|
Field
Trial Status
|
Before
in_development
|
After
on_going
|
|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
Can exposing women to role models improve their participation in community decision-making and broadly increase their perceived voice and agency beyond the household? And can additionally providing skills training on identifying policy priorities, setting goals, and speaking in public bolster any effects? We consider these research questions in the context of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) program in the eastern Indian state of Odisha. The MGNREGA entitles each rural Indian household to a minimum of 100 days of manual unskilled work at stipulated minimum wages. A key secondary goal of this program is creating durable assets to promote sustainable rural livelihoods. On paper, decisions around which assets will be constructed and where are to be made by community members in a participatory process. Across 94 communities in 4 districts, we will gather 1400 groups of women (approximately 15 per community). Each group will involve a target woman – selected at random from among all women in the community whose households hold an MGNREGA job card (a necessary document to participate in the program and select assets) – as well as 3-5 friends or neighbors (not family members) she invites to join her. Interventions with these groups will be conducted by a team of trained facilitators, one per group.
We have three study arms. All women will receive a brief information leaflet containing details on the formal processes for demanding assets under the MGNREGA, including information on eligibility and the types of assets that are feasible, and how women can participate in meetings at the revenue village and village levels (palli sabhas and gram sabhas, respectively). The facilitator will orally discuss all of the details of the leaflet with each group. In the placebo group only, the women gathered will watch an approximately 15-minute video unrelated to our study. Treatment group 1 (T1) will receive an aspirations treatment; gathered women will watch and discuss a 15-20-minute inspirational video about how women in Odisha have successfully participated in MGNREGA asset selection. Treatment group 2 (T2) will receive the aspirations treatment as for T1 and an additional skills training; specifically, they will receive a new training curriculum called “Planning for Voice” focused on conferring the skills needed to demand desired MGNREGA assets. This skills training takes approximately 1.5 hours to administer and emphasizes how to set specific, measurable, actionable, relevant and timebound goals in relation to participating in the MGNREGA asset selection process, while offering opportunities for role play and public speaking practice around asset demands. Importantly, the recruitment script will be the same for all study groups and facilitators carefully trained on not sharing any information about the training they are to receive with women before consenting them.
We will analyze the impacts of each of T1 and T2 relative to the placebo. Treatments received in the placebo allow us to ensure it is not the act of gathering, or information about how to participate in asset selection, that drives the effects of T1 and T2, but rather the inspirational video, or the combination of the inspirational video plus public speaking skills training components. While information and gathering on their own may confer some benefits, the purpose of this study is to test the independent effects of raising aspirations, and or raising aspirations in addition to conferring skills, in demanding assets. We posit that T1 will deliver improvements for some women relative to placebo, and T2 will deliver significantly more improvements than does T1.
|
After
Can exposing women to role models improve their participation in community decision-making and their perceived voice and agency beyond the household? And can additionally providing skills training on identifying policy priorities, setting goals, and speaking in public bolster any effects? We consider these research questions in the eastern Indian state of Odisha in the context of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) program, in which citizens are invited to request individual and community assets to be constructed by the program via a participatory process. Across 94 communities in 4 districts, we will gather 1400 groups of 4--6 women each. We have three study arms. All groups will receive an information leaflet containing details on the formal processes for demanding assets under MGNREGA. In the placebo group, women will then watch a 15-minute video unrelated to our study and discuss the video with their group. Treatment group 1 (T1) will receive an aspirations treatment; women will watch a 15-20-minute inspirational video about how women in Odisha have successfully participated in MGNREGA asset selection and discuss the video with their group. Treatment group 2 (T2) will receive T1 plus an additional approximately 1.5 hour skills training; specifically, they will receive a new training curriculum called "Planning for Voice,'' focused on conferring the skills needed to express demands for MGNREGA assets in community planning processes. This skills training includes opportunities for role play and public speaking practice around asset demands. Importantly, the recruitment script will be the same for all study groups and facilitators will not share any information about the training they are to receive with women before recruiting them. We will analyze the impacts of each of T1 and T2 relative to the placebo as well as the impacts of T2 relative to T1.
|
|
Field
Trial End Date
|
Before
April 15, 2024
|
After
December 31, 2024
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
November 01, 2023 04:07 PM
|
After
April 19, 2024 04:59 PM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
Our interventions are intended to strengthen community participation in asset selection under the MGNREGA and in particular to enhance the voice and agency of women in this process. They will be randomized at the individual woman level and delivered to groups of 4-6 women (one “target” woman and 3-5 women she identifies as being friends or neighbors that are not family members and are interested in joining) by a trained facilitator with experience in women’s empowerment interventions.
