IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/27600.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Randomization in the Tropics Revisited: a Theme and Eleven Variations

Author

Listed:
  • Angus Deaton

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials have been used in economics for 50 years, and intensively in economic development for more than 20. There has been a great deal of useful work, but RCTs have no unique advantages or disadvantages over other empirical methods in economics. They do not simplify inference, nor can an RCT establish causality. Many of the difficulties were recognized and explored in economics 30 years ago, but are sometimes forgotten. I review some of the most relevant issues here. The most troubling questions concern ethics, especially when very poor people are experimented on. Finding out what works, even if such a thing is possible, is in itself a deeply inadequate basis for policy

Suggested Citation

  • Angus Deaton, 2020. "Randomization in the Tropics Revisited: a Theme and Eleven Variations," NBER Working Papers 27600, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:27600
    Note: AG DEV EH
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w27600.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Fatoumata Nankoto Cissé, 2022. "How impact evaluation methods influence the outcomes of development projects? Evidence from a meta-analysis on decentralized solar nano projects," Post-Print halshs-03623394, HAL.
    2. Fatoumata Nankoto Cissé, 2022. "How impact evaluation methods influence the outcomes of development projects? Evidence from a meta-analysis on decentralized solar nano projects," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-03623394, HAL.
    3. Wintrup, James, 2023. "Health by the people, again? The lost lessons of Alma-Ata in a community health worker programme in Zambia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 319(C).
    4. Giovanni Dosi, 2022. "The Agenda for Evolutionary Economics: Results, Dead Ends, and Challenges Ahead," LEM Papers Series 2022/24, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    5. Aidan Coville & Sebastian Galiani & Paul Gertler & Susumu Yoshida, 2020. "Financing Municipal Water and Sanitation Services in Nairobi’s Informal Settlements," NBER Working Papers 27569, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Stefano Caria & Grant Gordon & Maximilian Kasy & Simon Quinn & Soha Shami & Alexander Teytelboym, 2020. "An Adaptive Targeted Field Experiment: Job Search Assistance for Refugees in Jordan," CESifo Working Paper Series 8535, CESifo.
    7. George W. Norton, 2020. "Lessons from a Career in Agricultural Development and Research Evaluation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 151-167, June.
    8. Randall S. Brown, 2023. "2020 Rossi Award Lecture: The Evolving Art of Program Evaluation," Evaluation Review, , vol. 47(2), pages 209-230, April.
    9. Travis J. Lybbert & Steven T. Buccola, 2021. "The evolving ethics of analysis, publication, and transparency in applied economics," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(4), pages 1330-1351, December.
    10. Fatoumata Nankoto Cissé, 2022. "How impact evaluation methods influence the outcomes of development projects? Evidence from a meta-analysis on decentralized solar nano projects," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 22008, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    11. Atheendar S. Venkataramani, 2021. "Effective Policymaking Requires Strong Evidence: Randomized Controlled Trials As The Foundation For Evidence‐Based Policy," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(2), pages 650-656, March.
    12. Atheendar S. Venkataramani, 2021. "Effective Policymaking Requires Strong Evidence: Randomized Controlled Trials As The Foundation For Evidence‐Based Policy," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(2), pages 650-657, March.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C01 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - Econometrics
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • O22 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Project Analysis

    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:27600. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.