Setting up social experiments: the good, the bad, and the ugly
Abstract"It is widely agreed that randomized controlled trials - social experiments - are the gold standard for evaluating social programs. There are, however, many important issues that cannot be tested using social experiments, and often things go wrong when conducting social experiments. This paper explores these issues and offers suggestions on ways to deal with commonly encountered problems. Social experiments are preferred because random assignment assures that any differences between the treatment and control groups are due to the intervention and not some other factor; also, the results of social experiments are more easily explained and accepted by policy officials. Experimental evaluations often lack external validity and cannot control for entry effects, scale and general equilibrium effects, and aspects of the intervention that were not randomly assigned. Experiments can also lead to biased impact estimates if the control group changes its behavior or if changing the number selected changes the impact. Other problems with conducting social experiments include increased time and cost, and legal and ethical issues related to excluding people from the treatment. Things that sometimes go wrong in social experiments include programs cheating on random assignment, and participants and/or staff not understanding the intervention rules. The random assignment evaluation of the Job Training Partnership Act in the United States is used as a case study to illustrate the issues." (Author's abstract, IAB-Doku) ((en))
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany] in its journal Zeitschrift für ArbeitsmarktForschung – Journal for Labour Market Research.
Volume (Year): 43 (2010)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Angrist, Joshua D & Krueger, Alan B, 1991.
"Does Compulsory School Attendance Affect Schooling and Earnings?,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, vol. 106(4), pages 979-1014, November.
- Joshua Angrist & Alan Krueger, 1990. "Does Compulsory School Attendance Affect Schooling and Earnings?," Working Papers 653, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
- Joshua D. Angrist & Alan B. Krueger, 1990. "Does Compulsory School Attendance Affect Schooling and Earnings?," NBER Working Papers 3572, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (IAB, Geschäftsbereich Dokumentation und Bibliothek).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.