Fixed Effects and Post-Treatment Bias in Legacy Studies

7Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Pepinsky, Goodman, and Ziller (2024, American Political Science Review, PGZ) reassess a recent study on the long-term consequences of concentration camps in Germany. The authors conclude that accounting for contemporary (i.e., post-treatment) state heterogeneity in the models provides unbiased estimates of the effects of camps on current-day outgroup intolerance. In this note, we show that PGZ's empirical strategy rests on (a) a mischaracterization of what regional fixed effects capture and (b) two unrealistic assumptions that can be avoided with pre-treatment state fixed effects. We further demonstrate that results from the original article remain substantively the same when we incorporate regional fixed effects correctly. Finally, simulations reveal that camp proximity consistently outperforms spatially correlated noise in this specific study. The note contributes to the growing literature on legacy studies by advancing the discussion about the correct modeling choices in this challenging field.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Homola, J., Pereira, M. M., & Tavits, M. (2024). Fixed Effects and Post-Treatment Bias in Legacy Studies. American Political Science Review, 118(1), 537–544. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055423001351

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free