IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cgd/wpaper/492.html

Should the Randomistas (Continue to) Rule?

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Ravallion

    (Georgetown University)

Abstract

The rising popularity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in development applications has come with continuing debates on the pros and cons of this approach. The paper revisits the issues. While RCTs have a place in the toolkit for impact evaluation, an unconditional preference for RCTs as the “gold standard” is questionable. The statistical case is unclear on a priori grounds; a stronger ethical defense is often called for; and there is a risk of distorting the evidence-base for informing policymaking. Going forward, pressing knowledge gaps should drive the questions asked and how they are answered, not the methodological preferences of some researchers. The gold standard is the best method for the question at hand.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Ravallion, 2018. "Should the Randomistas (Continue to) Rule?," Working Papers 492, Center for Global Development, revised 17 Jan 2019.
    • Handle: RePEc:cgd:wpaper:492
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cgdev.org/publication/should-randomistas-continue-rule
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Fatoumata Nankoto Cissé, 2022. "How impact evaluation methods influence the outcomes of development projects? Evidence from a meta-analysis on decentralized solar nano projects," Post-Print halshs-03623394, HAL.
    2. Soyoung Kim & Yuki Higuchi & Kei Kajisa & Yasuyuki Sawada, 2024. "Infrastructure and Structural Transformation: Evidence from Satellite, Administrative, and Multi-Generation Household Data in a Developing Country," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-1237, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    3. Charles Yuji Horioka, 2021. "Is the selfish life-cycle model more applicable in Japan and, if so, why? A literature survey," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 157-187, March.
    4. Giovanni Abbiati & Davide Azzolini & Anja Balanskat & Katja Engelhart & Daniela Piazzalunga & Enrico Rettore & Patricia Wastiau, 2023. "Effects of an Online Self-Assessment Tool on Teachers’ Digital Competencies," FBK-IRVAPP Working Papers 2023-01, Research Institute for the Evaluation of Public Policies (IRVAPP), Bruno Kessler Foundation.
    5. Juan Andrés Cabral & Florencia Iara Pucci, 2020. "¿Cuál es el alcance de la revolución de la credibilidad?," Asociación Argentina de Economía Política: Working Papers 4318, Asociación Argentina de Economía Política.
    6. Fatoumata Nankoto Cissé, 2022. "How impact evaluation methods influence the outcomes of development projects? Evidence from a meta-analysis on decentralized solar nano projects," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-03623394, HAL.
    7. Carmen Camacho & Hannes Tepper, 2025. "Do this or do that? A model to prioritize reforms," Working Papers halshs-04005785, HAL.
    8. Felix Naschold & Christopher B. Barrett, 2020. "A stochastic dominance approach to program evaluation with an application to child nutritional status in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(6), pages 871-886, November.
    9. Ravallion, Martin, 2020. "Highly prized experiments," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    10. Castaing, Pauline & Gazeaud, Jules, 2025. "Do index insurance programs live up to their promises? Aggregating evidence from multiple experiments," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    11. Vikram Tyagi & Sophie Webber, 2021. "A rusting gold standard: Failures in an Indonesian RCT, and the implications for poverty reduction," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 53(5), pages 992-1011, August.
    12. Clotilde Mahé & Philipp Hessel, 2022. "School-age exposure to conditional cash transfers and adult mental health: Evidence from Mexico’s Progresa," Documentos de trabajo 20155, Escuela de Gobierno - Universidad de los Andes.
    13. Hanushek, Eric A., 2021. "Addressing cross-national generalizability in educational impact evaluation," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    14. Abel Brodeur & Nikolai M. Cook & Jonathan S. Hartley & Anthony Heyes, 2024. "Do Preregistration and Preanalysis Plans Reduce p-Hacking and Publication Bias? Evidence from 15,992 Test Statistics and Suggestions for Improvement," Journal of Political Economy Microeconomics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(3), pages 527-561.
    15. J. Nicolas Hernandez-Aguilera & Max Mauerman & Alexandra Herrera & Kathryn Vasilaky & Walter Baethgen & Ana Maria Loboguerrero & Rahel Diro & Yohana Tesfamariam Tekeste & Daniel Osgood, 2020. "Games and Fieldwork in Agriculture: A Systematic Review of the 21st Century in Economics and Social Science," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-22, October.
    16. Simon Feeny & Gill Westhorp & Emma Williams, 2023. "Understanding sustainable outcomes in international development: Towards a realist evaluation framework," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(1), pages 21-42, January.
    17. Carmen Camacho & Hannes Tepper, 2025. "Do this or do that? A model to prioritize reforms," PSE Working Papers halshs-04005785, HAL.
    18. Fatoumata Nankoto Cissé, 2022. "How impact evaluation methods influence the outcomes of development projects? Evidence from a meta-analysis on decentralized solar nano projects," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 22008, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    19. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Hartley, Jonathan & Heyes, Anthony, 2022. "Do Pre-Registration and Pre-analysis Plans Reduce p-Hacking and Publication Bias?," MetaArXiv uxf39, Center for Open Science.
    20. Fuchs, Lisa Elena & Orero, Levi & Apondi, Victoria Atieno & Kipkorir, Lang'at, 2021. "How to stop wasting money in international development: Using a structured group selection approach to counter procedural inefficiency," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 24(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • B41 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - Economic Methodology
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • O22 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Project Analysis

    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:cgd:wpaper:492. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Publications Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cgdevus.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.