Motivating bureaucrats through social recognition
Last registered on March 04, 2018

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Motivating bureaucrats through social recognition
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0002763
Initial registration date
March 02, 2018
Last updated
March 04, 2018 2:33 PM EST
Location(s)
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
World Bank
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
Boston University
PI Affiliation
World Bank
PI Affiliation
World Bank
Additional Trial Information
Status
Completed
Start date
2015-09-01
End date
2016-12-31
Secondary IDs
Abstract
Bureaucratic performance is a crucial determinant of economic growth. Little is known about how to improve it in resource-constrained settings. We conducted a field trial of a social recognition intervention to improve record keeping in clinics in two Nigerian states, replicating the intervention – implemented by a single organization – on bureaucrats performing identical tasks in both states. Social recognition improved performance in one state but had no effect in the other, highlighting both the potential and the limitations of behavioral interventions. Differences in observables did not explain cross-state differences in impacts, however, illustrating the limitations of observable-based approaches to external validity.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Gauri, Varun et al. 2018. "Motivating bureaucrats through social recognition." AEA RCT Registry. March 04. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/2763/history/26284
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
We implemented a social recognition intervention, posting weekly certificates indicative of the current quality of record keeping, in health facilities in the treatment arm.
Intervention Start Date
2016-01-01
Intervention End Date
2016-04-30
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Quality of record keeping, as measured (weekly) by the checklist form that is the basis for the certificate.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
Individual facilities randomized to treatment (social recognition) or control within strata defined by LGA (local government authority) within each of the two states.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office by a computer using Stata's random number generator.
Randomization Unit
The unit of randomization is the health facility.
Was the treatment clustered?
No
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
140 facilities observed weekly: one baseline week, four weeks with treatment.
65 facilities in the Ekiti state portion of the experiment; 75 facilities in the Niger state portion of the experiment.
Sample size: planned number of observations
140 facilities observed weekly: one baseline week, four weeks with treatment. 65 facilities in the Ekiti state portion of the experiment; 75 facilities in the Niger state portion of the experiment.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Approximately even treatment arm size, with a roughly equal number of health facilities assigned to treatment and to control in each state:
In Ekiti, 32 treatment, 33 control. (65 total.)
In Niger, 37 treatment, 38 control. (75 total.)
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Post-Trial
Post Trial Information
Study Withdrawal
Intervention
Is the intervention completed?
No
Is data collection complete?
Data Publication
Data Publication
Is public data available?
No
Program Files
Program Files
Reports and Papers
Preliminary Reports
Relevant Papers