I read this blog post on the 2019 Econ nobel prize &I have a some thoughts.I shld start with revealing my background and potential sources of bias.1)One of the 3(Kremer) has advised&supported me for almost a decade, in grad school &beyond.I could write a whole thread on that 1/n
2) I think some people may describe me as a randomista 😲 I'm writing up the results of an RCT as we speak and have some others ongoing. My work has been funded by JPAL, DIME etc.I have learned a lot from the laureates' work. I've hired people trained by JPAL/IPA etc. 2/n
Ok,with that out of the way.1-I was surprised to hear that this prize was controversial esp among people in the Global South.I know RCTs are controversial in general but realize I don't have enough channels of hearing the views of people outside a certain bubble.
2-While some of the claims& language in the blog was problematic(in my opinion), I think it's important to listen. Academics based in developing countries have experiences and perspectives that are shaped by realities on ground, and we have a lot to learn from them. 4/n
3-From my read (perhaps influenced by the fact that I know one of the authors), at the core of the article is a protest against the power imbalance between western-based researchers and those in places they study.And that is a BIG deal- goes far beyond the Nobel or RCTs. 5/n
While it's true that ethically questionable studies are everywhere,I think the risks are higher when a foreigner comes in with research $$ & power (due to culture differences,ignorance,racism etc).I know researchers who take this seriously but sadly, it's still a huge problem.6/n
One suggestion to researchers is to get review from a local IRB. If there is no formal IRB that works well, consider convening one informally with some local academics and community members to ask about risks of harm potentially associated with your study.7/n
4-I think the other core issue is that we cannot randomize our way out of poverty.I think it's clear that if u don't have a handle on key macro variables,a country is going nowhere. At the same time,there are many qxns on improving welfare that RCTs can help answer.8/n
Many people have given the usual responses to RCT criticisms elsewhere, so I won't rehash. I'm happy to have it as an important tool in the toolbox and happy to know it's limitations. 9/n
5-One thing I can't help wondering though: what is the counterfactual to the RCT revolution?? Would we be stuck in methods of the 1990s (unlikely) or what other path would devpt economics be on if all the time,talent & resources currently devoted to RCTs had gone elsewhere?!10/n
6-Lastly, a key difference btw RCTs and most other studies is that RCTs require a lot more "fieldwork"-direct involvement with people's lives.This provides opportunity for great insights but also can highlight harmful effects of power imbalances.Let's steward them with care!11/11
