{smcl}
{* *! version 1 2018-07-27}{...}
{viewerjumpto "Syntax" "did_multiplegt##syntax"}{...}
{viewerjumpto "Description" "did_multiplegt##description"}{...}
{viewerjumpto "Options" "did_multiplegt##options"}{...}
{viewerjumpto "Examples" "did_multiplegt##examples"}{...}
{viewerjumpto "Saved results" "did_multiplegt##saved_results"}{...}
{title:Title}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:did_multiplegt} {hline 2} Estimation in Difference-in-Difference (DID)
designs with multiple groups and periods.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
To estimate event-study/dynamic effects,
we recommend using the much faster {cmd:did_multiplegt_dyn} command,
available from the ssc repository.
{p_end}
{marker syntax}{...}
{title:Syntax}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:did_multiplegt Y G T D} {ifin}
[{cmd:,}
{cmd:robust_dynamic}
{cmd:dynamic(}{it:#}{cmd:)}
{cmd:placebo(}{it:#}{cmd:)}
{cmd:{ul:first}diff_placebo}
{cmd:controls(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)}
{cmd:trends_nonparam(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)}
{cmd:trends_lin(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)}
{cmd:count_switchers_contr}
{cmd:always_trends_nonparam}
{cmd:always_trends_lin}
{cmd:{ul:reca}t_treatment(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)}
{cmd:{ul:thresh}old_stable_treatment(}{it:#}{cmd:)}
{cmd:weight(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)}
{cmd:switchers(}{it:string}{cmd:)}
{cmd:if_first_diff(}{it:string}{cmd:)}
{cmd:count_switchers_tot}
{cmd:drop_larger_lower}
{cmd:discount(}{it:#}{cmd:)}
{cmd:breps(}{it:#}{cmd:)}
{cmd:cluster(}{it:varname}{cmd:)}
{cmd:seed(}{it:#}{cmd:)}
{cmd:graphoptions(}{it:string}{cmd:)}
{cmd:{ul:sav}e_results(}{it:path}{cmd:)}]
{p_end}
{synoptset 28 tabbed}{...}
{marker description}{...}
{title:Description}
{p 4 4}
{cmd:did_multiplegt} estimates the effect of a treatment on an outcome, using group-
(e.g. county- or
state-) level panel data with multiple groups and periods.
The panel of groups may be unbalanced: not all groups have to be observed at every period (see FAQ section
for more info on that).
The data may also be at a more disaggregated level than the group level
(e.g. individual-level
wage data to measure the effect of a regional-level minimum-wage on individuals' wages).
The treatment need not be binary.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:Y} is the outcome variable.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:G} is the group variable.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:T} is the time period variable.
The command assumes that the time variable is evenly spaced (e.g.: the panel is at the yearly level,
and no year is missing for all groups).
When it is not (e.g.: the panel is at the yearly level,
but three consecutive years are missing for all
groups), the command can still be used,
though it requires a bit of tweaking, see FAQ section below.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
{cmd:D} is the treatment variable.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}If the option {cmd:breps(}{it:#}{cmd:)} is not specified,
the command executes 50 bootstrap replications by default.
To get reliable standard error estimates,
we recommend running a greater number of replications.
However, bootstrap replications considerably increase the command's running time,
so if one just wants to get a sense of what the point estimates
look like without having to wait for too long, one can request
a lower number of bootstrap replications.
With strictly less than two replications,
the command does not produce a table and a graph.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
If the {cmd:robust_dynamic} option is not specified,
the command computes the DID_M estimator introduced in de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfoeuille (2020a),
which can be used in sharp designs where the treatment varies at the group*time level.
DID_M is a weighted average,
across time periods t and treatment values d, of DID estimators comparing the t-1 to t outcome evolution,
in groups whose treatment changes from d to some other value from t-1 to t,
and in groups whose treatment is equal to d at both dates.
DID_M estimates the effect of the current treatment on the outcome,
in groups whose treatment switches.
If there are no dynamic effects,
meaning that past treatments do not affect the current outcome,
DID_M is unbiased even if the treatment effect is heterogeneous across groups or over time.
If there are dynamic effects,
DID_M may be biased, except if the treatment is binary and
the design is staggered, meaning that groups can switch in but not out of the treatment.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
If the {cmd:robust_dynamic} option is specified,
the command computes the DID_l estimators introduced in de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfoeuille (2020b),
which can be used in sharp designs, and in some fuzzy designs where the treatment varies within group*time,
see de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfoeuille (2020b) for further details.
DID_l is a weighted average, across time periods t and possible values of the treatment d,
of DIDs comparing the t-l-1 to t outcome evolution,
in groups with a treatment equal to d at the start of the panel and whose treatment changed for the first time in t-l, the first-time switchers,
and in groups with a treatment equal to d from period 1 to t,
the not-yet switchers.
DID_l estimates the effect of having switched treatment for the first time l periods ago.
The DID_l estimators are unbiased under heterogeneous and dynamic effects.
