IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/4ufbm.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What is mechanistic evidence, and why do we need it for evidence-based policy?

Author

Listed:
  • Marchionni, Caterina
  • Reijula, Samuli

Abstract

It has recently been argued that successful evidence-based policy should rely on two kinds of evidence: statistical and mechanistic. The former is held to be evidence that a policy brings about the desired outcome, and the latter concerns how it does so. Although agreeing with the spirit of this proposal, we argue that the underlying conception of mechanistic evidence as evidence that is different in kind from correlational, difference-making or statistical evidence, does not correctly capture the role that information about mechanisms should play in evidence-based policy. We offer an alternative account of mechanistic evidence as information concerning the causal pathway connecting the policy intervention to its outcome. Not only can this be analyzed as evidence of difference-making, it is also to be found at any level and is obtainable by a broad range of methods, both experimental and observational. Using behavioral policy as an illustration, we draw the implications of this revised understanding of mechanistic evidence for debates concerning policy extrapolation, evidence hierarchies, and evidence integration.

Suggested Citation

  • Marchionni, Caterina & Reijula, Samuli, 2018. "What is mechanistic evidence, and why do we need it for evidence-based policy?," SocArXiv 4ufbm, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:4ufbm
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/4ufbm
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5ba207888f9564001938357f/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/4ufbm?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. Richard H. Thaler & Shlomo Benartzi, 2004. "Save More Tomorrow (TM): Using Behavioral Economics to Increase Employee Saving," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(S1), pages 164-187, February.
    2. Kincaid, Harold (ed.), 2012. "The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Social Science," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195392753.
    3. Jens Ludwig & Jeffrey R. Kling & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2011. "Mechanism Experiments and Policy Evaluations," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(3), pages 17-38, Summer.
    4. Deaton, Angus & Cartwright, Nancy, 2018. "Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 2-21.
    5. Alessio Moneta & Federica Russo, 2014. "Causal models and evidential pluralism in econometrics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 54-76, March.
    6. Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos, 2014. "Bounded rationality: the two cultures," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 361-374, December.
    7. Nathan Berg & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2010. "As-if behavioral economics: neoclassical economics in disguise?," History of Economic Ideas, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa - Roma, vol. 18(1), pages 133-166.
    8. Kincaid,Harold, 1996. "Philosophical Foundations of the Social Sciences," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521482684, October.
    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. Damgaard, Mette Trier & Nielsen, Helena Skyt, 2018. "Nudging in education," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 313-342.
    2. Robin Maialeh, 2019. "Generalization of results and neoclassical rationality: unresolved controversies of behavioural economics methodology," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 1743-1761, July.
    3. Dorian Jullien & Nicolas Vallois, 2014. "A probabilistic ghost in the experimental machine," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 232-250, September.
    4. Berg, Nathan, 2010. "Behavioral Economics," MPRA Paper 26587, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Kast, Felipe & Meier, Stephan & Pomeranz, Dina, 2018. "Saving more in groups: Field experimental evidence from Chile," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 275-294.
    6. Dohmen, Thomas, 2014. "Behavioral labor economics: Advances and future directions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 71-85.
    7. Hilary W. Hoynes & Jesse Rothstein, 2019. "Universal Basic Income in the US and Advanced Countries," NBER Working Papers 25538, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Abigail N. Devereaux, 2019. "The nudge wars: A modern socialist calculation debate," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 32(2), pages 139-158, June.
    9. Kast, Felipe & Meier, Stephan & Pomeranz, Dina, 2012. "Under-Savers Anonymous: Evidence on Self-Help Groups and Peer Pressure as a Savings Commitment Device," IZA Discussion Papers 6311, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List & Danielle LoRe & Dana Suskind, 2017. "Scaling for Economists: Lessons from the Non-Adherence Problem in the Medical Literature," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(4), pages 125-144, Fall.
    11. Nathan Berg & Yuki Watanabe, 2020. "Conservation of behavioral diversity: on nudging, paternalism-induced monoculture, and the social value of heterogeneous beliefs and behavior," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 19(1), pages 103-120, June.
    12. Justman, Moshe, 2018. "Randomized controlled trials informing public policy: Lessons from project STAR and class size reduction," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 167-174.
    13. William J. Congdon & Maya Shankar, 2018. "The Role of Behavioral Economics in Evidence-Based Policymaking," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 678(1), pages 81-92, July.
    14. Moshe Justman, 2016. "Economic Research and Education Policy: Project STAR and Class Size Reduction," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2016n37, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    15. Seán M. Muller, 2021. "Evidence for a YETI? A Cautionary Tale from South Africa's Youth Employment Tax Incentive," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 52(6), pages 1301-1342, November.
    16. Pere Mir-Artigues, 2022. "Combining preferences and heuristics in analysing consumer behaviour," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 523-543, September.
    17. Berg, Nathan & Kim, Jeong-Yoo, 2010. "Demand for Self Control: A model of Consumer Response to Programs and Products that Moderate Consumption," MPRA Paper 26593, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Andreas Ortmann & Leonidas Spiliopoulos, 2017. "The beauty of simplicity? (Simple) heuristics and the opportunities yet to be realized," Chapters, in: Morris Altman (ed.), Handbook of Behavioural Economics and Smart Decision-Making, chapter 7, pages 119-136, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Martin Binder, 2014. "Should evolutionary economists embrace libertarian paternalism?," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 515-539, July.
    20. Kuriakose, Francis & Joseph, Janssen, 2019. "The Origin and Nature of Behavioural Development Economics," MPRA Paper 97079, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:osf:socarx:4ufbm. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.