Partner Selection into Policy Relevant Field Experiments
This study investigates the issue of self-selection of stakeholders into participation and collaboration in policy-relevant experiments. We document and test the implications of self-selection in the context of randomised policy experiment we conducted in primary schools in the UK. The main questions we ask are (1) is there evidence of selection on key observable characteristics likely to matter for the outcome of interest and (2) does selection matter for the estimates of treatment effects. The experimental work consists in testing the effects of an intervention aimed at encouraging children to make more healthy choices at lunch. We recruited schools through local authorities and randomised schools across two incentive treatments and a control group. We document the selection taking place both at the level of local authorities and at the school level. Overall we find mild evidence of selection on key observables such as obesity levels and socio-economic characteristics. We find evidence of selection along indicators of involvement in healthy lifestyle programmes at the school level, but the magnitude is small. Moreover, we do not find significant differences in the treatment effects of the experiment between variables which, albeit to a mild degree, are correlated with selection into the experiment. To our knowledge, this is the first study providing direct evidence on the magnitude of self-selection in field experiments.
|Date of creation:||19 Dec 2013|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.econ.ed.ac.uk/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Jens Ludwig & Jeffrey R. Kling & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2011.
"Mechanism Experiments and Policy Evaluations,"
Journal of Economic Perspectives,
American Economic Association, vol. 25(3), pages 17-38, Summer.
- Oriana Bandiera & Iwan Barankay & Imran Rasul, 2007.
"Incentives for Managers and Inequality Among Workers: Evidence From a Firm-Level Experiment,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, vol. 122(2), pages 729-773, 05.
- Imran Rasul & Iwan Barankay & Orana Bandiera, 2006. "Incentives for managers and inequality among workers: Evidence from a firm level experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00213, The Field Experiments Website.
- Bandiera, Oriana & Barankay, Iwan & Rasul, Imran, 2006. "Incentives for Managers and Inequality Among Workers: Evidence from a Firm Level Experiment," CEPR Discussion Papers 5649, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Bandiera, Oriana & Barankay, Iwan & Rasul, Imran, 2006. "Incentives for Managers and Inequality Among Workers: Evidence from a Firm Level Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 2062, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- David Card & Stefano DellaVigna & Ulrike Malmendier, 2011.
"The Role of Theory in Field Experiments,"
NBER Working Papers
17047, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Ernst Fehr & Lorenz Goette, 2002.
"Do workers work more if wages are high? Evidence from a randomized field experiment,"
Natural Field Experiments
00240, The Field Experiments Website.
- Ernst Fehr & Lorenz Goette, 2007. "Do Workers Work More if Wages Are High? Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 298-317, March.
- Ernst Fehr & Lorenz Götte, 2005. "Do Workers Work More if Wages are High? Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," IEW - Working Papers 125, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
- Armin Falk, 2007. "Gift Exchange in the Field," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(5), pages 1501-1511, 09.
- Heckman, James J. & Lalonde, Robert J. & Smith, Jeffrey A., 1999. "The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 31, pages 1865-2097 Elsevier.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:edn:esedps:236. 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: (Gina Reddie)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.