IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper

Kausale Evaluation von Pilotprojekten: Die Nutzung von Randomisierung in der Praxis

  • Arni, Patrick

    ()

    (IZA)

Wirkungsevaluationen stehen oft vor der Herausforderung, Kausalität zwischen der betrachteten neuen Politikmassnahme und den resultierenden Outcomes herzustellen. Mangelnde Vergleichbarkeit zwischen der Programmgruppe (neue Politik) und der Kontrollgruppe (Status Quo) macht oft eine kausale Interpretation der gefundenen Effekte schwierig (sind wirklich Programmeffekte oder eher Selektionseffekte für das Ergebnis verantwortlich?). Randomisierung – d.h. Zufallszuweisung in Programm- und Kontrollgruppe – sorgt für eine sehr hohe Vergleichbarkeit. In diesem Beitrag werden die Möglichkeiten der Nutzung von randomisierten Studien in der Evaluation von Pilotprojekten diskutiert. Erstens werden Gründe, die für Randomisierung sprechen, sowie Einschränkungen in der Anwendung der Methode diskutiert. Im zweiten Teil des Beitrages wird aufgezeigt, wo aktuell randomisierte Evaluationsstudien in Europa bereits eingesetzt werden – diese Beispiele demonstrieren die Einsatzmöglichkeiten und das Potenzial der Methode. Drittens wird auf die Praxis der Umsetzung und Planung von randomisierten Studien eingegangen: Eine Reihe von zentralen Punkten wird diskutiert, die bei der Implementierung von solchen kausalen Evaluationen im Auge behalten werden sollten.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://ftp.iza.org/sp52.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in its series IZA Standpunkte with number 52.

as
in new window

Length: 30 pages
Date of creation: Nov 2012
Date of revision:
Publication status: published in: LeGes – Gesetzgebung und Evaluation , 2012/3, 23 (3), 355-386
Handle: RePEc:iza:izasps:sp52
Contact details of provider: Postal:
IZA, P.O. Box 7240, D-53072 Bonn, Germany

Phone: +49 228 3894 223
Fax: +49 228 3894 180
Web page: http://www.iza.org

Order Information: Postal: IZA, Margard Ody, P.O. Box 7240, D-53072 Bonn, Germany
Email:


References listed on IDEAS
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.:

as in new window
  1. Schneider, Hilmar & Uhlendorff, Arne & Zimmermann, Klaus F., 2011. "Ökonometrie vs. Projektdesign: Lehren aus der Evaluation eines Modellprojekts zur Umsetzung des Workfare-Konzepts," IZA Discussion Papers 5599, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  2. Engström, Per & Hägglund, Pathric & Johansson, Per, 2012. "Early Interventions and Disability Insurance: Experience from a Field Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 6553, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  3. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. & Imbens, Guido, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Scholarly Articles 3043416, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  4. Luc Behaghel & Bruno Cr?pon & Marc Gurgand, 2014. "Private and Public Provision of Counseling to Job Seekers: Evidence from a Large Controlled Experiment," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(4), pages 142-74, October.
  5. Bruno Crépon & Esther Duflo & Marc Gurgand & Roland Rathelot & Philippe Zamora, 2012. "Do Labor Market Policies have Displacement Effects? Evidence from a Clustered Randomized Experiment," Working Papers 2012-28, Centre de Recherche en Economie et Statistique.
  6. Armin Falk & Rafael Lalive & Josef Zweim�ller, . "The Sucess of Job Applications: A New Approach to Program Evaluation," IEW - Working Papers 131, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
  7. Baert, Stijn & Cockx, Bart & Gheyle, Niels & Vandamme, Cora, 2013. "Do Employers Discriminate Less If Vacancies Are Difficult to Fill? Evidence from a Field Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 7145, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  8. Card, David & Ibarrarán, Pablo & Villa, Juan Miguel, 2011. "Building in an Evaluation Component for Active Labor Market Programs: A Practitioner's Guide," IZA Discussion Papers 6085, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  9. John DiNardo & David S. Lee, 2010. "Program Evaluation and Research Designs," NBER Working Papers 16016, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  10. Richard Blundell & Monica Costa Dias, 2008. "Alternative approaches to evaluation in empirical microeconomics," CeMMAP working papers CWP26/08, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  11. Imran Rasul & John List, 2010. "Field experiments in labor economics," Artefactual Field Experiments 00092, The Field Experiments Website.
  12. Eva Kislingerová, 2012. "Recenze publikace Stanislawa Sudola Řízení vědy. Hlavní problémy a diskuse," Ekonomika a Management, University of Economics, Prague, vol. 2012(2), pages 65.
  13. van den Bergh, Gerhard & van deer Klaauw, Bas, 2001. "Counseling and monitoring of unemployed workers: theory and evidence from a controlled social experiment," Working Paper Series 2001:12, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
  14. Falk, Armin & Lalive, Rafael & Zweimüller, Josef, 2004. "The Success of Job Applications: A New Approach to Programme Evaluation," CEPR Discussion Papers 4461, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  15. White, Howard, 2006. "Impact evaluation: the experience of the Independent Evaluation Group of the World Bank," MPRA Paper 1111, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  16. Ashenfelter, Orley, 1987. "The case for evaluating training programs with randomized trials," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 333-338, August.
  17. Rosholm, Michael, 2008. "Experimental Evidence on the Nature of the Danish Employment Miracle," Working Papers 08-14, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics.
  18. Eva Kislingerová, 2012. "Předmluva," Ekonomika a Management, University of Economics, Prague, vol. 2012(3).
  19. David E. Card & Pablo Ibarraran & Juan Miguel Villa, 2011. "Building in an Evaluation Component for Active Labor Market Programs: A Practitioner's Guide," SPD Working Papers 1101, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Strategic Planning and Development Effectiveness (SPD).
  20. Guido Schwerdt & Dolores Messer & Ludger Woessmann & Stefan C. Wolter, 2011. "Effects of Adult Education Vouchers on the Labor Market: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," CESifo Working Paper Series 3331, CESifo Group Munich.
  21. Peter F. Lutz & Malte Sandner, 2010. "Zur Effizienz früher Hilfen: Forschungsdesign und erste Ergebnisse eines randomisierten kontrollierten Experiments," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 79(3), pages 79-97.
  22. Eva Kislingerová, 2012. "Předmluva," Ekonomika a Management, University of Economics, Prague, vol. 2012(2).
  23. Duflo, Esther & Glennerster, Rachel & Kremer, Michael, 2008. "Using Randomization in Development Economics Research: A Toolkit," Handbook of Development Economics, Elsevier.
  24. repec:idb:brikps:58518 is not listed on IDEAS
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:iza:izasps:sp52. 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: (Mark Fallak)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.