Should the Randomistas (Continue to) Rule?

Martin Ravallion

No 492, Working Papers from Center for Global Development

Abstract: The rising popularity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in development applications has come with continuing debates on the pros and cons of this approach. The paper revisits the issues. While RCTs have a place in the toolkit for impact evaluation, an unconditional preference for RCTs as the “gold standard” is questionable. The statistical case is unclear on a priori grounds; a stronger ethical defense is often called for; and there is a risk of distorting the evidence-base for informing policymaking. Going forward, pressing knowledge gaps should drive the questions asked and how they are answered, not the methodological preferences of some researchers. The gold standard is the best method for the question at hand.

Pages: 33 pages
Date: 2018-08-16, Revised 2019-01-17
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-exp and nep-hpe
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cgdev.org/publication/should-randomistas-continue-rule

Related works:
Working Paper: Should the Randomistas (Continue to) Rule? (2020)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cgd:wpaper:492

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Papers from Center for Global Development Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Publications Manager ().