We have three study arms. Specifically, we randomly assign 1/3 of the sample to the aspirations treatment (T1); 1/3 of the sample to the skills treatment (T2); and 1/3 of the sample to the placebo group.
Treatment group 1 (T1) will receive an aspirations treatment; gathered women will watch and discuss a 15-20-minute inspirational video about how women in Odisha have successfully participated in MGNREGA asset selection (spending approximately 1 hour together in total). The video will feature 3-4 women from similar communities who have been successful in demanding assets under the program. The video will be shown by a trained facilitator, who will pause at key, pre-identified points to initiate a discussion with the participants.
For women assigned to treatment group 2 (T2), they receive T1 exactly as above, but we additionally introduce a new skills training curriculum called “Planning for Voice,” focused on conferring the skills needed to speak up in public about desired MGNREGA assets. This skills training takes approximately 1.5 hours to administer and emphasizes how to set specific, measurable, actionable, and relevant goals in relation to participating in the MGNREGA asset selection process, plus offers opportunities for role play and public speaking practice around asset requests. This additional skills training strengthens the chance that a bottom-up intervention can make a difference.
Both the aspirations treatment and the skills training naturally provide greater information and transparency over how MGNREGA assets are selected: by watching women who have been successful within the MGNREGA program in the state of Odisha at obtaining assets in the film, participants are learning information about what types of assets can be obtained through the program and how the decision-making process around asset selection works. Thus, observed effects could be driven by greater information about the program in general rather than by enhanced aspirations.
Nonetheless, just the act of pausing a normally very busy day to watch any film with friends may lift women’s spirits and affect their social networks and aspirations beyond the content of this specific film. To control for both the information and the gathering effects of the treatments, we also randomly assigned 1/3 of the women in the sample to a placebo treatment arm. Across all treatment arms, including the placebo arm, women will receive an information leaflet containing details on the formal processes for demanding assets under the MGNREGA, including information on eligibility and the types of assets that are feasible, and how women can participate in village meetings. The facilitator will go over all of the details of the leaflet orally with each group. By providing this information to all study groups, we assure that it is not information on participation alone that is driving the results of our treatments. Then, in the placebo group only, the women gathered will watch an approximately 15-minute video unrelated to our study. The goal of this video is to ensure that the placebo group also has some time to spend together and congregate – allowing us to additionally partial out the effects of gathering with friends to watch a movie in the first place, regardless of the content.
|
After
Our interventions are intended to strengthen community participation in asset selection under the MGNREGA and in particular to enhance the voice and agency of women in this process. They will be randomized at the individual woman level and delivered to groups of 4-6 women by a trained facilitator with experience in women's empowerment interventions. Groups consist of one “target” woman and 3-5 women from other households that she identifies as being friends or neighbors and who are interested in and able to join the training. The target woman is selected from among the 3426 women interviewed in the baseline survey.
We have three study arms. Specifically, we randomly assign 1/3 of target women to the aspirations treatment (T1); 1/3 to the skills treatment (T2); and 1/3 to the placebo group. Importantly, target women will identify and assemble friends and neighbors before any details on the training type they are to receive or its length are revealed, with the aim of ensuring comparability of friend/ neighbor groups across study arms.
Across all treatment arms, including the placebo arm, women will receive an information leaflet containing details on the formal processes for demanding assets under the MGNREGA, including information on eligibility and the types of assets that are feasible, and how women can participate in village meetings. The facilitator will go over all of the details of the leaflet orally with each group. By providing this information to all study groups, we assure that it is not information on participation alone that is driving the results of our treatments.
In addition to the leaflet and its presentation to the group, Treatment group 1 (T1) will receive an aspirations treatment; gathered women will watch and discuss a 15-20-minute inspirational video about how women in Odisha have successfully participated in MGNREGA asset selection (spending approximately 1 hour together in total). The video will feature 3-4 women from similar communities who have been successful in demanding assets under the program. The video will be shown by a trained facilitator, who will pause at key, pre-identified points to initiate a discussion (guided by a training manual) with the participants.
Women assigned to treatment group 2 (T2) receive T1 exactly as above, but we additionally introduce a new skills training curriculum called "Planning for Voice,'' focused on conferring the skills needed to speak up in public about desired MGNREGA assets specifically. This skills training takes approximately 1.5 hours to administer and emphasizes how to set specific, measurable, actionable, relevant and time-bound (SMART) goals in relation to participating in the MGNREGA asset selection process, while also offering opportunities for role play and public speaking practice around asset requests. This additional skills training strengthens the chances that a bottom-up intervention can make a difference.
Both the aspirations treatment and the skills training naturally provide greater information and transparency over both formal and informal processes through which MGNREGA assets are selected: by watching women who have been successful within the MGNREGA program in the state of Odisha at obtaining assets in the film, participants are learning information about what types of assets can be obtained through the program and how the decision-making process around asset selection works. Thus, observed effects could be driven by greater information about the program in general rather than by enhanced aspirations.
Nonetheless, just the act of pausing a normally very busy day to watch any film with friends may lift women's spirits and affect their social networks and aspirations beyond the content of this specific film. To control for the gathering effects of the treatments, the women randomly assigned to the placebo arm will watch an approximately 15-minute video unrelated to our study. The goal of this video is to ensure that the placebo group also has some time to spend together and congregate--allowing us to additionally partial out the effects of gathering with friends to watch a movie, regardless of the content.
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
1. Proactively requested asset: The female respondent has ever proactively requested an asset, either individually or as part of a group (binary)
2. Ever participated in palli sabha to discuss MGNREGA: The respondent has ever participated in a palli sabha to discuss the list of MGNREGA works in the village (binary)
3. Met and discussed any issue with an MGNREGA functionary: The respondent met and discussed any issue with an MGNREGA functionary, like the Gram Rozgaar Sewak (GRS), Technical Assistant (TA) or Panchayat Executive Officer (PEO) (binary)
4. MGNREGA assets were discussed in self-help group (SHG) meeting: Individual or group-level demands for MGNREGA assets were discussed in SHG meetings in the past year (binary)
5. Ever discussed requesting an MNREGA asset with her husband or other family member (binary). (only available at endline)
|
After
We consider the effects of the treatments on two broad categories of primary outcomes: women’s aspirations within the MGNREGA asset selection process as well as women’s behaviors related to exercising voice and agency in the context of the MGNREGA program. We measure women’s aspirations using three primary outcomes:
• Aspires to have an MGNREGA asset: Whether the respondent is likely to request an asset within the next year, either by herself or as part of a group (END F.71, only available at endline).
• Aspirations about making improvements to land or acquiring assets: An index combining an indicator for the respondent being very likely to pursue improvements to their land or to their home and assets in the next year, an indicator for the respondent having identified a specific time period for doing so, and an indicator for her having a clear idea of what improvements she would like to make (C.16-C.18, only available at endline). We include this since watching the video or participating in the training could raise women’s aspira- tions about making improvements to their land or acquiring assets in a more generalized way regardless of whether they want to demand them via the MGNREGA process.
• Has a plan to proactively request an MGNREGA asset: An additive index on the extent to which a respondent has a concrete plan to request an asset, composed of: knows who they plan to approach about the request, knows when they plan to approach them, and knows what type of asset they will request (END F.73–END.75, only available at endline – we will use these to code three indicator variables for having a response other than “don’t know/ cannot say”).
• Voice aspirations: A dummy variable indicating whether women say that they are either ‘somewhat like’ or ‘just like’ a hypothetical woman in a vignette who exercised voice and agency within the MGNREGA process (M.17d, only available at endline). ‘Unable to say’ or ‘don’t know’ are coded as 0s.
