A random shock is not random assignment

Christoph Engel

Economics Letters, 2016, vol. 145, issue C, 45-47

Abstract: A random shock excludes reverse causality and reduces omitted variable bias. Yet a natural experiment does not identify random exposure to treatment, but the reaction to a random change from baseline to treatment. A lab experiment comparing higher certainty with higher severity of punishment for stealing (holding the expected value of the intervention constant) shows that the difference between the effects of a random shock and random assignment can be pronounced.

Keywords: Identification; Random exposure; Random shock; Natural experiment; Certainty and severity of punishment (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: C01 C12 C90 K14 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176516301781
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
Working Paper: A Random Shock Is Not Random Assignment (2016)
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:eee:ecolet:v:145:y:2016:i:c:p:45-47

DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2016.05.022

Access Statistics for this article

Economics Letters is currently edited by Economics Letters Editorial Office

More articles in Economics Letters from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu (repec@elsevier.com).