Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Medical epistemology meets economics: how (not) to GRADE universal basic income research

  • Adrian K. Yee*
  • , Kenji Hayakawa
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Abstract

There have recently been novel applications of medical systematic review guidelines to economic policy interventions which contain controversial methodological assumptions that require further scrutiny. A landmark 2017 Cochrane review of unconditional cash transfer (UCT) studies, based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), exemplifies both the possibilities and limitations of applying medical systematic review guidelines to UCT and universal basic income (UBI) studies. Recognizing the need to upgrade GRADE to incorporate the differences between medical and policy interventions, the GRADE Public Health Project Group (PHPG) was convened to enumerate and address these methodological challenges. However, in light of our analysis of additional methodological challenges that arise for UCT and UBI studies, we argue that the adaptation of medical systematic review guidelines to economic methodology is far from straightforward and is in fact more challenging than claimed by the PHPG.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)245-264
Number of pages20
JournalJournal of Economic Methodology
Volume30
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 3 Jul 2023

User-Defined Keywords

  • basic income studies
  • development economics
  • evidence hierarchies
  • experiments in economics
  • Philosophy of economics
  • systematic reviews

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Medical epistemology meets economics: how (not) to GRADE universal basic income research'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this