1
$\begingroup$

I remember reading a paper where the Difference-in-Differences was a bit special, but I had forgotten the details. My recollection was

  • Two time periods, specifically one time period before treatment and one time period after treatment.
  • The "treatment" was such that all firms had to comply with a certain share of a variable X.
  • The treatment group consisted of firms with very low (or zero) share of X before the treatment, and
  • The control group consisted of firms with a share already close to the required share of X before the treatment.

The idea was that the treatment group received most of the shock, while the control group was little affected.

Do you know a paper that uses such a framework?

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Take a look at Ch 5 of Mastering Metrics (Angrist and Pischke) or their earlier "Mostly harmless econometrics".

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This does not seem to answer the question, which is looking for the title of a paper. $\endgroup$ – Giskard Aug 14 at 18:52
  • $\begingroup$ My reading is that the OP is asking for examples that need not appear in papers as opposed to books. The book of course contains references to papers. $\endgroup$ – LutzHendricks Aug 15 at 19:04
  • $\begingroup$ @LutzHendricks Thanks. I know those books that tend to present the classic case (where only the treatment group is treated and not all the subjects). I'm really looking for papers here. $\endgroup$ – emeryville Aug 20 at 10:40
  • $\begingroup$ The chapter in Mostly Harmless Econometrics cites a few papers: Card, David, and Alan Krueger (1994): “Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.” The American Economic Review 84, 772-84. —— (2000): “Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania: Reply.” The American Economic Review 90, 1397-420. There also the papers by Pischke, Autor 2003, Card 1992. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are looking for, but these seem to fit the bill. $\endgroup$ – LutzHendricks Aug 20 at 20:01
  • $\begingroup$ @LutzHendricks I am aware of this paper. See this thread. In Card-Krueger only New Jersey raised the state minimum, not eastern Pennsylvania. Please read my "treatment" and the difference between my treatment and control groups. $\endgroup$ – emeryville Aug 22 at 7:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.