ScholarGate
Trợ lý

So sánh phương pháp

Xem các phương pháp đã chọn cạnh nhau; những hàng khác biệt được làm nổi bật.

Natural Experiment in Politics×Difference-in-Means Estimator×
Lĩnh vựcPolitical SciencePolitical Science
HọProcess / pipelineProcess / pipeline
Năm ra đời20121923
Người khởi xướngDunning (design-based framework); Lee (close-election RD lineage)Jerzy Neyman (design-based potential-outcomes framework)
LoạiObservational study exploiting as-if random assignmentDesign-based estimator of the average treatment effect
Công trình gốcDunning, T. (2012). Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9781107698000Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2012). Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. New York: W. W. Norton. ISBN: 9780393979954
Tên gọi khácPolitical natural experiment, As-if random design, Design-based natural experiment, Quasi-experiment with as-if randomizationNeyman estimator, Design-based ATE estimator, Difference of sample means, Mean-difference treatment effect estimator
Liên quan44
Tóm tắtA natural experiment in political science exploits a naturally occurring source of as-if random assignment — close elections, lotteries, arbitrary boundaries, or policy thresholds — to identify causal effects without the researcher manipulating anything. Codified for the social sciences by Thad Dunning's 2012 design-based treatment and exemplified by David Lee's close-election regression-discontinuity analysis of U.S. House races, the approach treats nature, institutions, or chance as if they had run an experiment, recovering credible causal estimates from observational data when randomization is impossible.The difference-in-means estimator is the design-based workhorse for analyzing randomized experiments: it estimates the average treatment effect simply as the difference between the average outcome among treated units and the average outcome among control units. Rooted in Jerzy Neyman's potential-outcomes framework and central to modern treatments by Imbens and Rubin and by Gerber and Green, it is unbiased under randomization, comes with a conservative Neyman variance estimator, and supports exact randomization inference, requiring no model of how outcomes are generated.
ScholarGateBộ dữ liệu
  1. v1
  2. 2 Nguồn tài liệu
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 Nguồn tài liệu
  3. PUBLISHED

Đến trang tìm kiếm Tải xuống bản trình chiếu

ScholarGateSo sánh phương pháp: Natural Experiment in Politics · Difference-in-Means Estimator. Truy cập ngày 2026-06-25 từ https://scholargate.app/vi/compare