Erin Strumpf | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

Which Policy Works, and Where? Estimation and Inference for State-Level Treatment Effects in Difference-in-Differences

Policies with a common objective and implementation date may differ in details or context. We distinguish the aggregate average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) from sub-aggregate ATTs defined by implementation cohort, jurisdiction, period, or policy type. UN-DID and DID-INT, two DiD estimators that construct jurisdiction-by-time effects, estimate these ATTs under parallel-trends conditions matched to the aggregation. In CPS placebo-law simulations, randomization inference is generally well-sized, though some jurisdiction-specific tests are conservative. The jackknife can be undefined for sub-aggregate ATTs; when defined, it over-rejects with few treated or comparison jurisdictions. Estimands and inference methods should match the policy question and implementation setting.

econ.EM↗

arXiv2024

Difference-in-Differences with Unpoolable Data

Difference-in-differences (DID) is commonly used to estimate treatment effects but is infeasible in settings where data are unpoolable due to privacy concerns or legal restrictions on data sharing, particularly across jurisdictions. In this study, we identify and relax the assumption of data poolability in DID estimation. We propose an innovative approach to estimate DID with unpoolable data (UN-DID) which can accommodate covariates, multiple groups, and staggered adoption. Through analytical proofs and Monte Carlo simulations, we show that UN-DID and conventional DID estimates of the average treatment effect and standard errors are equal and unbiased in settings without covariates. With covariates, both methods produce estimates that are unbiased, equivalent, and converge to the true value. The estimates differ slightly but the statistical inference and substantive conclusions remain the same. Two empirical examples with real-world data further underscore UN-DID's utility. The UN-DID method allows the estimation of cross-jurisdictional treatment effects with unpoolable data, enabling better counterfactuals to be used and new research questions to be answered.

econ.EM↗