English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Two-way fixed effects (TWFE) models are ubiquitous in causal panel analysisin political science. However, recent methodological discussions challengetheir validity in the presence of heterogeneous treatment effects (HTE) andviolations of the parallel trends assumption (PTA). This burgeoning literaturehas introduced multiple estimators and diagnostics, leading to confusion amongempirical researchers on two fronts: the reliability of existing results basedon TWFE models and the current best practices. To address these concerns, weexamined, replicated, and reanalyzed 37 articles from three leading politicalscience journals that employed observational panel data with binary treatments.Using six newly introduced HTE-robust estimators, we find that althoughprecision may be affected, the core conclusions derived from TWFE estimateslargely remain unchanged. PTA violations and insufficient statistical power,however, continue to be significant obstacles to credible inferences. Based onthese findings, we offer recommendations for improving practice in empiricalresearch.

What To Do (and Not to Do) with Causal Panel Analysis under Parallel Trends: Lessons from A Large Reanalysis Study