The treatment effect, the cross difference, and the interaction term in nonlinear "difference-in-differences" models

Economics Letters

Volumn 115, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 85-87

  Puhani, Patrick A ^a  

^a LEIBNIZ UNIVERSITY HANNOVER   (Germany)

Author keywords

Identification; Logit; Potential outcomes; Probit; Tobit

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855185826     PISSN: 01651765     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2011.11.025     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Ai C., Norton E.C. Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters 2003, 80:123-129.
2. Angrist J.D., Krueger A. Empirical strategies in labor economics. Handbook of Labor Economics 1999, vol. 3A:1277-1366. Elsevier, Amsterdam. O. Ashenfelter, D. Card (Eds.).
3. Athey S., Imbens G. Identification and inference in nonlinear difference-in-differences models. Econometrica 2006, 74:431-497.
4. Bertrand M., Duflo E., Mullainathan S. How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates?. Quarterly Journal of Economics 2004, 119:249-275.
5. Blundell R., Costa Dias M. Alternative approaches to evaluation in empirical microeconomics. Journal of Human Resources 2009, 44:565-640.
6. Heckman J.J., LaLonde R.J., Smith J.A. The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs. Handbook of Labor Economics 1999, vol. 3A:1865-2097. Elsevier, Amsterdam. O. Ashenfelter, D. Card (Eds.).
7. Lechner, M., 2011. The estimation of causal effects by difference-in-difference methods. University of St. Gallen, Mimeograph.
8. Meyer B. Natural and quasi-experiments in economics. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 1995, 13:151-161.