DID_0 is always computed by the command, and if the {cmd:dynamic(}{it:L}{cmd:)} option is specified,
the DID_l estimators are also computed for l in {1,...,L}.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
The command can also compute placebo estimators,
that can be used to test the non-anticipation,
strong exogeneity, and parallel trends assumptions underlying the DID_M and DID_l estimators.
If strictly more than one placebo is requested,
and strictly more than one bootstrap replication is executed,
the command computes the p-value of a joint test that all the placebos requested are equal to 0,
and stores it in {cmd:e()}.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
When the options {cmd:controls(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)},
{cmd:trends_nonparam(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)} and
{cmd:trends_lin(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)} are specified,
the installation of the {cmd:reghdfe}, {cmd:ftools} and {cmd:moremata} packages is required.
Then, the command checks if the packages are already installed, and installs them if they are not.
{p_end}
{marker options}{...}
{title:Options}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:robust_dynamic}: if that option is not specified,
the estimators in de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfoeuille (2020a) are computed.
If it is specified, the estimators in de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfoeuille (2020b) are computed.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:dynamic(}{it:#}{cmd:)} gives the number of dynamic treatment effects to be estimated.
This option can only be used when the {cmd:robust_dynamic} option is specified.
DID_l,
the estimator of the lth dynamic effect,
compares first-time switchers' and not-yet switchers' outcome evolution,
from the last period before first-time switchers' treatment changes to the lth period after that change.
With a balanced panel of groups,
the maximum number of dynamic effects one can estimate can be determined as follows.
For each value of the treatment d,
start by computing the difference between the last period at which at least one group has had treatment d since period 1,
and the first period at which a group with treatment d at period 1 changed its treatment.
Then, the maximum number of dynamic effects is equal to the maximum of those values,
across all possible values of the treatment.
With an unbalanced panel of groups (e.g.: counties appear or disappear over time if the data is a county-level panel),
this method can still be used to derive an upper bound of the maximum number of dynamic effects one can estimate.
See de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfoeuille (2020b) for further details.
DID_l estimates the effect of having switched treatment for the first time l periods ago.
In a staggered design with a binary treatment,
groups that have switched treatment l periods ago have gone from untreated to treated, and have remained treated thereafter.
Accordingly, DID_l estimates the cumulative effect of having been treated for l+1 periods.
Outside of staggered designs,
some initially untreated groups may switch to being treated and may remain treated thereafter,
other groups may revert to being untreated just after that first switch,
other groups may alternate between treated and untreated, etc.
Then, DID_l cannot be directly converted into an effect per unit of treatment received.
If the user requests at least one dynamic effect,
the command computes an estimator of the change in outcome created by a one-unit change in treatment.
This estimator is constructed in three steps.
First, the command computes a weighted average of the DID_l estimators,
giving to each estimator a weight proportional to the number of switchers DID_l applies to.
Second, the command computes a weighted average of estimators similar to the DID_l,
except that the outcome variable is replaced by the treatment.
This weighted average estimates the average number of treatment units received by switchers after their first switch,
relative to the counterfactual where they would have kept their period-one treatment all along.
Finally, the command computes the ratio of these two estimators.
This ratio estimates the ``intention-to-treat'' effect of first switches on the outcome,
and scales it by the ``first-stage'' effect of first switches on the treatments received thereafter.
Accordingly, it estimates some average of the change in outcome created by a one-unit change in treatment.
This ratio is stored under {cmd:effect_average} in {cmd:e()}.
See de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfoeuille (2020b) for further details.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:placebo(}{it:#}{cmd:)} gives the number of placebo estimators to be estimated.
When the {cmd:robust_dynamic} option is not specified,
the lth placebo compares switchers' and non switchers'
outcome evolution from the l+1th to the lth period before switchers' treatment changes,
in the sample of groups whose treatment does not change from the l+1th to the last period before the switch.
When the {cmd:robust_dynamic} option is specified,
placebo estimators compare first-time switchers' and not-yet switchers' outcome evolution,
before first-time switchers' treatment changes.
The exact comparisons made are described in the discussion of the {cmd:firstdiff_placebo} option below.
The number of placebos requested can be at most equal to the number of time periods in the data minus 2,
though most often only a smaller number of placebos can be computed.
See de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfoeuille (2020b) for further details.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:firstdiff_placebo}: when this option is specified,
the lth placebo compares first-time switchers' and not-yet switchers' outcome evolution,
from the l+1th to the lth period before first-time switchers' treatment changes.
Thus, the lth placebo assesses if parallel trends holds over 2 consecutive periods,
l periods before switchers switch.
Such first-difference placebos may be useful to test the no-anticipation assumption.
If parallel trends holds but the treatment, say, one period ahead has an effect on the current outcome,
one should find that the first first-difference placebo differs from 0, but others do not.
When this option is not specified and the {cmd:robust_dynamic} option is specified,
long-difference placebos are computed.
The lth placebo compares first-time switchers' and not-yet switchers' outcome evolution,
from the last period before first-time switchers' treatment changes
to the l+1th period before that change
(this comparison goes from the future towards the past,
to be consistent with event-study
regressions where everything is relative to the period prior to the event).
