« Bottom line | Main | Sentences to ponder »
God's Servants Do Play Dice
Chris Blattman, development economist extraordinaire , posts from Liberia.
Today we sat down with an inter-faith network of Liberian religious leaders to talk about their peace building plans. They are a truly inspiring organization, building local capacity to resolve conflicts, and training mediators to resolve disputes in the community. The countryside is, to some extent, a powder keg, and they are building local early warning systems and rapid response capability to potentially serious conflicts.
Moreover, to reduce tensions in conflict-prone places, these religious leaders--principally Muslims and Christians--do not just aspire to a new social contract, they sit down with ethnic and religious leaders in each village and coax them to actually write one, specifying norms and sanctions.
And they want to know if it's working.
I hum and haw about comparison groups, going through my impact evaluation 101 schpiel. I have serious concerns that one would or could develop a control group, let alone randomize, for such a program. So I dance delicately around the subject.
"Wait a minute," interrupts the Imam, "Are you talking about a randomized control trial?"
I gape.
"Oh I see!" says one Reverend Minister, "We need a control group! This is a good idea."
It turns out his holiness was once an agronomist. "This is just like our control plots for fertilizer. But how are we going to control for spillover effects?"
An older Methodist leader frowns sitting in the corner glowers. "Please, a moment," he says. "I see a real problem here."
Here it comes. Here is the doubt and questioning I expected. We're talking about a peace building exercise, not fertilizer on a farm plot. Even I have my reservations. This man, of an older generation, clearly has other priorities.
"How," he asks "are we going to select a proper sample?"
Hat tip to Dani Rodrik.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on March 31, 2008 at 07:31 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
Unbelievable! If I were a stock investor
(oh wait I am!) I would seriously consider
Liberia now.
Posted by: sa at Mar 31, 2008 7:58:06 AM
The moral question of denying some group the social service for the sake of comparison arises only if you believe the social service is beneficial. But the point of the trial is that you don't know whether the service is beneficial. That the question did not arise here suggests either that (1) the Liberian clergy are unusually amoral, or (2) they have purged themselves of confirmation bias.
Posted by: Cyrus at Mar 31, 2008 9:15:56 AM
Tyler, your captcha is getting to the point where my human pattern recognition faculties are not entirely confident in their answer.
Posted by: Cyrus at Mar 31, 2008 9:18:40 AM
Absolutely a great post. Economist often find themselves tip toeing around sensitive issues with non-economist and this must have been such a great relief.
Posted by: Jose Fernandez at Mar 31, 2008 9:18:57 AM
that is BEAUTIFUL!
says the statistician
Posted by: A.M. at Mar 31, 2008 9:34:06 AM
"Economist often find themselves tip toeing around sensitive issues with non-economist and this must have been such a great relief."
I think many economists' experience with non-economists consists of time spent with attorneys, politicos, and fellow non-economist academics.
These groups tend towards exteme confirmation bias relative to the general population, which leads them to be very resistant to economics. As a result, economists often underestimate the receptiveness of normal people to their "cold" ideas.
Most people, unlike attorneys, politicos, and a large swath of academics, actually comprehend a reality that stands apart from their wishes, and the need to understand that reality. This makes them more receptive to the scientific method as applied to social phenomenon. This is especially true when they actually care deeply about learning the truth and really helping other people.
In short, economists need to get out more. We're more likable than we realize.
Posted by: Keith at Mar 31, 2008 9:34:07 AM
It is rarely difficult to persuade people to agree to a controlled experiment, once you have shown them a relevant example. But to find them selling it to you!
I get a feeling that at long last God may have remembered Liberia.
Posted by: David Heigham at Mar 31, 2008 10:53:59 AM
This is indeed refreshing. What is also encouraging is that liberia's president is actualy an economist. What is even more encouraging is that she is also a woman.
I don't mean that in some sort of affirmative action kind of way, but rather that people everywhere in general trust women to be more honest and fair, or at least more likely to be that way than men would. After Liberia's history of rape and other violence I expect it to be a bit soothing to have a woman president.
That said, at the risk of opening up the thread to digression, not all women that we know fit that category of honesty and fairness. I'm talking about Hillary, who is ethically challenged to say the least, not paying her campaign bills and lying with seemingly everything she says.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Mar 31, 2008 1:28:50 PM
Most politicians are scared to death of random assignment, and the associated newspaper articles about treating ordinary people like lab rats.
I think this may be MR's first program evaluation post ever.
Warms my heart. :)
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff Smith at Mar 31, 2008 8:04:01 PM
Perhaps the economist was using the wrong sample population from which to draw inferences about how well people respond to random sampling, control populations, and other statistical methods used in science and social science.
Posted by: mouse at Apr 1, 2008 12:31:10 AM
"People in general trust women to be more honest and fair". From what planet is this commenter?
Posted by: Robert Speirs at Apr 1, 2008 9:05:12 AM
I'm having a hard time figuring out why this is so exciting. Is it because some Liberians have technical training? Or because religious leaders are interested in evidence? As Keith says, you economists need to get out more.
(Thus spake the epidemiologist...)
Posted by: Elizabeth Pisani at Apr 1, 2008 9:09:46 AM
Robert Spiers: From the planet on which women get better car insurance rates, because they have fewer accidents. From the planet on which mico-lenders target women, because they are more likely to repay the loans. From the planet on which the female incarceration rate is a small fraction of the male incarceration rate, because women are less likely to commit crimes.
Posted by: David Wright at Apr 1, 2008 2:45:03 PM
hi,I University majoring in the legal profession.thanks,thank very much.
Posted by: Rich at May 13, 2008 9:57:06 PM
Posted by: 徵信社 at May 23, 2008 11:12:21 PM
