Researcher profile

Brantly Callaway

Brantly Callaway contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Causal Inference for Aggregated Treatment

In this paper, we study causal inference when the treatment variable is an aggregation of multiple sub-treatment variables. Researchers often report marginal causal effects for the aggregated treatment, implicitly assuming that the target parameter corresponds to a well-defined average of sub-treatment effects. We show that, even in an ideal scenario for causal inference such as random assignment, the weights underlying this average have some key undesirable properties: they are not unique, they can be negative, and, holding all else constant, these issues become exponentially more likely to occur as the number of sub-treatments increases and the support of each sub-treatment grows. We propose approaches to avoid these problems, depending on whether or not the sub-treatment variables are observed.

preprint2025arXiv

Difference-in-Differences with a Continuous Treatment

This paper analyzes difference-in-differences designs with a continuous treatment. We show that treatment-on-the-treated-type parameters are identified under a parallel trends assumption analogous to the binary treatment case. However, comparing these parameters across treatments is challenging because parallel trends does not rule out selection bias. We discuss alternative, typically stronger, assumptions that eliminate selection bias. We further show that popular two-way fixed effects estimands admit multiple interpretations, depending on the underlying causal building block, all having important limitations as meaningful summaries of treatment effects. Finally, we introduce alternative estimation procedures that avoid these drawbacks and demonstrate them in an empirical application.

preprint2022arXiv

Difference-in-Differences for Policy Evaluation

Difference-in-differences is one of the most used identification strategies in empirical work in economics. This chapter reviews a number of important, recent developments related to difference-in-differences. First, this chapter reviews recent work pointing out limitations of two way fixed effects regressions (these are panel data regressions that have been the dominant approach to implementing difference-in-differences identification strategies) that arise in empirically relevant settings where there are more than two time periods, variation in treatment timing across units, and treatment effect heterogeneity. Second, this chapter reviews recently proposed alternative approaches that are able to circumvent these issues without being substantially more complicated to implement. Third, this chapter covers a number of extensions to these results, paying particular attention to (i) parallel trends assumptions that hold only after conditioning on observed covariates and (ii) strategies to partially identify causal effect parameters in difference-in-differences applications in cases where the parallel trends assumption may be violated.

preprint2022arXiv

Treatment Effects in Interactive Fixed Effects Models with a Small Number of Time Periods

This paper considers identifying and estimating the Average Treatment Effect on the Treated (ATT) when untreated potential outcomes are generated by an interactive fixed effects model. That is, in addition to time-period and individual fixed effects, we consider the case where there is an unobserved time invariant variable whose effect on untreated potential outcomes may change over time and which can therefore cause outcomes (in the absence of participating in the treatment) to follow different paths for the treated group relative to the untreated group. The models that we consider in this paper generalize many commonly used models in the treatment effects literature including difference in differences and individual-specific linear trend models. Unlike the majority of the literature on interactive fixed effects models, we do not require the number of time periods to go to infinity to consistently estimate the ATT. Our main identification result relies on having the effect of some time invariant covariate (e.g., race or sex) not vary over time. Using our approach, we show that the ATT can be identified with as few as three time periods and with panel or repeated cross sections data.

preprint2020arXiv

Bounds on Distributional Treatment Effect Parameters using Panel Data with an Application on Job Displacement

This paper develops new techniques to bound distributional treatment effect parameters that depend on the joint distribution of potential outcomes -- an object not identified by standard identifying assumptions such as selection on observables or even when treatment is randomly assigned. I show that panel data and an additional assumption on the dependence between untreated potential outcomes for the treated group over time (i) provide more identifying power for distributional treatment effect parameters than existing bounds and (ii) provide a more plausible set of conditions than existing methods that obtain point identification. I apply these bounds to study heterogeneity in the effect of job displacement during the Great Recession. Using standard techniques, I find that workers who were displaced during the Great Recession lost on average 34\% of their earnings relative to their counterfactual earnings had they not been displaced. Using the methods developed in the current paper, I also show that the average effect masks substantial heterogeneity across workers.