Randomized interventions and “real” treatment effects: A cautionary tale and an example

B-Tier
Journal: World Development
Year: 2020
Volume: 127
Issue: C

Score contribution per author:

0.670 = (α=2.01 / 3 authors) × 1.0x B-tier

α: calibrated so average coauthorship-adjusted count equals average raw count

Abstract

The experimental approach has revolutionized development economics. Nonetheless, randomization cannot do everything. We discuss challenges to RCTs, paying special attention to internal validity. Randomized interventions in social sciences are not double-blind and do not, in general, hold all relevant covariates constant. Treated and untreated subjects adjust their behavior in response to treatment status. Disentangling the treatment effect into its behavioral component and the direct effect of the intervention is difficult, and implies a return to the toolkit of observational studies. This is illustrated using improved seed distribution in African farming. While standard RCTs found large treatment effects, double-blind RCTs revealed that a large share of this impact is due to farmers allocating extra effort and their best plots to the cultivation of new seeds.

Technical Details

RePEc Handle
repec:eee:wdevel:v:127:y:2020:i:c:s0305750x19304395
Journal Field
Development
Author Count
3
Added to Database
2026-01-25