Policy Equipoise and Interventional Superiority

Journal of Development Effectiveness (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

According to the norm of policy equipoise, it is permissible to randomly assign participants to two or more interventions in a public policy randomized controlled trial (RCT) when there is meaningful uncertainty among the relevant expert community regarding which intervention is superior. While this norm is gaining traction in the research ethics literature, the idea of interventional superiority remains unclear. Is one intervention superior to another if it is reasonably expected to realize one outcome of interest more effectively, even though there is uncertainty regarding other outcomes of interest? Or must an intervention be reasonably expected to realize all outcomes of interest more effectively? I address this question in this paper. My aim is to develop and defend an account of interventional superiority for policy RCTs that are authorized, funded, or conducted by government institutions. I defend the greatest value view, according to which one intervention is superior to another if and only if it is reasonably expected to more effectively realize a set of outcomes with greater value.

Author's Profile

Douglas MacKay
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-05-20

Downloads
39 (#91,753)

6 months
39 (#94,678)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?