Randomized Controlled Trials and Its Policy Implication on Poverty Relief Globally
-
摘要: 2019年诺贝尔经济学奖的授予为随机干预实验带来了许多关注，本文尝试探讨随机干预实验在全球范围内的政策影响。随机干预实验不仅是学术界的一大理论创新，更逐渐发展成为实证有效的政策工具。应用随机干预实验方法产生政策影响有四个作用机制，分别为：（1）规模化有效的干预和项目；（2）通过不成功案例优化项目,改善资源分配；（3）创造知识类的公共产品；（4）制度化循证决策。对作用机制的梳理，可为以中国为代表的发展中国家开展教育减贫领域的随机干预政策模拟实验提供行之有效的实证经验。Abstract: With increasing attention drawn to Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) after the announcement of the Nobel Prize winners in Economics Science 2019, this paper attempts to discuss the policy impact of RCTs and highlight its importance not only as an academic methodology but also as a useful policy tool. In this paper, four channels have been identified through which RCTs could help policy maker and development agencies in making their decisions. For each channel, detailed case studies are provided to further illustrate the impact of RCTs. The four channels discussed in the paper are 1) scaling up effective interventions, 2) adjusting programs to better allocate resources, 3) generating public goods and knowledge sharing, 4) institutionalizing evidence-based policy making.
-
Key words:
- randomized controlled trials /
- policy impact /
- poverty alleviation
1) ①https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2016/11/24/economists-are-prone-to-fads-and-the-latest-is-machine-learning. 2) ②https://www.evidenceaction.org/dewormtheworld-2/. 3) ③http://www.hdr.undp.org/en/humandev. 4) ④这1850个社区的各项干预会延迟到两年之后再开始实施(https://www.ifpri.org/publication/mexico-evaluation-progresa)。 5) ⑤https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/project-detail/P144715?lang=en. 6) ⑥https://blogs.worldbank.org/education/learning-impact-evaluations-lessons-cambodia. 7) ⑦https://www.who.int/immunization/programmes_systems/interventions/malaria_llins/en/. 8) ⑧https://www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/improving-transparency-and-delivery-subsidized-rice-program-indonesia. 9) ⑨https://www.povertyactionlab.org/minedulab. 10) ⑩https://data.oecd.org/oda/net-oda.htm#indicator-chart. 11) ⑪https://www.usaid.gov/project-starter/program-cycle/project-monitor-evaluation-plan/monitor-evaluation-plan-evaluation-component/impact-evaluation-designs. 12) ⑫https://www.socialprotection.org/gimi/gess/RessourcePDF.action?ressource.ressourceId=50377. 13) ⑬https://www.lift-fund.org/mcct-randomized-controlled-trial-endline-report. -
表 1 国际上致力于随机干预实验的独立研究机构和组织
机构名称 介绍 规模 阿卜杜勒•拉蒂夫•贾米尔贫困行动实验室 （The Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab，J-PAL） 由Banerjee、Duflo和Sendhil 在2003年设立的一个研究中心，作为一个研究联盟，该中心包含了来自全世界的192所大学的教授以及学者，专注于随机干预实验的研究、政策分析和培训 官网数据显示J-PAL及其附属机构在83个国家开展了超过1000项随机实验 贫困创新行动（Innovations for Poverty Action，IPA） 由Banerjee和Duflo的博士生Dean Karlan在2002年设立的非营利组织，是迄今为止最大的随机实验执行机构，在21个国家设有国别办公室。和J-PAL的关系非常紧密，经常作为J-PAL设计的随机干预实验的执行机构，帮助学术界的研究者完成规范化的随机实验评估 官网显示其已经完成和正在开展的随机实验项目约830个 全球行动中心（The Center for Effective Global Action，CEGA） 以加州大学伯克利分校为依托的一个研究中心，致力于倡导循证决策，其研究网络覆盖80名学者 在38个国家开展了跨越10个领域的研究 世界银行–战略影响评估基金（World Bank– The Strategic Impact Evaluation Fund，SIEF） 旨在支持对中低收入国家在改善儿童的健康、教育、卫生和早期发展方面项目的影响评估 在30个国家资助了79个影响评估项目 世界银行–发展影响评估（World Bank– Development Impact Evaluation，DIME） 世界银行旗下的部门，2013年在Arianna Legovini的推动下建立。DIME不仅资助随机干预实验项目，同时还建立了可共享的关于随机实验的教程以及程序代码，并倡导“可复制的”研究以提高研究的质量和透明度 在60个国家完成了170多项影响评估，其中大部分是随机干预实验 国际影响评估协会（The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation，3ie） 成立于2008年的组织，不仅资助随机干预实验，也致力于提高随机干预实验的研究质量，并且对现有的随机干预实验研究成果进行总结梳理和知识管理。主要资助方包括盖茨基金会和英国国际发展部 至今已在全球50多个国家和地区资助300多个项目，包括243项影响评估、38项系统综述等 斯坦福大学–农村教育行动项目（Stanford University–Rural Education Action Program，REAP） 农村教育行动是一个致力于利用影响评估来为中国的教育、健康以及营养政策提供研究证据的研究中心，其团队的核心成员由斯坦福大学Freeman Spogli国际问题研究所的研究人员和专家组成，合作伙伴包含了中国40余名学者 在中国不同省份完成了30多个关于儿童营养、健康和教育的干预项目 来源：来自各机构的官方网站 
