Randomized experiments by government institutions and American political development
- PDF / 563,306 Bytes
- 13 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 93 Downloads / 223 Views
Randomized experiments by government institutions and American political development Christian R. Grose1 · Abby K. Wood2 Received: 10 July 2019 / Accepted: 29 July 2019 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019
Abstract Are the methods of causal inference and, in particular, randomized controlled trials, compatible with the study of political history? While many important questions regarding political institutions and American political development cannot be answered with randomized controlled trials, scholars can and should be using the many instances of randomized experiments conducted by and within government institutions to further our understanding of institutions and political behavior. We argue that a surprising abundance of opportunities are available for scholars to utilize methods of random audits as natural experiments. Public and administrative officials have engaged in randomized interventions or audits to test for policy effects, to encourage compliance with the law, or to distribute government resources or personal risk to citizens fairly. With rare exceptions, such audits have not been leveraged by scholars interested in American political development or political history. Examples of randomized controlled trials conducted by agencies or institutions throughout US history are offered, and a historical random audit of members of the US Congress by the Federal Election Commission is highlighted. We conclude with limitations and advice on how to analyze the effects of randomized controlled trials conducted by governments. Scholars can use historical randomization to enhance causal inference and test theoretical implications, though deep knowledge of descriptive historical data and events are required to discover historical randomizations within political and legal institutions. Keywords Audits · Political institutions · Political history · Randomized controlled trials · Federal Election Commission · Congress · Natural experiments
* Christian R. Grose [email protected] Abby K. Wood [email protected] 1
Political Science and Public Policy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA
2
Law, Political Science, and Public Policy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Public Choice
1 Introduction Are the methods of causal inference and, in particular, randomized controlled trials, compatible with the study of political history? The answer from some of our disciplinary colleagues has been a resounding no. Some scholars of political institutions and American political development lament the increasing prevalence of field experiments and other causal inference methods, much as “perestroikans” in the discipline fretted about the rise of rigorous formal theory and rational choice approaches in the 1990s (Friedman 1996; Rudolph 2005; Sanders 2005; Hug 2014). Other political scientists argue that many questions and theoretical predictions about the US Congress, legislatures, the bureaucracy, the courts, and other political and legal i
Data Loading...
