Economic Anxiety, Security Concerns, and Discontent: Tracing Public Attitudes Toward Democracy in Latin America

Last registered on January 17, 2025

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Economic Anxiety, Security Concerns, and Discontent: Tracing Public Attitudes Toward Democracy in Latin America
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0014837
Initial registration date
January 13, 2025

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
January 17, 2025, 6:52 AM EST

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

Locations

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

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
World Bank

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Harvard Business School
PI Affiliation
World Bank

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2024-11-05
End date
2025-09-30
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
This pre-analysis plan outlines the design and proposed analysis of a survey experiment embedded in a multi-country study examining citizen discontent with political systems across six Latin American countries. This large-scale study combines original survey data with the most up-to-date national household surveys conducted by the National Statistics Offices of each country. The experiment described in this pre-analysis plan is embedded in all the surveys. It is designed to investigate the effects of two key factors: (i) security concerns and (ii) economic expectations and anxiety on different expressions of political discontent. Respondents are randomly assigned to receive one of three questionnaire versions, where the order of the modules varies. One version presents a module on perceptions of security first, followed by outcome measures. The second version presents questions on economic anxiety and expectations first, followed by outcomes. The third version asks outcome-related questions first, followed by the treatment modules. Key outcomes include general sentiments of discontent, such as anti-establishment attitudes, trust in institutions, and support for democratic principles, along with expressions of discontent through exit (e.g., opting out of public services) and voice (e.g., protests). The findings aim to shed light on the sources of citizen discontent and inform debates on how two core problems in Latin America—insecurity and economic volatility—shape public perceptions of and relationships with political systems.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Garbiras-Díaz, Natalia, Marcela Melendez and Nicolas Peña-Tenjo. 2025. "Economic Anxiety, Security Concerns, and Discontent: Tracing Public Attitudes Toward Democracy in Latin America." AEA RCT Registry. January 17. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.14837-1.0
Sponsors & Partners

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

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We aim to study the extent to which economic anxieties and insecurity drive citizens' democratic attitudes and shape expressions of discontent. For this purpose, we designed three versions of the questionnaire (A, B, C), which contain the same questions but differ in the order of their sections.
- In Survey A, we begin by asking about insecurity experiences, followed by sections on discontent and concerns; perceptions of inequality, injustice, and discrimination; political preferences and democracy; preferences for redistribution; expressions of discontent; and self-exclusion.
- In Survey B, we start with questions on economic anxiety and expectations, followed by the same sections as in Survey A.
- In Survey C, questions on insecurity experiences and economic anxiety and expectations are asked at the end.

In our intervention, Survey C serves as the control group. Surveys A and B aim to prime respondents’ concerns about (i) insecurity experiences and (ii) economic anxiety and expectations, respectively, to measure how these affect levels of discontent and democratic attitudes.

The randomization of survey versions ensures a source of exogenous variation, as the assignment is not influenced by any characteristics of the respondent, interviewer, region, or time of day. By comparing responses across these three versions, we aim to answer our research question on the role of insecurity and economic anxiety in shaping political attitudes and expressions of discontent.

Each version of the survey will be randomized. This randomization ensures a source of exogenous variation as it is not based on any characteristics of the respondent, the interviewer, the region, or the time of day. Our goal is to compare these three versions to answer our research questions regarding priming.
Intervention Start Date
2024-11-05
Intervention End Date
2025-09-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
These outcome variables allow us to gain a deeper understanding of broader societal attitudes and individual behaviors across these themes. We will analyze 13 outcome variables:
1) Anti-elite discontent
2) Broken system – general discontent
3) Perceptions of inequality/meritocracy
4) Strong leader sentiment
5) Belief in liberal democracy
6) Support for democracy
7) Satisfaction with democracy
8) Majoritarian preferences
9) Service dissatisfaction
10) Perception of primary national issues
11) Exit - Disengagement tendencies
12) Voice - Expression of discontent
13) Preferences for redistribution
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
In our questionnaire, we have included several questions that aim to measure different dimensions of our outcomes of interest. As such, we will aggregate some of these questions into indices by standardizing the variables (using control group statistics) and averaging them. Below, we provide a brief overview of each variable. A comprehensive Excel sheet in the appendix summarizes the outcome variables (indices), their components, the moderators, and our measures of treatment intensity.

