4.4 Article

On the Use of Two-Way Fixed Effects Regression Models for Causal Inference with Panel Data

Journal

POLITICAL ANALYSIS
Volume 29, Issue 3, Pages 405-415

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/pan.2020.33

Keywords

difference-in-differences; longitudinal data; matching; unobserved confounding; weighted least squares

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The two-way linear fixed effects regression is commonly used for estimating causal effects from panel data, but its ability to adjust for unobserved confounders relies on the assumption of linear additive effects. It is also important to note that the equivalence to the difference-in-differences estimator may not hold under more general settings commonly encountered in applied research.
The two-way linear fixed effects regression (2FE) has become a default method for estimating causal effects from panel data. Many applied researchers use the 2FE estimator to adjust for unobserved unit-specific and time-specific confounders at the same time. Unfortunately, we demonstrate that the ability of the 2FE model to simultaneously adjust for these two types of unobserved confounders critically relies upon the assumption of linear additive effects. Another common justification for the use of the 2FE estimator is based on its equivalence to the difference-in-differences estimator under the simplest setting with two groups and two time periods. We show that this equivalence does not hold under more general settings commonly encountered in applied research. Instead, we prove that the multi-period difference-in-differences estimator is equivalent to the weighted 2FE estimator with some observations having negative weights. These analytical results imply that in contrast to the popular belief, the 2FE estimator does not represent a design-based, nonparametric estimation strategy for causal inference. Instead, its validity fundamentally rests on the modeling assumptions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available