IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/wdevel/v127y2020ics0305750x19304589.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘Misbehaving’ RCTs: The confounding problem of human agency

Author

Listed:
  • Kabeer, Naila

Abstract

This paper argues that the theoretical model of causal inference underpinning RCTs is frequently undermined by the failure of different actors involved in their implementation to behave in ways required by the model. This is not a problem unique to RCTs, but it poses a greater challenge to them because it undercuts their claims to methodological superiority based on the ‘clean identification’ of causal effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Kabeer, Naila, 2020. "‘Misbehaving’ RCTs: The confounding problem of human agency," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:127:y:2020:i:c:s0305750x19304589
    DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104809
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X19304589
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104809?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. Howard White, 2009. "Theory-based impact evaluation: principles and practice," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(3), pages 271-284.
    2. Angus Deaton, 2010. "Instruments, Randomization, and Learning about Development," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(2), pages 424-455, June.
    3. Naila Kabeer, 2019. "Randomized Control Trials and Qualitative Evaluations of a Multifaceted Programme for Women in Extreme Poverty: Empirical Findings and Methodological Reflections," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 197-217, April.
    4. Paul Shaffer, 2011. "Against Excessive Rhetoric in Impact Assessment: Overstating the Case for Randomised Controlled Experiments," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(11), pages 1619-1635.
    5. Deaton, Angus & Cartwright, Nancy, 2018. "Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 2-21.
    6. Bruno Crépon & Florencia Devoto & Esther Duflo & William Parienté, 2015. "Estimating the Impact of Microcredit on Those Who Take It Up: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in Morocco," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(1), pages 123-150, January.
    7. Christopher B. Barrett & Michael R. Carter, 2010. "The Power and Pitfalls of Experiments in Development Economics: Some Non-random Reflections," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(4), pages 515-548.
    8. Bauchet, Jonathan & Morduch, Jonathan & Ravi, Shamika, 2015. "Failure vs. displacement: Why an innovative anti-poverty program showed no net impact in South India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 1-16.
    9. White, Howard, 2009. "Theory-Based Impact Evaluation," 3ie Publications 2009-3, International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie).
    10. Buvinic, Mayra, 1986. "Projects for women in the third world: Explaining their misbehavior," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 653-664, 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. Yonatan Eyal, 2020. "Self-Assessment Variables as a Source of Information in the Evaluation of Intervention Programs: A Theoretical and Methodological Framework," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440198, January.
    2. Lota Tamini & Ibrahima Bocoum & Ghislain Auger & Kotchikpa Gabriel Lawin & Arahama Traoré, 2019. "Enhanced Microfinance Services and Agricultural Best Management Practices: What Benefits for Smallholders Farmers? An Evidence from Burkina Faso," CIRANO Working Papers 2019s-11, CIRANO.
    3. Florent Bédécarrats & Isabelle Guérin & François Roubaud, 2019. "All that Glitters is not Gold. The Political Economy of Randomized Evaluations in Development," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 50(3), pages 735-762, May.
    4. Kabeer, Naila, 2020. "Misbehaving’ RCTs: the confounding problem of human agency," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 102940, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Florent BEDECARRATS & Isabelle GUERIN & François ROUBAUD, 2017. "L'étalon-or des évaluations randomisées : économie politique des expérimentations aléatoires dans le domaine du développement," Working Paper 753120cd-506f-4c5f-80ed-7, Agence française de développement.
    6. Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Higgins, Daniel & Arslan, Aslihan, 2020. "Irrigation infrastructure and farm productivity in the Philippines: A stochastic Meta-Frontier analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    7. McHugh, Neil & Biosca, Olga & Donaldson, Cam, 2015. "Microfinance, health and randomised trials," Health Economics Working Paper Series 201501, Glasgow Caledonian University, Yunus Centre.
    8. Colin Kirkpatrick, 2012. "Economic Governance: Improving the Economic and Regulatory Environment for Supporting Private Sector Activity," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2012-108, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    9. John Gibson, 2019. "Are You Estimating the Right Thing? An Editor Reflects," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 329-350.
    10. Margaret Dalziel, 2018. "Why are there (almost) no randomised controlled trial-based evaluations of business support programmes?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-9, December.
    11. Vikram Tyagi & Sophie Webber, 2021. "A rusting gold standard: Failures in an Indonesian RCT, and the implications for poverty reduction," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 53(5), pages 992-1011, August.
    12. Martin, Will, 2021. "Tools for measuring the full impacts of agricultural interventions," IFPRI-MCC technical papers 2, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    13. Florent Bédécarrats & Isabelle Guérin & François Roubaud, 2015. "The gold standard for randomized evaluations: from discussion of method to political economy," Working Papers DT/2015/01, DIAL (Développement, Institutions et Mondialisation).
    14. Johnson, Nancy L. & Atherstone, Christine & Grace, Delia, 2015. "The potential of farm-level technologies and practices to contribute to reducing consumer exposure to aflatoxins: A theory of change analysis:," IFPRI discussion papers 1452, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    15. Baldwin, Kate & Bhavnani, Rikhil R., 2013. "Ancillary Experiments: Opportunities and Challenges," WIDER Working Paper Series 024, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    16. Juan Sebastian Cubillos-Rocha & Juliana Gamboa-Arbelaez & Luis Fernando Melo-Velandia & Sara Restrepo-Tamayo & Maria Jose Roa-Garcia & Mauricio Villamizar-Villegas, 2021. "Effects of interest rate caps on credit access," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 117-139, December.
    17. Tilman Brück & Neil T. N. Ferguson, 2020. "Money can’t buy love but can it buy peace? Evidence from the EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation (PEACE II)," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(5), pages 536-558, September.
    18. Cornwall, Andrea & Aghajanian, Alia, 2017. "How to Find out What’s Really Going On: Understanding Impact through Participatory Process Evaluation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 173-185.
    19. Cristina Corduneanu-Huci & Michael T. Dorsch & Paul Maarek, 2017. "Learning to constrain: Political competition and randomized controlled trials in development," THEMA Working Papers 2017-24, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    20. Jörg Peters & Jörg Langbein & Gareth Roberts, 2018. "Generalization in the Tropics – Development Policy, Randomized Controlled Trials, and External Validity," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 33(1), pages 34-64.

    More about this item

    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:s0305750x19304589. 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.