Causal Panel Analysis under Parallel Trends: Lessons from a Large Reanalysis Study

Two-way fixed effects (TWFE) models are widely used in political science to establish causality, but recent methodological discussions highlight their limitations under heterogeneous treatment effects (HTE) and violations of the parallel trends (PT) assumption. This growing literature has introduced numerous new estimators and procedures, causing confusion among researchers about the reliability of existing results and best practices. To address these concerns, we replicated and reanalyzed 49 studies from leading journals that employ TWFE models for causal inference using observational panel data with binary treatments. Using six HTE-robust estimators, diagnostic tests, and sensitivity analyses, we find: (i) HTE-robust estimators yield qualitatively similar but highly variable results; (ii) while a few studies show clear signs of PT violations, many lack evidence to support this assumption; and (iii) many studies are underpowered when accounting for HTE and potential PT violations. We emphasize the importance of strong research designs and rigorous validation of key identifying assumptions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
American Political Science Review
Published
2025-06-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055425000243
Citations
15
Primary Topic
Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
58.82

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Causal Panel Analysis under Parallel Trends: Lessons from a Large Reanalysis Study

Albert Chiu, Z Liu, Yiqing Xu, Xingchen Lan
15 citations
American Political Science Review
Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
58.82
article

Causal Panel Analysis under Parallel Trends: Lessons from a Large Reanalysis Study

Albert Chiu, Z Liu, Yiqing Xu, Xingchen Lan
article en
15 citations

Abstract

Two-way fixed effects (TWFE) models are widely used in political science to establish causality, but recent methodological discussions highlight their limitations under heterogeneous treatment effects (HTE) and violations of the parallel trends (PT) assumption. This growing literature has introduced numerous new estimators and procedures, causing confusion among researchers about the reliability of existing results and best practices. To address these concerns, we replicated and reanalyzed 49 studies from leading journals that employ TWFE models for causal inference using observational panel data with binary treatments. Using six HTE-robust estimators, diagnostic tests, and sensitivity analyses, we find: (i) HTE-robust estimators yield qualitatively similar but highly variable results; (ii) while a few studies show clear signs of PT violations, many lack evidence to support this assumption; and (iii) many studies are underpowered when accounting for HTE and potential PT violations. We emphasize the importance of strong research designs and rigorous validation of key identifying assumptions.

American Political Science ReviewVol. 120(1)
New York University (US), University of California, Berkeley (US), Stanford University (US)
University of California, San Diego
Openalex Percentile: Top 0%
Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
58.82
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.