IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Learning about Treatment Effects from Experiments with Random Assignment of Treatments

  • Charles F. Manski

The importance of social programs to a diverse population creates a legitimate concern that the findings of evaluations be widely credible. The weaker the assumptions imposed, the more widely credible are the findings. The classical argument for random assignment of treatments is viewed by many as enabling evaluation under weak assumptions, and it has generated much interest in the conduct of experiments. But the classical argument does impose assumptions, and there often is good reason to doubt their realism. The methodological research described in this article explores the inferences that may be drawn from experimental data under assumptions weak enough to yield widely credible findings. This literature has two branches. One seeks out notions of treatment effect that are identified when the experimental data are combined with weak assumptions. The canonical finding is that the average treatment effect within some context-specific subpopulation is identified. The other branch specifies a population of a priori interest and seeks to learn about treatment effects in this population. Here the canonical finding is a bound on average treatment effects. The various approaches to the analysis of experiments are complementary from a mathematical perspective, but in tension as guides to evaluation practice. The reader of an evaluation reporting that some social program "works" or has a "positive impact" should be careful to ascertain what treatment effect has been estimated and under what assumptions.

If 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.

File URL:
Download Restriction: A subscription is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by University of Wisconsin Press in its journal Journal of Human Resources.

Volume (Year): 31 (1996)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
Pages: 709-733

in new window

Handle: RePEc:uwp:jhriss:v:31:y:1996:i:4:p:709-733
Contact details of provider: Web page:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:jhriss:v:31:y:1996:i:4:p:709-733. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ()

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.