Not logged in.
Quick Search - Contribution
Contribution Details
| Type | Journal Article |
| Scope | Discipline-based scholarship |
| Title | The Role of Theory in Field Experiments |
| Organization Unit | |
| Authors |
|
| Item Subtype | Original Work |
| Refereed | Yes |
| Status | Published in final form |
| Language |
|
| Journal Title | Journal of Economic Perspectives |
| Publisher | American Economic Association |
| Geographical Reach | international |
| ISSN | 0895-3309 |
| Volume | 25 |
| Number | 3 |
| Page Range | 39 - 62 |
| Date | 2011 |
| Abstract Text | When it comes to the role of theory in their research, empirical microeconomists are torn. On the one hand, we devote a large fraction of our graduate instruction to models of consumer behavior and firm decision making, and to the interactions that determine market equilibrium. On the other hand, it is not always obvious how these theories are relevant to empirical research. Outside the academy, policymakers and business leaders often demand "basic facts" and simplified policy guidance with little or no concern for theoretical nuances. How then do empirical economists negotiate between theory and "facts"? In this paper, we focus on the role of theory in the rapidly growing area of field experiments. We take an empirical approach and quantify the role of theoretical modeling in all published field experiments in five top economics journals from 1975 to 2010. We propose a new classification of experimental studies that captures the extent to which the experimental design and analysis is linked to economic theory. Specifically, we distinguish between four classes of studies: Descriptive studies that lack any explicit model; Single Model studies that test a single model-based hypothesis; Competing Models studies that test competing model-based hypotheses; and Parameter Estimation studies that estimate structural parameters in a completely specified model. Applying the same classification to laboratory experiments published over the same period we conclude that theory has played a more central role in the laboratory than in field experiments. Finally, we discuss in detail three sets of field experiments that illustrate both the potential promise and pitfalls of a tighter link between experimental design and theoretical underpinnings. |
| Free access at | Official URL |
| Digital Object Identifier | 10.1257/jep.25.3.39 |
| Other Identification Number | merlin-id:5942 |
| PDF File |
Download from ZORA
|
| Export |
BibTeX
EP3 XML (ZORA)
|