• Aspires to influence community decision-making around MGNREGA asset selection: Mea- sured on a scale from 1-10, which captures the extent to which the respondent aspires to influence the community MGNREGA decision-making process (END F.63, only available at endline)
Related to women’s behaviors, we have six primary outcomes. These are specific actions a woman may have undertaken to increase her chances of getting an asset built—and all reflect her exercising voice and agency within the asset selection process:
• MGNREGA assets were discussed in a self-help group (SHG) meeting: Respondent reports that individual or group-level demands for MGNREGA assets were discussed in SHG meetings the woman attended in the past year (G.18A)
• Met and discussed any issue with an MGNREGA functionary: The respondent met and discussed any issue with an MGNREGA functionary, like the Gram Rozgaar Sewak (GRS), Technical Assistant (TA), or Panchayat Executive Officer (PEO) (I.9H)
• Any household member (including respondent) proactively requested an asset since training: Anyone from the household has proactively requested an asset since training (END F.12A, only available at endline)
• Proactively requested asset: The female respondent has proactively requested an as- set, either individually or as part of a group, since training (i.e. since November 2023) (END F.12, only available at endline)
• Attended ward-level meeting or palli sabha meeting to discuss MGNREGA since training: The respondent attended a ward-level meeting or the palli sabha to discuss the list of MGNREGA works in the village since the training (END F.57, END F.59, only available at endline)
• Spoke at palli sabha: The respondent spoke at the most recent palli sabha meeting at- tended since training, coded as 0 if none attended (END F.60, only available at endline)
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
These are to be coded as binary variables present for all individuals answering the question. Primary outcome 4 is only non-missing for women who are members of SHGs.
|
After
These behavioral outcomes are to be coded as binary variables present for all individuals an- swering the question. The primary outcome related to SHGs is only non-missing for women who are members of SHGs.
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
We collected a baseline survey during May – July 2023 in five districts (Kalahandi, Mayurbhanj, Bolangir, Ravagada, and Ganjam) of Odisha state, India. These districts spanned five different agroclimatic zones and were selected from among the top ten districts in terms of MGNREGA asset construction over the five year period prior to the survey (limited to assets related to natural resource management). Our goal in doing so was to ensure this program was operational and thus relevant in our study context. We then selected 50 Gram Panchayats (GPs) per district at random from the universe of GPs, with probability proportional to the number of active 2021-22 job card holders in that GP (individuals must be from a household with a job card to be able to participate in the program and select assets to be constructed under it). In each GP, we selected 15 households at random from among all registered MGNREGA job card holders. In each household, our primary respondent was the woman who had worked the highest number of days on the program over the five-year period preceding the survey. If there was more than one such woman, we selected the youngest. If there was no woman in the household who had worked on the program over the five-year period, we selected the wife of the man who had worked the largest number of days over the same period. Our target sample was 3750 women from 250 GPs. At baseline, we were able to interview 3,426 women from 230 GPs. 20 GPs in Ganjam district refused to allow the survey to be conducted.
Due to cost constraints for the project, we selected 1,400 “target” women from the baseline with whom to conduct our interventions. We chose them as follows. First, we made the decision to discontinue the study in Ganjam district. Both the baseline survey and some additional qualitative data we collected suggest that the MGNREGA program does not function well in this district and that it operates in a top-down manner. This means that our planned interventions are less likely to be relevant in this context. Our baseline survey also shows that sample households in Ganjam are significantly wealthier than households in other districts, a characteristic generally associated with a lower demand for MGNREGA work and assets. Finally, the high refusal rate at baseline made it likely that our interventions would not be successful here. The baseline sample in the remaining four districts was 2,982 women, spread across 200 GPs in 60 blocks (an administrative unit above the GP). Second, we reduced the sample size by including only 94 GPs (with 14 additional GPs selected as back-ups) in the remaining 4 districts in our study—Bolangir, Kalahandi, Mayurbhanj, and Rayagada—where travel times were lowest for our survey firm. This helps us substantially with the cost effectiveness of the project. We instructed our implementing partners to always target all women in any GP entered, and to stop when they reach the target of 1400 women included.
We randomized our three study conditions (placebo, T1, T2) at the target woman level, stratifying on GP (there are generally 15 women in each GP, so roughly 5 women in each treatment arm). We handled misfits globally.
Our sample for analysis comprises these 1400 “target” women and one of the 3-5 friends/ neighbors she invites, who we assert must also be a MNREGA job card holder. As we lack baseline survey data for these friends, we are administering a short, pre-treatment questionnaire to this woman. Both sets of women (target women and friends) will be administered an endline questionnaire in February 2024.
We will analyze outcomes, Y_igt, using an ANCOVA specification, as follows:
Y_igt = Beta_0 + Beta_1 T1_ig + Beta_2 T2_ig + Beta_3 Y_ig,t-1 + Delta_g + F_ig + Error_ig
where i indexes women, g indexes GPs, t indexes time (t-1 is baseline, t is endline), T1 is an indicator for assignment to treatment 1, T2 is an indicator for assignment to treatment 2, and F is an indicator for being a friend of the target woman (as opposed to the target woman herself). As we stratify on GP, we include GP fixed effects. The effects of each treatment are relative to the base group of assignment to the placebo group.
We will not have baseline data for our secondary outcomes for all women; for women who are friends/ neighbors of target women, we need to keep our survey instrument short, and thus can only include our primary outcomes. For secondary outcomes, we will thus estimate two specifications: (a) one specification following equation (1), above, but using only our target women; and (b) another specification that includes all women, but omits the baseline (lagged) value of the outcome.
|
After
As described above, we conducted a baseline survey during May-July 2023 in five districts (Kalahandi, Mayurbhanj, Bolangir, Ravagada, and Ganjam) of Odisha state, India. From each selected GP within these districts (see section \ref{siteselection}), we selected 15 households at random from among all registered MGNREGA job card holders. In each household, our primary respondent was the woman who had worked the highest number of days on the program over the five-year period preceding the survey. If there was more than one such woman, we selected the youngest. If there was no woman in the household who had worked on the program over the five-year period, we selected the wife of the man who had worked the largest number of days over the same period. Our target sample was 3750 women from 250 GPs. At baseline, we were able to interview 3,426 women from 230 GPs. 20 GPs in Ganjam district refused to allow the survey to be conducted.
Based on our intervention budget, we selected 1,400 ``target'' women from the baseline with whom to conduct our interventions. We chose them as follows. First, we made the decision to discontinue the study in Ganjam district. Both the baseline survey and some additional qualitative data we collected suggest that the MGNREGA program operates in a top-down manner. This means that our planned interventions are less likely to be relevant in this context. Our baseline survey also shows that sample households in Ganjam are significantly wealthier than households in other districts, a characteristic generally associated with a lower demand for MGNREGA work and assets. Finally, the high refusal rate at baseline made it likely that our interventions would be harder to implement here. The baseline sample in the remaining four districts was 2,982 women, spread across 200 GPs in 60 blocks (an administrative unit above the GP). Second, we reduced the sample size by including those 94 GPs (with 14 additional GPs selected as back-ups) in the remaining 4 districts in our study—Bolangir, Kalahandi, Mayurbhanj, and Rayagada—where travel times were lowest for our survey firm. This helped us substantially with the cost effectiveness of the project. We instructed our implementing partners to always target all 15 women in any GP entered, and to stop once they reach the target of 1400 women included.
We randomized our three study conditions (placebo, T1, T2) at the target woman level, stratifying on GP (there are generally 15 women in each GP, so roughly 5 women in each treatment arm). We used STATA's randtreat command and handled misfits globally. Of the 3-5 friends the target woman gathers, the first one to arrive who is herself an MGNREGA job card holder was administered a short (about 7 minutes) pre-treatment questionnaire, and, along with the target woman, was re-interviewed at endline. Thus, our design is effectively clustered at the group level - where a group is comprised of the target women plus her interviewed friend; this also comprises our sample for analysis.
We will analyze outcomes, Y_igt, using an ANCOVA specification, as follows:
Y_igt = Beta_0 + Beta_1 T1_ig + Beta_2 T2_ig + Beta_3 Y_ig,t-1 + Delta_g + F_ig + X_igt + Error_ig
where i indexes women, g indexes GPs, t indexes time (t-1 is pre-treatment, t is endline), T1 is an indicator for assignment to treatment 1, T2 is an indicator for assignment to treatment 2, and F is an indicator for being a friend of the target woman (as opposed to the target woman herself). X_igt is a vector of control variables. As we stratify on GP, we include GP fixed effects. The effects of each treatment are relative to the base group (assignment to the placebo group, with only an information treatment).
Our main specification will include all women (target women plus friends and neighbors) and will cluster standard errors at the level of the target woman-friend pair, to account for shared unobservable characteristics. Secondary specifications will include only target women or only friends. We will estimate a specification as well that interacts the treatment indicators with the indicator F to test if we can reject the null hypothesis that the effects of our treatment on outcomes of interest are the same for target women and their friends/ neighbors.
We lack baseline data for some of our outcomes for all women, and for other outcomes, we have baseline data only for target women but not friends/ neighbors of target women. Where we have a baseline value of an outcome, we will control for it; where we lack this, we will not do so.
In our primary specification, our vector of control variables X_igt will include only strata fixed effects. However, we will also estimate specifications which include a vector of the pre-treatment values of several control variables (to increase precision). These include the respondent's age, marital status, a vector of occupation dummies, household head caste dummies, household head religion dummies, a dummy for someone in the household having migrated in the year prior to the baseline survey, i.e., between Holi 2022 and Holi 2023 , and the number of acres of agricultural land owned.
We will estimate heterogeneous treatment effects along four dimensions. For all heterogeneous treatment effects, we test effects on the set of primary outcomes only (both aspirations and behaviors). First, whether or not a woman is a member of a SHG (question G.1). We expect women members of SHGs to have substantially more social capital compared to women who are non-members, and further anticipate that this pre-existing social capital will be a complement to (rather than a substitute for) the information and skills provided by our treatments. Second, by the baseline level of the engagement with the MGNREGA program, measured by the number of days the respondent or others in their household worked on the program in the pre-baseline period. A priori we might expect effects to be larger among those workers who were already actively involved in the MGNREGA prior to the intervention. Studying heterogeneous effects along this dimension allows us to differentiate between impacts on the intensive margin (among previously active program users) and on the extensive margin (expanding the set of those who actively engage with the program). Third, we plan to interact the treatment with whether or not a woman is age 35 and below to understand whether the treatments have differential impacts for younger and older women, respectively. Finally, if women at baseline believe that local institutions are dominated by elites, they may believe that participating in such a training makes can make little difference. We additionally estimate heterogeneous treatment effects for our primary outcomes using an indicator for whether women believe that their Gram Panchayat is dominated by a small group of elites (I.3C in baseline survey). We create the dummy variable based on whether women believe that elite domination characterizes their Gram Panchayat "to a great extent.'' All other values are coded as zero.
Our paper outlines five classes of outcomes: women's aspirations (primary); women’s behaviors related to exercising voice and agency (primary); potential backfire effects of treatments (secondary); pathways related to information and skills (secondary), and pathways related to social support and gender norms (secondary). We will correct for multiple testing within each of these broad families of outcomes, separately--controlling the false discovery rate following Anderson (2008).
|
|
Field
Power calculation: Minimum Detectable Effect Size for Main Outcomes
|
Before
We estimated the minimum detectable difference for our primary and key secondary outcomes using STATA’s inbuilt routines power twoproportions for binary and power twomeans for continuous outcomes, assuming a sample size of 1400, cluster size 1, a 2:1 ratio of treatment to control, and significance level (alpha) of 0.05. With power 0.8, we are able to detect a change of 25.3-58.8% of the control mean for the binary primary outcomes and 0.16 sd in the continuous secondary outcomes. With power 0.9, we are able to detect a change of 29.4-68.7% of the control mean for the binary primary outcomes and 0.18 sd in the continuous secondary outcomes.
|
After
Our planned number of clusters is 1,400 and our planned number of observations is 2,800. This comprises 933 women placebo, 933 women T1, and 933 women T2.
