The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing the Case for Social Experiments
Abstract
This paper analyzes the method of social experiments. The assumptions that justify the experimental method are exposited. Parameters of interest in evaluating social programs are discussed. The authors show how experiments sometimes serve as instrumental variables to identify program impacts. The most favorable case for experiments ignores variability across persons in response to treatments received and assumes that mean impacts of a program are the main object of interest in conducting an evaluation. Experiments do not identify the distribution of program gains unless additional assumptions are maintained. Evidence on the validity of the assumptions used to justify social experiments is presented.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Estimating the Effect of Training Programs on Earnings
Ashenfelter, O. (1978) · The Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.2307/1924332 · Cited by 1,515
Sources of Identifying Information in Evaluation Models
Angrist, J., & Imbens, G. (1991) · doi:10.3386/t0117 · Cited by 72
Cited by
SOME PRACTICAL GUIDANCE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING
Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2008) · Journal of Economic Surveys · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.x · Cited by 6,238
Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation
Imbens, G. W., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2009) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.47.1.5 · Cited by 4,926
Does matching overcome lalonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators?
A. Smith, J., & E. Todd, P. (2005) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.04.011 · Cited by 3,176
Morduch, J. (1999) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.37.4.1569 · Cited by 2,360
Empirical Strategies in Labor Economics
Angrist, J. D., & Krueger, A. B. (1999) · Handbook of Labor Economics · doi:10.1016/s1573-4463(99)03004-7 · Cited by 1,628
IMAI, K., KEELE, L., TINGLEY, D., & YAMAMOTO, T. (2011) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055411000414 · Cited by 1,537
What Can Police Do to Reduce Crime, Disorder, and Fear?
Weisburd, D., & Eck, J. E. (2004) · The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · doi:10.1177/0002716203262548 · Cited by 790
Cook, T. D., Shadish, W. R., & Wong, V. C. (2008) · Journal of Policy Analysis and Management · doi:10.1002/pam.20375 · Cited by 604
Why Do Partisan Media Polarize Viewers?
Levendusky, M. S. (2013) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12008 · Cited by 587
Experimental Designs for Identifying Causal Mechanisms
Imai, K., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2013) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2012.01032.x · Cited by 408
Matching as a Tool to Decompose Wage Gaps
Ñopo, H. (2008) · Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/rest.90.2.290 · Cited by 355
(2010) · Quantitative Economics · doi:10.3982/qe8 · Cited by 304
“18 Heckman and Smith (1995), Heckman, LaLonde, and Smith (1999), and Heckman and Vytlacil (2007) discussed randomization bias and substitution bias.”
Self-citationWeisburd, D., Telep, C. W., Hinkle, J. C., & Eck, J. E. (2010) · Criminology & Public Policy · doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2010.00617.x · Cited by 285
Better LATE Than Nothing: Some Comments on Deaton (2009) and Heckman and Urzua (2009)
Imbens, G. W. (2010) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.48.2.399 · Cited by 278
Partisan Media Exposure and Attitudes Toward the Opposition
Levendusky, M. (2013) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2012.737435 · Cited by 236
Chapter 7 The economics of fertility in developed countries
Joseph Hotz, V., Klerman, J. A., & Willis, R. J. (1997) · Handbook of Population and Family Economics · doi:10.1016/s1574-003x(97)80024-4 · Cited by 228
Diaz, J. J., & Handa, S. (2006) · Journal of Human Resources · doi:10.3368/jhr.xli.2.319 · Cited by 196
Muralidharan, K., & Niehaus, P. (2017) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.31.4.103 · Cited by 194
Abbring, J. H., & Heckman, J. J. (2007) · Handbook of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/s1573-4412(07)06072-2 · Cited by 122
Self-citationIbarrarán, P., & Rosas Shady, D. (2009) · Journal of Development Effectiveness · doi:10.1080/19439340902918094 · Cited by 122
Bruns, E. J., Pullmann, M. D., Weathers, E. S., Wirschem, M. L., & Murphy, J. K. (2012) · Child Maltreatment · doi:10.1177/1077559512454216 · Cited by 59
Covariance Adjustments for the Analysis of Randomized Field Experiments
Berk, R., Pitkin, E., Brown, L., Buja, A., George, E., & Zhao, L. (2013) · Evaluation Review · doi:10.1177/0193841x13513025 · Cited by 42
Addressing cross-national generalizability in educational impact evaluation
Hanushek, E. A. (2021) · International Journal of Educational Development · doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102318 · Cited by 20
Estimating Treatment Effects: Matching Quantification to the Question
Loughran, T. A., & Mulvey, E. P. (2010) · Handbook of Quantitative Criminology · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-77650-7_9 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Heckman, J. J., & Smith, J. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Economic Perspectives
- Publisher
- American Economic Association
- Published
- 1995-05-01
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 85-110
- ISSN
- 0895-3309 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1966981305
- Cited by
- 936
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 18.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.