Revealed preferences for policy experiments

Bettina Chlond, Timo Goeschl and Johannes Lohse

No 763, Working Papers from University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics

Abstract: Randomized controlled trials remain underutilized in informing policy design, despite their potential. Moral objections to experimentation (“experiment aversion”) have been proposed as an explanation. We present three studies with members of the general public and policy-makers that allow us to measure and compare moral approval, stated preferences as well as revealed preferences for policy experimentation, within the overarching context of a public assistance program. We find that evidence based on moral approval systematically underestimates revealed preferences for policy experimentation due to conceptual misalignment and hypothetical bias. People and policy-makers trade off possible moral objections against the benefits of policy experimentation.

Date: 2025-07-01
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-exp
Note: This paper is part of http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/view/schriftenreihen/sr-3.html
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:16-heidok-367956 Frontdoor page on HeiDOK (text/html)
https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver ... nces_dp_763_2025.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
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:awi:wpaper:0763

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Papers from University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Gabi Rauscher ( this e-mail address is bad, please contact ).