IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/globdv/v6y2015i1p87-112n6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reflections on the Ethics of Social Experimentation

Author

Listed:
  • Humphreys Macartan

    (Department of Political Science, Columbia University)

Abstract

Social scientists are increasingly engaging in experimental research projects of importance for public policy in developing areas. While this research holds the possibility of producing major social benefits, it may also involve manipulating populations, often without consent, sometimes with potentially adverse effects, and often in settings with obvious power differentials between researcher and subject. Such research is currently conducted with few clear ethical guidelines. In this paper I discuss research ethics as currently understood in this field, highlighting the limitations of standard procedures and the need for the construction of appropriate ethics, focusing on the problems of determining responsibility for interventions and assessing appropriate forms of consent.

Suggested Citation

  • Humphreys Macartan, 2015. "Reflections on the Ethics of Social Experimentation," Journal of Globalization and Development, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 87-112, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:globdv:v:6:y:2015:i:1:p:87-112:n:6
    DOI: 10.1515/jgd-2014-0016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/jgd-2014-0016
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/jgd-2014-0016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stéphane J. Baele, 2013. "The ethics of New Development Economics: is the Experimental Approach to Development Economics morally wrong?," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 7(1), November.
    2. Leonard Wantchekon, 2003. "Clientelism and voting behavior: Evidence from a field experiment in benin," Natural Field Experiments 00339, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Katherine Casey & Rachel Glennerster & Edward Miguel, 2012. "Reshaping Institutions: Evidence on Aid Impacts Using a Preanalysis Plan," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(4), pages 1755-1812.
    4. Gerber, Alan & Malhotra, Neil, 2008. "Do Statistical Reporting Standards Affect What Is Published? Publication Bias in Two Leading Political Science Journals," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 3(3), pages 313-326, October.
    5. Ken Binmore, 1998. "Game Theory and the Social Contract - Vol. 2: Just Playing," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 2, number 0262024446, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Behera, Rajat Kumar & Bala, Pradip Kumar & Rana, Nripendra P. & Irani, Zahir, 2023. "Responsible natural language processing: A principlist framework for social benefits," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    2. Aidan Coville & Sebastian Galiani & Paul Gertler & Susumu Yoshida, 2020. "Financing Municipal Water and Sanitation Services in Nairobi’s Informal Settlements," NBER Working Papers 27569, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Michael Callen & Miguel Fajardo-Steinhäuser & Michael G. Findley & Tarek Ghani & Michael J. Callen, 2024. "Can Digital Aid Deliver during Humanitarian Crises?," CESifo Working Paper Series 11220, CESifo.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Humphreys Macartan, 2015. "Reflections on the Ethics of Social Experimentation," Journal of Globalization and Development, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 87-112, June.
    2. Macartan Humphreys, 2015. "Reflections on the Ethics of Social Experimentation," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2015-018, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    3. Muhammad Haseeb & Kate Vyborny, 2016. "Imposing institutions: Evidence from cash transfer reform in Pakistan," CSAE Working Paper Series 2016-36, Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford.
    4. Marcel Fafchamps & Julien Labonne, 2016. "Using Split Samples to Improve Inference about Causal Effects," NBER Working Papers 21842, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Anna Dreber & Magnus Johannesson & Yifan Yang, 2024. "Selective reporting of placebo tests in top economics journals," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(3), pages 921-932, July.
    6. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2018. "Methods Matter: P-Hacking and Causal Inference in Economics," IZA Discussion Papers 11796, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Abel Brodeur & Nikolai M. Cook & Jonathan S. Hartley & Anthony Heyes, 2024. "Do Preregistration and Preanalysis Plans Reduce p-Hacking and Publication Bias? Evidence from 15,992 Test Statistics and Suggestions for Improvement," Journal of Political Economy Microeconomics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(3), pages 527-561.
    8. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Hartley, Jonathan & Heyes, Anthony, 2022. "Do Pre-Registration and Pre-analysis Plans Reduce p-Hacking and Publication Bias?," MetaArXiv uxf39, Center for Open Science.
    9. Lenz, Gabriel & Sahn, Alexander, 2017. "Achieving Statistical Significance with Covariates and without Transparency," MetaArXiv s42ba, Center for Open Science.
    10. Bogdanoski, Aleksandar & Ofosu, George & Posner, Daniel N, 2019. "Pre-analysis Plans: A Stocktaking," MetaArXiv e4pum, Center for Open Science.
    11. Fafchamps, Marcel & Labonne, Julien, 2017. "Using Split Samples to Improve Inference on Causal Effects," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(4), pages 465-482, October.
    12. Michael L. Anderson & Jeremy Magruder, 2017. "Split-Sample Strategies for Avoiding False Discoveries," NBER Working Papers 23544, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Furukawa, Chishio, 2019. "Publication Bias under Aggregation Frictions: Theory, Evidence, and a New Correction Method," EconStor Preprints 194798, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    14. Catalina Tejada & Eliana Ferrara & Henrik Kleven & Florian Blum & Oriana Bandiera & Michel Azulai, 2015. "State Effectiveness, Growth, and Development," Working Papers id:6668, eSocialSciences.
    15. Gustavo J. Bobonis & Paul J. Gertler & Marco Gonzalez-Navarro & Simeon Nichter, 2022. "Vulnerability and Clientelism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(11), pages 3627-3659, November.
    16. Michael A. Clemens, 2017. "The Meaning Of Failed Replications: A Review And Proposal," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 326-342, February.
    17. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    18. Laruelle, Annick & Valenciano, Federico, 2008. "Noncooperative foundations of bargaining power in committees and the Shapley-Shubik index," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 341-353, May.
    19. van der Heijden, Eline & Potters, Jan & Sefton, Martin, 2009. "Hierarchy and opportunism in teams," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 39-50, January.
    20. Louis Corriveau, 2012. "Game theory and the kula," Rationality and Society, , vol. 24(1), pages 106-128, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    consent; ethics; field experiments; human subjects;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:globdv:v:6:y:2015:i:1:p:87-112:n:6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.