Просмотр новости
Найдите то, что Вас интересует
Спутники
РН
SpaceX
Роскосмос
NASA
СпутникиРНSpaceXРоскосмосNASAJohn Coglianese and Jade A. Fang
Researchers are faced with the choice of which of the many recently developed difference-in-differences methods to use in practice. To assess these estimators' relative performance for single-unit event studies, we conduct 134,000+ state-level placebo event studies across 13 estimators. We find that no single method dominates. Performance is context-dependent, with synthetic-control-like methods sometimes outperforming and sometimes underperforming two-way-fixed-effect-like and matching methods. Performance also varies across states at least as much as it does across estimators. Our results highlight the need for practitioners to conduct placebo tests to understand the performance of methods in their research context.
June 2026
An Evaluation of Difference-in-Differences Methods Using Placebo Event StudiesJohn Coglianese and Jade A. Fang
Abstract:
Researchers are faced with the choice of which of the many recently developed difference-in-differences methods to use in practice. To assess these estimators' relative performance for single-unit event studies, we conduct 134,000+ state-level placebo event studies across 13 estimators. We find that no single method dominates. Performance is context-dependent, with synthetic-control-like methods sometimes outperforming and sometimes underperforming two-way-fixed-effect-like and matching methods. Performance also varies across states at least as much as it does across estimators. Our results highlight the need for practitioners to conduct placebo tests to understand the performance of methods in their research context.
Keywords: Difference-in-differences, event studies, local labor markets, placebo tests, two-way fixed effects
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2026.045
PDF: Full Paper
Disclaimer: The economic research that is linked from this page represents the views of the authors and does not indicate concurrence either by other members of the Board's staff or by the Board of Governors. The economic research and their conclusions are often preliminary and are circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. The Board values having a staff that conducts research on a wide range of economic topics and that explores a diverse array of perspectives on those topics. The resulting conversations in academia, the economic policy community, and the broader public are important to sharpening our collective thinking.
Last Update: June 24, 2026
| # | Наименование новости | Тональность | Информативность | Дата публикации |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | FEDS Paper: Capturing Heterogeneity: Machine Learning Approaches to Implied Volatility Forecasting | 0 | 10.13 | 07-07-2026 |
| 2 | FEDS Paper: Measuring Macroeconomic Stars: A Framework with Scarring Effects | 0 | 11.1 | 31-07-2026 |
| 3 | FEDS Paper: Demand Shocks and Endogenous Uncertainty | 0 | 10.66 | 17-07-2026 |
| 4 | FEDS Paper: The Standards Are in the Mail: Comparing Credit Card Supply Indicators | 0 | 12.38 | 02-07-2026 |
| 5 | FEDS Paper: CRE Development Potential and the Selection of Opportunity Zones | 0 | 10.19 | 11-08-2026 |
| 6 | FEDS Paper: Credit Surfaces and Economic Uncertainty | 0 | 4.8 | 31-07-2026 |
| 7 | FEDS Paper: Cyclical Fluctuations, Financial Frictions, and Productivity Differences across Firms | 0 | 9.8 | 26-06-2026 |
| 8 | FEDS Paper: How Firms Form Beliefs and the Implications for Inflation | 0 | 7.7 | 31-07-2026 |
| 9 | FEDS Paper: Sequence-Space Jacobians of Life-Cycle Models | 0 | 16 | 24-06-2026 |