The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Natural Experiments and Quasi-Natural Experiments

  • J. DiNardo
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_2006

Abstract

Natural experiments or quasi-natural experiments in economics are serendipitous situations in which persons are assigned randomly to a treatment (or multiple treatments) and a control group, and outcomes are analysed for the purposes of putting a hypothesis to a severe test; they are also serendipitous situations where assignment to treatment ‘approximates’ randomized design or a well-controlled experiment.

Keywords

Experiment Natural experiments Quasi-natural experiments Randomization Regression discontinuity design Returns to schooling Social experiments Treatment effect 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Bibliography

  1. Ashenfelter, O., and A.B. Krueger. 1994. Estimates of the economic returns to schooling from a new sample of identical twins. American Economic Review 84: 1157–1173.Google Scholar
  2. Ashtekar, A., R.S. Cohen, D. Howard, J. Renn, S. Sarkear, and A. Shimony. 2003. Revisiting the foundations of relativistic physics: Festschrift in honor of john Stachel, Boston studies in the philosophy of science. Vol. 234. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  3. Bastable, C.F. 1987. Experimental methods in economics (i). In The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, ed. J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, and P. Newman, Vol. 2. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Bound, J., and G. Solon. 1999. Double trouble: On the value of twins-based estimation of the return to schooling. Economics of Education Review 18: 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DiNardo, J. 2007. Interesting questions in freakonomics. Journal of Economic Literature.Google Scholar
  6. DiNardo, J. and Lee, D.S.. 2002. The impact of unionization on establishment closure: A regression discontinuity analysis of representation elections. Working Paper No. 8993. Cambridge, MA: NBER.Google Scholar
  7. DiNardo, J., and D.S. Lee. 2004. Economic impacts of new unionization on private sector employers: 1984–2001. Quarterly Journal of Economics 119: 1383–1441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DiNardo, J., and T. Lemieux. 2001. Alcohol, marijuana, and American youth: The unintended consequences of government regulation. Journal of Health Economics 20: 991–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drake, S. 1981. Cause, experiment, and science: A galilean dialogue, incorporating a new english translation of Galileo’s bodies that Stay atop water, or move in it. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fisher, R.A. 1935. Design of experiments. Edinburgh/London: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
  11. Hacking, I. 1983. Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hacking, I. 1988. Telepathy: Origins of randomization in experimental design. Isis 79: 427–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hacking, I. 2000. The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hearst, N., T.B. Newman, and S.B. Hulley. 1986. Delayed effects of the military draft on mortality: A randomized natural experiment. New England Journal of Medicine 314: 620–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heckman, J.J. 2005. The scientific model of causality. Sociological Methodology 35: 1–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heckman, J.J., and J.A. Smith. 1995. Assessing the case for social experiments. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(2): 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee, D.S. 2008. Randomized experiments from non-random selection in U.S. house elections. Journal of Econometrics.Google Scholar
  18. Magee, B. 2001. Talking philosophy: dialogues with fifteen leading philosphers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Mayo, D.G. 1996. Error and the growth of experimental knowledge science and its conceptual foundations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meyer, B. 1995. Natural and quasi-experiments in economics. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 13: 151–161.Google Scholar
  21. Morgan, M.S. 1987. Statistics without probability and Haavelmo’s revolution in econometrics. In The probabilistic revolution: Ideas in the sciences, ed. L. Krüger, G. Gigerenzer, and M.S. Morgan, Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Nelson, A. 1990. Are economic kinds natural? In In Scientific Theories of Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, ed. C. Wade Savage, Vol. 14. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  23. Peirce, C.S.. 1958. In Collected Papers, vols. 7–8, ed. A. Burks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Rosenzweig, M.R., and K.I. Wolpin. 2000. Natural ‘natural experiments’ in economics. Journal of Economic Literature 38: 827–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Searle, J. 1995. The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  26. Shadish, W.R., T.D. Cook, and D.T. Campbell. 2002. Experimental and Quasi–Experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  27. Tribby, J. 1994. Club Medici: Natural experiment and the imagineering of ‘Tuscany’. Configurations 2: 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Voltaire. 1759. The history of candide; or all for the best, ed. C. Cooke. London, 1796.Google Scholar
  29. Waller, R. 1684. Essayes of natural experiments made in the academie del cimento, under the protection of the most serene Prince Leopold of Tuscany. Facsimile edn, ed. R. Hall, trans. R. Waller. New York/London, 1964.Google Scholar
  30. Wikipedia. 2006. Experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org. Accessed 28 Sept 2006.

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. DiNardo
    • 1
  1. 1.