Experiments in Modern Economics - Expansion and Technological and Institutional Innovations in the U.S.

• Autorzy: Beata Woźniak-Jęchorek

Warianty tytułu

Eksperymenty we współczesnej ekonomii. Rozwój metod eksperymentalnych wraz z innowacjami technologicznymi i instytucjonalnymi w USA

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Experimental economics emerged during the mid-20th century and was created through a combination of the experimental methodology employed in psychology and new advancements in economic theory. Early studies utilizing experimental approaches were conducted on bargaining behavior, social dilemmas, individual decision-making, and market institutions, but experienced a lengthy period of underground growth prior to flourishing in the 21st century. The contemporary state of experimental economics is characterized by a surge of new data sources, the adoption of innovative measurement techniques, the implementation of underutilized experimental designs, advancements in statistical methodologies, increased discussions on robustness and generalizability, and the extensive application of experiments to various fields of study (Druckman, Green, 2021). The main aim of this paper is to outline the evolution of experimental economics, describe contemporary experimental methods, highlight the technological and institutional innovations that support experimentation, particularly in the United States, and identify the primary challenges that exist for the further development of this methodology. It is argued that experimental methods are more commonly employed in the U.S. due to factors such as access to low-cost data collection tools, institutional support, and the emphasis on interdisciplinary research. (original abstract)

Współczesna ekonomia eksperymentalna narodziła się w połowie XX wieku wraz z adaptacją metod eksperymentalnych, stosowanych dotąd w psychologii, do analizy problemów ekonomicznych. Początkowo podejście eksperymentalne wykorzystywano na marginesie głównego nurtu ekonomii w celu zrozumienia zachowań uczestników negocjacji przetargowych, procesów indywidualnego podejmowania decyzji oraz badania instytucji rynkowych. Prawdziwy rozkwit tej metodologii w naukach społecznych nastąpił dopiero w XXI wieku dzięki rozwojowi nowych źródeł pozyskiwania danych i innowacyjnych technik pomiarowych, postępowi w metodach statystycznych oraz intensyfikacji dyskusji na temat możliwości generalizowania wyników tego typu badań (Druckman, Green, 2021). Głównym celem artykułu jest przedstawienie rozwoju podejścia eksperymentalnego w ekonomii wraz z charakterystyką współczesnych typów eksperymentów oraz wskazaniem innowacji technologicznych i instytucjonalnych wspierających wykorzystanie tej metodologii w naukach społecznych, zwłaszcza w USA. W artykule podjęto również próbę identyfikacji głównych wyzwań stojących przed dalszym rozwojem podejścia eksperymentalnego w ekonomii. Artykuł dowodzi, że metody eksperymentalne są częściej stosowane w USA ze względu na dostęp do tanich źródeł pozyskiwania danych, wsparcia instytucjonalnego i promowania interdyscyplinarności na amerykańskich uczelniach. (abstrakt oryginalny)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Economics; Experimental economics; Innovations