Thus, the lth placebo assesses if parallel trends
holds over l+1 periods,
the number of periods over which parallel trends has to hold for the lth dynamic effect to be unbiased.
See de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfoeuille (2020b) for further details.
When the {cmd:firstdiff_placebo} option is not requested and the {cmd:dynamic} option is requested,
the number of placebos requested cannot be larger than the number of dynamic effects.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:controls(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)} gives the names of all the control variables to be included in the estimation.
The DID_M and DID_l estimators with controls are similar to those without controls,
except that the first-difference of the outcome is replaced by residuals from regressions
of the first-difference of the outcome on the first-differences of the controls and time fixed effects.
Those regressions are estimated in the sample of control (g,t)s:
(g,t)s such that group g's treatment does not change from t-1 to t for the DID_M estimator,
and (g,t)s such that group g's treatment has not changed till period t for the DID_l estimators.
Those regressions are also estimated separately for each possible value of the treatment,
or for each set of treatment values binned together if the {cmd:recat_treatment(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)} option is used.
If one of these regressions has fewer observations than the number of control variables,
a warning message appears.
Even if the warning does not appear,
some of these regressions could still have too many controls,
if they have fewer observations than the number of time fixed effects plus the number of control variables.
In that case, not all control variables are accounted for.
Estimators with controls are unbiased even if groups experience differential trends,
provided such differential trends can be fully explained by a linear model in covariates changes.
See de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfoeuille (2020b) for further details.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:trends_nonparam(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)}: when this option is specified,
the DID_M (resp. DID_l) estimator is a weighted average of DIDs comparing switchers and
non switchers (resp. first-time switchers and not yet switchers) with the same value of {it:varlist}.
Estimators with the {cmd:trends_nonparam(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)} option are unbiased even if groups experience differential trends,
provided all groups with the same value of {it:varlist} experience parallel trends.
{it:varlist} can only include one categorical variable,
and that variable must be strictly coarser than the group variable.
For instance, if one works with a county*year data set
and one wants to allow for state-specific trends,
then one should write {cmd:trends_nonparam(}state{cmd:)},
where state is the state identifier.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:trends_lin(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)}: when this option is specified, fixed effects for each value of {it:varlist}
are included as controls when residualizing the first-difference
of the outcome.
This is equivalent to allowing for {it:varlist}-specific linear trends.
Estimators with the {cmd:trends_lin(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)} option are unbiased even if the outcome evolution in each group follows its own linear trend,
provided that between each pair of consecutive periods,
all groups' potential outcomes experience the same deviation from their {it:varlist}-specific linear trends.
{it:varlist} can only include one categorical variable, and that variable must be weakly coarser than the group variable.
For instance, suppose one works with a village*year data set,
where the treatment is at the county*year level.
If one wants to allow for village-specific linear trends,
the group variable should also be village: with county as the group variable,
the variable in the {cmd:trends_lin(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)}
option would not be weakly coarser than the group variable.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:count_switchers_contr}: when this option is specified,
the command counts the number of switchers for which counterfactual trends
are estimated accounting for the controls requested in
{cmd:trends_nonparam(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)}
or {cmd:trends_lin(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)}.
Assume one works with a county*year data set,
to study the effect of a treatment taking values in {0,1,...10}.
Then, assume that one wants to compute the DID_M estimator,
allowing for state-specific trends.
There may be a county going from, say,
8 to 9 units of treatment between t-1 and t,
while no other county in the same state receives 8 units of treatment at both dates.
Then, one cannot estimate that county's
counterfactual trend controlling for state-specific trends.
Instead, the command uses
by default counties from other states receiving 8 units of
treatment at both dates to estimate that county's counterfactual trend.
Similarly, assume one would like to allow for county-specific linear trends,
but that same county is never observed with 8 units of treatment at two counsecutive dates.
Then, the linear trend of that county's outcome with 8 units of treatment cannot be estimated.
Instead, to estimate that county's linear trend the command uses the average linear trend across
all counties observed with 8 units of treatment at at least two counsecutive dates.
On the other hand, if the {cmd:always_trends_nonparam} or
{cmd:always_trends_lin} option is specified,
counties for which the counterfactual trend cannot be estimated controlling
for state-specific trends are dropped from the estimation.
The {cmd:count_switchers_contr} option allows one to know
for how many switchers counterfactual trends
cannot be estimated accounting for the controls requested in
{cmd:trends_nonparam(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)}
or {cmd:trends_lin(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)}
and have to be estimated differently.
When {cmd:count_switchers_contr} is specified,
{cmd:trends_nonparam(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)} or
{cmd:trends_lin(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)} should also be specified.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:always_trends_nonparam}: when this option and the
{cmd:trends_nonparam(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)} option are specified,
switchers with no control within the group of observations
with the same value of {it:varlist} are dropped
from the estimation.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:always_trends_lin}: when this option and the
{cmd:trends_lin(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)} option are specified,
switchers whose linear trend cannot
be estimated are dropped from the estimation.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:recat_treatment(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)}
bins some values of the treatment
together when determining the groups whose outcome evolution are compared.
