|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
Access to justice and criminal dispute resolution is a first-order issue in many emerging economies. In Pakistan, citizens dissatisfied with the state tend to shift towards a variety of non-state actors, weakening the efficacy of state institutions to resolve crimes and improve public safety. This study builds upon previous research which found that citizens increase their desired usage of and giving to the state when provided information about judicial improvements (Acemoglu et al. 2018). In a unique collaboration with the Punjab Safe Cities Authority, this study focuses on enhancing citizen engagement with state policing and judicial services. Identifying a population that is currently experiencing a dispute, we experimentally introduce interventions that provide information on and/or direct exposure to enhanced services for citizens (an additional police complaint hotline and legal advisory services) and measure these interventions’ impact on dispute resolution, citizen satisfaction, and engagement with and perceptions of the police and state actors.
|
After
Access to justice and criminal dispute resolution is a first-order issue in many emerging economies. In Pakistan, citizens dissatisfied with the state tend to shift towards a variety of non-state actors, weakening the efficacy of state institutions to resolve crimes and improve public safety. This study builds upon previous research which found that citizens increase their desired usage of and giving to the state when provided information about judicial improvements (Acemoglu et al. 2020). In a unique collaboration with the Punjab Safe Cities Authority, this study focuses on enhancing citizen engagement with state policing and judicial services. Identifying a population that is currently experiencing a dispute, we experimentally introduce interventions that provide information on and/or direct exposure to enhanced services for citizens (an additional police complaint hotline and legal advisory services) and measure these interventions’ impact on dispute resolution, citizen satisfaction, and engagement with and perceptions of the police and state actors.
|
|
Field
Trial End Date
|
Before
December 31, 2022
|
After
December 31, 2024
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
August 19, 2021 01:39 PM
|
After
June 30, 2023 08:43 AM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
|
After
The state’s ability to maintain trust in its authority and resolve disputes for its citizens remains a challenge in many emerging economies. Over the last 30 years, there has been a marked change away from State Authority and towards a variety of non-state actors, at times even mafias and extremist organizations, across the developing world including Pakistan. As a result, there is concern that declining allegiance to state institutions is resulting in citizens assigning non-state actors’ “authority” to provide a range of public goods such as dispute resolution, enforcement of laws and norms, and redistributive activity, weakening state institutions in turn.
Though this trend is apparent, the reasons for this change in allegiance remain unclear. One set of explanations argues that these changes are structural and explained by ideological shifts among the citizenry of these countries. The most popular variant, that it is a general trend in religiosity, seems to assume the answer and cannot explain why this trend did not start over the last 30 years. Another variant links the change to U.S. policy directions, but this seems to have had minimal effect in countries such as Turkey or Pakistan.
An alternative explanation is that the shift in allegiance away from State Authority may be related to belief dynamics: bad behavior by state actors promotes lack of trust and respect by creating the belief that state institutions exist to exploit rather than provide public goods and order. The formation of these beliefs, in turn, induces citizens to shift allegiance from state to non-state authority when there is actual or perceived information that state actors are corrupt or misbehaving.
This challenge is particularly salient for urban areas. In urban settings where traditional non-state mechanisms are less prevalent but demand for dispute resolution is high, the state has both the opportunity and expectation to play a greater role in resolving disputes and strengthening engagement with its citizens. This project builds upon a previous study, which examines the motivations behind citizens’ waning trust in state institutions in Pakistan and subsequent decrease in the usage of state services in rural areas.
This study seeks to extend the initial research by Acemoglu et. al. (2020) asking whether citizens who are actually in immediate need of a specific state service – dispute resolution – can change their trust in and subsequent engagement with the state apparatus based on their initial experience with the state actor.
To this end, we first identify disputants in urban areas who are on the cusp of deciding if they will resolve a conflict or dispute through the state system. We do so by collaborating with the Punjab Safe Cities Authority (PSCA), that receives these initial “1-5” calls (similar to 9-1-1 in the US), and dispatch local police departments to address the emergency. In partnership with PSCA we then experimentally introduce interventions that provide citizens with information on and/or direct exposure to existing state services that assist in resolving conflict. These services include a complaint hotline provided by the Punjab Police and legal aid services. We measure these interventions’ impact on citizens’ intent and actual engagement with the state and their rates of conflict resolution.
|
|
Field
Intervention Start Date
|
Before
December 01, 2019
|
After
June 13, 2022
|
|
Field
Intervention End Date
|
Before
June 30, 2022
|
After
February 28, 2023
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
There are two main categories of outcomes we are looking to impact: 1) dispute redressal and citizen satisfaction with their case, and 2) continued engagement with and broader attitudes towards the relevant state actors (police and others). The first category of outcomes deals with whether or not the respondent's issue was actually resolved and their general satisfaction with the process. While we will directly ask if the respondent felt that their case was resolved, we will also measure how far the case progressed through the legal system by tracking if an FIR was registered or a Challan – a form of official documentation or citation – issued. We will also have a sequence of survey questions dealing with the extent to which the respondent attempted to resolve their issue with the state, how satisfied they were with the outcome, and if they would be willing to use the state again should they experience another conflict. We will also elicit their general attitudes towards and beliefs regarding state and non-state actors through both self-reported measures and where feasible, experimental game play. We will also measure the extent to which the respondent engaged with the state through their application registration rates.
