--- name: eer-identification description: Use when the empirical causal-identification argument is the bottleneck for a European Economic Review (EER) manuscript — DiD/event-study, IV, RDD, or experiment. Stress-tests the design to EER's general-interest credibility bar before exhibits are finalized; it does not build the theory model or the robustness battery. --- # Identification Strategy (eer-identification) ## When to trigger - A causal claim rests on OLS + controls, or TWFE on staggered timing - An IV's exclusion restriction or first-stage strength is contested - An RDD's continuity/manipulation assumptions are unexamined - An experiment's estimand, balance, or pre-registration is unclear - You are unsure the design clears EER's credibility bar for a general-interest readership ## The EER identification bar EER publishes broadly across empirical economics, so identification is judged on **credibility legible to a general reader**: the **mapping from variation in the data to the causal object** must be explicit, the key assumption stated, and the most obvious threat pre-empted. Because review is **single-anonymized**, the referee is often a methods expert in your exact design — modern, design-appropriate estimators and honest inference are expected. Report **standard errors and confidence intervals** (EER house style; do not lean on significance stars — see `eer-tables-figures`). Match the size of the causal claim to what the design supports. ## Branch paths ### Branch A: DiD / event study - With **staggered adoption**, move beyond TWFE (Callaway–Sant'Anna, Sun–Abraham, de Chaisemartin–D'Haultfœuille); a TWFE coefficient on staggered timing must be defended against heterogeneity bias. - Show a clean **event-study** with pre-treatment leads (flat, precisely estimated) and dynamic post effects. - Report a **Goodman-Bacon decomposition** when using two-way fixed effects. - State the parallel-trends assumption and a **pre-trends / sensitivity** argument (e.g., Rambachan–Roth honest DiD). ### Branch B: IV - **Strong first stage** (report the first-stage F / effective F); with weak instruments use **Anderson–Rubin / weak-IV-robust** sets. - Defend the **exclusion restriction** in theory, institutions, and a falsification/placebo test. - Be explicit about the **LATE / complier** interpretation; do not generalize beyond it. ### Branch C: RDD - **Density/manipulation test** (McCrary or Cattaneo–Jansson–Ma); covariate smoothness at the cutoff. - **Optimal bandwidth + bias-corrected CIs** (Calonico–Cattaneo–Titiunik); show sensitivity to bandwidth. - State the **local** nature of the estimate. ### Branch D: Experiment / behavioral - **Pre-registration** where applicable; report deviations; include **instructions / survey transcripts**. - **Randomization balance**; attrition (Lee bounds if differential); **multiple-hypothesis** adjustment. - State the estimand and external-validity scope. > Clustering at the level of treatment assignment; with **few clusters** use wild-cluster bootstrap. Pair this skill with `eer-robustness` for the specification/sample battery. ## Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP) Estimate and audit the design, don't only describe it. Full map: [`execution-with-mcp`](../../../shared-resources/empirical-methods/execution-with-mcp.md). EER is a general economics field journal; the DiD/IV/RDD chain serves its applied lane. - `detect_design` → `recommend` → fit with `as_handle=true` → `audit_result`. - **Observational causal claims:** staggered DiD (`callaway_santanna` / `sun_abraham` + `bacon_decomposition` + `honest_did_from_result`); IV (`effective_f_test` + `anderson_rubin_ci`); RDD (`rdrobust` + `mccrary_test`). - **Experiments:** randomization-based inference + `romano_wolf` for many-outcome control. - **Sensitivity:** `oster_delta` / `sensemakr` for observational claims. Report the magnitude in interpretable units; route the full battery to the appendix. A run end-to-end (synthetic data, real returns) is in the [JF execution walkthrough](../../../Journal-of-Finance-Skills/resources/worked-examples/02-execution-walkthrough.md). ## Checklist - [ ] Branch chosen; the variation-to-causal-object mapping stated in one sentence - [ ] DiD: heterogeneity-robust estimator where TWFE would bias; flat pre-trends shown - [ ] IV: first-stage strength reported; exclusion defended + falsification; LATE stated - [ ] RDD: density test + bias-corrected CI + bandwidth sensitivity - [ ] Experiment: pre-registered (if applicable); balance/attrition/MHT handled; estimand stated - [ ] Inference: SEs/CIs reported, clustering at assignment level, few-cluster fix if needed - [ ] Causal claim never exceeds what the design supports ## Anti-patterns - TWFE on staggered treatment with no heterogeneity-bias discussion - An IV with an asserted-but-undefended exclusion restriction - RDD with no manipulation test and a single hand-picked bandwidth - An experiment with no pre-registration mention and no estimand - Reporting significance with asterisks instead of SEs/CIs (against EER house style) - Generalizing a LATE or a local RDD effect to a population it does not identify ## Worked vignette (illustrative) A migration paper uses a staggered visa-liberalization rollout. A weak version runs TWFE and reports a wage effect with stars. An EER version re-estimates with Callaway–Sant'Anna, shows flat leads and a dynamic post path, reports the effect as -1.4% local wages (s.e. 0.5, illustrative), runs Rambachan–Roth sensitivity, and states the estimand is the effect on incumbents in receiving regions — not a national average. The general-interest lesson (how labor supply shocks transmit to local wages) is named so a non-migration economist sees the point. ## Output format ``` 【Branch】DiD / IV / RDD / experiment 【Variation→object mapping】one sentence 【Key assumption】stated + the main threat pre-empted 【Design evidence】[pre-trends / first-stage F / density test / balance] 【Inference】SEs/CIs; clustering level; few-cluster fix? 【What it does NOT identify】[...] 【Next step】eer-theory-model (if a mechanism is needed) or eer-robustness ```