1932

Abstract

Recent empirical work in several economic fields, particularly environmental and energy economics, has adapted the regression discontinuity (RD) framework to applications where time is the running variable and treatment begins at a particular threshold in time. In this guide for practitioners, we discuss several features of this regression discontinuity in time framework that differ from the more standard cross-sectional RD framework. First, many applications (particularly in environmental economics) lack cross-sectional variation and are estimated using observations far from the temporal threshold. This common empirical practice is hard to square with the assumptions of a cross-sectional RD, which is conceptualized for an estimation bandwidth shrinking even as the sample size increases. Second, estimates may be biased if the time-series properties of the data are ignored (for instance, in the presence of an autoregressive process), or more generally if short-run and long-run effects differ. Finally, tests for sorting or bunching near the threshold are often irrelevant, making the framework closer to an event study than a regression discontinuity design. Based on these features and motivated by hypothetical examples using air quality data, we offer suggestions for the empirical researcher wishing to use the RD in time framework.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-121517-033306
2018-10-05
2024-04-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/resource/10/1/annurev-resource-121517-033306.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-121517-033306&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Anderson ML 2014. Subways, strikes, and slowdowns: the impacts of public transit on traffic congestion. Am. Econ. Rev. 104:92763–96
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Auffhammer M, Kellogg R 2011. Clearing the air? The effects of gasoline content regulation on air quality. Am. Econ. Rev. 101:62687–722
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barreca A, Guldi M, Lindo JM, Waddell GR 2011. Saving babies? Revisiting the effect of very low birth weight classification. Q. J. Econ. 126:42117–23
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bento A, Kaffine D, Roth K, Zaragoza-Watkins M 2014. The effects of regulation in the presence of multiple unpriced externalities: evidence from the transportation sector. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 6:31–29
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Burger NE, Kaffine DT, Yu B 2014. Did California's hand-held cell phone ban reduce accidents. ? Transp. Res. A 66:1162–72
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Busse MR, Silva-Risso J, Zettelmeyer F 2006. $1,000 cash back: the pass-through of auto manufacturer promotions. Am. Econ. Rev. 96:41253–70
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Busse MR, Simester DI, Zettelmeyer F 2010. “The best price you'll ever get”: the 2005 employee discount pricing promotions in the U.S. automobile industry. Mark. Sci. 29:2268–90
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen X, John G, Hays JM, Hill AV, Geurs SE 2009. Learning from a service guarantee quasi-experiment. J. Mark. Res. 46:5584–96
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen Y, Whalley A 2012. Green infrastructure: the effects of urban rail transit on air quality. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 4:158–97
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dasgupta S, Laplante B, Mamingi N 2001. Pollution and capital markets in developing countries. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 42:310–35
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Davis LW 2008. The effect of driving restrictions on air quality in Mexico City. J. Political Econ. 116:138–81
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Davis LW, Kahn ME 2010. International trade in used vehicles: the environmental consequences of NAFTA. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 2:458–82
    [Google Scholar]
  13. De Paola M, Scoppa V, Falcone M 2013. The deterrent effects of the penalty points system for driving offences: a regression discontinuity approach. Empir. Econ. 45:965–85
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gallego F, Montero J-P, Salas C 2013. The effect of transport policies on car use: evidence from Latin American cities. J. Public Econ. 107:47–62
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gelman A, Imbens G 2017. Why high-order polynomials should not be used in regression discontinuity designs. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2017.1366909
    [Crossref]
  16. Grainger CA, Costello CJ 2014. Capitalizing property rights insecurity in natural resource assets. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 67:2224–40
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hahn J, Todd P, Van der Klaauw W 2001. Identification and estimation of treatment effects with a regression-discontinuity design. Econometrica 69:1201–9
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hamilton JT 1995. Pollution as news: media and stock market reactions to the toxics release inventory data. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 28:98–113
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Imbens GW, Lemieux T 2008. Regression discontinuity designs: a guide to practice. J. Econom. 142:615–35
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Ito K 2015. Asymmetric incentives in subsidies: evidence from a large-scale electricity rebate program. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 7:3209–37
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Jacob R, Zhu P, Somers M-A, Bloom H 2012. A practical guide to regression discontinuity Work. Pap., MDRC Oakland, CA:
  22. Konar S, Cohen MA 1997. Information as regulation: the effect of community right to know laws on toxic emissions. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 32:109–24
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lang C, Siler M 2013. Engineering estimates versus impact evaluation of energy efficiency projects: regression discontinuity evidence from a case study. Energy Policy 61:360–70
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lee DS 2008. Randomized experiments from non-random selection in U.S. House elections. J. Econom. 142:675–97
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lee DS, Lemieux T 2010. Regression discontinuity designs in economics. J. Econ. Lit. 48:281–355
    [Google Scholar]
  26. MacDonell M, Raymond M, Wyker D, Finster M, Chang Y-S et al. 2014. Mobile sensors and applications for air pollutants Rep. EPA/600/R-14/051, Environ. Prot. Agency Washington, DC: https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=273979
  27. McCrary J 2008. Manipulation of the running variable in the regression discontinuity design: a density test. J. Econom. 142:698–714
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Roberts W, Schlenker MJ 2009. Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop yields under climate change. PNAS 106:3715594–98
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Rubin DB 1974. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J. Educ. Psychol. 66:5688–701
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT 2002. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference Boston: Houghton Mifflin
  31. Splawa-Neyman J 1990 (1923). On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments. Essay on principles. Section 9 transl. DM Dabrowska, TP Speed, in Stat. Sci 54465–72 (from Polish)
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-121517-033306
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-121517-033306
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplemental Material

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error