Researcher profile

Pedro H. C. Sant'Anna

Pedro H. C. Sant'Anna contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - Emerging
6works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

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

6 published item(s)

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.

preprint2023arXiv

What's Trending in Difference-in-Differences? A Synthesis of the Recent Econometrics Literature

This paper synthesizes recent advances in the econometrics of difference-in-differences (DiD) and provides concrete recommendations for practitioners. We begin by articulating a simple set of ``canonical'' assumptions under which the econometrics of DiD are well-understood. We then argue that recent advances in DiD methods can be broadly classified as relaxing some components of the canonical DiD setup, with a focus on $(i)$ multiple periods and variation in treatment timing, $(ii)$ potential violations of parallel trends, or $(iii)$ alternative frameworks for inference. Our discussion highlights the different ways that the DiD literature has advanced beyond the canonical model, and helps to clarify when each of the papers will be relevant for empirical work. We conclude by discussing some promising areas for future research.

preprint2020arXiv

Covariate Distribution Balance via Propensity Scores

This paper proposes new estimators for the propensity score that aim to maximize the covariate distribution balance among different treatment groups. Heuristically, our proposed procedure attempts to estimate a propensity score model by making the underlying covariate distribution of different treatment groups as close to each other as possible. Our estimators are data-driven, do not rely on tuning parameters such as bandwidths, admit an asymptotic linear representation, and can be used to estimate different treatment effect parameters under different identifying assumptions, including unconfoundedness and local treatment effects. We derive the asymptotic properties of inverse probability weighted estimators for the average, distributional, and quantile treatment effects based on the proposed propensity score estimator and illustrate their finite sample performance via Monte Carlo simulations and two empirical applications.

preprint2020arXiv

Doubly Robust Difference-in-Differences Estimators

This article proposes doubly robust estimators for the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) in difference-in-differences (DID) research designs. In contrast to alternative DID estimators, the proposed estimators are consistent if either (but not necessarily both) a propensity score or outcome regression working models are correctly specified. We also derive the semiparametric efficiency bound for the ATT in DID designs when either panel or repeated cross-section data are available, and show that our proposed estimators attain the semiparametric efficiency bound when the working models are correctly specified. Furthermore, we quantify the potential efficiency gains of having access to panel data instead of repeated cross-section data. Finally, by paying articular attention to the estimation method used to estimate the nuisance parameters, we show that one can sometimes construct doubly robust DID estimators for the ATT that are also doubly robust for inference. Simulation studies and an empirical application illustrate the desirable finite-sample performance of the proposed estimators. Open-source software for implementing the proposed policy evaluation tools is available.

preprint2020arXiv

Nonparametric Tests for Treatment Effect Heterogeneity with Duration Outcomes

This article proposes different tests for treatment effect heterogeneity when the outcome of interest, typically a duration variable, may be right-censored. The proposed tests study whether a policy 1) has zero distributional (average) effect for all subpopulations defined by covariate values, and 2) has homogeneous average effect across different subpopulations. The proposed tests are based on two-step Kaplan-Meier integrals and do not rely on parametric distributional assumptions, shape restrictions, or on restricting the potential treatment effect heterogeneity across different subpopulations. Our framework is suitable not only to exogenous treatment allocation but can also account for treatment noncompliance - an important feature in many applications. The proposed tests are consistent against fixed alternatives, and can detect nonparametric alternatives converging to the null at the parametric $n^{-1/2}$-rate, $n$ being the sample size. Critical values are computed with the assistance of a multiplier bootstrap. The finite sample properties of the proposed tests are examined by means of a Monte Carlo study and an application about the effect of labor market programs on unemployment duration. Open-source software is available for implementing all proposed tests.

preprint2020arXiv

The role of parallel trends in event study settings: An application to environmental economics

Difference-in-Differences (DID) research designs usually rely on variation of treatment timing such that, after making an appropriate parallel trends assumption, one can identify, estimate, and make inference about causal effects. In practice, however, different DID procedures rely on different parallel trends assumptions (PTA), and recover different causal parameters. In this paper, we focus on staggered DID (also referred as event-studies) and discuss the role played by the PTA in terms of identification and estimation of causal parameters. We document a ``robustness'' vs. ``efficiency'' trade-off in terms of the strength of the underlying PTA, and argue that practitioners should be explicit about these trade-offs whenever using DID procedures. We propose new DID estimators that reflect these trade-offs and derived their large sample properties. We illustrate the practical relevance of these results by assessing whether the transition from federal to state management of the Clean Water Act affects compliance rates.