Alberto Martini hard at first, natural later 1.
Differences-in-Differences
Impact Evaluation Methods. Randomized Trials Regression Discontinuity Matching Difference in Differences.
Differences-in- Differences November 10, 2009 Erick Gong Thanks to Null & Miguel.
Public Policy & Evidence: How to discriminate, interpret and communicate scientific research to better inform society. Rachel Glennerster Executive Director.
Economics Prof. Buckles1 Time Series Data y t =  0 +  1 x t  k x tk + u t 1. Basic Analysis.
Clustered or Multilevel Data
Stat 217 – Day 25 Regression. Last Time - ANOVA When?  Comparing 2 or means (one categorical and one quantitative variable) Research question  Null.
1Prof. Dr. Rainer Stachuletz Time Series Data y t =  0 +  1 x t  k x tk + u t 1. Basic Analysis.
Impact Evaluation Session VII Sampling and Power Jishnu Das November 2006.
AADAPT Workshop Latin America Brasilia, November 16-20, 2009 Non-Experimental Methods Florence Kondylis.
Global Workshop on Development Impact Evaluation in Finance and Private Sector Rio de Janeiro, June 6-10, 2011 Mattea Stein Quasi Experimental Methods.
Error Component Models Methods of Economic Investigation Lecture 8 1.
University Prep Math Patricia van Donkelaar Course Outcomes By the end of the course,
Statistics and Quantitative Analysis U4320 Segment 12: Extension of Multiple Regression Analysis Prof. Sharyn O’Halloran.
CAUSAL INFERENCE Shwetlena Sabarwal Africa Program for Education Impact Evaluation Accra, Ghana, May 2010.
Matching Estimators Methods of Economic Investigation Lecture 11.
Application 3: Estimating the Effect of Education on Earnings Methods of Economic Investigation Lecture 9 1.
Nigeria Impact Evaluation Community of Practice Abuja, Nigeria, April 2, 2014 Measuring Program Impacts Through Randomization David Evans (World Bank)
Applying impact evaluation tools A hypothetical fertilizer project.
Non-experimental methods Markus Goldstein The World Bank DECRG & AFTPM.
Chapter 6 Introduction to Multiple Regression. 2 Outline 1. Omitted variable bias 2. Causality and regression analysis 3. Multiple regression and OLS.
AADAPT Workshop Latin America Brasilia, November 16-20, 2009 Laura Chioda.
Differences-in- Differences. Identifying Assumption Whatever happened to the control group over time is what would have happened to the treatment group.
Bilal Siddiqi Istanbul, May 12, 2015 Measuring Impact: Non-Experimental Methods.
Economics 20 - Prof. Anderson1 Time Series Data y t =  0 +  1 x t  k x tk + u t 1. Basic Analysis.
business analytics II ▌assignment four - solutions mba for yourself 
Systems of Equations.
Dependent-Samples t-Test
Measuring Results and Impact Evaluation: From Promises into Evidence
Quasi Experimental Methods I
Differences-in-Differences
Econometrics ITFD Week 8.
Quasi Experimental Methods I
An introduction to Impact Evaluation
Identification: Difference-in-Difference estimator
Experimental Research Designs
Difference-in-Differences
Economics 172 Issues in African Economic Development
QM222 Class 18 Omitted Variable Bias
Making the Most out of Discontinuities
March 2017 Susan Edwards, RTI International
Quasi-Experimental Methods
Economics 172 Issues in African Economic Development
Differences-in-Differences
S1316 analysis details Garnet Anderson Katie Arnold
Matching Methods & Propensity Scores
Matching Methods & Propensity Scores
Methods of Economic Investigation Lecture 12
Scatter Plots of Data with Various Correlation Coefficients
Cross Sectional Designs
Economics 20 - Prof. Anderson
Impact Evaluation Methods
Impact Evaluation Toolbox
Matching Methods & Propensity Scores
Ch. 13. Pooled Cross Sections Across Time: Simple Panel Data.
Impact Evaluation Methods: Difference in difference & Matching
Evaluating Impacts: An Overview of Quantitative Methods
Sampling and Power Slides by Jishnu Das.
Applying Impact Evaluation Tools: Hypothetical Fertilizer Project
Positive analysis in public finance
Chapter 9 Dummy Variables Undergraduated Econometrics Page 1
Ch. 13. Pooled Cross Sections Across Time: Simple Panel Data.
Presentation transcript:

Differences-in-Differences November 10, 2009 Erick Gong Thanks to Null & Miguel

Agenda Class Scheduling Diff-in-Diff (Math & Graphs) Case Study STATA Help

Class Scheduling Nov 10: Diff-in-Diff Nov 17: Power Calculations & Guest Speaker Nov 24: Class poll: Who will be here? Dec 1: Review & Presentations Class Poll: Who will be presenting their research proposals?

The Big Picture What is this class really about, anyway?

The Big Picture What is this class really about, anyway? Causality

The Big Picture What is this class really about, anyway? Causality What is our biggest problem?

The Big Picture What is this class really about, anyway? Causality What is our biggest problem? Omitted variable bias

Omitted Variable Bias The actual cause is unobserved e.g. higher wages for educated actually caused by motivation, not schooling Happens when people get to choose their own level of the “treatment” (broadly construed) Selection bias Non-random program placement Because of someone else’s choice, “control” isn’t a good counterfactual for treated

Math Review (blackboard)

Math Review (1) Yi = a + bTi + cXi + ei for those of you looking at these slides later, here’s what we just wrote down: (1) Yi = a + bTi + cXi + ei (2) E(Yi | Ti=1) – E(Yi | Ti=0) = [a + b + cE(Xi | Ti=1) + E(ei | Ti=1)] – [a + 0 + cE(Xi | Ti=0) + E(ei | Ti=0)] = b + c [E(Xi | Ti=1) – E(Xi | Ti=0)] True effect “Omitted variable/selection bias” term

What if we had data from before the program? What if we estimated this equation using data from before the program? (1) Yi = a + bTi + cXi + ei Specifically, what would our estimate of b be?

What if we had data from before the program? What if we estimated this equation using data from before the program? (1) Yi = a + bTi + cXi + ei (2) E(Yi0| Ti1=1) – E(Yi0| Ti1=0) = [a + 0 + cE(Xi0 | Ti1=1) + E(ei0| Ti1=1)] – [a + 0 + cE(Xi0| Ti1=0) + E(ei0| Ti1=0)] = c [E(Xi | Ti=1) – E(Xi | Ti=0)] “Omitted variable/selection bias” term ALL THAT’S LEFT IS THE PROBLEMATIC TERM – HOW COULD THIS BE HELPFUL TO US?

Differences-in-Differences (just what it sounds like) Use two periods of data add second subscript to denote time = {E(Yi1 | Ti1=1) – E(Yi1 | Ti1=0)} (difference btwn T&C, post) – {E(Yi0 | Ti1=1) – E(Yi0 | Ti1=0)} – (difference btwn T&C, pre) = b + c [E(Xi1 | Ti1=1) – E(Xi1 | Ti1=0)] – c [E(Xi0 | Ti1=1) – E(Xi0 | Ti1=0)]

Differences-in-Differences (just what it sounds like) Use two periods of data add second subscript to denote time = {E(Yi1 | Ti1=1) – E(Yi1 | Ti1=0)} (difference btwn T&C, post) – {E(Yi0 | Ti1=1) – E(Yi0 | Ti1=0)} – (difference btwn T&C, pre) = b + c [E(Xi1 | Ti1=1) – E(Xi1 | Ti1=0)] – c [E(Xi0 | Ti1=1) – E(Xi0 | Ti1=0)] = b YAY! Assume differences between X don’t change over time.

