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

Erwin Bulte*, Salvatore Di Falco, Robert Lensink

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/Letter to the editorAcademic

1 Citation (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article number104790
JournalWorld Development
Volume127
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2020

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Randomized interventions and “real” treatment effects: A cautionary tale and an example'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this