Public Opinion on Municipal Finance in Canada: Evidence from a Survey Experiment

Last registered on April 10, 2025

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Public Opinion on Municipal Finance in Canada: Evidence from a Survey Experiment
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0015727
Initial registration date
April 06, 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
April 10, 2025, 7:31 AM EDT

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

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
University of Saskatchewan

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
University of Saskatchewan

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2025-04-14
End date
2025-12-31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
In the evolving landscape of municipal finance, local governments face growing demands for public services while constrained by the rising costs of service provision. Despite the pressing need for expanded or improved public services, municipalities often struggle to generate additional revenues due to political sensitivities surrounding policy instruments such as property tax increases and user fees.

This study aims to contribute to the understanding of voters’ behaviour and public opinion on municipal finance by conducting an online survey with a representative sample of 1,500 Canadian adults. The survey includes a framing experiment, where respondents are instructed to imagine living in a hypothetical Canadian city. The vignette experiment is designed to examine how different communication strategies influence voters’ behaviour and support for municipal finance and property tax reforms, specifically in the context of local economic development or social justice issues.

The findings of this study will provide insights into public preferences for municipal finance reforms and inform future policymaking. Additionally, this study offers valuable guidance for municipal politicians on effective communication strategies for proposed property tax and municipal finance reforms.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Mahoney, Clinton and Yang Yang. 2025. "Public Opinion on Municipal Finance in Canada: Evidence from a Survey Experiment." AEA RCT Registry. April 10. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.15727-1.0
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)
Respondents are randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions, each highlighting a different strategy for presenting a local economic development or social justice issue that requires municipal funding. The four conditions include: a control, a loss-framed message, a gain-framed message, and an image-based condition. Each condition communicates the proposed project in a distinct way and is expected to influence levels of public support for the project, support for using property tax as a funding source, voting preference, and the ranking of preferred funding options.




Intervention (Hidden)
The economic development issue focuses on a proposed city-owned downtown sports and event complex aimed at promoting local economic growth, while the social justice issue centres on a project designed to address homelessness.

In the "control" conditions, participants receive only the baseline information, which is tailored to the specific issue (economic development or social justice) they are assigned to. Participants in the other experimental conditions receive the same baseline information along with an additional treatment. In the "image" condition, participants receive the baseline information plus a bar chart illustrating the average percentage of household spending by major category (e.g., spending on residential property tax, income tax). In the "gain-framed" condition, the outcome of the proposed project is presented in terms of its positive benefits. In the "loss-framed" condition, the same outcome is framed as lost opportunities if the project does not move forward.
Intervention Start Date
2025-04-14
Intervention End Date
2025-04-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
1. Support (% increase) for an increase to the municipal budget.
Assuming no cuts to existing services and no changes to other spending, what percentage increase in the annual municipal budget would you approve for this project?
The slider below ranges from 0% to 10%. Every 1% increase corresponds to $15 million in new spending.

2. Support (% increase) for an increase in residential property taxes.
Assuming no cuts to existing services and no changes to other spending, what percentage increase in the annual residential property taxes would you approve for this project?
The slider below ranges from 0% to 10%. Every 1% increase corresponds to an additional $40 in annual residential property taxes for your average house assessed at $400,000, generating $2 million in new revenue for your municipal government.

3. Voter preference.
A local election is approaching, with three candidates offering different views on one campaign promise.
Candidate 1 pledges to [build a new downtown city-owned sport/event complex to promote economic development / address homelessness to promote social justice], funded by an increase in residential property taxes.
Candidate 2 pledges to [build a new downtown city-owned sport/event complex to promote economic development / address homelessness to promote social justice], funded by alternative revenue sources (not residential property taxes).
Candidate 3 pledges not to [build the complex / address homelessness] at all.
Which candidate would you vote for?

