Against Excessive Rhetoric in Impact Assessment: Overstating the Case for Randomised Controlled Experiments

The recent attention afforded to randomisation, or Randomised Control Trials (RCTs), in impact assessment is a welcome development. The case for RCTs in international development, however, has been quite overstated. This article critically examines the seminal model underlying RCTs, the Holland-Rubin Framework, with a view to make four claims about RCTs: (i) they have limitations as conceptions of causation; (ii) their ‘idealised’ model of causal inference is undermined by implementation issues; (iii) they are not necessary to make internally valid statements about impact; and (iv) in general, they do not provide sufficient information for many purposes of impact assessment. The key argument is that ultimately, the choice of approach to impact assessment should be driven by the research question at hand and not by the alleged superiority of method.     

Exposure to Maternal- and Paternal-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence, Emotion Regulation, and Child Outcomes

The current study examined the relationship of maternal- and paternal-perpetrated intimate partner violence (IPV) to children’s internalizing and externalizing symptomatology. Mother-child dyads (N?=?53; child ages 8–11) reported maternal- and paternal-perpetrated IPV exposure and measures of child symptomatology. Results demonstrated that: (a) maternal- and paternal-perpetrated IPV have similar but not identical relations with child outcomes, (b) mothers’ and children’s reports of paternal-perpetrated IPV were positively related, (c) mother and child report of maternal- and paternal-perpetrated IPV related to child emotional and behavior problems, and (d) emotion dysregulation mediated the link between IPV exposure and child outcomes. Notably, findings differed by reporters. Results support emotion dysregulation as one mechanism through which IPV exposure may lead to child behavior problems, with implications for clinical intervention.     

Infinitely repeated contests: How strategic interaction affects the efficiency of governance

Contests over the scope and strength of regulation and governance are commonplace – and commonly repeated. The same players vie for the same government prize year after year: for example, environmental standards, government contracts, research grants, and public good provision. The open question is whether more rents are dissipated in repeated regulatory contests than onetime competitions. This question matters for regulation and governance because societies should design policies to waste the fewest scarce resources. According to some, the answer is “no”, but others say “yes”– more resources are wasted when people compete repeatedly for the same government prize. Herein, we use two game theoretic equilibrium concepts to help untangle the answer. Our results suggest non‐myopic contestants are more likely to behave as partners than rivals – provided the context is relatively sterile. Several common complications help break up the tacit partnership, including a disparity in relative ability, a shrinking prize, and additional players.     

Distant allies and proximate enemies in issue voting: Myth or reality?

The purpose of this paper is to offer an explanation as to why Euclidean distance serves as a reasonably good approximation of reality when it does not incorporate explicity a consideration of the sides of the issue taken by the voter and candidate. The empirical evidence indicates quite clearly that Euclidean distance and side of issue are extremely highly correlated. Two general classes of explanation are offered. First, this powerful association can be seen as a function of the mathematical difficulty of actually being in close proximity to a preferred party while being on the opposite side of an issue on a 7-point scale. Second, even after this mathematical artifact is taken into account, the combined effects of assimilation, contrast, and negativity may bring favored candidates closer to the voter and drive the opposition further away, resulting in a strong correlation of Euclidean distance and side of the issue.     

Interparty Spatial Relationships in Norwegian Storting Roll Call Votes*

The purpose of this study is to map interparty spatial relationships embedded in non-unanimous roll call votes recorded during the 1985–86 session of the Norwegian parliament. The analysis is theoretically grounded in the one-dimensional Scandinavian five-party model and a two-dimensional model which assumes that the conventional left–right continuum is intersected by an urban protest/rural traditionalism axis. While the one-dimensional solution which arrays the parties along the conventional left–right continuum is statistically defensible, a two-dimensional solution appears better to reflect the reality of contemporary Norwegian politics in which the post-Second World War welfare-state consensus is being challenged by the Progressive Party. The resulting divisions among the non-socialist parties may preclude a stable center-right governing coalition.