A central feature of experimental development economics is the use of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effectiveness of prospective socioeconomic interventions. The use of RCTs in development economics raises a host of ethical issues which are just beginning to be explored. In this article, I address one ethical issue in particular: the routine use of the status quo as a control when designing and conducting a development RCT. Drawing on the literature on the principle of standard care in medical research ethics, as well as considerations of distributive justice in non-ideal circumstances, I argue that the practice of using the status quo as a control is ethically justifiable. However, I add an important qualification based on the natural duty of rescue to address the concern that my account is overly permissive.
AbramowiczMSzafarzA (2020) Ethics of RCTs: should economists care about equipoise? In: BédécarratsFGuérinIRoubaudF (eds) Randomized control trials in the field of development: a critical perspective. New York: Oxford University Press, 280–292.
2.
AldermanHDasJRaoV (2016) Conducting ethical economic research: complications from the field. In: DeMartinoGMcCloskeyD (eds) Oxford Handbook on professional economic ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 402–422.
3.
AngellM (1997) The ethics of clinical research in the third world. The New England Journal of Medicine337(12): 847–849.
4.
AsieduEKarlanDLambon-QuayefioMP, et al. (2021) A call for structured ethics appendices in social science papers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America118(29): e2024570118.
5.
BaeleS (2013) The ethics of new development economics: is the experimental approach to development economics morally wrong?The Journal of Philosophical Economics7(1): 2–42.
6.
BanerjeeADufloE (2007) The economic lives of the poor. Journal of Economic Perspectives21(1): 141–168.
7.
BanerjeeADufloE (2011) Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty. New York: PublicAffairs.
8.
BanerjeeADufloEGoldbergN, et al. (2015) A multifaceted program causes lasting progress for the very poor: evidence from six countries. Science348(6236): 1–16.
9.
BeitzC (1979) Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
10.
BlakeM (2001) Distributive justice, state coercion, autonomy. Philosophy & Public Affairs30(3): 257–296.
11.
CohenGA (1997) Where the action is: on the site of distributive justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs26(1): 3–30.
12.
CohenJEasterlyW (eds.) (2009) What Works in Development: Thinking Big and Thinking Small. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
13.
CrouchRArrasD (1998) AZT trials and tribulations. The Hastings Center Report28(6): 26–34.
14.
DeatonA (2013) The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
15.
DeMartinoG (2011) The Economist’s Oath: On the Need for and Content of Professional Economic Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
16.
EasterlyW (2009) Can the west save Africa?Journal of Economic Literature47(2): 373–447.
17.
EmanuelE (2012) Global justice and the ‘standard of care’ debates. In: MillumJEmanuelE (eds) Global justice and bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 181–212.
18.
EmanuelEMillerF (2001) The ethics of placebo-controlled trials – A middle ground. The New England Journal of Medicine345(12): 915–919.
19.
FreedmanB (1987) Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. The New England Journal of Medicine317(3): 141–145.
20.
GlennersterRPowersS (2016) Balancing risk and benefit: ethical tradeoffs in running randomized evaluations. In: DeMartinoGMcCloskeyD (eds) Oxford Handbook on professional economic ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 367–401.
21.
HardimonMO (1994) Role obligations. Journal of Philosophy91(7): 333–363.
22.
HawkinsJ (2006) Justice and placebo controls. Social Theory and Practice32(3): 467–496.
23.
HawkinsJ (2008) Research ethics, developing countries, and exploitation: a primer. In: EmanuelEHawkinsJ (eds) Exploitation and developing countries. Princeton: Princeton University Pres, 21–62.
24.
HawkinsJEmanuelE (2008) Introduction: why exploitation? In: EmanuelEHawkinsJ (eds) Exploitation and developing countries. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1–20.
25.
KammFM (2000) Does distance matter morally to the duty to rescue?Law and Philosophy19(6): 655–681.
26.
KarlanDAppelJ (2011) More than Good Intentions: Improving the Ways the World's Poor Borrow, Save, Farm, Learn, and Stay Healthy. New York: Penguin.
27.
KuklaR (2007) Resituating the principle of equipoise: justice and access to care in non-ideal conditions. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal17(3): 171–202.
28.
LevineRJ (1998) The ‘best proven therapeutic method’ standard in clinical trials in technologically developed countries. The Hasting Center Report20(1): 5–9.
