Search

The effectiveness of many widely used conservation interventions is poorly understood because of a lack of high-quality impact evaluations. Randomized control trials (RCTs), in which experimental units are randomly allocated to treatment or control groups, offer an intuitive way to calculate the impact of an intervention by establishing a reliable counterfactual scenario. As many conservation interventions depend on changing people's behaviour, conservation impact evaluation can learn a great deal from RCTs in fields such as development economics, where RCTs have become widely used but are controversial. We build on relevant literature from other fields to discuss how RCTs, despite their potential, are just one of a number of ways to evaluate impact, are not feasible in all circumstances, and how factors such as spillover between units and behavioural effects must be considered in their design. We offer guidance and a set of criteria for deciding when RCTs may be an appropriate approach for evaluating conservation interventions, and factors to consider to ensure an RCT is of high quality. We illustrate this with examples from one of the few concluded RCTs of a large-scale conservation intervention: an incentive-based conservation programme in the Bolivian Andes. We argue that conservation should aim to avoid a rerun of the polarized debate surrounding the use of RCTs in other fields. Randomized control trials will not be feasible or appropriate in many circumstances, but if used carefully they can be useful and could become a more widely used tool for the evaluation of conservation impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Development economics was born as a distinct disciplinary field in the aftermath of World War II, when the development of so-called Third World countries, due to the dynamics of decolonization and the Cold War, became an international priority. At the institutional level, the birth of development economics was paralleled by the reorientation of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (so-called the World Bank) from the support of European reconstruction to funding development policies worldwide. Not surprisingly, the paths of the Bank and of pioneers of development economics often crossed, and it is fair to say that the Bank and the new discipline—from the perspective of the history and sociology of social sciences—are part of the same story. Indeed, one would think that the Bank was the natural place for the breeding of development economics. This seems coherent with the image we have of the Bank today: the reign of economists. Yet, for most of the years when development theory was shaped, the Bank, although very active in development policies worldwide, was remarkably silent in the field of development economics. This paper will connect the study of economic ideas and economists in international organizations with the history of economic policies. Based on previously untapped archival sources, it will discuss how the history of development economics and of development organizations—and especially the largest among them, that is, the World Bank—proceeded separated for a long stretch of time, and how they later converged. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The last few decades have seen a significant growth of economists’ interest in studying institutions. They are generally preoccupied with explaining institutions using instruments that are specific for an economist, and especially with discerning the significance of institutions for both economic development and development economics. Therefore, the integration of institutions into economic theory is an essential step in our continuous attempt to refine and improve scientific explanations. The neoclassical theory of economic growth only identifies the conditions needed for material production growth, such as capital accumulation and technical progress. In order to explain ‘why’ people save, invest, learn and seek useful knowledge, special attention must also be paid to institutional and value systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The back cover of the journal is presented along with brief profile of authors Michele Alacevich, Benjamin Bellman and Daniel G. Brown, subscription information and table of contents which mentions topics such as social science history, Social Science History Association and development economics.

The front cover of the journal is presented along with the issue's editors, editorial board and table of contents which mentions topics such as social science history, Social Science History Association (SSHA) and development economics.