Affiliation:
1. Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations, RAS;
HSE University
Abstract
The paper explores a curious phenomenon in the modern economic science — the intellectual confrontation between proponents of new development economics (“randomistas”) and its opponents. The general message of the new approach is that the technique of randomized controlled trials/experiments (RCT) must be considered the only truly scientific method, and only this technique should be used in studying the problems of developing countries. RCTs have been recognized as the “gold standard” in evaluating the effectiveness of anti-poverty programs; today this approach absolutely dominates in development economics. The paper discusses the main features of the RCT economics: an inclination to imitate biomedical research; atheoretical character; the idea of a hierarchy of methods; reorientation from large-scale macroeconomic and institutional reforms to targeted social and humanitarian interventions. The problems of internal and external validity of RCT are highlighted. A general conclusion is that conceptually counter-arguments of critics look more convincing: the idea of a hierarchy of methods is unscientific; no methodological “gold standard” exists in economic analysis; estimates obtained on the basis of RCT cannot be considered unbiased; RCTs are almost powerless in the face of the problem of external validity; policy recommendations derived from RCTs are of very limited practical value. However, the logic of critics has been trumped by the rhetoric of randomistas: most likely, randomized experiments will escalate, and their intellectual and political influence will grow.
Subject
Economics and Econometrics,Finance,General Economics, Econometrics and Finance,History
Reference56 articles.
1. Banerjee A., Duflo E. (2021). Poor economics. A radical rethinking of the way to fight global poverty. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publ. (In Russian).
2. Enikolopov R. S. (2020). Evidence based development economics: Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences 2019. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 1, pp. 5—17. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2020-1-5-17
3. Kapeliushnikov R. I. (2021). On the current state of economic science: Semi-sociological observations. In: Kapeliushnikov R. I. Economic essays. History of ideas, methodology, inequality, and growth. Moscow: HSE Publ., pp. 298—322. (In Russian).
4. Abramowicz M., Szafarz A. (2020). Ethics of RCTs: Should economists care about equipoise? In: F. Bédécarrats, I. Guérin, F. Roubaud (eds.). Randomized control trials in the field of development: A critical perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 280—292. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198865360.003.0012
5. Aiken A. M., Davey C., Hargreaves J. R., Hayes R. J. (2015). Re-analysis of health and educational impacts of a school-based deworming programme in Western Kenya: A pure replication. International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 44, No. 5, pp. 1572—1580. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyv127
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献