Paper of the week (POW) this week goes to "Designing Difference in Difference Studies: Best Practices for Public Health Policy Research" by Coady Wing and coauthors published in the Annual Review of Public Health. 

​

It contains a lot of useful reminders on best practices for empirical strategies that rely on difference-in-difference estimators.

Very helpful! Used it this morning in exploring some preliminary results. 

"Persistent Political Engagement: Social Interactions and the Dynamics of Protest Movements " by Leonardo Brusztyn and numerous coauthors came up while doing some research this week, and is certainly now the paper of the week (POW).

A copy of the abstract, the thrilling bits of which are in bold: 

"We test whether participation in one protest within a political movement increases subsequent protest attendance, and why. To identify an effect of protest participation, we randomly, indirectly incentivize Hong Kong university students into participation in an antiauthoritarian protest. To identify the effects of social interactions, we randomize the intensity of this treatment across major-cohort cells. We find that experimentally-induced protest participation is significantly associated with protest attendance one year later, though political beliefs and preferences are unaffected. Persistent political engagement is greatest among individuals in the cells with highest treatment intensity, suggesting that social interactions sustained persistent political engagement."

A working paper version that is publicly available through Google may be found below.

"Mr. Hansen's models could lead a casual observer to conclude that race plays a
significantly larger role in Harvard s admissions process than it actually does... The models
incorporate far fewer variables than those prepared by the parties economic experts for this
litigation and omit many variables that are important to the admissions process. Compare [PX12
at 33 ] , with [ PD38 at 26 ]. Even Mr. Hansen's most complete model almost certainly suffers
from considerable omitted variable bias in light of the likely correlation between race and
important variables that Mr. Hansen did not include. Most notably, his models contain no
controls for socioeconomic and family circumstances that correlate with race and also affect
admissions decisions. See [PX12 at 33] . Given these deficiencies in the models, they are
entitled to little weight for the purpose of determining whether Harvard discriminates against
Asian American applicants, particularly given the availability of the experts far more
comprehensive models and the testimony offered by fact witnesses in this case. See Oct 19 Tr.
19: 19– 20:8... Hansen's models do suggest, consistent with other evidence, that Asian
Americans applicants excel in academic metrics; that tips for legacies and recruited athletes
result in more white students being admitted; that a projection of Harvard' s class based only on
the profile ratings, academic metrics, and athlete and legacy statuses is incomplete and results in
a projected class that is vastly less racially diverse than the one Harvard achieves; and that ,
absent any consideration of race,Harvard s classes would have drastically fewer African
American and Hispanic students."

I'm super pleased to announce that my article with a dear friend and colleague Alex McQuoid has been published in Applied Economics!

We have a few free copies that can be accessed if you click here. At some point this link will no longer provide free copies, a pre-print version can be found here on ResearchGate and embedded in the post below.