29.
LevineRJ (1999) The need to revise the Declaration of Helsinki. The New England Journal of Medicine341(7): 531–534.
30.
LondonAJ (2000) The ambiguity and the exigency: clarifying ‘standard of care’ arguments in international research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy25(4): 379–397.
31.
LuriePWolfeS (1997) Unethical trials of interventions to reduce perinatal transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus in developing countries. The New England Journal of Medicine337(12): 853–855.
32.
MacKayD (2014) Standard of care, professional obligations, and distributive justice. Bioethics28(7): 352–359.
33.
MacKayD (2015) Standard of care, institutional obligations, and distributive justice. Bioethics29(4): 262–273.
34.
MacKayD (2018) The ethics of public policy RCTs: the principle of policy equipoise. Bioethics32(1): 59–67.
35.
MacKayD (2020) Government policy experiments and the ethics of randomization. Philosophy & Public Affairs48(4): 319–352.
36.
MacKayDRulliT (2017) The duty to rescue and investigators’ obligations. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal27(1): 71–105.
37.
MiguelEKremerM (2004) Worms: identifying impacts on education and health in the presence of treatment externalities. Econometrica72(1): 159–217.
38.
MillerD (2011) Taking up the slack? Responsibility and justice in situations of partial compliance. In: StemplowskaZKnightC (eds) Responsibility and distributive justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 230–245.
39.
MillerD (2020) The nature and limits of the duty of rescue. Journal of Moral Philosophy17(3): 320–341.
40.
MillsCW (2005) Ideal theory” as ideology. Hypatia20(3): 165–183.
41.
MillsCW (2009) Rawls on race/race in rawls. The Southern Journal of Philosophy47(Supplement): 161–184.
42.
MurphyL (1998) Institutions and the demands of justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs27(4): 251–291.
43.
MurphyL (2000) Moral Demands in Nonideal Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44.
NagelT (2005) The problem of global justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs33(2): 113–147.
45.
OgdenT (ed.) (2017) Experimental Conversations: Perspectives on Randomized Trials in Development Economics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46.
PicchioM (2023) Being Good in a World of Need, Larry S. Temkin. Oxford University Press, 2022, 432 pages. Economics & Philosophy: 1–6.
47.
PoggeT (2002) World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms. London: Polity Press.
48.
RavallionM (2014) On the role of aid in The Great Escape. Review of Income and Wealth60(4): 967–984.
49.
RawlsJ (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50.
RawlsJ (1999) The Law of Peoples with “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51.
RothmanKMichelsK (1994) The continuing unethical use of placebo controls. The New England Journal of Medicine331(6): 394–398.
52.
RulliTMillumJ (2016) Rescuing the duty to rescue. Journal of Medical Ethics42: 260–264.
53.
SenAK (1982) Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
54.
SenAK (2009) The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
55.
SingerP (1972) Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy & Public Affairs1(3): 229–243.
56.
SreenivasanS (2007) Health and justice in our non-ideal world. Politics, Philosophy & Economics6(2): 218–236.
57.
StiglitzJ (2003) Globalization and its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
58.
SvenssonJ (2005) Eight questions about corruption. Journal of Economic Perspectives19(3): 19–42.
59.
TemkinL (2022) Being Good in a World of Need. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
60.
TempleREllenbergS (2000) Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments. Annals of Internal Medicine133(6): 455–463.
ValentiniL (2012) Ideal vs. non-ideal theory: a conceptual map. Philosophy Compass7(9): 654–664.
63.
ValentiniL (2021) The natural duty of justice in non-ideal circumstances: on the moral demands of institution building and reform. European Journal of Political Theory20(1): 45–66.
64.
VarmusHSatcherD (1997) Ethical complexities of conducting research in developing countries. The New England Journal of Medicine337(14): 1003–1005.
World Medical Association (1975) WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Ferney-Voltaire, France: World Medical Association.
67.
World Medical Association (2013) WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Ferney-Voltaire, France: World Medical Association.
68.
ZiliakSTeather-PosadasE (2016) The unprincipled randomization principle in economics and medicine. In: DeMartinoGMcCloskeyD (eds) Oxford Handbook on professional economic ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 423–452.