1. Anti-elite discontent:
a. Q36.2 Agreement with: "The main division in society is between citizens and economic/political elites"
b. Q36.3 Agreement with: "The country's economy is manipulated to favor the rich and powerful"

2. Systemic disillusionment:
a. Q17.2 Level of anger or frustration regarding Colombia's current situation
b. Q17.3 Level of fear or anxiety regarding Colombia's current situation
c. Q24 Perceived fairness of access to justice in Colombia
d. Q25 Acceptability of inequality levels in Colombia
e. Q27 Perceived determinants of wealth in Colombia
f. Q34 Satisfaction with democratic function in Colombia
g. Q36.3 Agreement with: "The country's economy is manipulated to favor the rich and powerful"

3. Perceptions of inequality/meritocracy:
a. Q25 Acceptability of inequality levels in Colombia
b. Q27 Perceived determinants of wealth in Colombia

4. Strong leader sentiment:
a. Q36.4 Agreement with: "To fix the country, we need a strong leader willing to break the rules"
b. Q45 Justification frequency for law enforcement actions to control protests or demonstrations
c. (Peru only) Q38_new Preference for leaders who prioritize agreements vs. those who defend their positions

5. Belief in liberal democracy:
a. Q33 Perceived essentiality of democratic characteristics:
i. Freedom to criticize the government
ii. Existence of political parties
iii. Congressional checks on presidential power
iv. Regular, fair, and free elections

6. Support for democracy:
a. Q36.1 Agreement with: "Democracy may have problems, but it's better than any other form of government"

7. Satisfaction with democracy:
a. Q34 Satisfaction with democratic function in Colombia

8. Majoritarian preferences:
a. Q33 Perceived essentiality of "always fulfilling the will of the majority" for democracy

9. Service dissatisfaction:
a. Q24 Perceived fairness of access to justice in Colombia
b. Q47 Quality rating of state-provided services (education, healthcare, security, public transport)

10. Perception of primary national issues:
a. Q18 Perceived most serious problem facing the country
b. Q19 Most concerning problem for the individual and their family

11. Disengagement tendencies:
a. Q35 Voting intentions in hypothetical upcoming presidential elections (focus on non-voting)
b. Q49 Primary reason for considering living abroad (excluding those who haven't considered it)

12. Expression of discontent:
a. Q35 Voting intentions in hypothetical upcoming presidential elections (focus on opposition, outsiders, blank votes, and vote annulment)
b. Q44 Justification frequency for various protest actions

13. Preferences for redistribution:
a. Q42 Perceived appropriate recipients of government aid on a 10-step economic ladder
b. Q43 Perceived appropriate starting point for taxation on a 10-step economic ladder

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We have embedded a survey experiment in a broader survey to subsamples of national household surveys conducted by the National Statistics Offices (NSOs) in participating countries. The experiment involves three versions of the survey questionnaire (A, B, and C), which contain identical questions but differ in the order in which key sections are presented.
• Survey A begins with questions about insecurity experiences, followed by sections on discontent and concerns; perceptions of inequality, injustice, and discrimination; political preferences and democracy; preferences for redistribution; expressions of discontent; and self-exclusion.
• Survey B starts with questions on economic anxiety and expectations, followed by the same sections as in Survey A.
• Survey C serves as the control group, presenting the sections on insecurity experiences and economic anxiety and expectations at the end of the survey.
We randomize which version individuals receive. This design allows us to measure how priming respondents to think about insecurity or economic anxiety shape their levels of discontent and democratic attitudes.

