Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Comparative Policy Analysis
Show Less

Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Comparative Policy Analysis

Edited by B. Guy Peters and Guillaume Fontaine

Public policy research has become increasingly comparative over the past several decades, but the methodological issues involved in this research have not been discussed adequately. This Handbook provides a discussion of the fundamental methodological issues in comparative policy research, as well as descriptions and analyses of major techniques used for that research. The techniques discussed are both quantitative and qualitative, and all are embedded in the broader discussion of comparative research design.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 9: Using experiments in comparative policy analysis: from policy evaluation to the policy process

Peter John


This chapter sets out the advantages (and some disadvantages) of random allocation or the randomized controlled trial (RCT) as a method to test interventions and evaluate casual processes in the social sciences. Randomization allows the evaluation of the counterfactual as both observed and unobserved factors are equally present in both treatment and control groups except for the variable of interest or intervention. While RCTs were present at the founding of the social sciences in the early twentieth century, the method languished until its enthusiastic rediscovery by development economists and students of political behaviour in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Now both economics and political science have a profusion of experiments and many scholars adopt the framework of causal inference and use identified designs in the form of regression discontinuity designs, difference-in-differences, comparative interrupted time series, and instrumental variable models, which may be called natural experiments. Trials have been used increasingly in public policy evaluations since the 1960s. But studies of the policy process and implementation remain largely untouched. This contrasts with their rapid adoption in the sister discipline of public administration, which shares an interest in decision making and the role of institutions and organizations, as shown by a recent wave of experiments with bureaucrats and studies under the banner of behavioural public administration. The chapter seeks to explain this lack of interest as a result of social networks and traditions of study in public policy, which have led the predominance of case study and interview-based methods (which can of course be integrated into randomized designs). The conclusion to draw is that there is a massive gap to be filled in the study of public policy. Experimental studies should be carried out so public policy studies can keep pace with advances in other disciplines.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.