This option may be useful when the treatment takes many values,
or some values are rare in the sample.
For instance,
assume that treatment D takes the values 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4.
One would like to compute the DID_M estimator,
but few observations have a treatment equal to 2.
Then, there may be a pair of consecutive time periods
where one group goes from 2 to 3 units of treatment but
no group has a treatment equal to 2 at both dates.
To avoid losing that observation,
one can create a variable D_recat that takes the same value when
D=1 or 2 (e.g.: D_recat=(D>=1)+(D>=3)+(D>=4)),
and then specify the {cmd:recat_treatment(}D_recat{cmd:)} option.
Then, the command can also use groups with a treatment equal
to 1 at two consecutive dates as controls
for groups going from 2 to 3 units of treatment,
thus making it more likely
that all switchers have a non empty set of controls.
When the {cmd:recat_treatment(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)} option is specified,
the DID_M and DID_l estimators rely
on the assumption that within the sets of treatment values grouped together,
the treatment effect is constant over time (but it can still vary between groups).
In the example, the effect of going from 1 to 2 units
of treatment should remain constant over time,
while the effect of going from 1 or 2
to 3 or 4 units of treatment can vary over time.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:threshold_stable_treatment(}{it:#}{cmd:)}: this option may be useful when the treatment is continuous, or takes a large number of values.
For instance, the DID_M estimator uses as controls groups whose treatment does not change between consecutive time periods.
With a continuous treatment, there may not be any pair of consecutive time periods between which the treatment of at least one group remains perfectly stable.
For instance, if the treatment is rainfall and one uses a county*year data set,
there is probably not a single county*year
whose rainfall is exactly the same as in the same county in the previous year.
Then, one needs to specify the {cmd:threshold_stable_treatment(}{it:#}{cmd:)} option, with {it:#} a positive real number.
For each pair of consecutive time periods,
the command will use counties whose rainfall changed in absolute value by less than {it:#} as controls.
{it:#} should be large enough so that there are counties whose rainfall levels change by less than {it:#} between two consecutive years,
but it should be small enough so that a change in rainfall of {it:#} would be unlikely to affect the outcome.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:weight(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)} gives the name of a variable to be used to weight the data.
For instance,
if one works with a district*year data set and one wants to weight the estimation by each district*year's population,
one should write {cmd:weight(}population{cmd:)},
where population is the population in each district*year.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:switchers(}{it:string}{cmd:)}: with a binary treatment,
one may be interested in estimating the treatment effect only among switchers or first-time switchers that go from untreated to treated.
In that case, one should specify the {cmd:switchers(}{it:in}{cmd:)} option.
Conversely, one may be interested in estimating
the treatment effect only among switchers or first-time switchers that go from treated to untreated.
In that case,
one should specify the {cmd:switchers(}{it:out}{cmd:)} option.
With a non-binary treatment and if the {cmd:robust_dynamic} option is not specified, with the {cmd:switchers(}{it:in}{cmd:)}
(resp. {cmd:switchers(}{it:out}{cmd:)}) option the command estimates the treatment
effect among switchers whose treatment increases (resp. decreases) between t-1 and t.
With a non-binary treatment and if the {cmd:robust_dynamic} option is specified, with the {cmd:switchers(}{it:in}{cmd:)} (resp. {cmd:switchers(}{it:out}{cmd:)})
option the command estimates the treatment effect among first-time switchers whose average treatment over the duration of the panel is higher
(resp. lower) than if they had never switched.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:if_first_diff(}{it:string}{cmd:)}: when this option is specified,
the command deletes observations that do not meet the condition specified in {it:string},
after having taken first differences of the outcome treatment and controls at the (g,t) level.
This option may for instance be useful when one estimates dynamic effects,
and one would like all the dynamic effects to apply to the same groups,
see the FAQ section below.
This option can also be useful when one wants to compute the DIDM estimator,
controlling for other treatments that may change over the panel,
as proposed by de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfoeuille (2020c),
see the FAQ section below as well.
This option can only be used if the data is aggregated at the (g,t) level.
If it is not, you need to aggregate your data at that level before running the command.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:count_switchers_tot}: when this option is specified,
the command counts the number of switchers or first-time switchers for which each
of the instantaneous and dynamic effects requested
are observed in the data.
This number may be larger than the number of switchers of first-time switchers for which each effect can be estimated.
For instance, assume treatment is binary,
the data has 10 periods, the {cmd:robust_dynamic} and
{cmd:dynamic(}{it:5}{cmd:)} options are specified,
and all groups initially untreated have been treated at least once at period 7.
Then, from period 7 onwards there is no not-yet switcher group
one can use to estimate the treatment effects of groups that switched from untreated to treated.
Accordingly, for a group treated for the first time at period 2,
the dynamic effect 5 periods after her first switch is observed in the data but cannot be estimated.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:drop_larger_lower}: This option is only relevant when the treatment is non-binary,
and when the {cmd:robust_dynamic} option is specified.
