Interpretation of nonlinear difference-in-differences: the role of the parallel trends assumption

Barkowski, Scott (2021): Interpretation of nonlinear difference-in-differences: the role of the parallel trends assumption.

Abstract

I argue interpretation of nonlinear difference-in-differences models depends on the form of the parallel trends assumption. When they are assumed in the natural scale of the dependent variable, the treatment effect is the interaction effect (a cross-difference). If they are assumed in the transformed scale, it is a single difference. I further note that assuming parallel trends in one scale implies they do not hold in the other, except in special cases. Finally, I consider log-linear (and related) difference-in-differences models and provide a constant form of the treatment effect that is comparable across applications with different parallel trends assumptions.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Difference-in-differences; Nonlinear Models; Model Interpretation; Identification; Probit; Logit; Log-linear; Semilogarithmic
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C2 - Single Equation Models ; Single Variables > C21 - Cross-Sectional Models ; Spatial Models ; Treatment Effect Models ; Quantile Regressions; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C2 - Single Equation Models ; Single Variables > C23 - Panel Data Models ; Spatio-temporal Models; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C2 - Single Equation Models ; Single Variables > C25 - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models ; Discrete Regressors ; Proportions ; Probabilities

References

Ai, Chunrong and Edward C. Norton, “Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models,” Economics Letters, July 2003, 80 (1), 123–129.

Angrist, Joshua D. and Jorn-Steffen Pischke, Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion, Princeton University Press, January 2009.

Athey, Susan and Guido W Imbens, “Identiffcation and Inference in Nonlinear Difference-in-Differences Models,” Econometrica, March 2006, 74 (2), 431–497.

Blundell, Richard and Monica Costa Dias, “Alternative Approaches to Evaluation in Empirical Microeconomics,” Journal of Human Resources, 2009, 44 (3), 565–640.

Blundell, Richard, Monica Costa Dias, Costas Meghir, and John van Reenen, “Evaluating the Employment Impact of a Mandatory Job Search Program,” Journal of the European Economic Association, June 2004, 2 (4), 569–606.

Kahn-Lang, Ariella and Kevin Lang, “The Promise and Pitfalls of Differences-in-Differences: Reflections on 16 and Pregnant and Other Applications,” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, July 2020, 38 (3), 613–620.

Lechner, Michael, “The Estimation of Causal Effects by Difference-in-Difference Methods,” Foundations and Trends in Econometrics, 2011, 4 (3), 165–224.

Meyer, Bruce D., “Natural and Quasi-Experiments in Economics,” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, April 1995, 13 (2), 151–161.

Mullahy, John, “Interaction Effects and Difference-in-Difference Estimation in Loglinear Models,” NBER Technical Working Paper 0245, National Bureau of Economic Research November 1999.

Puhani, Patrick A., “The Treatment Effect, the Cross Difference, and the Interaction Term in Nonlinear “Difference-in-Differences” Models,” Economics Letters, April 2012, 115 (1), 85–87.

Roth, Jonathan and Pedro H. C. Sant’Anna, “When Is Parallel Trends Sensitive to Functional Form?,” Working Paper January 2021.

Ryan, Andrew M., James F. Burgess, and Justin B. Dimick, “Why We Should Not Be Indifferent to Specification Choices for Difference-in-Differences,” Health Services Research, 2015, 50 (4), 1211–1235.

Shang, Shengwu, Erik Nesson, and Maoyong Fan, “Interaction Terms in Poisson and Log Linear Regression Models,” Bulletin of Economic Research, January 2018, 70 (1), E89–E96.