.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
Highly prized experiments
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
DOI：10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104824.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
The new Nobel prize winners have expertly popularized randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as the tool-of-choice for empirical research. The award is a good opportunity to reflect on the role of RCTs in development-policy evaluation. Unbiasedness is the tool's main virtue; transparency is another. Practitioners should also be aware of some limitations. First, an RCT assigns the treatment in a different way to most real-world policies, which use purposive selection; given heterogeneous impacts, one is evaluating a different intervention. Second, the tool may only be feasible for non-random subsets of both the relevant populations and the policy options, biasing assessments of overall development effectiveness. Third, given budget-constraints and a bias-variance trade-off, a non-RCT may allow a larger sample size, making its trials often closer to the truth. There is a continuing need for a broad range of research methods for addressing pressing knowledge gaps in fighting poverty. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Randomized controlled trials
Bias
Sample selection
AI Summary
Key information extracted from the uploaded paper, including a brief overview, abstract, background, key highlights, visual analysis, and future outlook.