Governance Structures and the Promotion of the Public Interest: Evidence from Brazilian Resource-Scarce Communities

Last registered on January 30, 2024
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Governance Structures and the Promotion of the Public Interest: Evidence from Brazilian Resource-Scarce Communities
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0002765
Initial registration date
March 07, 2018

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 07, 2018, 3:53 PM EST

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

Last updated
January 30, 2024, 3:25 PM EST

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

Country
Brazil
Region
Rio de Janeiro

Primary Investigator

Name
Leandro Pongeluppe
Affiliation
University of Pennsylvania
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
Completed
Start date
2018-03-16
End date
2020-01-20
Keywords
Education, Governance, Labor
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
The goal of this research is to examine the performance of public, private (NGO) and hybrid (public-private) governance (Mahoney, McGahan, & Pitelis, 2009; McGahan, Zelner, & Barney, 2013; Quélin, Kivleniece, & Lazzarini, 2017) in a resource-scarce environment (Baker & Nelson, 2005; George, McGahan, & Prabhu, 2012). Therefore, this research aims to develop an understanding of how different governance structures deploy resources to promote the public interest by evaluating a job training program targeting residents of Brazilian favelas. The research objective is to analyze alternative forms of commissioning resources under public versus private versus hybrid governance mode. Specifically, we analyze how governance structure influences both the fulfillment of the public interest and the distribution of value among stakeholders engaged in the deployment. Our setting allows a comparison of how much a non-profit organization can foster social prosperity – measured by the increased level of employment (formal and informal), income, the confidence level of individuals, the optimism level of individuals, among other outcomes. The approach is to compare these outcomes between individuals who undertook the training and those who did not. Also, the research design enables us to understand whether the training is more effective when performed through the public organization, the NGO, or through a hybrid form.
References
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating Something from Nothing: Resource Construction through Entrepreneurial Bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366.
George, G., McGahan, A. M., & Prabhu, J. (2012). Innovation for Inclusive Growth: Towards a Theoretical Framework and a Research Agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 49(4), 661–683. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01048.x
Mahoney, J. T., McGahan, A. M., & Pitelis, C. N. (2009). The interdependence of private and public interests. Organization Science, 20(6), 1034–1052. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0472
McGahan, A. M., Zelner, B. A., & Barney, J. B. (2013). Entrepreneurship in the Public Interest: Introduction to the Special Issue. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(1), 1–5.
Quélin, B. V., Kivleniece, I., & Lazzarini, S. (2017). Public-Private Collaboration, Hybridity and Social Value: Towards New Theoretical Perspectives. Journal of Management Studies, 54(6), 763–792. http://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12274
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Pongeluppe, Leandro. 2024. "Governance Structures and the Promotion of the Public Interest: Evidence from Brazilian Resource-Scarce Communities." AEA RCT Registry. January 30. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.2765-5.1
Former Citation
Pongeluppe, Leandro. 2024. "Governance Structures and the Promotion of the Public Interest: Evidence from Brazilian Resource-Scarce Communities." AEA RCT Registry. January 30. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/2765/history/210132
Sponsors & Partners

Partner

Name
Banco da Providência
Type
ngo
URL
https://www.bancodaprovidencia.org.br/en
Name
Rio de Janeiro Municipality: Secretary of Social Assistance and Human Rights
Type
government
URL
https://www.secsocial.rj.gov.br/
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
The intervention provided a three-phase educational program to populations living in two favelas in Rio de Janeiro, Cidade de Deus and Pavuna. The goal of the program is to support individuals' educational development and entry into the workforce, either as formal employees or entrepreneurs. The program takes about 9 months in total, with the first phase focused on socio-emotional abilities, the second phase on technical training, and the third phase on managerial and entrepreneurship skills.
Intervention Start Date
2018-03-19
Intervention End Date
2018-12-21

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Primary outcome variables include: formal employment, informal employment, wages (income) level, perceived confidence level, perceived optimism level, perceived self-stereotyping level.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Primary outcome explanation: Other than Labor Market Outcomes, an Instrument (questionnaire) will measure the perceived confidence, optimism, and stereotype of individuals. The instrument is based on the literature of behavioral economics and social-psychology (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001; John & Srivastava, 1999). Finally, the instrument is composed of 23 questions plus a “Ten Item Personality Inventory” questionnaire.
References
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a New General Self-Efficacy Scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62–83. http://doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). Big Five Inventory (Bfi). Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 2, 102–138. http://doi.org/10.1525/fq.1998.51.4.04a00260

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The NGO will recruit participants from various favelas in Rio de Janeiro city (Brazil) to perform the training program in 2018. The research design is the following:
“Hybrid Mode” (Public and Private Organizations in partnership):
The NGO will recruit individuals interested in participating in the training program with the support of two public social service agencies. Among those interested in the training program, the NGO will select approximately 280 individuals, who will be “candidates for a spot” in the program. These candidates will provide some basic information on socioeconomic dimensions. A stratified randomized assignment (Bruhn & McKenzie, 2009) will follow, i.e., individuals will be stratified considering four elements: i) their age (median age cutoff), ii) their income level (only income source is the Brazilian social security, "Bolsa Familia", cutoff), iii) their social service agency (CRAS) filiation, and iv) the period they want to perform the training (morning or afternoon). Then, within each strata, the randomization will occur. Therefore, "half" of the members of the strata will be allocated to the NGO treatment (training program) and the other "half" to the control. The intervention will then follow. This procedure is the most adequate for the research objective given the sample size limitation (Bruhn & McKenzie, 2009).
“Pure Private Mode” (only NGO)
The NGO will also recruit, at least, additional 280 individuals from other favelas, in at least four different locations. These individuals will also receive the training treatment. However, the selection of these individuals will be performed through a self-selection process, i.e., the individuals will be enrolled in the program up to the point that there are no more spots available, based on a “first-in-first-serve” mechanism. Therefore, by the end of the intervention, the researchers will match each individual from the “Pure Private Mode” with one of the pairs in the “Hybrid Mode” and check whether there is any difference among the distinct modes of governance. Note that in this “Pure Private Mode”, the allocation is not random. Thus possible selection bias exists.
References
Bruhn, M., & McKenzie, D. (2009). In Pursuit of Balance: Randomisation in Practice in Development Field Experiments. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(4), 200–232. http://doi.org/10.1257/app.1.4.200
Experimental Design Details
The final experimental design remained the same throughout the entire project. The theoretical framework changed after the surprising results found on the favela stigma variable. The study then took an abductive approach aiming to understand the most educated explanation for the surprising finding in the RCT results.
Randomization Method
The stratified randomization will be performed on a computer, on March 16th. The NGO will be informed about the result right away. The intervention will then start on March 19th.
Randomization Unit
Individual level randomization.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
N/A (clustering will not be used)
Sample size: planned number of observations
Up to 280 individuals in the “Hybrid Mode” (RCT), considering 140 treated and 140 control. At least additional 280 individuals in the “Pure Private Mode” (non-randomly selected), will be compared.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
"Hybrid Mode" (RCT)
Up to 140 treated individuals, and up to 140 control individuals.

"Pure Private Mode" (Non-randomized)
Up to 280 treated individuals
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
As our sample size of 280 individuals is fixed (given the NGO’s fixed number of spots), power calculations show that we will be able to detect from 0.15 to 0.25 standard deviations in the best and worst case scenarios, respectively, when controlling for other covariates. The power calculations were performed using the software Optimal Design Plus (Raudenbush, Spybrook, et al., 2011) References Raudenbush, S.W. Spybrook, J., Congdon, R., Liu, X., Martinez, A., Bloom, H., & Hill, C. (2011). Optimal Design Plus Empirical Evidence.
Supporting Documents and Materials

Documents

Document Name
Legal Responsibility: Description of the Randomization to the Rio de Janeiro Municipal Government
Document Type
other
Document Description
The Rio de Janeiro Municipality through the Subsecratry of Social Assistance and Human Rights allowed the execution of this project in two CRAS (Reference Center for Social Assistance) in Cidade de Deus and Pavuna. The public servants were concerned about the mechanism behind the randomization. So, to assure the legality of the procedure, Banco da Providencia and the PI wrote a document describing the process to a nontechnical audience, and describing that they were responsible for the process, which had been previously approved by the University of Toronto IRB.
File
Legal Responsibility: Description of the Randomization to the Rio de Janeiro Municipal Government

MD5: 65aa5b1698882514d6a7b4fa3f1dad17

SHA1: 90bb1173cc61bec01775f7ec9f6044c7825fbeac

Uploaded At: January 25, 2024

Document Name
Authorization from Banco da Providencia
Document Type
other
Document Description
Letter of Consent from Banco da Providência authorizing the research.
File
Authorization from Banco da Providencia

MD5: 9b132a3285deecc7bd568e583f86549a

SHA1: cefa5b458481f77c3f286cbc2884790ddd2bab44

Uploaded At: January 25, 2024

Document Name
Authorization from Rio de Janeiro Municipality Secretary of Social Assistance and Human Rights
Document Type
Document Description
Letter of Consent from Rio de Janeiro Municipality Secretary of Social Assistance and Human Rights authorizing the research.
File
Authorization from Rio de Janeiro Municipality Secretary of Social Assistance and Human Rights

MD5: 3bc5f867601320d9654d8123660baa22

SHA1: 03e284dfae7826a079ff5d7ef3ebd0a4f2e2e9ab

Uploaded At: January 25, 2024

IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
University of Toronto Research Ethics Board
IRB Approval Date
2018-02-18
IRB Approval Number
35741
Analysis Plan

Analysis Plan Documents

Stratified RCT Final Draw do file in txt

MD5: 912d6ff35429ec79cf69706dc55c06ab

SHA1: 8fc875e5679128498d857e9f7a6285395bc2bb84

Uploaded At: March 15, 2018

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?
Yes
Intervention Completion Date
January 20, 2020, 12:00 +00:00
Data Collection Complete
Yes
Data Collection Completion Date
January 20, 2020, 12:00 +00:00
Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization)
Full sample of 224 individuals (101 controls and 123 treated). Final sample of 207 individuals (93 controls and 114 treated) who completed both baseline (survey t0) and endline (survey t1).
Was attrition correlated with treatment status?
No
Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations
224 individuals (101 controls and 123 treated).
Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms
207 individuals (93 controls and 114 treated)
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
Yes
Public Data URL
https://osf.io/sg49y

Program Files

Program Files
Yes
Program Files URL
https://osf.io/sg49y
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials