Same Root Different Leaves: Time Series and Cross-Sectional Methods in Panel Data

IF 6.6 1区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS Econometrica Pub Date : 2023-12-07 DOI:10.3982/ECTA21248
Dennis Shen, Peng Ding, Jasjeet Sekhon, Bin Yu
{"title":"Same Root Different Leaves: Time Series and Cross-Sectional Methods in Panel Data","authors":"Dennis Shen,&nbsp;Peng Ding,&nbsp;Jasjeet Sekhon,&nbsp;Bin Yu","doi":"10.3982/ECTA21248","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p>One dominant approach to evaluate the causal effect of a treatment is through panel data analysis, whereby the behaviors of multiple units are observed over time. The information across time and units motivates two general approaches: (i) horizontal regression (i.e., unconfoundedness), which exploits time series patterns, and (ii) vertical regression (e.g., synthetic controls), which exploits cross-sectional patterns. Conventional wisdom often considers the two approaches to be different. We establish this position to be partly false for estimation but generally true for inference. In the absence of any assumptions, we show that both approaches yield algebraically equivalent point estimates for several standard estimators. However, the source of randomness assumed by each approach leads to a distinct estimand and quantification of uncertainty even for the same point estimate. This emphasizes that researchers should carefully consider where the randomness stems from in their data, as it has direct implications for the accuracy of inference.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50556,"journal":{"name":"Econometrica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.3982/ECTA21248","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Econometrica","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3982/ECTA21248","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

One dominant approach to evaluate the causal effect of a treatment is through panel data analysis, whereby the behaviors of multiple units are observed over time. The information across time and units motivates two general approaches: (i) horizontal regression (i.e., unconfoundedness), which exploits time series patterns, and (ii) vertical regression (e.g., synthetic controls), which exploits cross-sectional patterns. Conventional wisdom often considers the two approaches to be different. We establish this position to be partly false for estimation but generally true for inference. In the absence of any assumptions, we show that both approaches yield algebraically equivalent point estimates for several standard estimators. However, the source of randomness assumed by each approach leads to a distinct estimand and quantification of uncertainty even for the same point estimate. This emphasizes that researchers should carefully consider where the randomness stems from in their data, as it has direct implications for the accuracy of inference.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
同根不同叶:面板数据中的时间序列和横截面方法
评估一种处理方法的因果效应的一种主要方法是通过面板数据分析,即观察多个单位在一段时间内的行为。跨时间和跨单位的信息激发了两种一般方法:(i) 横向回归(即无边界性),利用时间序列模式;(ii) 纵向回归(如合成控制),利用横截面模式。传统观点通常认为这两种方法是不同的。我们认为这种观点在估计方面部分是错误的,但在推断方面一般是正确的。在没有任何假设的情况下,我们证明这两种方法都能对几个标准估计值产生代数上等价的点估计值。然而,每种方法所假设的随机性来源都会导致不同的估计值和不确定性量化,即使对于相同的点估计值也是如此。这强调了研究人员应仔细考虑数据中的随机性来源,因为它对推断的准确性有直接影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Econometrica
Econometrica 社会科学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
3.30%
发文量
75
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Econometrica publishes original articles in all branches of economics - theoretical and empirical, abstract and applied, providing wide-ranging coverage across the subject area. It promotes studies that aim at the unification of the theoretical-quantitative and the empirical-quantitative approach to economic problems and that are penetrated by constructive and rigorous thinking. It explores a unique range of topics each year - from the frontier of theoretical developments in many new and important areas, to research on current and applied economic problems, to methodologically innovative, theoretical and applied studies in econometrics. Econometrica maintains a long tradition that submitted articles are refereed carefully and that detailed and thoughtful referee reports are provided to the author as an aid to scientific research, thus ensuring the high calibre of papers found in Econometrica. An international board of editors, together with the referees it has selected, has succeeded in substantially reducing editorial turnaround time, thereby encouraging submissions of the highest quality. We strongly encourage recent Ph. D. graduates to submit their work to Econometrica. Our policy is to take into account the fact that recent graduates are less experienced in the process of writing and submitting papers.
期刊最新文献
Random Votes to Parties and Policies in Coalition Governments Can Deficits Finance Themselves? Frontmatter of Econometrica Vol. 92 Iss. 5 On the Structure of Informationally Robust Optimal Mechanisms Lifestyle Behaviors and Wealth-Health Gaps in Germany
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1