Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRavallion, Martin
dc.date.accessioned2013-07-31T14:02:27Z
dc.date.available2013-07-31T14:02:27Z
dc.date.issued2005-06
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/123456789/1415
dc.description.abstractThe author critically reviews the methods available for the ex-post counterfactual analysis of programs that are assigned exclusively to individuals, households, or locations. The discussion covers both experimental and non-experimental methods (including propensity-score matching, discontinuity designs, double and triple differences, and instrumental variables). Two main lessons emerge. First, despite the claims of advocates, no single method dominates; rigorous, policy-relevant evaluations should be open-minded about methodology. Second, future efforts to draw more useful lessons from evaluations will call for more policy-relevant measures and deeper explanations of measured impacts than are possible from the classic ("black box") assessment of mean impact.es_ES
dc.language.isoenes_ES
dc.publisherWorld Bankes_ES
dc.relation.ispartofseriesWorld Bank Policy Research Working Paper;3625
dc.subjectPolítica sociales_ES
dc.subjectMitigación de la pobrezaes_ES
dc.subjectPobrezaes_ES
dc.subjectEconometríaes_ES
dc.titleEvaluating Anti-Poverty Programses_ES
dc.typeWorking Paperes_ES


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record