It drops all the (g,t)s such that at t,
group g has experienced both a strictly larger and a strictly lower treatment than its period-one treatment.
Then, the comparison of the actual and status quo potential outcomes of those (g,t) cells bundles together effects of increases and decreases of their current and past treatments,
and may for instance be negative even if increasing the current and past treatments always increases the outcome.
See de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfoeuille (2020b) for further details.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:discount(}{it:#}{cmd:)}: this option can be used if one wants to discount the treatment effects and the treatments occurring later in the panel.
For instance, if {cmd:discount(}{it:0.95}{cmd:)} is specified, the command
will use a discount factor of 0.95. See de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfoeuille (2020b) for further details.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:breps(}{it:#}{cmd:)} gives the number of bootstrap replications to be used in the computation of estimators' standard errors.
If that option is not specified, the default value is 50 bootstrap replications.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:cluster(}{it:varname}{cmd:)} computes the standard errors of the estimators using a block bootstrap at the {it:varname} level.
Only one clustering variable is allowed.
A common practice
in DID analysis is to cluster standard errors at the group level.
If the {cmd:cluster(}{it:varname}{cmd:)} option is not specified,
the bootstrap is still automatically clustered at the group*time level, because the command
aggregates the data at that level before running the bootstrap.
Accordingly, clustering should be at a coarser level than the group*time level.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:seed(}{it:#}{cmd:)} sets the seed to be used in the bootstrap replications,
to ensure results can be reproduced.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:graphoptions(}{it:string}{cmd:)}:
one can use the {cmd:graphoptions(}{it:string}{cmd:)}
option to modify the appearance of the graph produced by the command.
Options requested have to follow the syntax of Stata {cmd:twoway_options}.
Do not use quotation marks for text passed into the arguments of {cmd:twoway_options}.
For instance, if you want the title of your graph to be "Graph to convince
skeptical referee", you should type
{cmd:graphoptions(}title(Graph to convince skeptical referee){cmd:)}.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:save_results(}{it:path}{cmd:)}: if this option is specified,
the command saves the estimators requested,
their standard error,
their 95% confidence interval,
and the number of observations used in the estimation in a separate data set,
at the location specified in {it:path}.
{p_end}
{hline}
{marker FAQ}{...}
{title:FAQ}
{p 4 4}
{it: Do I have to include group- and time- fixed effects in my regression when using the did_multiplegt package?}
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
No, you do not have to.
Even if you do not specify any of the options {cmd:controls(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)},
{cmd:trends_nonparam(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)} or
{cmd:trends_lin(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)},
group- and time-fixed effects will be accounted for.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
{it:When does the command produce a table, and what does the table contain?}
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
If strictly more than one bootstrap replication has been run,
the command returns a table with all the estimated treatment effects and placebos,
their standard errors, their 95% confidence intervals,
the number of observations used in the estimation,
and the number of switchers the effects and placebos apply to.
The p-value from the joint test that all placebos are equal to 0 is not shown in the table,
but it is stored in e().
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
{it:When does the command produce a graph, and how is the graph constructed?}
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
If strictly more than one bootstrap replication has been run,
the command returns a graph with all the estimated treatment effects and placebos,
and their 95% confidence intervals constructed using a normal approximation.
An exception is when dynamic effects and first-difference placebos are requested.
Then, the command does not produce a graph,
because placebos are first-difference estimators,
while dynamic effects are long-difference estimators,
so they are not really comparable.
When dynamic effects and long-difference placebos are requested,
everything is relative to the period prior to first-switches, referred to as period -1.
Accordingly, the first placebo is shown at period -2 on the graph.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
{it:My group-level panel is unbalanced: some groups (e.g. counties) are not observed in every year. Can I still use the command?}
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
You can.
A frequent case of unbalancedness is when some groups are not observed over the full duration of the panel,
but all groups are observed at evenly-spaced intervals over the period where they are observed.
For instance,
your data may be a yearly county-level panel from 1990 to 2000,
where some counties appear after 1990 while some exit before 2000,
but from the year they appear till the year they exit,
all counties are observed every year.
Then, there is nothing special you have to do, you can run the command as is.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
A more complicated case is when some groups are observed at unevenly spaced intervals.
For instance,
a county is observed in 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, etc. If you wish to compute the DID_M estimator,
there is nothing special you have to do:
that estimator only relies on first-differences, so it will just not be able to use the 1993 observation for that county.
If you wish to compute the DID_l estimators,
the years where that county is observed will be used in the estimation,
except if that county's 1991 and 1993 treatments differ,
and that county had never changed treatment prior to 1991.
Then, the year when that county's treatment changed for the first time is not known,
so the approach implemented by default is to drop it from the estimation.
If many groups are observed at unevenly spaced intervals,
this approach may strongly reduce the sample size.
In that case, you may consider filling the group-level panel's holes, using Stata's fillin command.
Then, you need
to replace a group's missing treatments by the value of that same group's treatment,
in the first year after those missing years
where the treatment is not missing.
In the example above,
this amounts to replacing the county's 1992 treatment by its 1993 value.
Then, that county will be included in the estimation.
However, the estimation will assume that the
county's treatment changed for the first time from 1991 to 1992,
and not from 1992 to 1993.
Accordingly,
the county's estimated effect in 1993 will be considered as a dynamic effect 1 period after the first treatment change,
while it may be an instantaneous effect.
Without that assumption, that group cannot be used in the computation of the DID_l estimators,
which all require that a group's outcome
be observed in the last year before its treatment changes.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
Finally, it may be the case that the data is fully missing at one or several time periods.
For instance, you have data for 1990, 1991,
and 1993, but 1992 is missing for every group.
If you wish to compute the DID_l estimators,
it is important to fill the gap in the data,
as otherwise the estimation will assume that 1991 and 1993 are as far apart as 1990 and 1991.
There are two ways of doing so.
First, you can append to your data a data set identical to your 1991 data,
but with the year equal to 1992,
and the outcome missing for every observation.
This is a conservative solution,
where no first treatment change occurring between 1991 and 1993 will be used in the estimation,
which may be reasonable because the year in which the change occurred is effectively unknown.
Second, you can append to your data a data set identical to your 1993 data,
with the year equal to 1992,
and the outcome missing for every observation.
Then, the first treatment changes occurring between 1991 and 1993 will be used in the estimation,
assuming they all took place between 1991 and 1992.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
{it: Related to imbalanced panels,}
{it:my outcomes (and potentially the control variables) are measured}
{it:less frequently than the treatment.}
{it:For instance, the outcome is measured every two years,}
{it:but I know the treatment of every group in every year.}
{it:How should I proceed?}
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
To fix ideas,
let us first assume
that the outcome is measured every two years,
but you know the treatment of every group in every year.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
If you allow for dynamic effects,
you should split the sample into two subsamples,
and run the command twice,
one time on each of the subsamples.
In the first estimation,
you should include all group*time cells (g,t)
such that at t, g's treatment has never changed
since the start of the panel, and all (g,t)s such that g's
treatment has changed at
least once at t, and the changed occurred at a period
where the outcome is observed.
Since the outcome is measured every two years,
in that subsample the first treatment effect (denoted Effect_0)
is the instantaneous treatment effect,
the second effect (Effect_1)
is the effect of having started receiving the
treatment 2 years ago,
the third effect (Effect_2)
is the effect of having started receiving the
treatment 4 years ago, etc.
In the second estimation,
you should include all group*time cells (g,t)
such that at t, g's treatment has never changed
since the start of the panel, and all (g,t)s such that g's
treatment has changed at
least once at t, and the changed occurred at a period
where the outcome is not observed.
In that subsample the first treatment effect (denoted Effect_0)
is the effect of having started receiving the
treatment 1 year ago,
the second effect (Effect_1)
is the effect of having started receiving the
treatment 3 years ago, etc.
You may then combine the two sets of estimated effects
into one event-study graph, with the only caveat that
the "odd" and "even"
effects are estimated on different subsamples.
Importantly, the two estimations have to be run
on a dataset at the same bi-yearly level as the outcome
variable: the yearly level treatment information
should only be used to select the relevant subsamples.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
If you do not allow for dynamic effects,
you should also split your sample into two different subsamples
and run the command separately on each of them.
In the first estimation,
you should include all group*time cells (g,t)
such that D(g,t-1)=D(g,t-2). In that subsample, switchers
are such that D(g,t)!=D(g,t-1), and the command estimates
their treatment effect at period t, the period when
they switched.
In the first estimation,
you should include all group*time cells (g,t)
such that D(g,t)=D(g,t-1). In that subsample, switchers
are such that D(g,t-1)!=D(g,t-2), and the command estimates
their treatment effect at period t, one period after
they switched. You may average those two effects,
weighting them proportionally to their number of switchers.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
If the treatment is observed three times more often than the
treatment, you just need to follow the same logic,
split the sample into three subsamples
and run the command three times, etc.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
{it:Can I make sure that all the dynamic effects I estimate apply to the same groups?}
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
With a binary treatment and a balanced panel of groups such that at least one group
remains untreated and at least one group remains treated throughout the panel,
this can be achieved as follows.
Assume one estimates two dynamic effects.
Then, let {it:Ylead2} denote the second lead of the outcome variable.
If one writes {cmd:if_first_diff(}{it:Ylead2!=.}{cmd:)} in the command's options,
groups for which only the instantaneous or first dynamic effect can be estimated are discarded,
and the instantaneous effect and the first two dynamic effects apply to the same groups.
If the number of observations per group does not change over time,
the number of observations these three effects apply to will also be the same.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
{it:The number of observations per group (e.g.: counties' populations) is changing over time,}
{it:and differentially so across groups (e.g.: some counties' populations grow more than others).}
{it:Accordingly,}
{it:groups whose number of observations grow more receive more weight in the estimates of long-than short-run effects.}
{it:Can I avoid such compositional changes?}
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
Yes you can.
If your data is not aggregated at the group*period level,
start by aggregating the outcome treatment and control variables at that level,
and create a variable equal to the number of observations in each group*period.
Then create a variable time_invariant_weight equal,
for each group*period,
to the average number of observations in the group across all periods of the panel.
Finally, just weight the estimation by time_invariant_weight.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
{it:How many control variables can I include in the estimation?}
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
The DID_M and DID_l estimators with control variables are similar to those without controls,
except that the first-difference of the outcome is replaced by residuals from regressions
of the first-difference of the outcome on the first-differences of the controls and time fixed effects.
Those regressions are estimated in the sample of control (g,t)s:
(g,t)s such that group g's treatment does not change from t-1 to t for the DID_M estimator,
and (g,t)s such that group g's treatment has not changed till period t for the DID_l estimators.
Those regressions are also estimated separately for each possible value of the treatment, or for each set of treatment values binned
together if the {cmd:recat_treatment(}{it:varlist}{cmd:)} option is used.
If the treatment takes values 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, one regression is estimated
for control (g,t)s with a treatment equal to 0,
one regression is estimated for control (g,t)s with a treatment equal to 1, etc.
The number of control variables
needs to be significantly smaller than the number of control (g,t)s in each of those regressions.
Otherwise, those regressions will overfit and produce noisy estimates.
If the number of observations is lower than the number of variables in one of those regressions,
the command will run but not all the control variables can be accounted for,
and an error message will let you know about that.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
{it:Can I estimate the effect of a treatment, controlling for other treatments that may also change over the panel?}
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
The command can compute the DIDM estimator,
controlling for other treatments that may change over the panel,
as proposed by de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfoeuille (2020c).
In that case, let {it:othertreat} be a variable containing the other treatment, and let
{it:fd_othertreat} be the first difference of that other treatment.
To compute the estimator proposed by de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfoeuille (2020c),
one should write {cmd:if_first_diff(}{it:fd_othertreat==0}{cmd:)}
{cmd:trends_nonparam(}{it:othertreat}{cmd:)}
{cmd:always_trends_nonparam} in the command's options.
With two rather than one other treatments,
one should write {cmd:if_first_diff(}{it:fd_othertreat1==0&fd_othertreat2==0}{cmd:)}
{cmd:trends_nonparam(}{it:othertreats}{cmd:)} {cmd:always_trends_nonparam}
in the command's options,
where othertreats is generated as follows:
{cmd:egen othertreats=group(othertreat1 othertreat2)}.
Etc. for the cases with three, four ... other treatments.
See de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfoeuille (2020c) for further details.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
{it:How can I estimate the backward DID in de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfoeuille (2020c)?}
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
To estimate the backward DID, one just needs to revert the time variable
(for example "gen opposite_time = - time"), and use the command with this reverted time variable.
Additionnally, if one wants to compute the backward DID controlling for other treatments,
then the variable specified in the {cmd:if_first_diff(}{it:variable}{cmd:)}
option needs to be the lead of the first-difference of the other treatments.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
{it:How can I use the command to estimate heterogeneous treatment effects?}
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
The command can easily be used to investigate treatment effect heterogeneity with respect to group-level time-invariant variables.
Let X be one such variable, and let us assume X is binary.
Then you can just run the command twice, adding first "if X==0" and then "if X==1" at the end,
to separately estimate the effects in groups with X=0/X=1.
Assuming you are clustering your ses at the group level,
to test if the effects significantly differ in the two groups
you can just use the sum of the estimated variances in the X==0 and X==1 subgroups
to estimate the variance of the difference between two effects.
If your data is at a more disaggregated level than groups and X is a time-invariant characteristic also at a more disaggregated level
(you have X=0 and X=1 observations within the same group),
then you can still use the same procedure to estimate heterogeneous effects,
but you will need to bootstrap the command yourself to estimate the variance of the differences between the effects,
if you want your ses to be clustered at the group level.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
{it:The command takes a lot of time to run, is there a way I can speed it up?}
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
First, you can decrease the number of bootstrap replications performed.
By default, 50 bootstrap replications are performed,
but if you just want to look at the point estimates,
you can decrease the number of replications.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
You can also speed it up when the {cmd:robust_dynamic} option is specified.
In staggered adoption designs with a binary treatment, you just need to define
a variable
Cohort equal to the time period when group g first gets treated
(and to 0 if group g never gets treated).
Then, you need to run {cmd:did_multiplegt}
with Cohort instead of G as the group variable.
If the number of groups is large in your application,
using this strategy can divide the computing time by more than 10.
In more complicated designs with a non-binary and/or non-staggered treatment,
the Cohort variable needs to be defined as follows: {cmd:egen Cohort=group(D1 F increase)},
where:
D1 is a time-invariant variable equal to group g's treatment
at the first period it appears in the data;
F is a time-invariant variable equal to the first time period
where group g's treatment changes (and to 0 if group g's treatment never changes);
increase is a variable equal to 1 if on average across all time periods,
group g's treatments are strictly higher than D1, and to 0 otherwise.
