IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rco/dpaper/219.html

The E-Word – On the Public Acceptance of Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Fischer, Mira

    (WZB Berlin)

  • Grewenig, Elisabeth

    (ifo Institute)

  • Lergetporer, Philipp

    (ifo Institute)

  • Werner, Katharina

    (ifo Institute)

Abstract

Randomized experiments are often viewed as the “gold standard” of scientific evidence but people’s scepticism towards experiments has compromised their viability in the past. We study preferences for experimental policy evaluations in a representative survey in Germany (N>1,900). We find that a majority of 75% supports the idea of small-scale evaluations of policies before enacting them at a large scale. Experimentally varying whether the evaluations are explicitly described as “experiments” has a precisely estimated overall zero effect on public support. Our results indicate political leeway for experimental policy evaluation, a practice that is still uncommon in Germany.

Suggested Citation

  • Fischer, Mira & Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Werner, Katharina, 2019. "The E-Word – On the Public Acceptance of Experiments," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 219, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    • Handle: RePEc:rco:dpaper:219
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://rationality-and-competition.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/219.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Chlond, Bettina & Goeschl, Timo & Lohse, Johannes, 2025. "Revealed preferences for policy experiments," Working Papers 0763, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    3. Robert Dur & Arjan Non & Paul Prottung & Benedetta Ricci, 2025. "Who's Afraid of Policy Experiments?," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 135(666), pages 538-555.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • I28 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Government Policy
    • H40 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - General
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    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:rco:dpaper:219. 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: Viviana Lalli (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://rationality-and-competition.de .

    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.