Search

Begin New Search Topic Education Political Geography Global Focus Content Type Working Paper Publication Year within 3 Years Publication Year within 25 Years

1. Affirmative action: meaning, intentions, and impacts in the big picture

Author:
Satu Kuitunen
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
United Nations University
Abstract:
This paper provides a broad overview of the meaning of affirmative action and its intended and unintended impacts. The paper is a literature review and does not make any arguments specifically for or against affirmative action but describes the broad arguments and findings in the existing literature. Central to the definition of affirmative action is its proactive nature in rectifying horizontal inequalities and historical wrongdoing. Motivations can be ethical, economic, or political. The designation criteria and the scope of affirmative action also vary across countries, which affects how its effectiveness and value are measured. Affirmative action can have positive intended impacts as well as adverse unintended impacts, and the jury is still out on its overall effectiveness. Affirmative action has also been implemented on the grounds of conflict management, but the results have been mixed, and the evidence of affirmative action as a conflict management tool is limited.
Topic:
Education, Inequality, Literature Review, and Affirmative Action
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. Managing for Motivation as Public Performance Improvement Strategy in Education & Far Beyond

Author:
Dan Honig
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University
Abstract:
People management has an important role to play in improving public agency performance. This paper argues that a ‘Route Y’ managerial approach focused on supporting the empowered exercise of employee judgment will in many circumstances prove superior to conventional reform approaches steeped in ‘Route X’ monitoring and incentives. Returns to Route Y are greater when employees are or can become more “mission motivated” – that is, aligned with the goals of the agency in the absence of monitoring and extrinsic incentives. Returns to Route Y are also greater when monitoring is incomplete or otherwise likely to unproductively distort effort, thus lowering the returns to using performance-linked rewards and penalties. I argue that education systems are one (but far from the only) setting where Route Y is a lever worth focusing on in efforts to improve public performance in the developed and developing world alike.
Topic:
Development, Education, Public Policy, Performance Evaluation, and Project Management
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. A quarter century of ‘The Proper Scope of Government’: Theory and Applications

Author:
Oliver Hart
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Abstract:
A quarter-century ago in a seminal paper, Hart, Shleifer, and Vishny (NBER1996, QJE1997) developed a theory of the ‘Proper Scope of Government.’ Oliver Hart, 2016 Nobel Laureate, reflects on that framework and its place in economics, as well as the inspiration for his more recent work on norms, guiding principles, and contracts as reference points. In discussion with Karen Eggleston, Hart answers questions posed by economists who have built upon Hart, Shleifer and Vishny (1997) and offers insights on how the theory applies to understanding public and private roles in healthcare, education, and other publicly-financed services.
Topic:
Education, Privatization, Political Theory, Governance, Health Care Policy, Social Services, and Public Service
Political Geography:
Global Focus

4. Let’s Take the Con Out of Randomized Control Trials in Development: The Puzzles and Paradoxes of External Validity, Empirically Illustrated

Author:
Lant Pritchett
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University
Abstract:
The enthusiasm for the potential of RCTs in development rests in part on the assumption that the use of the rigorous evidence that emerges from an RCT (or from a small set of studies identified as rigorous in a “systematic” review) leads to the adoption of more effective policies, programs or projects. However, the supposed benefits of using rigorous evidence for “evidence based” policy making depend critically on the extent to which there is external validity. If estimates of causal impact or treatment effects that have internal validity (are unbiased) in one context (where the relevant “context” could be country, region, implementing organization, complementary policies, initial conditions, etc.) cannot be applied to another context then applying evidence that is rigorous in one context may actually reduce predictive accuracy in other contexts relative to simple evidence from that context—even if that evidence is biased (Pritchett and Sandefur 2015). Using empirical estimates from a large number of developing countries of the difference in student learning in public and private schools (just as one potential policy application) I show that commonly made assumptions about external validity are, in the face of the actual observed heterogeneity across contexts, both logically incoherent and empirically unhelpful. Logically incoherent, in that it is impossible to reconcile general claims about external validity of rigorous estimates of causal impact and the heterogeneity of the raw facts about differentials. Empirically unhelpful in that using a single (or small set) of rigorous estimates to apply to all other actually leads to a larger root mean square error of prediction of the “true” causal impact across contexts than just using the estimates from non-experimental data from each country. In the data about private and public schools, under plausible assumptions, an exclusive reliance on the rigorous evidence has RMSE three times worse than using the biased OLS result from each context. In making policy decisions one needs to rely on an understanding of the relevant phenomena that encompasses all of the available evidence.
Topic:
Development, Economics, Education, and Public Policy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

5. How Human Subjects Research Rules Mislead You and Your University, and What to Do About it

Author:
Gary King and Melissa Sands
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
Universities require faculty and students planning research involving human subjects to pass formal certification tests and then submit research plans for prior approval. Those who diligently take the tests may better understand certain important legal requirements but, at the same time, are often misled into thinking they can apply these rules to their own work which, in fact, they are not permitted to do. They will also be missing many other legal requirements not mentioned in their training but which govern their behaviors. Finally, the training leaves them likely to completely misunderstand the essentially political situation they find themselves in. The resulting risks to their universities, collaborators, and careers may be catastrophic, in addition to contributing to the more common ordinary frustrations of researchers with the system. To avoid these problems, faculty and students conducting research about and for the public need to understand that they are public figures, to whom different rules apply, ones that political scientists have long studied. University administrators (and faculty in their part­time roles as administrators) need to reorient their perspectives as well. University research compliance bureaucracies have grown, in well­meaning but sometimes unproductive ways that are not required by federal laws or guidelines. We offer advice to faculty and students for how to deal with the system as it exists now, and suggestions for changes in university research compliance bureaucracies, that should benefit faculty, students, staff, university budgets, and our research subjects.
Topic:
Education, Science and Technology, Labor Issues, Bureaucracy, and Academia
Political Geography:
Global Focus