PL

Ekonomia; Ekonomia eksperymentalna; Innowacje

• Czasopismo: Ekonomista
• Rocznik: 2023
• Numer: nr 1
• Strony: 78--101

Twórcy

autor

Beata Woźniak-Jęchorek

• Poznań University of Economics and Business

Bibliografia

• Angrist, J. D., Krueger, A. B. (2001). Instrumental variables and the search for identification: From supply and demand to natural experiments. Journal of Economic Perspective, 15, 69-85.
• Arceneaux, K. (2010). T he Benefits of Experimental Methods for the Study of Campaign Effects. Political Communication, 27(2), 199-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584601003709407.
• Arnett, J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602-14.
• Arsonson, E., Brewer, M. B., Carlsmith, J. M. (1985). Experimentation in Social Psychology. W: Lindzey, G., Aronson, E.(eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, 3rd Edition. New York: Random House.
• Atzmüller, C., Steiner, P. M. (2010). Experimental vignette studies in survey research. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 6(3), 128-138. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000014.
• Auspurg, K., Hinz, T. (2014). Factorial Survey Experiments. Vol. 175. Sage Publications.
• Baert, S. (2017). Hiring Discrimination: An Overview of (Almost) All Correspondence Experiments Since 2005. IZA Discussion Paper Series, 10738.
• Baker, M. (2016). Is There a Reproducibility Crisis?. Nature, 533, 452-455.
• Bardsley, N., Cubitt, R., Loomes, G., Moffatt, P., Starmer, Ch., Sugden, R. (2009). Experimental Economics: Rethinking the Rules. Princeton University Press.
• Ben-Akiva, M., McFadden, D., Train, K. (2019). Foundations of stated preference elicitation: consumer behavior and choice-based conjoint analysis. Foundations and Trends in Econometrics, 10, 1-144.
• Berinsky, A. J., Druckman, J. N., Yamamoto, T. (2021). Publication Biases in Replication Studies. Political Analysis, 29, 370-384.
• Biemer, P. P. (2010). Total Survey Error: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 817-848.
• Bischof, D., Cohen, G., Cohen, S., Foos, F., Kuhn, P. M., Nanou, K., Visalvanich, N., Vivyan, N. (2021). Advantages, Challenges and Limitations of Audit Experiments with Constituents. Political Studies Review, 1-9, SAGE. https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299211037865.
• Blair, E., Blair, J. (2015). Applied Survey Sampling. Los Angeles, CA : Sage Publications.
• Bond, R. M., Fariss, Ch. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D. I., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., Fowler, J. H. (2012). A 61-Million-Person Experiment in Social Influence and Political Mobilization. Nature, 489, 295-298.
• Bullock, W., Imai, K., Shapiro, J. N. (2011). Statistical Analysis of Endorsement Experiments: Measuring Support for Militant Groups in Pakistan. Political Analysis, 19(4). Cambridge University Press, 363-84.
• Buyalskaya, A., Gallo, M., Camerer, C. F. (2021). The golden age of social science. PNAS, 118(5).
• Callard, F., Fitzgerald, D. (2015). Rethinking interdisciplinarity across the Social Sciences and Neurosciences. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Camerer, C .F., Dreber, A ., H olzmeister, F., H o, T .H., H uber, J., Johannesson, M., Altmejd, A . (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behavior, 2, 637-644.
• Casadevall, A., Fang, F. C. (2010). Editorial: Reproducible Science. Infection and Immunity, 78, 4972-4975.
• Charness, G., Gneezy, U., Kuhn, M. A. (2011). Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81(1), 1-8.
• Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808.
• Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Houghton Mifflin.
• Coppock, A. (2019). Generalizing from Survey Experiments Conducted on Mechanical Turk: A replication Approach. Political Science Research and Methods, 7, 613-628.
• Coppock, A., Leeper, T. J., Mullinix, K. J. (2018). Generalizability of Heterogenous Treatment Effect Estimates across Samples. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 12441-12446.
• Cronbach, L. J., Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281-302.
• Dickhaut, J. W., Livingstone, J. L., Watson, D. J. H. (1972). On the Use of Surrogates in Behavioral Experimentation. The Accounting Review, 47, Supplement: 455-471.
• Druckman, J. N. (2021). Experimental Thinking: A Primer on Social Science Experiments. New York: Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming.
• Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P. (2021). A N ew Era of Experimental Political Science. W: Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P. (eds.). Cambridge Handbook of Advances in Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Elliott, K. C., Resnik, D. B. (2019). Making Open Science Work for Science and Society. Environmental Health Perspective, 127(7).
• Fanelli, D. (2018). Is Science Really Facing a R eproducibility Crisis, and Do We Need it to?. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 114, 3714-3719.
• Fischbacher, U. (2007). Z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10, 171-178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-006-9159-4
• Fisher, R.A. (1921). Studies in Crop Variation. I. An examination of the yield of dressed grain from Broadbalk. Journal of Agricultural Science, 11(2), 107-135.
• Fisher, R. A. (1935). The design of experiments. Oliver & Boyd.
• Fisher, R. A. MacKenzie, W. A. (1923). Studies in Crop Variation. II . The manurial response of Different potato varieties. Journal of Agricultural Science, 13(3), 311-320.
• Franco, A., Malhotra, N., Simonovits, G. (2014). Publication Bias in the Social Sciences: Unlocking the File Drawer. Science, 345(6203), 1502-5.
• Friedman, D., Sunder, S. (1994). Experimental Economics: A Primer for Economists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Gaddis, S. M. (ed.) (2018). Audit studies: Behind the scenes with theory, method, and nuance. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
• Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P. (2012). Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. New York: W. W. Norton.
• Gilligan, M. J., Pasquale, B. J., Samii, C. (2014). Civil War and Social Cohesion: Labinthe-Field Evidence from Nepal. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 604-619.
• Groves, R. M., Fowler Jr., F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., Tourangeau, R. (2009). Survey Methodology. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
• Guala, F. (2008). History of experimental economics. W: Durlauf, S., Blume, L., The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Palgrave-Macmillan.
