AngristJoshua D., & PischkeJörn-Steffen (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
2.
BradyHenry E., & CollierDavid (Eds) (2010). Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. Maryland, US: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
3.
BanerjeeAbhijit, BertrandMarianne, DattaSaugato, & MullainathanSendhil (2009). Labor market discrimination in Delhi: Evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Comparative Economics, 37(1), 14–27.
4.
BhalotraS., Clots-FiguerasI., IyerL., & CassanG. (2012). Politician identity and religious conflict in India. Unpublished manuscript.
5.
BhavnaniRikhil R. (2009). Do electoral quotas work after they are withdrawn? Evidence from a natural experiment in India. American Political Science Review, 103(1), 23–35.
6.
BoxG.E.P., HunterW.G., & HunterJ.S. (1978). Statistics for experimenters. New York: Wiley.
7.
ChattopadhyayRaghabendra, & DufloEsther (2004). Women as policy makers: Evidence from a randomized policy experiment in India. Econometrica, 72(5), 1409–1443.
8.
DunningThad (2010). Design-based inference: Beyond the pitfalls of regression analysis?Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, 273–311. Maryland, US: Rowman & Littlefield.
9.
DunningThad (2012). Natural experiments in the social sciences: A design-based approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
FreedmanDavid (2006). Statistical models for causation: What inferential leverage do they provide?Evaluation Review, 30(6), 691–713.
11.
GalianiSebastian & SchargrodskyErnesto (2010). Property rights for the poor: Effects of land titling. Journal of Public Economics, 94(9), 700–729.
12.
GreenDonald P., GerberAlan S., & NickersonDavid W. (2003). Getting out the vote in local elections: Results from six door-to-door canvassing experiments. Journal of Politics, 65(4), 1083–1096.
13.
HidalgoF. Daniel (2010). Digital democratization: Suffrage expansion and the decline of political machines in Brazil. Department of Political Science, University of California at Berkeley.
14.
HollandPaul W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(396), 945–960.
15.
ImbensGuido W., & RosenbaumPaul R. (2005). Robust, accurate confidence intervals with a weak instrument: Quarter of birth and education. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 168(1), 109–126.
16.
LeeD.S. (2008). Randomized experiments from non-random selection in US House elections. Journal of Econometrics, 142(2), 675–697.
17.
McCraryJustin (2008). Manipulation of the running variable in the regression discontinuity design: A density test. Journal of Econometrics, 142(2), 698–714.
18.
MiguelEdward, SatyanathShanker, & SergentiErnest (2004). Economic shocks and civil conflict: An instrumental variables approach. Journal of Political Economy, 112(4), 725–753.
19.
NeymanJerzy (1923 [1990]). On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments. Essay on principles. Section 9. Statistical Science, 5(4), 465–472. (Dorota M. Dabrowska & Terence P. Speed, Trans.).
20.
SekhonJ.S., & TitiunikR. (2012). When natural experiments are neither natural nor experiments. American Political Science Review, 106(1), 35–57.
21.
ThistlethwaiteDonald L., & CampbellDonald T. (1960). Regression-discontinuity analysis: An alternative to the ex post facto experiment. Journal of Educational psychology, 51(6), 309.
22.
UppalYogesh (2009). The disadvantaged incumbents: Estimating incumbency effects in Indian state legislatures. Public Choice, 138(1–2), 9–27.
