Fault Lines

Last registered on January 15, 2018
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Fault Lines
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0000767
Initial registration date
July 11, 2015

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
July 11, 2015, 9:22 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Last updated
January 15, 2018, 2:53 PM EST

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

Country
Uganda
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Pia Raffler
Affiliation
Harvard University
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Lucy Martin
PI Affiliation
University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
Completed
Start date
2014-10-31
End date
2015-12-31
Keywords
Electoral, Governance
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Abstract
Models of electoral accountability typically assume a nested principal-agent problem in which voters hold their representatives accountable not only for their own actions but also for the performance of the bureaucracy. In developing countries such as Uganda, the limited capacity of elected officials at the local level means that they cannot always control the behavior of their appointed counterparts; we argue that this may have a serious impact on how well elections serve as an accountability mechanism. This paper outlines the pre-analysis plan for a survey experiment conducted with citizens in Uganda that examine how citizens allocate blame and credit for the provision of public goods at the local level and how this affects electoral accountability. The survey experiment is the third in a series of three, with the first two experiments sampling elite citizens and local government officials in Uganda, respectively. Data from the other two experiments has already been analyzed. The authors do not yet have access to the data from the survey experiment with citizens.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Martin, Lucy and Pia Raffler. 2018. "Fault Lines." AEA RCT Registry. January 15. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.767-2.0
Former Citation
Martin, Lucy and Pia Raffler. 2018. "Fault Lines." AEA RCT Registry. January 15. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/767/history/24934
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
The study is a survey experiment. The intervention consists of different vignettes which randomly vary whether (a) a local bureaucrat comes from the same or another district than where she works and (b) whether service provision is of good or low quality and (c) whether the local bureaucrat or the local politician are primarily responsible for the quality of service delivery. The vignettes are described in greater detail in the attached pre-analysis plan.
Intervention Start Date
2014-10-31
Intervention End Date
2015-12-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
1) Whether voters hold the bureaucrat or the politician responsible for the quality of service delivery prior to having received information.
2) Expected changes in vote shares of the politician
3) Perceived effectiveness of electoral sanctions/rewards
4) Perceived quality of official (index)

Secondary:
5) Expected likelihood of informal sanctions/rewards
6) Perceived effectiveness of informal sanctions/rewards
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Please see the attached PAP for details.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The study is a survey experiment. The intervention consists of different vignettes which randomly vary whether (a) a local bureaucrat comes from the same or another district than where she works and (b) whether service provision is of good or low quality and (c) whether the local bureaucrat or the local politician are primarily responsible for the quality of service delivery. The vignettes are described in greater detail in the attached pre-analysis plan.
Experimental Design Details
Please see the attached PAP for details.
Randomization Method
Randomization done by ODK on a smart phone.
Randomization Unit
The unit of randomization is the individual survey respondent.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
6,000 - 7,000 respondents.
Sample size: planned number of observations
6,000 - 7,000 respondents.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Each final cell is expected to have between 750 to 875 respondents.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Innovations for Poverty Action
IRB Approval Date
2014-10-10
IRB Approval Number
497
IRB Name
National Aids Research Committee (NARC)
IRB Approval Date
2014-07-25
IRB Approval Number
ARC157
Analysis Plan

Analysis Plan Documents

Analysis Plan - Fault Lines

MD5: ffb286f6214dd19e8f7c5f448db9a730

SHA1: 0140ab3a9586c222d058c40c4e7bb2389067d560

Uploaded At: July 11, 2015

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials