A More Credible Approach to Parallel Trends

Causal Question / Estimand

The dynamic treatment effect in DiD/event-study designs (Causal-Estimand) when Parallel-Trends may not hold exactly. Rather than point-identify under exact parallel trends, the paper partially identifies the effect under transparent restrictions on how far trends can deviate.

Identification Strategy

The HonestDiD framework. Impose restrictions relating post-treatment violations of parallel trends to the observed pre-treatment differences in trends — e.g. the post-period violation is no larger than the pre-period one (“relative magnitudes”), or trends deviate smoothly (“smoothness”). The causal parameter is then partially identified; the paper delivers uniformly valid confidence sets and a sensitivity analysis showing which conclusions survive which assumed degree of violation.

Key Assumptions

Replaces exact Parallel-Trends with bounded deviations from it, disciplined by economic knowledge and observed pre-trends. No-Anticipation for the pre-period benchmark; SUTVA throughout. The output is a set, not a point.

Threats to Validity

n/a — the paper’s purpose is to handle the central threat (parallel-trends violations) honestly. Its caveat: the credibility of the conclusions depends on the credibility of the imposed restriction on trend deviations, which must be argued substantively.

Setting / Data

n/a — econometric methodology (the HonestDiD R/Stata package). Illustrated with two economic applications where domain knowledge informs the restriction set.

Key Claims

  • Exact parallel trends is often incredible; partial identification under bounded violations is more honest.
  • Provides uniformly valid inference and formal sensitivity analysis (“breakdown” values) for DiD conclusions.
  • Connects pre-trend evidence to post-treatment inference rigorously, instead of the binary “passed/failed” pre-test.

Connections

Citation

Rambachan, A., & Roth, J. (2023). A More Credible Approach to Parallel Trends. The Review of Economic Studies, 90(5), 2555–2591. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdad018