EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

When Natural Experiments Are Neither Natural nor Experiments

Jasjeet S. Sekhon and Rocio Titiunik ()

American Political Science Review, 2012, vol. 106, issue 1, 35-57

Abstract: Natural experiments help to overcome some of the obstacles researchers face when making causal inferences in the social sciences. However, even when natural interventions are randomly assigned, some of the treatment–control comparisons made available by natural experiments may not be valid. We offer a framework for clarifying the issues involved, which are subtle and often overlooked. We illustrate our framework by examining four different natural experiments used in the literature. In each case, random assignment of the intervention is not sufficient to provide an unbiased estimate of the causal effect. Additional assumptions are required that are problematic. For some examples, we propose alternative research designs that avoid these conceptual difficulties.

Date: 2012
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (13) Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

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:cup:apsrev:v:106:y:2012:i:01:p:35-57_00

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in American Political Science Review from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Keith Waters ().

 
Page updated 2020-09-27
Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:106:y:2012:i:01:p:35-57_00