If the {cmd:trends_non_param} option is specified,
Cohort should be defined as follows: {cmd:egen Cohort=group(D1 F increase trends_non_param)}.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
If you define Cohort as the group variable,
you will not be able to cluster your standard errors at, say, the group level.
Then, you will need to bootstrap the command yourself to obtain standard errors.
To do so, you just need to: i) preserve the data;
ii) draw a bootstrap sample using the {cmd:bsample}
command (you can cluster the bootstrap, say, at the group level); iii)
run {cmd:did_multiplegt} with Cohort as the group variable;
iv) store the estimates somewhere;
v) restore your data; vi) replicate i) to v), say,
100 times; vii) use the standard error of your estimates across the 100 replications to estimate their actual standard errors.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
Specifying Cohort instead of G as the group variable will return numerically equivalent estimates,
if your data is at the (g,t) level,
the panel of groups is balanced,
the estimation is unweighted or weighted with time-invariant weights (e.g. groups' populations at the start of the panel),
and there are no controls or linear trends.
Otherwise, the two estimations may give different results. For instance, with time-varying weights,
cohorts cannot be written as simple averages of groups with time-invariant weights,
and one can show that imposing parallel trends at the group level is not equivalent to imposing it at the cohort level.
Without controls or linear trends, differences are likely to be small, however.
With controls or linear trends, differences may be larger.
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
{it:Is {cmd:did_multiplegt} compatible with the {cmd:honestdid} command?}
{p_end}
{p 4 4}
Yes, it is.
You can find an example of how to use {cmd:honestdid} after {cmd:did_multiplegt}
{browse "https://github.com/mcaceresb/stata-honestdid#staggered-timing-1":here}.
{p_end}
{hline}
{marker saved_results}{...}
{title:Saved results}
{p 4 8}
In what follows, let {it:k} denote the number specified in the {cmd:placebo(}{it:#}{cmd:)} option,
and let {it:j} denote the
number specified in the {cmd:dynamic(}{it:#}{cmd:)} option.
{cmd:did_multiplegt} saves the following in {cmd:e()}:
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:e(effect_0)}: estimated effect of the treatment at the time period when switchers or first-time switchers switch.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:e(N_effect_0)}: number of observations used in the estimation of {cmd:e(effect_0)}.
This number is the number of first differences of the outcome and of the treatment used in the estimation.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:e(N_switchers_effect_0)}: number of switchers or first-time switchers {cmd:e(effect_0)} applies to.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:e(N_switchers_effect_0_tot)}: number of switchers or first-time switchers in the data,
if the {cmd:count_switchers_tot} option is specified.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:e(N_switchers_effect_0_contr)}: number of switchers or first-time switchers whose counterfactual trend at the
time of their switch is estimated accounting for the requested controls,
if the {cmd:count_switchers_contr} option is specified.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:e(se_effect_0)}: estimated standard error of {cmd:e(effect_0)}, if strictly more than one bootstrap replication was run.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:e(effect_l)}: estimated effect l periods after first-time switchers have switched treatment for the first time, for all l in 1, ..., j.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:e(N_effect_l)}: number of observations used in the estimation of {cmd:e(effect_l)}.
This number is the number of long differences of the outcome and of the treatment used in the estimation.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:e(N_switchers_effect_l)}: number of first-time switchers {cmd:e(effect_l)} applies to.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:e(N_switchers_effect_l_tot)}:
number of first-time switchers observed l periods after their first switch,
if the {cmd:count_switchers_tot} option is specified.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:e(N_switchers_effect_l_contr)}: number of first-time switchers
whose counterfactual trend l periods after their first switch is estimated accounting for the requested controls,
if the {cmd:count_switchers_contr} option is specified.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:e(se_effect_l)}: estimated standard error of {cmd:e(effect_l)},
if strictly more than one bootstrap replication was run.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:e(placebo_l)}: estimated placebo l, for all l in 0, 1, ..., k.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:e(N_placebo_l)}: number of observations used in the estimation of {cmd:e(placebo_l)}.
This number is the number of first differences of the outcome and of the treatment used in the estimation.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:e(N_switchers_placebo_l)}: number of switchers or first-time switchers {cmd:e(placebo_l)} applies to.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:e(N_switchers_placebo_l_tot)}: number of switchers or first-time switchers observed l periods before their first switch,
if the {cmd:count_switchers_tot} option is specified.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:e(N_switchers_placebo_l_contr)}: number of switchers or first-time switchers whose counterfactual trend l periods before their switch
is estimated accounting for the requested controls,
if the {cmd:count_switchers_contr} option is specified.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:e(se_placebo_l)}: estimated standard error of {cmd:e(placebo_l)},
if strictly more than one bootstrap replication was run.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:e(p_jointplacebo)}: p-value of the joint test that all the placebos are equal to 0,
if strictly more than one placebo was requested,
and strictly more than one bootstrap replication was requested.
{p_end}
{p 4 8}
{cmd:e(cov_effects_m_l)}: estimated covariance between {cmd:e(effect_m)} and {cmd:e(effect_l)},
for all 0<=m