Impact of environment regulation and social movements related information on the sociopolitical and environmental attitude of marble mine workers

Last registered on January 02, 2025

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Impact of environment regulation and social movements related information on the sociopolitical and environmental attitude of marble mine workers
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0015088
Initial registration date
January 02, 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 02, 2025, 9:27 AM EST

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

Locations

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Hiroshima University

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Hiroshima University
PI Affiliation
Hiroshima University

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2024-12-26
End date
2025-01-31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
This study explores how a non-violent ethnic movement’s involvement in governance-like functions influences public trust and support, particularly in contexts where the state is perceived as failing to provide these functions. The trial focuses on mining workers in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, and evaluates the impact of two informational interventions. Participants are randomly assigned to receive information about either (1) the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Mines Safety, Inspection, and Regulation Act of 2019 (government intervention) or (2) a Pashtun Grand Jirga decision to oversee mining operations (social movement intervention), with a control group receiving no intervention. Outcomes include support for government and social movement figures, likelihood of reporting unsafe conditions, and confidence in reporting effectiveness. We hypothesize that the Jirga intervention will increase willingness to report to social movements and confidence in their effectiveness, while the government intervention will have little to no impact.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Khan, Ghulam Dastgir, Shamaila Nawaz and Harunobu Saijo. 2025. "Impact of environment regulation and social movements related information on the sociopolitical and environmental attitude of marble mine workers." AEA RCT Registry. January 02. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.15088-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
This study involves two informational interventions aimed at influencing trust in governmental and social movement institutions among mining workers in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Participants are randomly assigned to one of three groups:

Treatment 1: Participants are provided with a summary of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Mines Safety, Inspection, and Regulation Act of 2019. This Act outlines mandatory safety inspections, protocols for health and safety, penalties for non-compliance, and measures to ensure sustainable mining practices. The information highlights the government's role in safeguarding workers’ welfare.
Treatment 2: Participants are given an article summarizing a Pashtun Grand Jirga's decision to form a committee evaluating mining operations. The committee is tasked with assessing whether mine operations align with the community's best interests, with the authority to close non-compliant operations.
Control: Participants in this group do not receive any specific informational intervention.
Intervention (Hidden)
Intervention Start Date
2024-12-26
Intervention End Date
2025-01-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Support for the Government
Support for Social Movement Figures (e.g., Pashtun Tahafuz Movement - PTM)
Willingness to Report Unsafe Mining Conditions
Perceived Effectiveness of Reporting
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Support for the Government:
We hypothesize that treating respondents with information regarding the official mine regulations will have no effect on support for PTM or the government. In contrast, we hypothesize that treating respondents with information regarding the Jirga decision evaluating mining decisions will increase support for PTM and either have no effect or negative effect on support for the government.

This outcome will be measured using a series of survey questions asking participants to rate their confidence in the government using a 100-point sliding scale, with 0 representing "no confidence", and 100 representing "high confidence". To this end, we will ask people to rate their confidence in the "Federal Government", the "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government", and the person of Nawaz Sharif, who is closely associated with the current government, though he does not currently hold office.

Support for Social Movement Figures (e.g., Pashtun Tahafuz Movement - PTM): This outcome will be constructed by asking for support for the leading figure of a social movement Manzur Pashtun, who is closely associated with the PTM, a nonviolent social movement advocating for Pashtun people. Since asking directly for PTM support is sensitive, we have opted to ask for the level of confidence in the person of Manzur Pashtun.

Willingness to Report Unsafe Mining Conditions and Perceived Efficacy of Reporting:
To test the proposed mechanism, we will test whether the treatments impact the respondents' willingness to report unsafe conditions and belief in the efficacy of doing so.

We hypothesize that the Jirga treatment will increase willingness and perceived efficacy of reporting unsafe conditions to the social movement but not to the government, while having no effect or negative effect on willingness and perceived efficacy of reporting to the government. Furthermore, the treatment with government regulations should have no effect on either.

This will be assessed through questions asking participants how likely they are to report unsafe conditions to either government authorities or social movements and how much they would support an investigation by the government or a social movement. Likelihood ratings and support will be captured on a 5-point Likert scale and analyzed separately for each reporting channel.

Social movement:
"If a social movement were to investigate your mine condition, how much would you support it?"
"If you believed the mining conditions were not meeting safety regulations, how likely would you be to report the issue to a social movement?"

Government:
"If government agencies were to investigate your mine condition, how much would you support it?"
"If you believed the mining conditions were not meeting safety regulations, how likely would you be to report the issue to the authorities?"

Perceived Effectiveness of Reporting: Participants will indicate their confidence that reporting unsafe conditions will result in meaningful changes. Separate measures will capture perceptions of the effectiveness of reporting to government authorities versus social movements. Confidence ratings will be collected on a 5-point Likert scale and analyzed in turn.

Social movement:
"How confident are you that reporting unsafe conditions to the social movement will result in meaningful improvements in the mine’s working conditions?"
Government:
"How confident are you that reporting unsafe conditions to the government will result in meaningful improvements in the mine’s working conditions?"

All outcomes will be analyzed with a basic model which will conduct a simple difference-in-means test using a simple linear regression, with the treatment variable regressed on outcome.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
This study employs a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design to investigate the impact of informational interventions on trust in government and social movements among mining workers in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Participants are randomly assigned to one of three groups:

Treatment Group 1: Receives information about the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Mines Safety, Inspection, and Regulation Act of 2019, highlighting government oversight and regulatory measures for mining safety.
Treatment Group 2: Receives information about a Pashtun Grand Jirga decision advocating for community-based oversight of mining operations to ensure alignment with local interests.
Control Group: Does not receive any specific informational input, serving as a baseline for comparison.
The interventions and subsequent surveys are delivered via the Qualtrics platform to ensure standardized data collection. Participants then complete a structured survey measuring trust in government and social movements, likelihood of reporting unsafe conditions, and confidence in institutional actions. The study aims to identify which intervention is more effective in fostering trust and promoting compliance with safety measures.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization is conducted using a computer-based randomization process through the Qualtrics platform. Participants are randomly assigned to one of three groups (Treatment Group 1, Treatment Group 2, or the Control Group) using Qualtrics’ built-in randomization feature, ensuring an unbiased and transparent allocation process.
Randomization Unit
The unit of analysis in this study is the individual mining worker. Each participant is randomly assigned to one of the three groups (Treatment Group 1, Treatment Group 2, or Control Group) at the individual level. There are no additional levels of clustering or group-level randomization in this study.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
>300 marble mine/factory workers
Sample size: planned number of observations
>300 marble mine/factory workers
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
>300 marble mine/factory workers
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Research Ethics Review Board, Hiroshima University
IRB Approval Date
2024-11-27
IRB Approval Number
HR-LPES-002425

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