IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cwl/cwldpp/2127r.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Experiment-as-Market: Incorporating Welfare into Randomized Controlled Trials

Author

Abstract

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) enroll hundreds of millions of subjects and involve many human lives. To improve subjects’ welfare, I propose a design of RCTs that I call Experiment-as-Market (EXAM). EXAM produces a Pareto efficient allocation of treatment assignment probabilities, is asymptotically incentive compatible for preference elicitation, and unbiasedly estimates any causal effect estimable with standard RCTs. I quantify these properties by applying EXAM to a water cleaning experiment in Kenya (Kremer et al., 2011). In this empirical setting, compared to standard RCTs, EXAM substantially improves subjects’ predicted well-being while reaching similar treatment effect estimates with similar precision.

Suggested Citation

  • Yusuke Narita, 2018. "Experiment-as-Market: Incorporating Welfare into Randomized Controlled Trials," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2127r, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised May 2019.
  • Handle: RePEc:cwl:cwldpp:2127r
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d21/d2127-r.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hu, Feifang & Rosenberger, William F., 2003. "Optimality, Variability, Power: Evaluating Response-Adaptive Randomization Procedures for Treatment Comparisons," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 98, pages 671-678, January.
    2. Eduardo M Azevedo & Eric Budish, 2019. "Strategy-proofness in the Large," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 86(1), pages 81-116.
    3. James J. Heckman & Edward Vytlacil, 2005. "Structural Equations, Treatment Effects, and Econometric Policy Evaluation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(3), pages 669-738, May.
    4. James Berry & Greg Fischer & Raymond Guiteras, 2020. "Eliciting and Utilizing Willingness to Pay: Evidence from Field Trials in Northern Ghana," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(4), pages 1436-1473.
    5. Atila Abdulkadiroğlu & Joshua D. Angrist & Yusuke Narita & Parag A. Pathak, 2017. "Research Design Meets Market Design: Using Centralized Assignment for Impact Evaluation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 1373-1432, September.
    6. Toru Kitagawa & Aleksey Tetenov, 2018. "Who Should Be Treated? Empirical Welfare Maximization Methods for Treatment Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(2), pages 591-616, March.
    7. Kasy, Maximilian, 2016. "Why Experimenters Might Not Always Want to Randomize, and What They Could Do Instead," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 324-338, July.
    8. S. A. Murphy, 2003. "Optimal dynamic treatment regimes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 65(2), pages 331-355, May.
    9. Tat Y. Chan & Barton H. Hamilton, 2006. "Learning, Private Information, and the Economic Evaluation of Randomized Experiments," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(6), pages 997-1040, December.
    10. Ashraf, Nava & Karlan, Dean & Yin, Wesley, 2010. "Female Empowerment: Impact of a Commitment Savings Product in the Philippines," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 333-344, March.
    11. Angrist, J.D. & Imbens, G.W., 1991. "Sources of Identifying Information in Evaluation Models," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1568, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
    12. Yusuki Narita, 2016. "(Non)Randomization: A Theory of Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of School Quality," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2056, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    13. Abadie, Alberto & Athey, Susan & Imbens, Guido W. & Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 2017. "Sampling-Based vs. Design-Based Uncertainty in Regression Analysis," Research Papers 3349, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    14. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, April.
    15. Jackson, Matthew O., 1992. "Incentive compatibility and competitive allocations," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 299-302, November.
    16. Jessica Cohen & Pascaline Dupas, 2010. "Free Distribution or Cost-Sharing? Evidence from a Randomized Malaria Prevention Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 125(1), pages 1-45.
    17. Hylland, Aanund & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1979. "The Efficient Allocation of Individuals to Positions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 87(2), pages 293-314, April.
    18. Imbens,Guido W. & Rubin,Donald B., 2015. "Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521885881, April.
    19. Christopher R. Walters, 2018. "The Demand for Effective Charter Schools," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(6), pages 2179-2223.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research Ethics; Clinical Trial; Social Experiment; A/B Test; Market Design; Causal Inference; Development Economics; Spring Protection; Discrete Choice;

    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:cwl:cwldpp:2127r. 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: (Matthew Regan). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/cowleus.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.