The PCDID Approach to Treatment Effects Estimation: A Further Investigation

ABSTRACT In the present paper, we study the so‐called “PCDID” approach to treatment effects estimation in panels with interactive effects where the factors represent trends whose effect need not be parallel across the cross‐sectional units. Our interest in this step‐wise approach originates with the observation that the interactive effects are ignored in the first step, which should not be possible without affecting subsequent steps. We confirm that the estimated second‐step factors are inconsistent in the empirically relevant scenario where the included covariates are correlated with the true factors. Interestingly enough, though, fixed effects demeaning, which is in theory unnecessary since fixed effects are special interactive effects, is shown to restore consistency of the final‐step average treatment effects estimate; however, only under special circumstances. As a general solution to the inconsistency of the estimated factors, we propose an iterated PCDID version.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Applied Econometrics
Published
2025-11-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.70022
Primary Topic
Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

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

The PCDID Approach to Treatment Effects Estimation: A Further Investigation

Joakim Westerlund, Tilman Bretschneider
Journal of Applied Econometrics
Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
article

The PCDID Approach to Treatment Effects Estimation: A Further Investigation

Joakim Westerlund, Tilman Bretschneider
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT In the present paper, we study the so‐called “PCDID” approach to treatment effects estimation in panels with interactive effects where the factors represent trends whose effect need not be parallel across the cross‐sectional units. Our interest in this step‐wise approach originates with the observation that the interactive effects are ignored in the first step, which should not be possible without affecting subsequent steps. We confirm that the estimated second‐step factors are inconsistent in the empirically relevant scenario where the included covariates are correlated with the true factors. Interestingly enough, though, fixed effects demeaning, which is in theory unnecessary since fixed effects are special interactive effects, is shown to restore consistency of the final‐step average treatment effects estimate; however, only under special circumstances. As a general solution to the inconsistency of the estimated factors, we propose an iterated PCDID version.

Journal of Applied EconometricsVol. 41(2)
Deakin University (AU), Lund University (SE)
Lunds Universitet, Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse
Openalex Percentile: Top 70%
Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
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.