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL). (2018). The impact of price on take-up and use of preventive health products. J-PAL Policy Insights. Last modified May 2018. https://doi.org/10.31485/pi.2270.2018. [2] Banerjee, A. V., Duflo, E., & Kremer, M. (2016). The influence of randomized controlled trials on development economics research and on development policy. The State of Economics, The State of the World. [3] Banerjee, A., Karlan, D., & Zinman, J. (2015). Six randomized evaluations of microcredit: Introduction and further steps. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7(1), 1−21. [4] Behrman, J., Sengupta, P., & Todd, P. (2000). The impact of PROGRESA on achievement test scores in the first year. September. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. [5] Behrman, J., & Hoddinott, P. (2000). An evaluation of the impact of PROGRESA on pre-school child height. July. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. [6] Bouguen, A., Filmer, D., Macours, K., & Naudeau, S. (2013). Impact evaluation of three types of early childhood development interventions in Cambodia. The World Bank. [7] Clemens, M. A., & Demombynes, G. (2010). When does rigorous impact evaluation make a difference? The case of the Millennium Villages. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 3(3), 1−49. [8] Coady, D. (2000). The application of social cost-benefit analysis to the evaluation of the human capital impacts of PROGRESA. March. InternationalFood Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. [9] Cohen, J., & Dupas, P. (2010). Free distribution or cost-sharing? Evidence from a randomized Malaria prevention experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1), 1−45. doi: 10.1162/qjec.2010.125.1.1 [10] Duflo, E. (2017). Richard T. Ely lecture: The economist as plumber. American Economic Review, 107(5), 1−26. doi: 10.1257/aer.p20171153 [11] Gertler, P. J. (2000). Final report: The impact of PROGRESA on health. November. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. [12] Hoddinott, J., Skoufias, E., & Washburn, R. (2000).The impact of PROGRESA on consumption: A final report. September. International Food Policy ResearchInstitute, Washington, D.C. [13] Honorati, M., Gentilini, U., & Yemtsov, R. G. (2015). The state of social safety nets 2015. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. [14] Kremer, M., & Miguel, E. (2007). The illusion of sustainability. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1007−1065. doi: 10.1162/qjec.122.3.1007 [15] Kremer, M., & Glennerster, R. (2011). Improving health in developing countries. Handbook of health economics, 2, 201−315. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53592-4.00004-9 [16] Maes, J. P., & Reed, L. R. (2012). State of the microcredit summit campaign report 2012. Microcredit Summit Campaign. [17] Miguel, E., & Kremer, M. (2004). Worms: Identifying impacts on education and health in the presence of treatment externalities. Econometrica, 72(1), 159−217. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00481.x [18] Ordonez-Barba, G., & Silva-Hernandez, A. (2019). Progresa-Oportunidades-Prospera: Transformations, reaches and results of a paradigmatic program against poverty. Papeles De Poblacion, 25(99), 77−109. [19] Rowe, N. (2011). Mexico's oportunidades: Conditional cash transfers as the solution to global poverty? Donald A. Henriksen Fellowship in International Political Economy, Keck Center for International and Strategic Studies, 1−20. [20] Sachs, J. D. (2018). Lessons from the Millennium Villages Project: A personal perspective. The Lancet Global Health, 6(5). [21] Sen, A. (2001). Development as freedom. Oxford Paperbacks. [22] Schultz, T. P. (2000). Final report: The impact of PROGRESA on school enrollments. April. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. [23] Skoufias, E., & Parker, R. (2001). Conditional cashtransfers and the impact on child work and schooling: Evidence from the PROGRESA program in Mexico. Economia: Journal of Latin America and the Caribbean EconomicAssociation. Vol. 2, No. 1. 1(pages 45–96). [24] World Health Organization. (2017). World malaria report 2017. -
