We study a class of binary treatment choice problems with partial identification, through the lens of robust (multiple prior) Bayesian analysis. We use a convenient set of prior distributions to derive ex-ante and ex-post robust Bayes decision rules, both for decision makers who can randomize and for decision makers who cannot. Our main messages are as follows: First, ex-ante and ex-post robust Bayes decision rules do not tend to agree in general, whether or not randomized rules are allowed. Second, randomized treatment assignment for some data realizations can be optimal in both ex-ante and, perhaps more surprisingly, ex-post problems. Therefore, it is usually with loss of generality to exclude randomized rules from consideration, even when regret is evaluated ex-post. We apply our results to a stylized problem where a policy maker uses experimental data to choose whether to implement a new policy in a population of interest, but is concerned about the external validity of the experiment at hand (Stoye, 2012)
and to the aggregation of data generated by multiple randomized control trials in different sites to make a policy choice in a population for which no experimental data are available (Manski, 2020
Ishihara and Kitagawa, 2021).