IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v599y2005i1p246-271.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Introducing New Contraceptives in Rural China: A Field Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Herbert L. Smith

    (University of Pennsylvania)

Abstract

The project on Introducing New Contraceptives in Rural China (INCRC) was carried out between 1991 and 1996 in four counties of rural north China. The experimental component involved the random assignment of a multipronged treatment to four townships in each county. Two townships per county served as controls. The scale of the project made it nearly impossible to maintain the integrity of the experimental model that was at the core of the project's design. In spite of the massive numbers of people in the catchment areas of the study (>100,000), the experimental design was of low power, with but eight controls on sixteen treatments; when random assignment is at higher levels of analysis, masses of individual observations only create greater precision in the estimation of higher-order observations. However, the study would not have been conducted, and valuable observations would not have been made, were it not conceived as an experiment.

Suggested Citation

  • Herbert L. Smith, 2005. "Introducing New Contraceptives in Rural China: A Field Experiment," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 599(1), pages 246-271, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:599:y:2005:i:1:p:246-271
    DOI: 10.1177/0002716205274513
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716205274513
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0002716205274513?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herbert Smith, 1994. "Nonreporting of births or nonreporting of pregnancies? Some evidence from four rural counties in North China," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 31(3), pages 481-486, August.
    2. M. Merli & Herbert Smith, 2002. "Has the Chinese family planning policy been successful in changing fertility preferences?," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 39(3), pages 557-572, August.
    3. Herbert L. Smith, 2003. "Some Thoughts on Causation as It Relates to Demography and Population Studies," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 29(3), pages 459-469, September.
    4. Edwin A. Winckler, 2002. "Chinese Reproductive Policy at the Turn of the Millennium: Dynamic Stability," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 28(3), pages 379-418, September.
    5. James J. Heckman, 2001. "Micro Data, Heterogeneity, and the Evaluation of Public Policy: Nobel Lecture," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 109(4), pages 673-748, August.
    6. M. Giovanna Merli & Zhenchao Qian & Herbert L. Smith, 2004. "Adaptation of a Political Bureaucracy to Economic and Institutional Change Under Socialism: The Chinese State Family Planning System," Politics & Society, , vol. 32(2), pages 231-256, June.
    7. M. Merli & Adrian Raftery, 2000. "Are births underreported in rural China? Manipulation of statistical records in response to China’s population policies," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 37(1), pages 109-126, February.
    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. Donghui Wang & Guangqing Chi, 2017. "Different places, different stories: A study of the spatial heterogeneity of county-level fertility in China," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 37(16), pages 493-526.
    2. Yong Cai, 2010. "China's Below‐Replacement Fertility: Government Policy or Socioeconomic Development?," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 36(3), pages 419-440, September.
    3. Daniel Goodkind, 2011. "Child Underreporting, Fertility, and Sex Ratio Imbalance in China," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 48(1), pages 291-316, February.
    4. Daniel Goodkind, 2017. "The Astonishing Population Averted by China’s Birth Restrictions: Estimates, Nightmares, and Reprogrammed Ambitions," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 54(4), pages 1375-1400, August.
    5. S. Philip Morgan & Guo Zhigang & Sarah R. Hayford, 2009. "China's Below‐Replacement Fertility: Recent Trends and Future Prospects," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 605-629, September.
    6. M. Giovanna Merli & Sara Hertog, 2010. "Masculine sex ratios, population age structure and the potential spread of HIV in China," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 22(3), pages 63-94.
    7. Fei Wang & Liqiu Zhao & Zhong Zhao, 2017. "China’s family planning policies and their labor market consequences," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 30(1), pages 31-68, January.
    8. Xu, Yuanwei, 2021. "Paying for the Selected Son: Sex Imbalance and Marriage Payments in China," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242436, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    9. Bourguignon, Francois, 2005. "The Effect of Economic Growth on Social Structures," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 27, pages 1701-1747, Elsevier.
    10. Marco Costanigro & Yuko Onozaka, 2020. "A Belief‐Preference Model of Choice for Experience and Credence Goods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 70-95, February.
    11. Paolo Giovanni Piacquadio, 2017. "A Fairness Justification of Utilitarianism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 1261-1276, July.
    12. Pennings, Joost M.E. & Garcia, Philip & Irwin, Scott H. & Good, Darrel L., 2003. "How To Group Market Participants? Heterogeneity In Hedging Behavior," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 21963, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Marco Caliendo & Reinhard Hujer, 2006. "The microeconometric estimation of treatment effects—An overview," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 90(1), pages 199-215, March.
    14. Roy Allen & John Rehbeck, 2020. "Identification of Random Coefficient Latent Utility Models," Papers 2003.00276, arXiv.org.
    15. He, Xue-Zhong & Li, Kai & Santi, Caterina & Shi, Lei, 2022. "Social interaction, volatility clustering, and momentum," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 203(C), pages 125-149.
    16. A. Smith, Jeffrey & E. Todd, Petra, 2005. "Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 305-353.
    17. Machin Stephen & Puhani Patrick A., 2005. "Special Issue on the Economics of Education – Policies and Empirical Evidence: Editorial," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 6(3), pages 259-267, August.
    18. Greenstone, Michael & Gayer, Ted, 2009. "Quasi-experimental and experimental approaches to environmental economics," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 21-44, January.
    19. Christiane Hinerasky, 2014. "Advances in Training Evaluation - Psychological, Educational, Economic, and Econometric Perspectives on the Kirkpatrick Model," Working Papers Dissertations 14, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    20. Pedro Carneiro & Karsten T. Hansen & James J. Heckman, 2002. "Removing the Veil of Ignorance in Assessing the Distributional Impacts of Social Policies," NBER Working Papers 8840, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:sae:anname:v:599:y:2005:i:1:p:246-271. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.