Title:Randomly assigned first differences?

Abstract:I consider treatment-effect estimation with a panel data with two periods, using a first difference regression of the outcome evolution $\Delta Y_g$ on the treatment evolution $\Delta D_g$. A design-based justification of this estimator assumes that $\Delta D_g$ is as good as randomly assigned. This note shows that if one posits a causal model in levels between the treatment and the outcome, then $\Delta D_g$ randomly assigned implies that $\Delta D_g$ is independent of $D_{g,1}$. This is a very strong, fully testable condition. If $\Delta D_g$ is not independent of $D_{g,1}$, the first-difference estimator can still identify a convex combination of effects if $\Delta D_g$ is randomly assigned and treatment effects do not change over time, or if the the treatment path $(D_{g,1},D_{g,2})$ is randomly assigned and either of the following conditions hold: i) $D_{g,1}$ and $D_{g,2}$ are binary; ii) $D_{g,1}$ and $D_{g,2}$ have the same variance; iii) $D_{g,1}$ and $D_{g,2}$ are uncorrelated or negatively correlated. I use these results to revisit Acemoglu et al (2016).