We estimated the minimum detectable difference for those primary and key secondary outcomes that were collected at baseline. These include: MGNREGA assets were discussed at SHG meetings, met and discussed any issue with an MGNREGA functionary, the respondent proactively requested an asset, the respondent participated in a \textit{palli sabha} where MGNREGA works were discussed [binary], and the MGNREGA asset knowledge score, score on comfort in public speaking, score on self-efficacy and score on gender perceptions [continuous].
We used STATA’s inbuilt routines power twoproportions for binary and power twomeans for continuous outcomes, assuming a sample size of 1400, cluster size 1, a 2:1 ratio of treatment to control, and significance level (alpha) of 0.05. With power 0.8, we are able to detect a change of 25.3-58.8% of the control mean for the binary primary outcomes and 0.16 sd in the continuous secondary outcomes. With power 0.9, we are able to detect a change of 29.4-68.7% of the control mean for the binary primary outcomes and 0.18 sd in the continuous secondary outcomes. Other parameters unchanged, assuming a sample size of 2800, a cluster size of 2 and with power 0.9 we are able to detect a change of 28-77% of the control mean for the binary primary outcomes and 0.13-0.18 sd in the continuous secondary outcomes.
|
|
Field
Keyword(s)
|
Before
Agriculture, Behavior, Gender, Governance
|
After
Agriculture, Behavior, Electoral, Gender, Governance
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
Secondary indicators reflect the pathways through which these primary outcomes are achieved:
1. MGNREGA asset knowledge score: knowledge of eligibility criteria for MGNREGA assets, normalized to a 100-point scale (continuous, combination of 11 sub-indicators)
2. Public speaking: the number of situations (out of a possible 7) where the respondent reports being either very or fairly comfortable speaking up in public (continuous)
3. Self-efficacy: the number of statements (out of a possible 4) where the respondent indicates a high degree of self-efficacy, i.e., either agrees or strongly agrees with the statement in question, reverse-coded as appropriate (continuous)
4. Gender perceptions: the number of statements (out of a possible 10) where the respondent agreed with the more gender-progressive interpretation of the statement, reverse-coded as appropriate (continuous)
As well as several “spillover” indicators, which are not directly related to our intervention but might change as a result of it:
5. MGNREGA work knowledge score: Knowledge of eligibility criteria and processes involved with working under the MGNREGA, normalized to a 100-point scale (continuous, combination of 4 sub-indicators)
6. Decision-making: number of decisions (out of a possible 15) where the respondent is either the sole decisionmaker in the household, or had some or a great deal of input into the decision (continuous)
7. Freedom of movement: the total number of places (out of a possible 12) that the respondent reported either not being prevented from going or not needing/wanting to go (continuous)
8. Participation in community groups (like new or increased participation in a SHG, school council, other committee) (binary and continuous for number of groups). (only available at endline)
|
After
We have several secondary outcomes that can be grouped into categories. The first three relate to potential backfire effects of the treatments. If the treatments raise women’s expecta- tions about their ability to secure assets through the MGNREGA process, when in fact only a limited number of projects can be supported each cycle or the process is still dominated by local elites, the treatment may affect women’s satisfaction with the MGNREGA process and feelings that the selection process is fair. Alternately, if the treatments make women feel like they are encouraged to participate in MGNREGA asset selection, they may perceive the pro- gram to be more open to citizens and less elite dominated, and may even have higher levels of trust. These effects could go in either direction, and it is largely an empirical question if one of these competing hypotheses dominates the other or not, but they are useful to understand what is driving our primary outcomes. Even if the treatments do not increase perceptions of fairness and reduce perceptions that local institutions are dominated by elite, an absence of potential backfire effects is useful to understand from a policy perspective. We therefore test this family of secondary outcomes, even though the treatments did not directly aim to change these outcomes, to understand any potential unintended positive or negative consequences.