|
After
- Perceptions about dispute resolution dimensions:
o Likelihood of fair, timely and satisfactory resolution of the dispute
- Attitudes toward four dispute resolution fora: state, informal, police and legal forums
o Likelihood of usage: (1) state forums, (2) informal forums, (3) police services, and (4) legal services
o Likelihood of trust: (1) state forums, (2) informal forums, (3) police services, and (4) legal services
o Effectiveness of: (1) state forums, (2) informal forums, (3) police services, and (4) legal services
o Accessibility of: (1) state forums, (2) informal forums, (3) police services, and (4) legal services
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
The study will be implemented as a cross-randomized control trial. Individuals will be randomized into either a control group or a combination of the treatments. For each service, we will have two intensities of treatments: an information variant and an experience variant. The information treatment will simply inform the respondent about the service and giving them contact information should they chose to use it. The experience treatment, on the other hand, will give respondents the opportunity to directly connect with the service. For both services, we will directly connect respondents to the appropriate service (police complaint hotline and/or legal advisory) by patching them through after the survey. We will also cross-randomize the two service treatment arms.
|
After
This study is a randomized control trial implemented in collaboration with the Punjab Safe Cities Authority (PSCA), an autonomous government body within the Punjab Police that aims to improve public safety and security in the Punjab. To test if the behaviors of the state affect citizens’ perceptions and/or willingness to engage with the state, we randomly provide the opportunity for citizens to engage more with the state by providing information about- and access to- state services.
Our basic treatment design for the study randomizes individuals into one of six types of treatments (and a control group). The treatments deploy two distinct services: the 1787 Police Complaint Hotline and the Singh Legal Aid Call Centre (SLACC). For each service, we have two intensities of treatments: a regular and an assistive treatment. Both treatments give the respondents an opportunity to connect with the service. The assistive treatment, on the other hand, includes an additional follow-up survey after 2 to 3 days to get an update on their dispute. The assistive treatment also offers the respondent another opportunity to connect with the service. In addition to that, we also have an information treatment, that simply informs the respondent about the efficiency, case resolution rates and turnaround times of the 1787 police complaint hotline.
Specific details below:
1. Control group:
For this group, only the surveys (baseline, midline, and endline) are administered. No other feedback or advice is provided to respondents.
2. Information treatment:
The exact wording is as follows:
”Sir/Madam, I understand the trouble you’re going through. However, I would like to inform you of the tremendous progress the Punjab Police has made over the previous year to make their services citizen friendly and reassure you that your case is in the best hands possible.
The Punjab Police has launched the 1787 IG Punjab helpline, which is a free service where you can notify police authorities in the IG office through a call, text, or email that an FIR or police-related complaint is not being registered or an investigating police officer is not doing their job properly. Previously complaints at the IG Office had to be lodged either by post or by citizens visiting the IG office physically, which was costly and time consuming.
As a result of the introduction of the 1787 helpline, there has been a remarkable improvement in the timely resolution of complaints. In 2021, 1787 processed over 100,000 complaints and 85% were resolved by the IG office in a timely manner. The average time taken for resolution was only 5 days. The introduction of IGP’s 1787 helpline has more than doubled the monthly resolution rate of complaints in just 4 years”
3. Treatment 1 – 1787 Police Complaint Hotline [Regular variation]:
Citizens can call this hotline for the following complaints: 1) Police do not register a First Information Report (FIR); 2) The investigating officer (IO) is not doing his job properly; 3) Unlawful arrests/false FIRs; and 4) Bribery/corruption in the Punjab police. Complaints can be lodged by post, call, SMS, or email. The system is highly interactive, and the complainant is kept informed of the status of their complaint until its resolution. The complainant can view the progress of his/her complaint online and send feedback at any moment, online or through SMS. The 1787 service is run by the state police, and simply expands the role of the state service.
This treatment arm is delivered in regular intensity, meaning that no modifications are done regarding how the service would normally be delivered by the 1787 hotline.
