1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Economics
  4. Volume 1, 2009
  5. Article

Annual Review of Economics

Volume 1, 2009

The Experimental Approach to Development Economics

Abstract

Randomized experiments have become a popular tool in development economics research and have been the subject of a number of criticisms. This paper reviews the recent literature and discusses the strengths and limitations of this approach in theory and in practice. We argue that the main virtue of randomized experiments is that, owing to the close collaboration between researchers and implementers, they allow the estimation of parameters that would not otherwise be possible to evaluate. We discuss the concerns that have been raised regarding experiments and generally conclude that, although real, they are often not specific to experiments. We conclude by discussing the relationship between theory and experiments.

Keyword(s): development economics, program evaluation, randomized experiments
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.economics.050708.143235
2009-09-01
2025-02-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/arec/1/1/annurev.economics.050708.143235.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.economics.050708.143235&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abadie A. 2002. Bootstrap tests for distributional treatment effects in instrumental variables models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 97:(457)284–92 [Google Scholar]
  2. Abbring JH, Heckman JJ. 2008. Econometrics evaluation of social programs part III: distributional treatment effects, dynamic treatment effects, dynamic discrete choice and general equilibrium policy evaluation Heckman & Leamers 20085145–5303 [Google Scholar]
  3. Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (ALJ-PAL) 2005. Fighting Poverty: What Works?, Fall, Issue 1 Cambridge, MA: MIT [Google Scholar]
  4. Acemoglu D, Angrist J. 2001.How large are human-capital externalities? Evidence from compulsory schooling laws NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2000 BS Bernanke, K Rogoff 159–74 Cambridge, MA: NBER [Google Scholar]
  5. Angrist J, Bettinger E, Bloom E, Kremer M, King E. 2002. Vouchers for private schooling in Colombia: evidence from randomized natural experiments. Am. Econ. Rev. 92:(5)1535–58 [Google Scholar]
  6. Angrist J, Bettinger E, Kremer M. 2006. Long-term educational consequences of secondary school vouchers: evidence from administrative records in Colombia. Am. Econ. Rev. 96:(3)847–62 [Google Scholar]
  7. Angrist J, Lang D, Oreopoulos P. 2009. Incentives and services for college achievement: evidence from a randomized trial. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 1:136–63 [Google Scholar]
  8. Angrist J, Lavy V. 2009. The effect of high school matriculation awards: evidence from group-level randomized trials. Am. Econ. Rev. In press (see also NBER Work. Pap. 9389). [Google Scholar]
  9. Ashraf N, Berry J, Shapiro JM. 2007. Can higher prices stimulate product use? Evidence from a field experiment in Zambia Work. Pap.13247 NBER: [Google Scholar]
  10. Ashraf N, Karlan D, Yin W. 2006. Tying Odysseus to the mast: evidence from a commitment savings product in the Philippines. Q. J. Econ. 121:(2)635–72 [Google Scholar]
  11. Attanasio O, Barr A, Camillo J, Genicot G, Meghir C. 2008a. Group formation and risk pooling in a field experiment Mimeogr.: Georgetown Univ. [Google Scholar]
  12. Attanasio O, Kugler A, Meghir C. 2008b. Training disadvantaged youth in Latin America: evidence from a randomized trial Work. Pap. Inst. Fisc. Stud.: [Google Scholar]
  13. Attanasio O, Meghir C, Santiago A. 2001. Education choices in Mexico: using a structural model and a randomized experiment to evaluate Progresa Mimeogr.: Univ. Coll. Lond. [Google Scholar]
  14. Banaji M. 2001.Implicit attitudes can be measured The Nature of Remembering: Essays in Honor of Robert G. Crowder HL Roediger III, JS Nairne, I Neath, A Surprenant 117–50 Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc. [Google Scholar]
