Can Redistribution Change Policy Views? Evidence from Kenya

Last registered on March 15, 2024


Trial Information

General Information

Can Redistribution Change Policy Views? Evidence from Kenya
Initial registration date
March 03, 2024

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
March 15, 2024, 2:45 PM EDT

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



Primary Investigator

University of Rochester

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Center for Global Development

Additional Trial Information

In development
Start date
End date
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial is based on or builds upon one or more prior RCTs.
Many public policies create (perceived) winners and losers, but there is little evidence on whether redistribution can support new political economy equilibria that raise aggregate welfare. We extend an experiment from Uganda that randomly distributed cash grants labeled as aid shared from the refugee response (AEARCTR-0005229) in Kenya. We test for impacts of the receipt of labeled aid on attitudes toward refugee hosting policies, relative to an unlabeled grant of the same value or no grant.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Baseler, Travis and Thomas Ginn. 2024. "Can Redistribution Change Policy Views? Evidence from Kenya." AEA RCT Registry. March 15.
Experimental Details


Three arms: grant, labeled grant, and pure control.
Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Attitudes toward refugee hosting policies.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Six outcomes measured with 5-point Likerts which will be converted to binary variables, splitting at the neutral response and resolving neutrals in favor of the smaller group. 1: favors hosting and assisting refugees. 2: favors allowing refugees to live outside camps. 3: favors allowing refugees to work outside camps. 4: favors providing land to refugees in the camps. 5: favors granting citizenship to refugees who have lived in Kenya for a long time. 6: favors accepting more refugees. We will also analyze an Anderson index combining outcomes 1, 2, 3, and 6.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Approximately 1,000 households in 50 villages will be assigned to receive a grant or labeled grant, randomized at the household level. Approximately 4,400 households in 185 villages will be assigned to control. Only households successfully surveyed on the first visit day in each village will be included in the analysis sample to minimize the risk of spillovers. When comparing households receiving grants to those in control, we will use randomization inference.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
On a computer using permutation method to assign villages, stratified by county. On a computer using Stata randtreat command to assign households to grant or labeled grant, stratified by county and respondent age.
Randomization Unit
Village for any grant vs control. Household for grant vs labeled grant.
Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
235 villages.
Sample size: planned number of observations
Approx. 5,600 households.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Approx. 1,000 households in 50 villages evenly split between grant and labeled grant. Remaining assigned to control.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Maseno University Scientific and Ethics Review Committee
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number