x

NEW UPDATE: Completed trials may now upload and register supplementary documents (e.g. null results reports, populated pre-analysis plans, or post-trial results reports) in the Post Trial section under Reports, Papers, & Other Materials.
Nudging Good Politicians: How Conditional Incentives Impact Political Selection (PART II)
Last registered on November 27, 2017

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Nudging Good Politicians: How Conditional Incentives Impact Political Selection (PART II)
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0000566
Initial registration date
December 04, 2014
Last updated
November 27, 2017 6:54 PM EST
Location(s)
Region
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
University of Michigan
Other Primary Investigator(s)
Additional Trial Information
Status
On going
Start date
2015-07-01
End date
2018-11-30
Secondary IDs
Abstract
This study evaluates a policy intervention that screens-in and selectively incentivizes good politicians. Using randomized controlled trial (RCT), I show that a leadership training workshop in which aspiring candidates are given incentives conditional on workshop performance nudges competent and honest ones to stand for and win office.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Ravanilla, Nico. 2017. "Nudging Good Politicians: How Conditional Incentives Impact Political Selection (PART II)." AEA RCT Registry. November 27. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.566-3.0.
Former Citation
Ravanilla, Nico. 2017. "Nudging Good Politicians: How Conditional Incentives Impact Political Selection (PART II)." AEA RCT Registry. November 27. http://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/566/history/23547.
Sponsors & Partners

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

Request Information
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2015-08-03
Intervention End Date
2015-09-30
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
The main outcomes of interest are:

(1) subjects' subsequent decision to run or not run for public office (binary variable);
(2) conditional on filing an official certificate of candidacy, their vote-share margin of victory;
(3) a binary variable for winning an elective seat.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
I will implement a randomized controlled trial of a leadership training workshop with incentives among youth interested in running for political office. The experiment will be conducted in Sorsogon Province, Philippines, where the experimental design has been piloted this last year (Aug. 2013--Sep. 2014). It will be implemented in partnership with the Angara Centre for Law and Economics (ACLE) and Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA). The intervention will occur a year before the October 2016 Village Level Elections. Standing in and winning election are the key outcomes of interest.

Sampling. The sample will consist of N=900 Filipino residents of Sorsogon Province, qualified and interested in running for an elective post in the village council as first-time candidates. (See statistical power calculations in a separate section below.)

Treatments. Study participants will be randomly assigned to a control condition (no workshop) or one of two workshop treatments---a workshop with unconditional incentives or a workshop with conditional incentives. Assignment will take account of baseline measures of public service motivation (PSM) to maximize statistical power.

Workshop Interventions. The leadership training workshop has three goals: (1) provide basic leadership skills; (2) give participants a chance to run a simulated village council meeting in which they will brainstorm a flagship project; and (3) serve as a screening mechanism by which study participants can reveal their 'type' (i.e. competence and honesty, as will be explained below), as they perform in the various workshop tasks and in the simulation of the council meeting.

To prevent differential take-up across treatment arms, participants invited to the workshop will not be informed of the incentives until after the workshop is over. Moreover, unbeknownst to participants, performance in the workshop will be monitored and evaluated, and will be assigned scores based on a scoring rubric. This is to prevent differential behavior among participants across treatment arms, due to awareness of being monitored.

Workshop staff members will be assigning scores. If a participant is assigned to the group with unconditional incentive, then he shall receive the incentive regardless of his performance score. On the other hand, if a participant is assigned to a group with conditional incentive, then he shall receive the incentive only if his performance score is above a pre-determined cutoff, which is known only to the Principal Investigator (PI).

The incentive is a combination of two things: (1) a plaque of merit awarded at the end of the workshop, (2) and a few (less than 10 pcs.) of standard-sized campaign posters, should they decide to file an official certificate of candidacy.

Data Collection and Measurement of Political Selection. The field experiment begins with a call for applications by ACLE to the leadership training workshop. The study team will hand out posters and invitation letters to schools, offices of incumbent village officials, as well as to different civic organizations, to capture as many applicants as possible. Posters and letters will provide a general description of the workshop, application guidelines, as well as information on a pre-screening session. Applicants will be informed that selection to the workshop is random.

The pre-screening session is designed to measure personal characteristics of applicants before any random assignment to treatment groups occurred. The session will involve a series of tests designed to measure two broad categories of personal characteristics: competence and honesty. Competence is subcategorized into public service motivation (using Perry's PSM Index (Perry, 1996)), aptitude (based on Wechsler's Test of Memory for Digit Span (Wechsler, 1987), and on a Matrices Test adapted from (Ariely et al., 2009)), personality (using the Big 5 Personality Index (John, 1990; John, Naumann and Soto, 2008)), and aspiration (Kasser and Ryan's Aspiration Index (Kasser and Ryan, 1996)). Honesty will be measured in terms of participants' propensity to cheat in a simple roll-a-die game a la Fischbacher and Follmi-Heusi (2013); Hanna and Wang (2013)).

Applicants who successfully completed the pre-screening session will be enrolled as study participants and randomly assigned into the treatment groups described above. Political selection will be measured in several stages after randomization, as follows:

Stage 1: Selection into the workshop.
Stage 2: Filing a certificate of candidacy. (After the workshop, but before the elections.)
Stage 3: Indicator for winning an elective post and vote-share margin of victory. (After elections.)
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
randomization done in office by a computer.
Randomization Unit
Individual.
Was the treatment clustered?
No
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
900 individuals
Sample size: planned number of observations
900 individuals
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
300 individuals control, 300 individuals workshop with unconditional incentives, 300 individuals with conditional incentives
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
See documents.
Supporting Documents and Materials

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

Request Information
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
University of Michigan Institutional Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2014-12-04
IRB Approval Number
HUM00081561
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information
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, Papers & Other Materials
Relevant Paper(s)
REPORTS & OTHER MATERIALS