The Power and Pitfalls of Experiments in Development Economics: Some Non‐random Reflections

271 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The System of Rice Intensification and its Impacts on Household Income and Child Schooling: Evidence from Rural Indonesia (2014, unknown): “By explicitly incorporating these factors in x we reduce the likelihood and magnitude of bias based on selection on unobservables (Barrett and Carter, 2010).”
Women’s Empowerment and Economic Development: A Feminist Critique of Storytelling Practices in “Randomista” Economics (2020, background): “…have been associated with the wholesale dismissal of nonexperimental ways of seeking to understand development processes, ranging from cross-country growth regressions to qualitative case studies (Banerjee 2007): RCTs tend to delegitimize “other ways of knowing” (Barrett and Carter 2010: 527).”
Measuring Social Networks' Effects on Agricultural Technology Adoption (2013, background): “However, essential heterogeneity might affect how farmers both interpret and react to the treatment, thereby undermining both the external and internal validity of the experimental design (Barrett and Carter 2010).”
Farm-Level Pathways to Improved Nutritional Status: Introduction to the Special Issue (2015, background): “Of course, experiments have well-known limitations that have been noted in the literature (see, for example, Deaton (2010) and Barrett and Carter (2010)) and observational data plays an important role in trying to understand the farm-nutrition relationship.”