• Belief that people like them have a voice in the MGNREGA process: This is an additive index created from an indicator for the respondent believing the selection process is fair (END F.10A, only available at endline), an indicator the respondent believing that people like them are encouraged to submit asset ideas in their village (END F.54, only available at endline), a variable indicating the extent to which people like them have an influence over the asset selection process in their village (END F.61, only available at endline) (to be coded to be between 0 and 1), and a variable indicating the extent to which people like them have a chance for meeting aspirations under the MGNREGA asset selection process (END F.64, only available at endline) (to be coded to be between 0 and 1)
• Elite domination: Perception that a small group of elites dominates the affairs of the panchayat (I.3C) (We do flag that this is not specific to the MGNREGA program and thus may be unlikely to move given the goal of our training is to move perceptions of who can control asset selection under MGNREGA specifically.)
• Trust in local officials involved in asset selection: An additive index of trust in officials related to the MGNREGA asset selection process: gram saathi, Gram Rozgar Sewak, Panchayat executive officer, sarpanch, and ward members (I.2)
The next set of secondary outcomes captures the pathways through which women might achieve the primary outcomes. There are two broad pathway categories through which women might achieve the primary outcomes: those that relate to information and skills (three) and those related to social support and gender norms (two).
• MGNREGA asset knowledge score: knowledge of eligibility criteria for MGNREGA assets, normalized to a 100-point scale (continuous, combination of 4 sub-indicators)
• Public speaking: We have three measures of public speaking. Because these each measure different aspects of public speaking skills (a women’s own sense of comfort with public speaking, an evaluation by an external party of her public speaking abilities, and percep- tions by a third party of her skills), we look at each separately:
– The number of situations (out of a possible 7) where the respondent reports being either very or fairly comfortable speaking up in public (I.7, available at baseline and endline).
– The enumerator’s score of a ‘public speaking exercise’ within the endline survey wherein respondents were asked to imagine that they were requesting an MGNREGA asset and to articulate their demand (END F.76, only available at endline).
– An additive index of the assessment of a woman’s friend on the extent to which she benefited from the training (M.7a-M.7d, only available at endline)
• Self-efficacy: the number of statements (out of a possible 4) where the respondent indicates a high degree of self-efficacy, i.e., either agrees or strongly agrees with the statement in question, reverse-coded as appropriate so that higher numbers indicate more self efficacy (J.1)
• Discussed MGNREGA asset ideas with others: An index combining an indicator (con- structed based on answers to M.9, available only at endline) for the respondent having discussed the training and plans to act upon it with friends from training (following train- ing), an indicator for having discussed MGNREGA assets with her husband or other household members since training (M.11, available only at endline), and an indicator for having discussed MGNREGA asset ideas with anyone outside the household (M.14, only available at endline). In all cases, ‘don’t knows’ will be treated as 0s.
• Gender norms index: the number of statements (out of a possible 8) where the respondent agreed with the more gender-progressive interpretation of the statement, reverse-coded as appropriate (L.1); we will omit two gender norms questions about women’s involvement in financial decisions and daily housework as these are not central features of our training (we will use all of the other 8).
The next set of secondary outcomes are “spillover” indicators—i.e., indicators that are not directly related to our intervention, but might plausibly change as a result of it. These are intended to capture downstream benefits for women’s political participation, knowledge, beliefs, and empowerment. These include:
The last set of secondary outcomes are “placebo” outcomes that we do not anticipate moving as a result of the intervention, but that can serve as useful checks on our assumptions. These include:
• MGNREGA work knowledge score: Knowledge of eligibility criteria and processes in- volved with working under the MGNREGA, normalized to a 100-point scale continuous, combination of 7 sub-indicators). Our assumption is that this knowledge score is likely to be higher at baseline than the asset knowledge score, since work is the primary form of engagement with the program, but that it should not be affected by the treatment.
• Demanding non-MGNREGA programs (C.19): An index combining indicators for any member of the household having received benefits from other national or state-level gov- ernment programs such as in-kind food aid, pensions or health insurance. Here too we do not expect large impacts of our interventions, since those were focused on claim-making under the MGNREGA, but including this outcome allows us to check for other secular changes that might have raised awareness about government programs in general, includ- ing (but not limited to) the MGNREGA.
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
Variable construction is as described above; we will create the indices described above as well as construct indices using a principal components analysis and taking the first principal component. We will standardize outcomes for ease of interpretation.
|
After
|