IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/erm/papers/1004.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Treatment Effect, the Cross Difference, and the Interaction Term in Nonlinear “Difference-in-Differences” Models

Author

Listed:
  • PUHANI P-A.

Abstract

I demonstrate that Ai and Norton’s (2003) point about cross differences is not relevant for the estimation of the treatment effect in nonlinear “difference-in-differences” models such as probit, logit or tobit, because the cross difference is not equal to the treatment effect, which is the parameter of interest. In a nonlinear “difference-in-differences” model, the treatment effect is the cross difference of the conditional expectation of the observed outcome minus the cross difference of the conditional expectation of the potential outcome without treatment. Unlike in the linear model, the latter cross difference is not zero in the nonlinear model. It follows that the sign of the treatment effect in a nonlinear “difference-in-differences” model with a strictly monotonic transformation function is equal to the sign of the coefficient of the interaction term of the time and treatment group indicators. The treatment effect is simply the incremental effect of the coefficient of the interaction term.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Puhani P-A., 2010. "The Treatment Effect, the Cross Difference, and the Interaction Term in Nonlinear “Difference-in-Differences” Models," Working Papers ERMES 1004, ERMES, University Paris 2.
    • Handle: RePEc:erm:papers:1004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ermes.u-paris2.fr/doctrav/1004
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Angrist, Joshua D. & Krueger, Alan B., 1999. "Empirical strategies in labor economics," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 23, pages 1277-1366, Elsevier.
    2. Richard Blundell & Monica Costa Dias, 2009. "Alternative Approaches to Evaluation in Empirical Microeconomics," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 44(3).
    3. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2006. "Identification and Inference in Nonlinear Difference-in-Differences Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(2), pages 431-497, March.
    4. Heckman, James J. & Lalonde, Robert J. & Smith, Jeffrey A., 1999. "The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 31, pages 1865-2097, Elsevier.
    5. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(1), pages 249-275.
    6. Meyer, Bruce D, 1995. "Natural and Quasi-experiments in Economics," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 13(2), pages 151-161, April.
    7. Lechner, Michael, 2011. "The Estimation of Causal Effects by Difference-in-Difference Methods," Foundations and Trends(R) in Econometrics, now publishers, vol. 4(3), pages 165-224, November.
    8. Ai, Chunrong & Norton, Edward C., 2003. "Interaction terms in logit and probit models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 123-129, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rodger Barros Antunes Campos & Gustavo Pereira Serra, 2020. "The decision on unconstitutionality of earmarking and its impact on the housing access: Evidence from São Paulo State, Brazil," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(1), pages 25-42, February.
    2. Christian Volpe Martincus, 2010. "Odyssey in International Markets: An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Export Promotion in Latin America and the Caribbean," IDB Publications (Books), Inter-American Development Bank, number 16458, February.
    3. Lechner, Michael, 2011. "The Estimation of Causal Effects by Difference-in-Difference Methods," Foundations and Trends(R) in Econometrics, now publishers, vol. 4(3), pages 165-224, November.
    4. Christian Volpe Martincus & Jerónimo Carballo, 2010. "Is Export Promotion Effective in Developing Countries? Firm-Level Evidence on the Intensive and Extensive Margins of Exports," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 36763, Inter-American Development Bank.
    5. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    6. Barkowski, Scott, 2021. "Interpretation of nonlinear difference-in-differences: the role of the parallel trends assumption," MPRA Paper 108975, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Jones A.M & Rice N, 2009. "Econometric Evaluation of Health Policies," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 09/09, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    8. Goodman-Bacon, Andrew, 2021. "Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 225(2), pages 254-277.
    9. Volpe Martincus, Christian & Carballo, Jerónimo, 2008. "Is export promotion effective in developing countries? Firm-level evidence on the intensive and the extensive margins of exports," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 89-106, September.
    10. Joan Costa-Font & Nilesh Raut & Courtney H. Van Houtven, 2024. "Medicaid Expansion and the Mental Health of Spousal Caregivers," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 1047-1084, September.
    11. Ciani Emanuele & Fisher Paul, 2019. "Dif-in-Dif Estimators of Multiplicative Treatment Effects," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, January.
    12. Christian Volpe Martincus & Jerónimo Carballo, 2010. "Entering new country and product markets: does export promotion help?," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 146(3), pages 437-467, September.
    13. Christian Volpe Martincus & Jerónimo Carballo, 2012. "Export promotion activities in developing countries: What kind of trade do they promote?," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 539-578, June.
    14. Nguyen, Hai V., 2013. "Do smoke-free car laws work? Evidence from a quasi-experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 138-148.
    15. Mazzutti, Caio Cícero Toledo Piza da Costa, 2016. "Three essays on the causal impacts of child labour laws in Brazil," Economics PhD Theses 0616, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    16. Haeck, Catherine & Lefebvre, Pierre & Merrigan, Philip, 2014. "The distributional impacts of a universal school reform on mathematical achievements: A natural experiment from Canada," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 137-160.
    17. James J. Heckman, 2008. "The Principles Underlying Evaluation Estimators with an Application to Matching," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 91-92, pages 9-73.
    18. Myoung-jae Lee, 2016. "Generalized Difference in Differences With Panel Data and Least Squares Estimator," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 45(1), pages 134-157, February.
    19. Timothy G. Conley & Christopher R. Taber, 2011. "Inference with "Difference in Differences" with a Small Number of Policy Changes," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(1), pages 113-125, February.
    20. Maribel Jiménez Martínez & Mónica Jiménez Martínez & Rocío Romero-Jarén, 2020. "How resilient is the labour market against natural disaster? Evaluating the effects from the 2010 earthquake in Chile," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 104(2), pages 1481-1533, November.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • H0 - Public Economics - - General
    • I0 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - General
    • J0 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:erm:papers:1004. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ermp2fr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.