Comparer des méthodes

	Conception d'une étude d'événement spatiale	Différence-en-différences (Diff-in-Diff)
Domaine	Inférence causale	Économétrie
Famille	Regression model	Regression model
Année d'origine	2000s–2010s	1994
Auteur d'origine	Developed across applied spatial economics literature; canonical applications in Autor, Dorn & Hanson (2013) and related regional economics studies	Card & Krueger (canonical 1994 application); Angrist & Pischke (textbook treatment)
Type	Quasi-experimental causal inference with spatial structure	Causal inference / panel regression
Source fondatrice	Autor, D. H., Dorn, D., & Hanson, G. H. (2013). The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States. American Economic Review, 103(6), 2121-2168.	Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion. Princeton University Press. ISBN: 978-0691120355
Alias	spatial event study, geographic event study, spatial dynamic DiD, place-based event study	diff-in-diff, DiD, Farkların Farkı (Diff-in-Diff)
Apparentées	5	5
Résumé	Spatial event study design estimates the dynamic causal effects of a geographically concentrated shock or policy by plotting how outcomes in affected locations evolve relative to unaffected locations across time periods, while explicitly accounting for spatial spillovers and autocorrelation across geographic units. It is widely used in regional and urban economics to evaluate place-based policies, trade shocks, and local labour market interventions.	Difference-in-Differences is a causal-inference method that estimates the effect of an intervention by comparing how a treatment group and a control group change over time. Made famous by Card and Krueger's 1994 minimum-wage study and developed in Angrist and Pischke's Mostly Harmless Econometrics, it isolates the treatment effect as the difference between the two groups' before-after changes.