Suppose now that instead of herders buying the UThere phones, herders in the region were randomly given either a new UThere phone or soap of equivalent value. The impact evaluation team then randomly surveyed 250 herders who receive the phone and 250 who received the soap. When you directly compare average income for these two groups, the difference gives you: Naïve ATE due to selection bias, since those who randomly got phones are different from those who got soap. True ATE due to the randomization which implies that those who got soap are otherwise comparable to those who got phones. different way of measuring selection bias due to the randomization, since getting soap might increase the average income but not as much as UThere phones. the same value of Naïve ATE that you might expect to get without a random distribution of phones and soap.
Suppose now that instead of herders buying the UThere phones, herders in the region were randomly given either a new UThere phone or soap of equivalent value. The impact evaluation team then randomly surveyed 250 herders who receive the phone and 250 who received the soap. When you directly compare average income for these two groups, the difference gives you: Naïve ATE due to selection bias, since those who randomly got phones are different from those who got soap. True ATE due to the randomization which implies that those who got soap are otherwise comparable to those who got phones. different way of measuring selection bias due to the randomization, since getting soap might increase the average income but not as much as UThere phones. the same value of Naïve ATE that you might expect to get without a random distribution of phones and soap.
Chapter8: Game Theory
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 8.10P
Related questions
Question
Suppose now that instead of herders buying the UThere phones, herders in the region were randomly given either a new UThere phone or soap of equivalent value. The impact evaluation team then randomly surveyed 250 herders who receive the phone and 250 who received the soap. When you directly compare average income for these two groups, the difference gives you:
- Naïve ATE due to selection bias, since those who randomly got phones are different from those who got soap.
- True ATE due to the randomization which implies that those who got soap are otherwise comparable to those who got phones.
- different way of measuring selection bias due to the randomization, since getting soap might increase the average income but not as much as UThere phones.
- the same value of Naïve ATE that you might expect to get without a random distribution of phones and soap.
Expert Solution
![](/static/compass_v2/shared-icons/check-mark.png)
This question has been solved!
Explore an expertly crafted, step-by-step solution for a thorough understanding of key concepts.
This is a popular solution!
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
![Blurred answer](/static/compass_v2/solution-images/blurred-answer.jpg)
Knowledge Booster
Learn more about
Need a deep-dive on the concept behind this application? Look no further. Learn more about this topic, economics and related others by exploring similar questions and additional content below.Recommended textbooks for you