IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/wdevel/v127y2020ics0305750x19304358.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research standards in empirical development economics: What’s well begun, is half done

Author

Listed:
  • Avdeenko, Alexandra
  • Frölich, Markus

Abstract

The 2019 Economics Nobel Laureates have shed light on how several disciplines can learn from each other to achieve a greater goal. Thanks to their work, economics has begun to follow the methodological and institutional path laid out, amongst others, in medical sciences. The prize creates a momentum in economics to work on areas in which the field still falls short of achievable, higher standards and on more rigor in research transparency, cooperation, and accountability. Yet we also argue that the benefits from the linkage between disciplines are not one-sided. The application and recognition of field experiments as a method in economics have also advanced and enlarged the methodological toolkit on topics such as quasi-experimental method, non-compliance, and mediation analysis. Methods urgently needed to address topics of global concern.

Suggested Citation

  • Avdeenko, Alexandra & Frölich, Markus, 2020. "Research standards in empirical development economics: What’s well begun, is half done," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:127:y:2020:i:c:s0305750x19304358
    DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104786
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X19304358
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104786?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. Benjamin A. Olken, 2015. "Promises and Perils of Pre-analysis Plans," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(3), pages 61-80, Summer.
    2. Markus Frölich & Martin Huber, 2017. "Direct and indirect treatment effects–causal chains and mediation analysis with instrumental variables," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 79(5), pages 1645-1666, November.
    3. Howard White, 2019. "The twenty-first century experimenting society: the four waves of the evidence revolution," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-7, December.
    4. Markus Frölich & Martin Huber, 2014. "Treatment Evaluation With Multiple Outcome Periods Under Endogeneity and Attrition," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 109(508), pages 1697-1711, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Jens Ludwig & Sendhil Mullainathan & Jann Spiess, 2019. "Augmenting Pre-Analysis Plans with Machine Learning," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 109, pages 71-76, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Huber Martin & Wüthrich Kaspar, 2019. "Local Average and Quantile Treatment Effects Under Endogeneity: A Review," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-27, January.
    3. Burlig, Fiona, 2018. "Improving transparency in observational social science research: A pre-analysis plan approach," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 56-60.
    4. Brown, Martin & Hentschel, Nicole & Mettler, Hannes & Stix, Helmut, 2022. "The convenience of electronic payments and consumer cash demand," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 86-102.
    5. Josephson, Anna & Michler, Jeffrey D., 2018. "Viewpoint: Beasts of the field? Ethics in agricultural and applied economics," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-11.
    6. Michael C. Knaus & Michael Lechner & Anthony Strittmatter, 2022. "Heterogeneous Employment Effects of Job Search Programs: A Machine Learning Approach," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(2), pages 597-636.
    7. Marianne Bertrand & Bruno Crépon & Alicia Marguerie & Patrick Premand, 2021. "Do Workfare Programs Live Up to Their Promises? Experimental Evidence from Cote D’Ivoire," NBER Working Papers 28664, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Sedlmayr, Richard & Shah, Anuj & Sulaiman, Munshi, 2020. "Cash-plus: Poverty impacts of alternative transfer-based approaches," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    9. Cristina Blanco-Perez & Abel Brodeur, 2020. "Publication Bias and Editorial Statement on Negative Findings," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(629), pages 1226-1247.
    10. Garret Christensen & Edward Miguel, 2018. "Transparency, Reproducibility, and the Credibility of Economics Research," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 56(3), pages 920-980, September.
    11. Haseeb, Muhammad & Vyborny, Kate, 2022. "Data, discretion and institutional capacity: Evidence from cash transfers in Pakistan," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Martin Huber & Anna Solovyeva, 2020. "Direct and Indirect Effects under Sample Selection and Outcome Attrition," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-25, December.
    14. Sarah A. Janzen & Jeffrey D. Michler, 2021. "Ulysses' pact or Ulysses' raft: Using pre‐analysis plans in experimental and nonexperimental research," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(4), pages 1286-1304, December.
    15. Susan Athey & Guido Imbens, 2016. "The Econometrics of Randomized Experiments," Papers 1607.00698, arXiv.org.
    16. 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.
    17. Alex Eble & Peter Boone & Diana Elbourne, 2017. "On Minimizing the Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials in Economics," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 31(3), pages 687-707.
    18. Michael L. Anderson & Jeremy Magruder, 2017. "Split-Sample Strategies for Avoiding False Discoveries," NBER Working Papers 23544, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Leah H. Palm-Forster & Paul J. Ferraro & Nicholas Janusch & Christian A. Vossler & Kent D. Messer, 2019. "Behavioral and Experimental Agri-Environmental Research: Methodological Challenges, Literature Gaps, and Recommendations," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 719-742, July.
    20. Edward Miguel, 2021. "Evidence on Research Transparency in Economics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 35(3), pages 193-214, Summer.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Field experiments; Development of the discipline;

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • N01 - Economic History - - General - - - Development of the Discipline: Historiographical; Sources and Methods

    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:eee:wdevel:v:127:y:2020:i:c:s0305750x19304358. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev .

    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.