The Economics of Scale-Up
Abstract
Most randomized controlled trials (RCT) of social programs test interventions at modest scale. While the hope is that promising programs will be scaled up, we have few successful examples of this scale-up process in practice. Ideally we would like to know which programs will work at large scale before we invest the resources to take them to scale. But it would seem that the only way to tell whether a program works at scale is to test it at scale. Our goal in this paper is to propose a way out of this Catch-22. We first develop a simple model that helps clarify the type of scale-up challenge for which our method is most relevant. Most social programs rely on labor as a key input (teachers, nurses, social workers, etc.). We know people vary greatly in their skill at these jobs. So social programs, like firms, confront a search problem in the labor market that can lead to inelastically-supplied human capital. The result is that as programs scale, either average costs must increase if program quality is to be held constant, or else program quality will decline if average costs are held fixed. Our proposed method for reducing the costs of estimating program impacts at large scale combines the fact that hiring inherently involves ranking inputs with the most powerful element of the social science toolkit: randomization. We show that it is possible to operate a program at modest scale n but learn about the input supply curves facing the firm at much larger scale (S × n) by randomly sampling the inputs the provider would have hired if they operated at scale (S × n). We build a simple two-period model of social-program decision making and use a model of Bayesian learning to develop heuristics for when scale-up experiments of the sort we propose are likely to be particularly valuable. We also present a series of results to illustrate the method, including one application to a real-world tutoring program that highlights an interesting observation: The noisier the program provider’s prediction of input quality, the less pronounced is the scale-up problem.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Over the range of Saga's ranked hiring list, there is little difference between tutors at the top vs. bottom.
“We do not know how many tutors it would be possible to hire before effectiveness declines, but over this range there is little difference between tutors at the top vs. bottom of Saga's ranked hiring list (Davis et al., 2017).”
From Not Too Late: Improving Academic Outcomes among Adolescents (2023) · cites this paper as Davis et al., 2017
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 47
- Authors
- Davis, J. M. V., Guryan, J., Hallberg, K., & Ludwig, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Chicago (US)
- Northwestern University (US)
- National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
- Venue
- National Bureau of Economic Research
- Publisher
- National Bureau of Economic Research
- Published
- 2017-10
- OpenAlex
- W2765774216
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4
- Type
- report
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- National Bureau of Economic Research (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- National Bureau of Economic Research (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Poverty, Education, and Child Welfare
- Keywords
- scale-up, social programs, randomized controlled trials, labor market search, human capital, input quality, program quality, Bayesian learning, heuristics, tutoring programs
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