4. Treatment 2 - 1787 Police Complaint Hotline [Assistive variation]:
This treatment arm also involves referring the respondent to the 1787 hotline service to file a complaint. However, for people assigned to this treatment arm, the surveyor actively assists the respondent during the complaint filing process. This assistive variation is delivered by modifying the surveyor-respondent-1787 officer interaction in four ways:
a. The surveyor briefly introduces the respondent to the 1787 officer, instead of the respondent doing so himself/herself
b. The surveyor is allowed to interject during the call to provide any clarification or answer any question if needed. This is particularly important for respondents whose language use level does not allow them to communicate clearly. For example, those who are illiterate don’t speak a common language with the operator fluently or can get confused about police jargon. This is where the surveyor can assist in clarifying.
c. The surveyor stays on the line even after the respondent-1787 officer interaction has finished, to have a short debrief with the respondent and make sure they know what steps need to be taken or to clarify outstanding questions
d. Approximately 2 to 3 days later, the respondent receives a very brief 5-minute call to follow-up on the status of their case. No outcome questions are asked at this point, since this is meant to be a quick check-in call.
The assistive variation is meant to represent a more citizen-centric version of the 1787 hotline to test if such an approach would yield significantly better results relative to the regular variation of the service, the information treatment, and the control group.
5. Treatment 3 – Legal Aid Services [Regular variation]:
The respondents are provided legal aid services through the SLACC local lawyers on their complaints. The Legal Advisory Call Center is an initiative run by the Legal Aid Society, which provides pro bono/low bono legal services, and has been operational for the past 4 years. The purpose of this call center is to spread awareness of legal rights and remedies, as well as guidelines for different procedural matters, and its agents are practicing lawyers with real-time experience in courts of law. Callers’ information is kept highly confidential, and they receive a free solution within 24 hours and can leave recordings after hours. To date, the call center has responded to over 12,000 queries from 180 cities and towns across Pakistan. Run by a non-profit but with the intent of making it easier for the citizen to navigate the state apparatus, SLACC is an interesting service to examine since a citizen may build a positive view of the state simply by having a better experience as they work through the state processes, even if the state has not directly changed anything. Specifically, the legal advice provided can help with the process of navigating the existing state structure and bureaucracy, increasing perceptions about accessibility, for example.
This treatment arm is delivered in regular intensity, meaning that no modifications are done regarding how the service would normally be delivered by the SLACC call center.
6. Treatment 4 – Legal Aid Services [Assistive variation]:
This treatment arm also involves referring the respondent to the SLACC call center to receive legal aid. However, for people assigned to this treatment arm, the surveyor actively assists the respondent during the call. This assistive variation is delivered by modifying the surveyor-respondent-SLACC lawyer interaction in four ways:
a. The surveyor briefly introduces the respondent to the SLACC lawyer, instead of the respondent doing so himself/herself
b. The surveyor is allowed to interject during the call to provide any clarification or answer any question if needed. This is particularly important for respondents whose language use level does not allow them to communicate clearly. For example, those who are illiterate don’t speak a common language with the operator fluently or can get confused about police jargon. This is where the surveyor can assist in clarifying.
c. The surveyor stays on the line even after the respondent-lawyer interaction has finished, to have a short debrief with the respondent and make sure they know what steps need to be taken or to clarify outstanding questions
d. Approximately 2 to 3 days later, the respondent receives a very brief 5-minute call to follow-up on the status of their case. No outcome questions are asked at this point since this is meant to be a quick check-in call.
The assistive variation is meant to represent a more citizen-centric version of the SLACC service to test if such an approach would yield significantly better results relative to the regular variation of the service, the information treatment, and the control group. Together, these two services and two variations allow us to examine whether improvements need to be carried out by the state, like redesigning services to be more citizen-centered, easier to navigate, or offer complementary services, if we find that these treatment arms help induce an even more favorable engagement with- and view of the state.
|
|
Field
Randomization Method
|
Before
Randomization done by a computer
|
After
Daily randomization done by a computer, as we receive data from PSCA every day. See the pre-analysis plan for the specific procedures and sampling probabilities used throughout the rollout.
|
|
Field
Randomization Unit
|
Before
We randomize treatment at the individual level
|
After
We randomize treatment at the individual level.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Clusters
|
Before
20,000 individuals
|
After
10,088
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
20,000 individuals
|
After
10,088
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
8000 control; 1500 information on police complaint hotline; 1500 information on legal advisory service; 1500 information on both hotline and advisory service; 1500 experience hotline; 1500 experience advisory service; 1500 experience both hotline and advisory service; 1500 experience hotline and information on advisory service; 1500 experience hotline and information on advisory service.
|
After
10,088 respondents were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 groups (5 treatment arms and 1 control), with the resulting distribution looking as follows:
- 1,713 respondents assigned to control
- 1,707 respondents assigned to information
- 1,687 respondents assigned to the police complaint helpline 1787, in regular variation.
- 1,681 respondents assigned to the police complaint helpline 1787, in assistive variation.
- 1,644 respondents assigned to the legal aid call center (SLACC), in regular variation.
- 1,656 respondents assigned to the legal aid call center (SLACC), in assistive variation.
|
|
Field
Power calculation: Minimum Detectable Effect Size for Main Outcomes
|
Before
|
After
We estimate that the minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering) is 0.1 SD.
|