  15. Banerjee A. 2002. The uses of economic theory: against a purely positive interpretation of theoretical results Work. Pap.007 Dep. Econ., MIT: [Google Scholar]
  16. Banerjee A. 2005. New development economics and the challenge to theory. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 40:(40)4340–44 [Google Scholar]
  17. Banerjee A. 2007. Making Aid Work Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  18. Banerjee A. 2008. Big answers for big questions: the presumption of growth policy Mimeogr.: Dep. Econ., MIT [Google Scholar]
  19. Banerjee A, Banerji R, Duflo E, Glennerster R, Khemani S. 2009. Pitfalls of participatory programs: evidence from a randomized evaluation in education in India Work. Pap. 14311, NBER; Am. Econ. J: Econ. Policy Forthcoming [Google Scholar]
  20. Banerjee A, Cole S, Duflo E, Linden L. 2007. Remedying education: evidence from two randomized experiments in India. Q. J. Econ. 122:(3)1235–64 [Google Scholar]
  21. Banerjee A, Duflo E. 2005.Growth theory through the lens of development economics Handbook of Economic Growth S Durlauf, P Aghion 1A473–552 Amsterdam Elsevier Sci. Ltd. North Holl.: [Google Scholar]
  22. Banerjee A, Duflo E, Glennerster R, Kothari D. 2008. Improving immunization coverage in rural India: a clustered randomized controlled evaluation of immunization campaigns with and without incentives Mimeogr.: Dep. Econ., MIT [Google Scholar]
  23. Banerjee A, Jacob S, Kremer M, Lanjouw J, Lanjouw P. 2005. Moving to universal education! Costs and trade offs Mimeogr.: Dep. Econ., MIT [Google Scholar]
  24. Beaman L, Chattopadhyay R, Duflo E, Pande R, Topalova P. 2009. Powerful women: does exposure reduce bias? BREAD Work. Pap. 181; Work. Pap. 14198, NBER; Q. J. Econ. Forthcoming [Google Scholar]
  25. Berry J. 2008. Child control in education decisions: an evaluation of targeted incentives to learn in India Mimeogr.: Dep. Econ., MIT [Google Scholar]
  26. Bertrand M, Chugh D, Mullainathan S. 2005. Implicit discrimination. Am. Econ. Rev. 95:(2)94–8 [Google Scholar]
  27. Bertrand M, Djankov S, Hanna R, Mullainathan S. 2007. Corruption in driving licensing process in Delhi. Q. J. Econ. 122:(4)1639–76 [Google Scholar]
  28. Bertrand M, Karlan D, Mulainathan S, Zinman J. 2009. What's advertising content worth? Evidence from a consumer credit marketing. Q. J. Econ. Forthcoming [Google Scholar]
  29. Bjorkman M, Svensson J. 2007. Power to the people: evidence from a randomized field experiment of a community-based monitoring project in Uganda. Work. Pap. 6344, CEPR; Q. J. Econ. Forthcoming [Google Scholar]
  30. Bleakley H. 2007. Disease and development: evidence from hookworm eradication in the American south. Q. J. Econ. 122:(1)73–117 [Google Scholar]
  31. Bobonis G, Miguel E, Sharma CP. 2006. Anemia and school participation. J. Hum. Resour. 41:(4)692–721 [Google Scholar]
  32. Cohen J, Dupas P. 2007. Free distribution or cost-sharing? Evidence from a randomized malaria prevention experiment Glob.: Work. Pap. 14, Brookings Inst. [Google Scholar]
  33. Crump R, Hotz J, Imbens G, Mitnik O. 2009. Nonparametric tests for treatment effect heterogeneity. Rev. Econ. Stat. In press [Google Scholar]
  34. Dehejia R. 2005. Program evaluation as a decision problem. J. Econom. 125:141–73 [Google Scholar]
  35. de Mel S, McKenzie D, Woodruff C. 2008. Returns to capital in microenterprises: evidence from a field experiment. Q. J. Econ. 123:(4)1329–72 [Google Scholar]
  36. de Mel S, McKenzie D, Woodruff C. 2009. Are women more credit constrained? Experimental evidence on gender and microenterprise returns. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. Forthcoming [Google Scholar]
  37. Duflo E. 2004a. The medium run consequences of educational expansion: evidence from a large school construction program in Indonesia. J. Dev. Econ. 74:(1)163–97 [Google Scholar]
  38. Duflo E. 2004b.Scaling up and evaluation Accelerating Development F Bourguignon, B Pleskovic 342–67 Washington, DC: World Bank/Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  39. Duflo E. 2007.Field experiments in development economics Advances in Economic Theory and Econometrics R Blundell, W Newey, T Persson; Econ. Soc. Monogr. 42, chpt. 13 Cambridge, UK Cambridge Univ. Press: [Google Scholar]
  40. Duflo E, Chattopadhyay R. 2004. Women as policy makers: evidence from a randomized policy experiment in India. Econometrica 72:(5)1409–43 [Google Scholar]
  41. Duflo E, Dupas P, Kremer M. 2008a. Peer effects, pupil teacher ratios, and teacher incentives: evidence from a randomized evaluation in Kenya Mimeogr.: Dep. Econ., MIT [Google Scholar]
  42. Duflo E, Dupas P, Kremer M, Sinei S. 2006. Education and HIV/AIDS prevention: evidence from a randomized evaluation in western Kenya Work. Pap. 402, World Bank Policy Res. [Google Scholar]
  43. Duflo E, Hanna R, Ryan S. 2007. Monitoring works: getting teachers to come to school BREAD: Work. Pap. 103 (Work. Pap. 11880, NBER) [Google Scholar]
  44. Duflo E, Kremer M. 2004.Use of randomization in the evaluation of development effectiveness Evaluating Development Effectiveness, World Bank Ser. Eval. Dev. Vol. 7 OFeinstein, GK Ingram, GK Pitman 205–32 New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions [Google Scholar]
  45. Duflo E, Kremer M, Glennerster R. 2008b.Using randomization in development economics research: a toolkit Handbook of Development Economics Vol. 4 T Schultz, J Strauss, chpt. 15 Amsterdam Elsevier Sci. Ltd. North Holl.: [Google Scholar]
  46. Duflo E, Kremer M, Robinson J. 2008c. How high are rates of return to fertilizer? Evidence from field experiments in Kenya. Am. Econ. Rev. Pap. Proc. 98:(2)482–88 [Google Scholar]
  47. Duflo E, Kremer M, Robinson J. 2008d. Why are farmers not using fertilizer? Procrastination and learning in technology adoption Mimeogr.: Dep. Econ., MIT [Google Scholar]
  48. Dupas P. 2007. Relative risks and the market for sex: teenage pregnancy, HIV, and partner selection in Kenya Mimeogr.: Univ. Calif. Los Angeles [Google Scholar]
  49. Fiszbein A, Schady N. 2009. Conditional Cash Transfers: Reducing Present and Future Poverty Washington, DC World Bank: [Google Scholar]
  50. Gine X, Karlan D, Zinman J. 2008. Put your money where your butt is: a commitment savings account for smoking cessation Mimeogr.: Dep. Econ., Yale Univ. [Google Scholar]
  51. Glewwe P, Ilias N, Kremer M. 2003. Teacher incentives Work. Pap., Dep. Econ. Harvard Univ.: [Google Scholar]
  52. Glewwe P, Kremer M, Moulin S. 2009. Many children left behind? Textbooks and test scores in Kenya. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 1:112–35 [Google Scholar]
  53. Glewwe P, Kremer M, Moulin S, Zitzewitz E. 2004. Retrospective vs. prospective analyses of school inputs: the case of flip charts in Kenya. J. Dev. Econ. 74:(1)251–68 [Google Scholar]
  54. Heckman JJ. 1992.Randomization and social policy evaluation Evaluating Welfare and Training Programs C Manski, I Garfinkel 201–30 Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  55. Heckman JJ, Ichimura H, Smith J, Todd P. 1998. Characterizing selection bias using experimental data. Econometrica 66:1017–98 [Google Scholar]
  56. Heckman JJ, Ichimura H, Todd P. 1997a. Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: evidence from evaluating a job training program. Rev. Econ. Stud. 64:605–54 [Google Scholar]
  57. Heckman J, Leamers E. 2008. Handbook of Econometrics Vol. 6B Amsterdam Elsevier Sci. Ltd. North Holl.:1054 [Google Scholar]
  58. Heckman JJ, Lochner L, Taber C. 1999. Human capital formation and general equilibrium treatment effects: a study of tax and tuition policy. Fisc. Stud. 20:(1)25–40 [Google Scholar]
  59. Heckman JJ, Smith J, Clements N. 1997b. Making the most out of programme evaluations and social experiments: accounting for heterogeneity in programme impacts. Rev. Econ. Stud. 64:487–535 [Google Scholar]
  60. Heckman JJ, Schmierer D, Urzua S. 2010. Testing the correlated random coefficient model. J. Econom. Forthcoming [Google Scholar]
  61. Heckman JJ, Urzua S, Vytlacil EJ. 2006. Understanding instrumental variables in models with essential heterogeneity. Rev. Econ. Stat. 88:(3)389–432 [Google Scholar]
