Factorial Difference-in-Differences
析因双重差分AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要直接讨论面板与重复截面中的双重差分识别、处理效应修饰和因果调节。
析因双重差分AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
We formulate factorial difference-in-differences (FDID), a research design that extends canonical difference-in-differences (DID) to settings in which an event affects all units. In many panel data applications, researchers exploit cross-sectional variation in a baseline factor alongside temporal variation in the event, but the corresponding estimand is often implicit and the justification for applying the DID estimator remains unclear. We frame FDID as a factorial design with two factors, the baseline factor G and the exposure level Z, and define effect modification and causal moderation as the associative and causal effects of G on the effect of Z, respectively. Under standard DID assumptions of no anticipation and parallel trends, the DID estimator identifies effect modification but not causal moderation. Identifying the latter requires an additional factorial parallel trends assumption, that is, mean independence between G and potential outcome trends. We extend the framework to conditionally valid assumptions and regression-based implementations, and further to repeated cross-sectional data and continuous G. We demonstrate the framework with an empirical application on the role of social capital in famine relief in China.