Skip to content

Category: Social Sciences

“Big Questions, Not Project Evaluations”: Blattman on Impact Evaluation

This week in my development seminar, we will be discussing the background ideas and methods proper to development microeconomics.

In order to do so, and to make sure that everyone has a clear understanding of what’s at stake, I must make a necessary digression about the use of linear regression as well as about the idea of causality in the social sciences.

As such, a recent post on impact evaluation by Chris Blattman turns out to be quite timely:

“My point in 2008: to talk about how impact evaluations could better serve the needs of policymakers, and accelerate learning.

Frankly, the benefits of the simple randomized control trial have been (in my opinion) overestimated. But with the right design and approach, they hold even more potential than has been promised or realized.

The Great A&P

“A&P was at the center of a bitter political struggle that lasted for nearly half a century–a struggle that went far beyond economics. At its root were competing visions of society. One vision could be described with such words as ‘modern’ and ‘scientific,’ favoring the rationalism of cold corporate efficiency as a way to increase wealth and raise living standards. The other vision could fairly be termed ‘traditional.’ Dating to Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries, the traditional vision harked back to a society of autonomous farmers, craftsmen, and merchants in which personal independence was the source of individual opportunity and collective prosperity.”

Decision Fatigue

“Decision fatigue can make quarterbacks prone to dubious choices late in the game and CFOs prone to disastrous dalliances late in the evening. It routinely warps the judgment of everyone, executive and nonexecutive, rich and poor — in fact, it can take a special toll on the poor. Yet few people are even aware of it, and researchers are only beginning to understand why it happens and how to counteract it.

Decision fatigue helps explain why ordinarily sensible people get angry at colleagues and families, splurge on clothes, buy junk food at the supermarket and can’t resist the dealer’s offer to rustproof their new car. No matter how rational and high-minded you try to be, you can’t make decision after decision without paying a biological price. It’s different from ordinary physical fatigue — you’re not consciously aware of being tired — but you’re low on mental energy. The more choices you make throughout the day, the harder each one becomes for your brain, and eventually it looks for shortcuts, usually in either of two very different ways. One shortcut is to become reckless: to act impulsively instead of expending the energy to first think through the consequences. (Sure, tweet that photo! What could go wrong?) The other shortcut is the ultimate energy saver: do nothing. Instead of agonizing over decisions, avoid any choice. Ducking a decision often creates bigger problems in the long run, but for the moment, it eases the mental strain.”

This is from an excellent article by John Tierney in last weekend’s New York Times Magazine.

I think self-control problems constitute one of the most interesting areas of research in the social sciences. I will always remember my introduction to the topic, in Ted O’Donoghue’s graduate behavioral economics class — one of the first taught anywhere — in 2003. The biggest revelation in terms of how to think about self-control problems came when Ted explained that one’s present-day self did not have the same preferences for the future as one’s future self. This was the basis of his widely cited 1999 paper on procrastination with Matt Rabin titled “Doing It Now or Later.”

The bottom line appears to be that humans only have a limited supply of willpower, both at a given point in time and over time.