Differences-in-Differences, Graphically Treatment Control Pre Post

Differences-in-Differences, Graphically Effect of program using only pre- & post- data from T group (ignoring general time trend). Pre Post

Differences-in-Differences, Graphically Effect of program using only T & C comparison from post-intervention (ignoring pre-existing differences between T & C groups). Pre Post

Differences-in-Differences, Graphically Pre Post

Differences-in-Differences, Graphically Effect of program difference-in-difference (taking into account pre-existing differences between T & C and general time trend). Pre Post

Identifying Assumption Whatever happened to the control group over time is what would have happened to the treatment group in the absence of the program. Effect of program difference-in-difference (taking into account pre-existing differences between T & C and general time trend). Pre Post

Graphing Exercise Form Groups of 3-4 4 Programs Pre-Post Treatment Effect Take the difference of post-treatment outcome vs. pre-treatment outcome Post-intervention (Treatment vs. Control) Comparison Circle what you think is pre-post effect and post-intervention treat vs. control effect Ask group volunteers

Uses of Diff-in-Diff Simple two-period, two-group comparison very useful in combination with other methods

Uses of Diff-in-Diff Simple two-period, two-group comparison very useful in combination with other methods Randomization Regression Discontinuity Matching (propensity score)

Uses of Diff-in-Diff Simple two-period, two-group comparison very useful in combination with other methods Randomization Regression Discontinuity Matching (propensity score) Can also do much more complicated “cohort” analysis, comparing many groups over many time periods

The (Simple) Regression Yi,t = a + bTreati,t+ cPosti,t + d(Treati,tPosti,t )+ ei,t Treati,t is a binary indicator (“turns on” from 0 to 1) for being in the treatment group Posti,t is a binary indicator for the period after treatment and Treati,tPosti,t is the interaction (product) Interpretation of a, b, c, d is “holding all else constant”

Putting Graph & Regression Together Yi,t = a + bTreati,t+ cPosti,t + d(Treati,tPosti,t )+ ei,t d is the causal effect of treatment a + b + c + d a + b a + c a Pre Post

Putting Graph & Regression Together Yi,t = a + bTreati,t+ cPosti,t + d(Treati,tPosti,t )+ ei,t a + b + c + d Single Diff 2= (a+b+c+d)-(a+c) = (b+d) a + b Single Diff 1= (a+b)-(a)=b a + c a Pre Post

Putting Graph & Regression Together Yi,t = a + bTreati,t+ cPosti,t + d(Treati,tPosti,t )+ ei,t Diff-in-Diff=(Single Diff 2-Single Diff 1)=(b+d)-b=d a + b + c + d Single Diff 2 = (a+b+c+d)-(a+c) = (b+d) a + b Single Diff 1= (a+b)-(a)=b a + c a Pre Post

Cohort Analysis When you’ve got richer data, it’s not as easy to draw the picture or write the equations cross-section (lots of individuals at one point in time) time-series (one individual over lots of time) repeated cross-section (lots of individuals over several times)  panel (lots of individuals, multiple times for each)  Basically, control for each time period and each “group” (fixed effects) – the coefficient on the treatment dummy is the effect you’re trying to estimate

DiD Data Requirements Either repeated cross-section or panel Treatment can’t happen for everyone at the same time If you believe the identifying assumption, then you can analyze policies ex post Let’s us tackle really big questions that we’re unlikely to be able to randomize

Malaria Eradication in the Americas (Bleakley 2007) Question: What is the effect of malaria on economic development? Data: Malaria Eradication in United States South (1920’s) Brazil, Colombia, Mexico (1950’s) Diff-in-Diff: Use birth cohorts (old people vs. young people) & (regions with lots of malaria vs. little malaria) Idea: Young Cohort X Region w/malaria Result: This group higher income & literacy

What’s the intuition Areas with high pre-treatment malaria will most benefit from malaria eradication Young people living in these areas will benefit most (older people might have partial immunity) Comparison Group: young people living in low pre-treatment malaria areas (malaria eradication will have little effect here)

Robustness Checks If possible, use data on multiple pre-program periods to show that difference between treated & control is stable Not necessary for trends to be parallel, just to know function for each If possible, use data on multiple post-program periods to show that unusual difference between treated & control occurs only concurrent with program Alternatively, use data on multiple indicators to show that response to program is only manifest for those we expect it to be (e.g. the diff-in-diff estimate of the impact of ITN distribution on diarrhea should be zero)

Intermission Come back if intro to PS4 STATA tips

Effect of 2ndary School Construction in Tanzania Villages “Treatment Villages” got 2ndary schools “Control Villages” didn’t Who benefits from 2ndary schools? Young People benefit Older people out of school shouldn’t benefit Effect: (Young People X Treatment Villages)