  62. Heckman JJ, Vytlacil EJ. 2008a. Econometrics evaluation of social program part I: using the marginal treatment effect to organize alternative economic estimators to evaluate social programs and to forecast their effect in new environment See Heckman & Leamers 20084779–874 [Google Scholar]
  63. Heckman JJ, Vytlacil EJ. 2008b. Econometrics evaluation of social program part II: using the marginal treatment effect to organize alternative economic estimators to evaluate social programs and to forecast their effect in new environment Heckman & Leamers 20084875–5144 [Google Scholar]
  64. Hirano K, Porter J. 2005. Asymptotics for statistical decision rules. Econometrica 71:(5)1307–38 [Google Scholar]
  65. Hsieh C-T, Urquiola M. 2006. The effects of generalized school choice on achievement and stratification: evidence from Chile's voucher program. J. Public Econ. 90:1477–503 [Google Scholar]
  66. Imbens G, Angrist J. 1994. Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects. Econometrica 61:(2)467–76 [Google Scholar]
  67. Imbens G, Wooldridge JM. 2008. Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. Mimeogr., Dep. Econ., Harvard Univ.. J. Econ. Lit. Forthcoming [Google Scholar]
  68. Karlan D, Zinman J. 2005. Observing unobservables: identifying information asymmetries with a consumer credit field experiment Work. Pap.94 Dep. Econ., Yale Univ.: [Google Scholar]
  69. Karlan D, Zinman J. 2007. Expanding credit access: using randomized supply decisions to estimate the impacts Mimeogr.: Dep. Econ., Yale Univ. [Google Scholar]
  70. Karlan D, Zinman J. 2008. Credit elasticities in less developed countries: implications for microfinance. Am. Econ. Rev. 98:(3)1040–68 [Google Scholar]
  71. Kremer M, Holla A. 2008. Pricing and access: lessons from randomized evaluation in education and health Mimeogr.: Dep. Econ., Harvard Univ. [Google Scholar]
  72. Kremer M, Miguel E. 2007. The illusion of sustainability. Q. J. Econ. 122:(3)1007–65 [Google Scholar]
  73. Kremer M, Miguel E, Thornton R. 2007. Incentives to learn Work. Pap. 10971, NBER; Rev. Econ. Stat. Forthcoming [Google Scholar]
  74. Manski C. 2000. Identification problems and decisions under ambiguity: empirical analysis of treatment response and normative analysis of treatment choice. J. Econom. 95:415–42 [Google Scholar]
  75. Manski C. 2002. Treatment choice under ambiguity induced by inferential problems. J. Stat. Plan. Inference. 105:67–82 [Google Scholar]
  76. Manski C. 2004. Statistical treatment rules for heterogeneous populations. Econometrica. 2:(4)1221–46 [Google Scholar]
  77. McKenzie D, Woodruff C. 2008. Experimental evidence on returns to capital and access to finance in Mexico. World Bank Econ. Rev. 22:(3)457–82 [Google Scholar]
  78. Miguel E, Kremer M. 2004. Worms: identifying impacts on education and health in the presence of treatment externalities. Econometrica. 72:(1)159–217 [Google Scholar]
  79. Olken B. 2007. Monitoring corruption: evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia. J. Polit. Econ. 115:(2)200–49 [Google Scholar]
  80. Rodrik D. 2008. The new development economics: we shall experiment, but how shall we learn? Mimeogr.: Dep. Econ., Harvard Univ. [Google Scholar]
  81. Rubin D. 2006. Matched Sampling for Causal Effects Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  82. Topalova P, Duflo E. 2003. Unappreciated service: performance, perceptions, and women leaders in India Mimeogr. MIT: [Google Scholar]
  83. Thornton R. 2007. The demand for and impact of HIV testing. Evidence from a field experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. 98:(5)1829–63 [Google Scholar]
  84. Todd P, Wolpin KI. 2006. Using experimental data to validate a dynamic behavioral model of child schooling: assessing the impact of a school subsidy program in Mexico. Am. Econ. Rev. 96:(5)1384–417 [Google Scholar]
  85. World Bank 2008. De nouveaux modes de gestion pour accroitre les performances de l'enseignement primaire malgache Work. Pap. World Bank: [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.economics.050708.143235
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error