IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/23867.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Theory of Experimenters

Author

Listed:
  • Abhijit Banerjee
  • Sylvain Chassang
  • Sergio Montero
  • Erik Snowberg

Abstract

This paper proposes a decision-theoretic framework for experiment design. We model experimenters as ambiguity-averse decision-makers, who make trade-offs between subjective expected performance and robustness. This framework accounts for experimenters' preference for randomization, and clarifies the circumstances in which randomization is optimal: when the available sample size is large enough or robustness is an important concern. We illustrate the practical value of such a framework by studying the issue of rerandomization. Rerandomization creates a trade-off between subjective performance and robustness. However, robustness loss grows very slowly with the number of times one randomizes. This argues for rerandomizing in most environments.

Suggested Citation

  • Abhijit Banerjee & Sylvain Chassang & Sergio Montero & Erik Snowberg, 2017. "A Theory of Experimenters," NBER Working Papers 23867, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:23867
    Note: DEV ED HC HE LS PE POL
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23867.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Federico A. Bugni & Ivan A. Canay & Azeem M. Shaikh, 2015. "Inference under covariate-adaptive randomization," CeMMAP working papers CWP45/15, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    2. Humphreys, Macartan & Sanchez de la Sierra, Raul & van der Windt, Peter, 2013. "Fishing, Commitment, and Communication: A Proposal for Comprehensive Nonbinding Research Registration," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 1-20, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Tetenov, Aleksey, 2012. "Statistical treatment choice based on asymmetric minimax regret criteria," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 166(1), pages 157-165.
    5. 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.
    6. Edward Miguel & Michael Kremer, 2004. "Worms: Identifying Impacts on Education and Health in the Presence of Treatment Externalities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(1), pages 159-217, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Davide Viviano, 2020. "Experimental Design under Network Interference," Papers 2003.08421, arXiv.org.
    2. Pedro Carneiro & Sokbae (Simon) Lee & Daniel Wilhelm, 2016. "Optimal data collection for randomized control trials," CeMMAP working papers CWP15/16, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    3. Luc Behaghel & Karen Macours, & Julie Subervie, 2018. "Can RCTs help improve the design of CAP," Working Papers hal-01974425, HAL.
    4. Luc Behaghel & Karen Macours & Julie Subervie, 2019. "How can randomised controlled trials help improve the design of the common agricultural policy?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 46(3), pages 473-493.
    5. Deaton, Angus & Cartwright, Nancy, 2018. "Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 2-21.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:nbr:nberwo:23867. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.