IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_10707.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The E-Word - On the Public Acceptance of Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Mira Fischer
  • Elisabeth Grewenig
  • Philipp Lergetporer
  • Katharina Werner
  • Helen Zeidler

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," CESifo Working Paper Series 10707, CESifo.
  • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_10707
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/cesifo1_wp10707.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:feb:artefa:0106 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. James J. Heckman & Jeffrey A. Smith, 1995. "Assessing the Case for Social Experiments," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 85-110, Spring.
    3. Freundl Vera & Grewenig Elisabeth & Kugler Franziska & Lergetporer Philipp & Schüler Ruth & Wedel Katharina & Werner Katharina & Wirth Olivia & Woessmann Ludger, 2023. "The ifo Education Survey 2014–2021: A New Dataset on Public Preferences for Education Policy in Germany," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 243(6), pages 699-710, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Dave Huitema & Andrew Jordan & Stefania Munaretto & Mikael Hildén, 2018. "Policy experimentation: core concepts, political dynamics, governance and impacts," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(2), pages 143-159, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Sally Sadoff, 2014. "The role of experimentation in education policy," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 30(4), pages 597-620.
    8. Joshua D. Angrist & Victor Lavy, 2002. "The Effect of High School Matriculation Awards: Evidence from Randomized Trials," NBER Working Papers 9389, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Felix Chopra & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Andreas Stegmann, 2024. "The Null Result Penalty," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 134(657), pages 193-219.
    10. John List, 2008. "Informed consent in social science," Artefactual Field Experiments 00086, The Field Experiments Website.
    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. Chlond, Bettina & Goeschl, Timo & Lohse, Johannes, 2025. "Revealed preferences for policy experiments," Working Papers 0763, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    2. Robert Dur & Arjan Non & Paul Prottung & Benedetta Ricci, 2025. "Who's Afraid of Policy Experiments?," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 135(666), pages 538-555.

    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. Levitt, Steven D. & List, John A., 2009. "Field experiments in economics: The past, the present, and the future," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-18, January.
    2. Maria Cancian & Daniel R. Meyer & Robert G. Wood, 2022. "Do Carrots Work Better than Sticks? Results from the National Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(2), pages 552-578, March.
    3. Baird, Matthew D. & Engberg, John & Gutierrez, Italo A., 2022. "RCT evidence on differential impact of US job training programmes by pre-training employment status," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    4. Bernard Fortin, 1997. "Dépendance à l’égard de l’aide sociale et réforme de la sécurité du revenu," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 73(4), pages 557-573.
    5. Jason M. Lindo & Nicholas J. Sanders & Philip Oreopoulos, 2010. "Ability, Gender, and Performance Standards: Evidence from Academic Probation," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 95-117, April.
    6. Sylvain Chassang & Erik Snowberg & Ben Seymour & Cayley Bowles, 2015. "Accounting for Behavior in Treatment Effects: New Applications for Blind Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-13, June.
    7. James J. Heckman, 1991. "Randomization and Social Policy Evaluation Revisited," NBER Technical Working Papers 0107, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Jeffrey Smith, 2000. "A Critical Survey of Empirical Methods for Evaluating Active Labor Market Policies," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 136(III), pages 247-268, September.
    9. Riddell, Chris & Riddell, W. Craig, 2016. "When Can Experimental Evidence Mislead? A Re-Assessment of Canada's Self Sufficiency Project," IZA Discussion Papers 9939, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Büttner, Thomas, 2008. "Ankündigungseffekt oder Maßnahmewirkung? Eine Evaluation von Trainingsmaßnahmen zur Überprüfung der Verfügbarkeit (Notification or participation : which treatment actually activates job-seekers? An ev," Zeitschrift für ArbeitsmarktForschung - Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 41(1), pages 25-40.
    11. Matilde Machado, 2005. "Substance abuse treatment, what do we know?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(1), pages 53-64, March.
    12. Burt S. Barnow & Jeffrey Smith, 2015. "Employment and Training Programs," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United States, Volume 2, pages 127-234, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Alan B. Krueger, 2002. "Inequality, Too Much of a Good Thing," Working Papers 845, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    14. Christopher J. Ruhm, 2019. "Shackling the Identification Police?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 85(4), pages 1016-1026, April.
    15. Federico Cuomo & Stefania Ravazzi & Federico Savini & Luca Bertolini, 2020. "Transformative Urban Living Labs: Towards a Circular Economy in Amsterdam and Turin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-19, September.
    16. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2019. "How natural field experiments have enhanced our understanding of unemployment," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(1), pages 33-39, January.
    17. Victor Iajya & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis & Robert Slonim, 2012. "The Effects of Information, Social and Economic Incentives on Voluntary Undirected Blood Donations: Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial in Argentina," NBER Working Papers 18630, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Heckman, James, 2001. "Accounting for Heterogeneity, Diversity and General Equilibrium in Evaluating Social Programmes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(475), pages 654-699, November.
    19. Charles Bellemare & Bruce Shearer, 2011. "On The Relevance And Composition Of Gifts Within The Firm: Evidence From Field Experiments," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 52(3), pages 855-882, August.
    20. Jere R. Behrman & John Hoddinott & John A. Maluccio, & Erica Soler-Hampejsek & Emily L. Behrman & Reynaldo Martorell & Manuel Ramirez-Zea & Aryeh D. Stein, 2006. "What Determines Adult Cognitive Skills? Impacts of Pre-Schooling, Schooling and Post-Schooling Experiences in Guatemala," PIER Working Paper Archive 06-027, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:ces:ceswps:_10707. 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.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.