IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/idb/wpaper/4822.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

When Are Field Experiments with Individual Assignment Too Risky? Lessons from a Center-Based Child Care Study in Guatemala

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah Humpage

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials, prized for generating unbiased estimates of treatment effects, have become popular in development economics. However, RCTs do not always offer sufficient statistical power, which is reduced in experiments with imperfect compliance to treatment assignment. This is of critical importance if effect sizes are modest, and if non-compliance may occur. Both are likely in experiments in center-based childcare programs with individual-level randomization for several reasons. Dropout in the treatment group may occur because families' demand for preschool is unknown when the sample is constructed, and it evolves over time as households experience shocks and as they learn about the center. Non-compliance in the control group arises when children access the program or alternative preschool programs. This paper uses a recent evaluation of the Hogares Comunitarios program in Guatemala to illustrate challenges inherent in experimental evaluations and offers strategies to identify situations in which studies are more likely to succeed.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah Humpage, 2012. "When Are Field Experiments with Individual Assignment Too Risky? Lessons from a Center-Based Child Care Study in Guatemala," Research Department Publications 4822, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
  • Handle: RePEc:idb:wpaper:4822
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.iadb.org/research/pub_hits.cfm?pub_id=37305980
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Blundell & Alan Duncan & Costas Meghir, 1998. "Estimating Labor Supply Responses Using Tax Reforms," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(4), pages 827-862, July.
    2. Bruce, Donald, 2000. "Effects of the United States tax system on transitions into self-employment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(5), pages 545-574, September.
    3. James J. Heckman & Carmen Pagés, 2004. "Law and Employment: Lessons from Latin America and the Caribbean," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number heck04-1.
    4. Almeida, Rita K. & Carneiro, Pedro, 2005. "Enforcement of Regulation, Informal Labor and Firm Performance," IZA Discussion Papers 1759, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    5. Parker, Simon C, 1996. "A Time Series Model of Self-Employment under Uncertainty," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 63(251), pages 459-475, August.
    6. Blanchard, Olivier & Wolfers, Justin, 2000. "The Role of Shocks and Institutions in the Rise of European Unemployment: The Aggregate Evidence," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(462), pages 1-33, March.
    7. Francesco Daveri & Guido Tabellini, 2000. "Unemployment, growth and taxation in industrial countries," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 15(30), pages 47-104, April.
    8. Pissarides, Christopher A., 1998. "The impact of employment tax cuts on unemployment and wages; The role of unemployment benefits and tax structure," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 155-183, January.
    9. Adriana Kugler & Maurice Kugler, 2009. "Labor Market Effects of Payroll Taxes in Developing Countries: Evidence from Colombia," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(2), pages 335-358, January.
    10. James Albrecht & Lucas Navarro & Susan Vroman, 2009. "The Effects of Labour Market Policies in an Economy with an Informal Sector," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(539), pages 1105-1129, July.
    11. Stephen Nickell, 1997. "Unemployment and Labor Market Rigidities: Europe versus North America," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 55-74, Summer.
    12. Nada Eissa & Jeffrey B. Liebman, 1996. "Labor Supply Response to the Earned Income Tax Credit," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 111(2), pages 605-637.
    13. Camilo Mondragón-Vélez & Ximena Peña & Daniel Wills, 2010. "Labor Market Rigidities and Informality in Colombia," DOCUMENTOS CEDE 006717, UNIVERSIDAD DE LOS ANDES-CEDE.
    14. Almeida, Rita K. & Carneiro, Pedro, 2007. "Inequality and Employment in a Dual Economy: Enforcement of Labor Regulation in Brazil," IZA Discussion Papers 3094, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    15. James J. Heckman & Carmen Pagés, 2004. "Introduction to "Law and Employment: Lessons from Latin American and the Caribbean"," NBER Chapters,in: Law and Employment: Lessons from Latin America and the Caribbean, pages 1-108 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Robert Carroll & Douglas Holtz-Eakin & Mark Rider & Harvey S. Rosen, 2001. "Personal Income Taxes and the Growth of Small Firms," NBER Chapters,in: Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 15, pages 121-148 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Holmlund, Bertil, 1983. " Payroll Taxes and Wage Inflation: The Swedish Experience," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 85(1), pages 1-15.
    18. Sebastian Edwards & Alejandra Cox Edwards, 2002. "Social Security Privatization Reform and Labor Markets: The Case of Chile," NBER Working Papers 8924, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Triest, Robert K, 1992. "The Effect of Income Taxation on Labor Supply when Deductions Are Endogenous," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 74(1), pages 91-99, February.
    20. Daniel S. Hamermesh, 2004. "Labor Demand in Latin America and the Caribbean. What Does It Tell Us?," NBER Chapters,in: Law and Employment: Lessons from Latin America and the Caribbean, pages 553-562 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Gruber, Jonathan, 1994. "The Incidence of Mandated Maternity Benefits," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 622-641.
    22. repec:hoo:wpaper:e-90-11 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Donald Bruce & Mohammed Mohsin, 2006. "Tax Policy and Entrepreneurship: New Time Series Evidence," Small Business Economics, Springer, pages 409-425.
    24. Summers, Lawrence H, 1989. "Some Simple Economics of Mandated Benefits," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 177-183.
    25. Mroz, Thomas A, 1987. "The Sensitivity of an Empirical Model of Married Women's Hours of Work to Economic and Statistical Assumptions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(4), pages 765-799, July.
    26. Roger H. Gordon & Julie Berry Cullen, 2002. "Taxes and Entrepreneurial Activity: Theory and Evidence for the U.S," NBER Working Papers 9015, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    27. R. Glenn Hubbard & William M. Gentry, 2000. "Tax Policy and Entrepreneurial Entry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 283-287.
    28. Camilo Mondragón-Vélez & Ximena Peña & Daniel Wills, 2010. "Labor Market Rigidities and Informality in Colombia," ECONOMIA JOURNAL OF THE LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION, ECONOMIA JOURNAL OF THE LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION, vol. 0(Fall 2010), pages 65-101, August.
    29. MacIsaac, Donna & Rama, Martin, 1997. "Determinants of Hourly Earnings in Ecuador: The Role of Labor Market Regulations," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(3), pages 136-165, July.
    30. Thomas MaCurdy & David Green & Harry Paarsch, 1990. "Assessing Empirical Approaches for Analyzing Taxes and Labor Supply," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 25(3), pages 415-490.
    31. Beach, Charles M & Balfour, Frederick S, 1983. "Estimated Payroll Tax Incidence and Aggregate Demand for Labour in the United Kingdom," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 50(197), pages 35-48, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    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:idb:wpaper:4822. 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: (Felipe Herrera Library). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/iadbbus.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.

    We have no 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.

    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.