• Hacking, I. (1984). Experimentation and Scientific Realism. W: Leptin, J. (ed.), Scientific Realism. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
• Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., Yamamoto, T. (2014). Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments. Political Analysis, 22, 1-30.
• Hedges, L. V., Schauer, J. (2018). The history of randomized trials in education in the USA. Education Research, 60, 265-275.
• Hegtvedt, K. A. (2014). Ethics and Experiments. W: Webster, M., Sell, J., Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences (pp. 23-51), "Academic Press".
• Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., Norenzayan, A. (2010). The Weirdest People in the World?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33 (April), 61-83.
• Holland, P. W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 945-960.
• Kagel, J. H., Roth, A. E. (2016). The Handbook of Experimental Economics, Vol. 2. Princeton University Press.
• King, G., Sands, M. (2015). How Human Subjects Research Rules Mislead You and Your University, and What to Do About It. Working Paper, Harvard University.
• Kuklinski, J. H., Sniderman, P. M., Knight, K., Piazza, T., Tetlock, P. E., Lawrence, G. L., Mellers, B. (1997). Racial Prejudice and Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action. American Journal of Political Science JSTOR , 402-19.
• Lélé, S., Norgaard, R. B. (2005). Practicing Interdisciplinarity. BioScince, 55(11), 967-975.
• Leonard, R. (1994). Laboratory strife: higgling as an experimental science in economics and social psychology. W: De Marchi, N. B., Morgan, M. S. (eds.), Higgling (pp. 343-369). Durham: Duke University Press.
• Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Design Sensitivity: Statistical Power for Experimental Research. SAGE Publications.
• Lipsey, R. G. (1979). An Introduction to Positive Economics. Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
• Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., Jetten, J. (1994). Out of Mind but Back in Sight: Stereotypes on the Rebound. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5),808.
• Mäki, U. (2005). Models are experiments, experiments are models. Journal of Economic Methodology, 12(2), 303-315. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501780500086255.
• McDermott, R., Hatemi, P. K. (2020). Ethics in field experimentation: A call to establish new standards to protect the public from unwanted manipulation and real harms. PNAS, December 1, 117(48), 30014-30021.
• McFadden, D. (2017). Stated preference methods and their applicability to environmental use and non-use valuations. W: McFadden, D., Train, K. (eds.), Contingent valuation of environmental goods: a comprehensive critique. Cheltenham, UK Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
• Morgan, M. S. (2003). Economics. W: Porter, T., Ross, D. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Science, Vol. 7, "The Modern Social Sciences" (pp. 275-305). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Mullinix, K. J., Leeper, T. J., Druckman, J. N., Freese, J. (2015). The Generalizability of Survey Experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2, 109-138.
• Mutz, D. C. (2011). Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton University Press.
• Neumark, D. (2018). Experimental research on labor market discrimination. Journal of Economic Literature, 56, 799-866.
• Neumark, D., Burn, I., Button, P. (2019). Is it harder for older workers to find jobs? New and Improved Evidence from a Field Experiment. Journal of Political Economy, 127(2).
• Norton, J. D. (2015). Replicability of Experiment. Theoria, 30(2), 229-248.
• Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., Buck, S., Chambers, C. D., Chin, G., Christensen, G., Contestabile, M., Dafoe, A., Eich, E., Freese, J., Glennerster, R., Goroff, D., Green, D. P., Hesse, B., Humphreys, M., Ishiyama, J., Karlan, D., Kraut, A., Lupia, A., Mabry, P., Madon, T., Malhorta, N., Mayo-Wilson, E., McNutt, M., Miguel, E., Levy Paluck, E., Simonsohn, U., Soderberg, C., Spellman, B. A., Turitto, J., VandenBos, G., Vazire, S., Wagenmakers, E. J., Wilson, R., Yarkoni, T. (2015). Promoting an Open Research Culture. Science, 348, 1422-1425.
• Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science. Science, 349, aac4716.
• Pearl, J. (1995). Causal diagrams for empirical research. Biometrika, 82, 669-688.
• Resnik, D. B. (1994). H acking's Experimental Realism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 24(3), 395-411. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1994.10717376.
• Roth, A. E. (1993). The Early History of Experimental Economics. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 15(2), Fall, 184-209.
• Roth, A. E. (1995). Introduction to Experimental Economics. W: Kagel, J. H., Roth, A . E . (eds.), The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Roth, A. E. (2002). The Economist as Engineer: game theory, experimentation, and Partnerships. Perspectives on Politics, 18, 10-26.
• Schoenberger, E. (2001). Interdisciplinarity and social power. Progress in Human Geography, 25, 365-382.
• Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inferences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Smith, V. L. (1976). Experimental Economics: Induced Value Theory. American Economic Review, 66, 274-279.
• Smith, V. L. (1981). Experimental economics at Purdue. W: Smith, V. L., Papers in Experimental Economics (pp. 154-158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Smith, V. L. (1994). Economics in the Laboratory. Journal of Economic Perspective, (8).
• Sovey, A . J., Green, D. P. (2011). Instrumental variables estimation in political science: A readers' guide. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 188-200.
• Teele, D. (2021). Virtual Consent: The Bronze Standard for Experimental Ethics. W: Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P. (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Advances in Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Teele, D. L. (ed.) (2014). Field experiments and their critics. Essays on the Uses and Abuses of Experimentation in the Social Sciences. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
• Titiunik, R. (2021). Natural experiments. W: Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P. (eds.), Advances in Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O. (1944). The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Westreich, D., Edwards, J. K., Lesko, C. R., Cole, S. R., Stuart, E. A. (2019). Target Validity and the Hierarchy of Study Designs. American Journal of Epidemiology, 188, 438-443.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.52335/ekon/161838