Back to History

Fields Changed

Registration

Field Before After
Trial Title Cash Transfers and Local Politics: A Village-Level Randomized Controlled Trial in Kenya Cash Transfers and Community Participation in Public Affairs: A Village-Level Randomized Controlled Trial in Kenya
Last Published April 25, 2018 03:28 PM August 17, 2018 06:55 PM
Primary Outcomes (End Points) We examine three broad questions. Firstly, do transfers change the prevalence of private exchanges between citizens and local patrons? Outcomes include requests for private support from local patrons and receipt of support from local patrons. Second, we consider if large positive income shocks change household involvement in local civic activities: consultation processes around county and ward development funds, requests from villages for public goods from local leaders, and efforts to collect contributions to public goods. Third, we conduct robustness checks to test that any effects are not driven by changes in the allocation of services or opportunities for political engagement to transfer villages by local leaders, in particular candidates for Members of the County Assembly positions. See pre-analysis plan
Planned Number of Clusters 1097 1,097
Planned Number of Observations Estimated average of 18 households per village in 416 villages, plus 1,097 village elders and roughly 100 assistant chiefs across all villages, and approximately 65 candidates for the Members of the County Assembly position or past incumbents of the position for wards in which the 1,097 villages are located. Estimated average of 18 households per village in 416 villages, plus 1,111 village elders and roughly 100 assistant chiefs across all villages, and approximately 65 candidates for the Members of the County Assembly position or past incumbents of the position for wards in which the 1,111 villages are located.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms 548 villages in the control group, 549 in the cash treatment group We located 1,097 of the 1,111 village elders in our sampling frame. There are 552 villages in the control group, 545 in the cash treatment group.
Secondary Outcomes (End Points) We examine three broad questions. Firstly, do transfers change the prevalence of private exchanges between citizens and local patrons? Outcomes include requests for private support from local patrons and receipt of support from local patrons Second, we consider if large positive income shocks change household involvement in local civic activities, such as consultation processes around county and ward development funds, requests from villages for public goods from local leaders, or efforts to collect contributions to public goods. Third, we conduct robustness checks to test that any effects are not driven by changes in the allocation of services or opportunities for political engagement to transfer villages by local leaders, in particular candidates for Members of the County Assembly positions. See pre-analysis plan
Back to top