arXiv 11 Aug 2024 · Econometrics
arXiv:2408.05847 · PDF · DOI · OpenAlex · Extracted main text
Regression Discontinuity (RD) designs rely on the continuity of potential outcome means at the cutoff, but this assumption often fails when other treatments or policies are implemented at this cutoff. We characterize the bias in sharp and fuzzy RD designs due to violations of continuity, and develop a general identification framework that leverages multiple time periods to estimate local effects on the (un)treated. We extend the framework to settings with carry-over effects and time-varying running variables, highlighting additional assumptions needed for valid causal inference. We propose an estimation framework that extends the conventional and bias-corrected single-period local linear regression framework to multiple periods and different sampling schemes, and study its finite-sample performance in simulations. Finally, we revisit a prior study on fiscal rules in Italy to illustrate the practical utility of our approach.
appendix boundary found by appendix_command · 67% of the source is main text. Read the extracted text to check this.
The works this paper leans on most, across its whole bibliography — not restricted to papers in our corpus. Ranked by composite intensity, which combines how often a work is mentioned, how many sections mention it, and how much of that falls in the main text rather than the appendix.
| Reference | Intensity | Mentions | Sections | Main text | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hahn, Jinyong, Todd, Petra, Van der Klaauw, Wilbert (2001) Identification and estimation of treatment effects with a regression-discontinuity design | 1.000 | 5 | 3 | 100% |
| 2 | Grembi, Veronica, Nannicini, Tommaso, Troiano, Ugo (2016) Do fiscal rules matter? | 0.969 | 11 | 5 | 91% |
| 3 | McCrary, Justin (2008) Manipulation of the running variable in the regression discontinuity design: A density test | 0.928 | 4 | 3 | 100% |
| 4 | Calonico, Sebastian, Cattaneo, Matias D, Titiunik, Rocio (2014) Robust nonparametric confidence intervals for regression-discontinuity designs | 0.899 | 11 | 4 | 73% |
| 5 | Imbens, Guido, Kalyanaraman, Karthik (2012) Optimal bandwidth choice for the regression discontinuity estimator | 0.843 | 5 | 4 | 60% |
| 6 | Lee, David S, Lemieux, Thomas (2010) Regression discontinuity designs in economics | 0.843 | 3 | 3 | 100% |
| 7 | Cattaneo, Matias D, Titiunik, Rocio (2022) Regression discontinuity designs | 0.811 | 4 | 2 | 100% |
| 8 | Hartman, Erin, Hidalgo, F Daniel (2018) An equivalence approach to balance and placebo tests | 0.811 | 4 | 2 | 100% |
| 9 | Picchetti, Pedro, Pinto, Cristine CX, Shinoki, Stephanie T (2024) Difference-in-Discontinuities: Estimation, Inference and Validity Tests | 0.737 | 3 | 2 | 100% |
| 10 | Roth, Jonathan, Sant’Anna, Pedro HC, Bilinski, Alyssa, Poe, John (2023) What’s trending in difference-in-differences? A synthesis of the recent econometrics literature | 0.737 | 3 | 2 | 100% |
Showing the top 10 of 44 scored citations.
arXiv econ.EM papers that cite this one, ranked by how heavily they lean on it.
| Citing paper | Intensity | Mentions | Sections | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Difference-in-Discontinuities: Estimation, Inference and Validity Tests | 0.511 | 2 | 1 |