IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aiw/wpaper/31.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The E-Word – On the Public Acceptance of Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Mira Fischer

    (WZB Berlin)

  • Elisabeth Grewenig

    (Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW))

  • Philipp Lergetporer

    (Technical University of Munich, CESifo and IZA)

  • Katharina Werner

    (ifo Institute at the Ludwigs-Maximilians-University of Munich)

  • Helen Zeidler

    (Technical University of Munich)

Abstract

Randomized experiments are often viewed as the “gold standard” of scientific evidence, but people’s scepticism towards experiments has compromised their viability in the past. We study preferences for experimental policy evaluations in a representative survey in Germany (N>1,900). We find that a majority of 75% supports the idea of small-scale evaluations of policies before enacting them at a large scale. Experimentally varying whether the evaluations are explicitly described as “experiments” has a precisely estimated overall zero effect on public support. Our results indicate political leeway for experimental policy evaluation, a practice that is still uncommon in Germany.

Suggested Citation

  • Mira Fischer & Elisabeth Grewenig & Philipp Lergetporer & Katharina Werner & Helen Zeidler, 2023. "The E-Word – On the Public Acceptance of Experiments," Munich Papers in Political Economy 31, Munich School of Politics and Public Policy and the School of Management at the Technical University of Munich.
    • Handle: RePEc:aiw:wpaper:31
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cms.mgt.tum.de/fileadmin/mgt.tum.de/faculty_and_research/mppe/31_paper_experiment_experiment_09102023.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sebastian Blesse & Philipp Lergetporer & Justus Nover & Katharina Werner, 2023. "Transparency and Policy Competition: Experimental Evidence from German Citizens and Politicians," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 387, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    2. Regina T. Riphahn & Ludger Wößmann, 2016. "Mehr Transparenz in der Bildungspolitik [More Transparency in Education Policy]," Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 96(7), pages 474-478, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dur, Robert & Non, Arjan & Prottung, Paul & Ricci, Benedetta, 2023. "Who's Afraid of Policy Experiments?," OSF Preprints yshkt, Center for Open Science.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fialkoff, Marc R. & Omitaomu, Olufemi A. & Peterson, Steven K. & Tuttle, Mark A., 2017. "Using geographic information science to evaluate legal restrictions on freight transportation routing in disruptive scenarios," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 60-74.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I28 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Government Policy
    • H40 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - General
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aiw:wpaper:31. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MPPE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fwtumde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.