Information Provision and Court Performance: Experimental Evidence from Chile

Last registered on June 17, 2021
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Information Provision and Court Performance: Experimental Evidence from Chile
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0005512
Initial registration date
December 06, 2020

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
December 07, 2020, 10:54 AM EST

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

Last updated
June 17, 2021, 4:42 AM EDT

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

Locations

Country
Chile
Region
National

Primary Investigator

Name
Paloma Carrillo
Affiliation
Toulouse School of Economics
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Daniel Chen
PI Affiliation
IAST/ Toulouse School of Economics
PI Name
Bernardo Silveira
PI Affiliation
University of California, Los Angeles
PI Name
Manuel Ramos
PI Affiliation
World Bank
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2020-01-01
End date
2021-09-30
Keywords
Behavior, Governance
Additional Keywords
Judicial, tribunal, judicial system, behavioral, information provision, Chile
JEL code(s)
D04
Secondary IDs
H43, D63
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that behavioral nudges can be a cost-effective tool to influence changes in people’s actions. In this study, we aim to test whether nudging court managers through informing them on how their court performs in absolute and relative terms can improve court productivity. Moreover, we test if there is any difference if the information about the court performance is given in contrast and relation to self past performance or if the information is relative to other courts' performance.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Carrillo, Paloma et al. 2021. "Information Provision and Court Performance: Experimental Evidence from Chile." AEA RCT Registry. June 17. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.5512-1.1
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)
In this study, we aim to test whether nudging court managers through informing them on how their court performs in absolute and relative terms can improve court productivity.
Intervention Start Date
2020-12-14
Intervention End Date
2021-09-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Case clearance rate, average length for filing cases (days), average length for ending cases, the average time the court needs to provide a written submission during the consultation period, percentage of writing resolved with 3-5 days, average number of days to program a hearing, percentage of hearing that started with a delay of 15 minutes, percentage of cases pending for more than 1-2 years, appeal rate, and number of cases appealed.

On the promotion intervention, the main primary outcome is number of logins per court manager to the Quantum platform
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Court managers job satisfaction
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
The court managers' job satisfaction level will be taken from the pre and post-surveys to court managers that measure perceptions of their tribunals and their satisfaction with their positions. By informing the court managers about their court's standing it could change how empowered or satisfied a court manager is with his or her position and power role.

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The program will have six distinct treatments. The treatments will combine promoting the usage of an electronic platform that contains information on their court performance and providing distinct homepages in this platform that will summarize the courts performance stressing the weaknesses and strengths of the court in comparison to a reference group.
Experimental Design Details
First, we will (randomly) promote the Quantum platform in multiple ways, such as sending court managers a survey that implicitly markets the platform, making phone calls, and sending them emails. Second, we will (also randomly) provide court managers a new dashboard that summarizes the main statistics displayed in Quantum and compares them to themselves in the past or to a reference group of courts. There would be a total of six treatments: (0) no quantum promotion no new dashboard (control) (1) quantum promotion, (2) no quantum promotion and new Quantum dashboard, (3) quantum promotion and a new dashboard, (4) no quantum promotion, new dashboard, and comparative that emphasizes the strongest and weakest indicators for that month in comparison to a similar group of courts in that same month, and (5) quantum promotion, new dashboard, and comparative that emphasizes the strongest and weakest indicators for that month in comparison to a similar group of courts in that same month.

Given that the information in the Quantum platform is updated daily and our dashboards are updated with monthly data, we will have multiple pre-treatment observation and many post-treatment observations.
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office by a computer.
Randomization Unit
The unit of randomization is the court. The randomization was stratified by size (small and big) and court type (7 distinct ones).
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
346 courts
Sample size: planned number of observations
346 courts
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
57 courts stay as control, 57 courts receive T1, 58 courts receive T2, 58 courts receive T3, 58 courts receive T4, and 58 courts receive T5.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Toulouse School of Economics
IRB Approval Date
2020-01-18
IRB Approval Number
N/A
Analysis Plan

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