Choosing A Headline Estimand from Matching, DID, and Hybrid Designs: A Minimax-Regret Approach

Yechan Park and Yuya Sasaki

Papers from arXiv.org

Abstract: Researchers using panel data to estimate causal effects routinely choose among three approaches to using past outcomes: difference-in-differences (DID), conditioning on lagged outcomes (matching, M), and a hybrid that does both (DIDM). The corresponding identifying assumptions are non-nested, leaving little guidance on which to report. We give conditions under which the corresponding estimands are ordered, with DIDM bracketed between matching and DID. This makes DIDM the minimax-regret choice among the three under a broad class of loss functions. We recommend reporting DIDM as the headline estimate, with matching and DID as bounds. We illustrate in applications.

Date: 2026-06
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.20435 Latest version (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:arx:papers:2606.20435

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Papers from arXiv.org
Bibliographic data for series maintained by arXiv administrators ().