Detailed Account of Sampling, Survey Procedure, and Fieldwork

1. The Sample

1.1. Requirements for National Statistics Offices (NSOs):
- The survey must use a subsample drawn from the sample of the country’s National Household Survey, including sociodemographic characteristics and total household income. The subsample must be selected from the 2022 or 2023 wave of the National Household Survey and may include unipersonal households if they are randomly selected.
- The subsample must be representative of per capita income quintiles for the urban population, urban centers, or the country’s capital city. Survey respondents must be adults between the ages of 18 and 50, randomly selected from the household members in this age range. The random selection criteria must be verifiable (e.g., selecting the adult in the age range who most recently had a birthday).
- Participation is restricted to adults who perceive their household's socioeconomic conditions (household composition, occupations, and income) as being similar to the last time the household was contacted. This will be verified through a filter question at the beginning of the survey.
- The survey is designed to take approximately 20 minutes to complete.
- Each survey will yield around 2,500 effective observations.

1.2. Measures to Increase Response Rates:
- If the initially selected individual is unavailable, another individual from the same household in the same age range may be selected using the same randomization criteria. A maximum of two replacements is allowed. If the third randomly selected individual does not respond, the household will no longer be part of the sample.
- An individual is considered unavailable under the following circumstances: refusal to answer, absence (for in-person surveys), failure to answer the phone (in phone surveys), or health or disability conditions that prevent participation. Only one individual per household will be surveyed.
- For phone surveys, enumerators are required to make at least six contact attempts before considering an observation "lost." Contact attempts should be made at varying times of the day and on different days of the week, including weekends. An observation will only be classified as "lost" after exhaustive efforts to reach the respondent.
- A protocol will be implemented to minimize non-response rates and ensure quality data collection.

2. Fieldwork
2.1. The NSO receives the initial version of the questionnaire and adjusts it for local language usage. This is followed by a cognitive test and a pilot survey administered to a small number of households.
- The cognitive test ensures that the survey concepts are well understood across different contexts and socioeconomic backgrounds, independent of responses to the pilot survey.
- The pilot survey helps identify issues with survey flow and respondent comprehension.
2.2. Based on the findings of the cognitive test and pilot survey, the questionnaire is refined, and the official survey is launched.
2.3. Fieldwork is expected to last no longer than four weeks per country, though schedules vary based on contract start dates.

3. Current Progress
Colombia and Guatemala are currently in the field implementing the survey. Peru is set to begin in about a week. The exact start date for Ecuador remains unclear. Guatemala and Colombia are expected to complete data collection around mid-December.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Complete randomization done in office by a computer
Randomization Unit
Individual (survey respondent)
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
10000 individuals, 2500 in each country is the goal.
Sample size: planned number of observations
10000 individuals
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
We expect approximately 3333.3 in each of the 3 treatments. But as it is randomized by a computer and it will also depend on phone response rates, this could vary in some degree.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
We calculate the Minimum Detectable Effect (MDE) for each type of outcome variable. The MDE represents the smallest true effect size that can be detected with a specified level of power, given the study's sample size and design. We opted for this approach because we have already established a fixed sample size of N=2,500 with each National Statistical Office (NSO), rather than determining the sample size that maximizes statistical power. Our analysis encompasses 25 outcome variables, distributed as follows: - 14 binary variables - 5 ordinal variables (scale: 1 to 5) - 5 ordinal variables (scale: 0 to 10) - 1 count variable To accommodate this diverse set of outcomes, we calculated the MDE using each of the 4 types of outcomes. Furthermore, we simulated various potential distributions for these four types of variables, exploring different combinations of means and standard deviations. This comprehensive approach allows us to assess the study's sensitivity to detect effects across a range of plausible scenarios. Notably, our calculations indicate that our study design has sufficient statistical power to detect even relatively small effect sizes. Our MDEs resulting from the most conservative assumptions are: for binary outcomes is 0.04, for ordinal variables (1 to 5) is 0.12, for ordinal variables (1 to 10) is 0.28, and for count variables is 0.18.
Supporting Documents and Materials

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

Request Information
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
HML IRB Research and Ethics
IRB Approval Date
2024-11-01
IRB Approval Number
Study #2722
IRB Name
Harvard Human Research Protection Program
IRB Approval Date
2024-11-04
IRB Approval Number
IRB00000109