The evaluation of interventions such as active labor market policies or medical programs by means of a randomized controlled trial is often considered the gold standard. However, randomized experiments might face severe shortcomings especially if performed at the group level. One such problem is caused by small sample size which might prevent the experiment from developing its fundamental virtue in balancing all relevant covariates. This paper investigates the potential and limits of experimental and non-experimental approaches to the evaluation problem, in particular the use of instrumental variables, in a numerical simulation study, against the particular background of community-based interventions. In our simulations, we emphasize the trade-off between bias and precision by imposing a smaller number of communities whenever we model a randomized experiment, and by allowing for a correspondingly larger number of communities in all cases where selection into the program is not controlled completely by the analyst.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. 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.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in its series IZA Discussion Papers with number
270.
Find related papers by JEL classification: C15 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: General - - - Statistical Simulation Methods H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
Cited by: (explanations, 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.)