4. Ranked preference among various municipal revenue sources.
Your imaginary municipal government can explore various revenue sources to [fund the new downtown city-owned sport/event complex / address homelessness]. By moving the options up or down, please rank the following revenue sources from your most preferred to your least preferred for funding this project (where 1 = most preferred, 5 = least preferred).
- Residential Property Tax (a tax paid by residential property owners based on the assessed value of their property)
- Non-Residential Property Tax (a tax paid by business property owners based on the assessed value of their property)
- Hotel/Accommodation Tax (a tax imposed on guests staying at hotels, inns, or other lodging facilities)
- Roadway Toll (a fee charged to drivers for using certain roads, freeways, or bridges)
- Amusement Tax (a tax on general admission fees for recreational and entertainment events)
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
This study will conduct a behavioural experiment using a randomized controlled trial within an online survey. Participants are randomly assigned to one of four arms of the experiment. There are two topic issues of the experiment (local economic development or social justice ), each consisting of four information conditions ("control", "image" treatment, "loss-framed" treatment, and "gain-framed" treatment). 1,500 participants will be recruited via Voxco with assistance from the Canadian Hub for Applied and Social Research. The 1,500 participants will make up a representative sample of Canadian adults based on age, household income, geography, and gender using 2021 Canadian Census data. Respondents will excluded if they fail the attention check or are unwilling to commit to providing thoughtful responses to the survey questions.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization will be done by computer (Qualtrics survey programming software).
Randomization Unit
Randomization will be done at the individual level.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
1,500 Canadian adults (aged 18+).
Sample size: planned number of observations
1,500 Canadian adults (aged 18+).
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Approx. 375 individuals in control (two control groups).
Approx. 375 individuals in "image" condition (two image groups).
Approx. 375 individuals in "loss-framed" condition (two loss-framed groups).
Approx. 375 individuals in "gain-framed" conditions (two gain-framed groups).
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
To determine the appropriate sample size for our study, we conducted an a priori power analysis using G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2009). Given our study design, we aimed to detect a medium effect size with a power of 0.80 and an alpha level of 0.05. We planned to compare mean differences in four outcome variables (support for funding proposed municipal project, support for residential property tax as a funding source, voting preference, and ranking of preferred funding sources) across four treatment conditions (control, image, gain-framed, loss-framed), while controlling for covariates (both continuous and categorical, e.g., socio-demographic factors, primary residence type and ownership, political leaning, partisanship, knowledge of municipal finance, and trust in local government). Given this, we conducted a power analysis for a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) and a Linear Multiple Regression. Power Analysis for MANOVA We used the “MANOVA: Repeated measures, between factors” option in G*Power to estimate the required sample size. The parameters were set as follows: Effect size (f) = 0.25 (medium, based on Cohen, 1988, 1992) / 0.10 (small effect) Number of groups = 4 (treatment conditions) Number of measures = 4 (outcome variables) Corr among repeated measures = 0.8 Alpha level (α) = 0.05 Power (1-β) = 0.80 The analysis estimated a required sample size of 156 participants (if medium effect) (or 932 if small effect) to achieve sufficient power. Power Analysis for Linear Multiple Regression Given that we also planned to conduct an Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression with four outcome variables as the dependent variables, treatment dummies as independent variables, and a set of covariates, we conducted an additional “Linear multiple regression: Fixed model, R² deviation from zero” analysis in G*Power: Effect size (f²) = 0.15 (medium) / 0.02 (small effect) Number of predictors = 23 (3 treatment dummies + 20 covariates) Alpha level (α) = 0.05 Power (1-β) = 0.80 This analysis suggested a lower sample size of 166 participants (if medium effect) (or 1,124 if small effect). Final Sample Size Decision This power analysis ensures adequate sensitivity to detect meaningful treatment effects while controlling for key covariates. We used conservative parameter estimates in the power calculation and adopted the more conservative estimate for final sample size. The targeted sample size of 1,500 respondents ensures sufficient statistical power for this experimental study. References Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Behavioural Research Ethics Board (Beh-REB) - University of Saskatchewan
IRB Approval Date
2024-01-02
IRB Approval Number
Beh 4412
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information

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