The use of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to study the impact of specific interventions, has over the last decade become a dominant methodology in development microeconomics

However, some argue that socioeconomic RCTs do not test hypothesis rooted in theory and ignore mechanisms of causality
For example,

"In 2006, approximately 1,300 men and women were tested for HIV. They were then offered financial incentives of random amounts ranging from zero to values worth approximately four month’s wages if they maintained their HIV status for approximately one year..."
"Throughout the year, respondents were asked about their sexual behavior three times, through interviewer-administered sexual diaries. Respondents were then tested for HIV, and financial incentives were awarded based on whether they had maintained their HIV status..."
"After the second round of testing, the incentives program stopped."

Taken from the article 'Conditional Cash Transfers and HIV/AIDSPrevention: Unconditionally Promising?'
After the study provided no significant effects on the cash transfer on reported sexual behavior, the researchers hypothesize that the monetary reward was too far in the future for the participants
And for a reduction in risky sexual behavior, the participants would need compensation in the present
The World Bank and others have looked to medical, particularly pharmaceutical, research as a model and as a means of seeming legitimate
But, the use of RCTs in development explicitly seeks to remove or downplay the importance of social, political, and cultural contexts

And humans are less controllable than bodily functions
The pursuit of causality comes at the expense of generalizability which is crucial to expanding programming into different contexts
Complex socioeconomic interventions combine multiple interacting components, which interact in a way that their sum is greater than the effects of the individual parts
Socioeconomic RCTs differ from medical RCTs because participants in the latter usually do not know how the treatment will affect them, whereas, in the former, interventions often require individuals to understand effects well enough to evaluate benefits
Double-blinding is common in medical RCTs but fairly impossible in socioeconomic RCTs
Complex interventions interact with socioeconomic and environmental conditions, organizational readiness, policy context, and target population
The socioeconomic RCTs can also create a treatment sample that differs from the general population that may skew results

More from Science

1. I find it remarkable that some medics and scientists aren’t raising their voices to make children as safe as possible. The comment about children being less infectious than adults is unsupported by evidence.


2. @c_drosten has talked about this extensively and @dgurdasani1 and @DrZoeHyde have repeatedly pointed out flaws in the studies which have purported to show this. Now for the other assertion: children are very rarely ill with COVID19.

3. Children seem to suffer less with acute illness, but we have no idea of the long-term impact of infection. We do know #LongCovid affects some children. @LongCovidKids now speaks for 1,500 children struggling with a wide range of long-term symptoms.

4. 1,500 children whose parents found a small campaign group. How many more are out there? We don’t know. ONS data suggests there might be many, but the issue hasn’t been studied sufficiently well or long enough for a definitive answer.

5. Some people have talked about #COVID19 being this generation’s Polio. According to US CDC, Polio resulted in inapparent infection in more than 99% of people. Severe disease occurred in a tiny fraction of those infected. Source:

You May Also Like

"I really want to break into Product Management"

make products.

"If only someone would tell me how I can get a startup to notice me."

Make Products.

"I guess it's impossible and I'll never break into the industry."

MAKE PRODUCTS.

Courtesy of @edbrisson's wonderful thread on breaking into comics –
https://t.co/TgNblNSCBj – here is why the same applies to Product Management, too.


There is no better way of learning the craft of product, or proving your potential to employers, than just doing it.

You do not need anybody's permission. We don't have diplomas, nor doctorates. We can barely agree on a single standard of what a Product Manager is supposed to do.

But – there is at least one blindingly obvious industry consensus – a Product Manager makes Products.

And they don't need to be kept at the exact right temperature, given endless resource, or carefully protected in order to do this.

They find their own way.