Abstract:
I argue for thinking of program evaluation as a decision problem. In the context of California's GAIN experiment (a randomized trial of a welfare-to-work alternative to AFDC), I show that GAIN first-order stochastically dominates AFDC when considering the choice between the treatment and control programs in terms of average earnings, even though the treatment effect is not statistically significant. I also argue for incorporating the post-evaluation assignment mechanism for the program under consideration into the evaluation process. I show that if policies, such as allowing a career counselor to choose which program individuals join, are included in the evaluation, then GAIN is superior to AFDC whereas the opposite ranking emerges from the standard treatment versus control comparison which ignores potential heterogeneity in the treatment impact.
Downloads: (external link) http://www.nber.org/papers/w6954.pdf (application/pdf)
Access to the full text is generally limited to series subscribers, however if the top level domain of the client browser is in a developing country or transition economy free access is provided. More information about subscriptions and free access is available at http://www.nber.org/wwphelp.html.
More papers in NBER Working Papers from National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc Address: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A. Contact information at EDIRC. Series data maintained by ().
This site is part of RePEc
and all the data displayed here is part of the RePEc data set.
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to
contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .