|
Field
Trial End Date
|
Before
December 04, 2020
|
After
December 15, 2020
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
November 13, 2020 08:34 AM
|
After
November 25, 2020 11:16 AM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
We conduct two rounds of an online survey, two weeks before and two weeks after the national election on October 28, 2020, to measure changes in perceptions about long-term political goals.
In the first part of the survey, respondents estimate the current distribution of wealth and gender in Tanzania and, then, indicate what their ideal distributions look like. Our research adopts Rawls' idea of the original position and applies it to principles of gender equality. When asking about ideal distributions, we aim to elicit respondents' preferences freed of their respective characteristics and specific position in society (Rawls (1971)).
We combine responses on ideal and estimated distributions with the following 4 treatments:
1 - Survey experiment: Civic action
We implement one survey experiment, where respondents are randomly assigned to two treatments (A, B) that describe the extent to which one is actively willing to take action to support equal representation between women and men.
This week, some of your fellow students are going to request action from the government to increase gender equality:
1. (A) To show your support, would you sign their petition letter?
2. (B) To show your support, would you donate them 5,000 TZS?
2 - Survey experiment: Gender quota
We implement a second survey experiment on the gender quota in politics, where we randomly ask respondents about their support on one of three different policy options (A, B, C).
1. (A) BASELINE: Do you agree that the number of reserved seats for women should be kept constant at 30% in future parliaments?
2. (B) INCREASE: Do you agree that the number of reserved seats for women should be increased from 30% to 50% in future parliaments?
3. (C) DECREASE: Do you agree that the number of reserved seats for women should be decreased from 30% to 15% in future parliaments?
3 - Survey experiment: Meritocracy
We use a third survey experiment to measure the importance of three components of meritocracy: experience, education and effort. We randomize between male and female candidates.
Treatment: The next parliamentary elections are coming up at the end of this month. How important are the following qualities for a [(A)female; (B)male] candidate to become Member of Parliament? 1
1. Candidate has a university degree.
2. Candidate has previous experience as Member of Parliament.
3. Candidate put a lot of effort into campaigning for the election.
4 – Survey experiment: Patronage
The last survey experiment measures the influence of patronage (family relations) on candidate selection. Here, we randomize between two male and two female (A, B) candidates.
Treatment: Imagine that after the election you would have to decide between two [(A)female; (B)male] Members of the Parliament. One of them will become the Speaker of the National Assembly. Assuming that they have equal experience, education, and motivation, which one would you choose as Speaker of the National Assembly?
References
J. Rawls. A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussets, 1edition, 1971. ISBN 0-674-88014-5.
|
After
We conduct two rounds of an online survey, before and after the national election on October 28, 2020, to measure changes in perceptions about long-term political goals.
In the first part of the survey, respondents estimate the current distribution of wealth and gender in Tanzania and, then, indicate what their ideal distributions look like. Our research adopts Rawls' idea of the original position and applies it to principles of gender equality. When asking about ideal distributions, we aim to elicit respondents' preferences freed of their respective characteristics and specific position in society (Rawls (1971)).
We combine responses on ideal and estimated distributions with the following 4 treatments:
1 - Survey experiment: Civic action
We implement one survey experiment, where respondents are randomly assigned to two treatments (A, B) that describe the extent to which one is actively willing to take action to support equal representation between women and men.
This week, some of your fellow students are going to request action from the government to increase gender equality:
1. (A) To show your support, would you sign their petition letter?
2. (B) To show your support, would you donate them 5,000 TZS?
2 - Survey experiment: Gender quota
We implement a second survey experiment on the gender quota in politics, where we randomly ask respondents about their support on one of three different policy options (A, B, C). [This experiment is only included in the first round.]
1. (A) BASELINE: Do you agree that the number of reserved seats for women should be kept constant at 30% in future parliaments?
2. (B) INCREASE: Do you agree that the number of reserved seats for women should be increased from 30% to 50% in future parliaments?
3. (C) DECREASE: Do you agree that the number of reserved seats for women should be decreased from 30% to 15% in future parliaments?
3 - Survey experiment: Meritocracy
We use a third survey experiment to measure the importance of three components of meritocracy: experience, education and effort. We randomize between male and female candidates.
Treatment: The next parliamentary elections are coming up at the end of this month. How important are the following qualities for a [(A)female; (B)male] candidate to become Member of Parliament? 1
1. Candidate has a university degree.
2. Candidate has previous experience as Member of Parliament.
3. Candidate put a lot of effort into campaigning for the election.
4 – Survey experiment: Patronage
The last survey experiment measures the influence of patronage (family relations) on candidate selection. Here, we randomize between two male and two female (A, B) candidates.
Treatment: Imagine that after the election you would have to decide between two [(A)female; (B)male] Members of the Parliament. One of them will become the Speaker of the National Assembly. Assuming that they have equal experience, education, and motivation, which one would you choose as Speaker of the National Assembly?
References
J. Rawls. A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussets, 1edition, 1971. ISBN 0-674-88014-5.
|
|
Field
Intervention End Date
|
Before
December 04, 2020
|
After
December 15, 2020
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
(A) Differences in estimated vs. ideal number of seats for women in parliament and committee
(B) Differences in actual (objective) vs. estimated/ideal (subjective) number of seats for women in parliament and committee
(C) Survey experiments:
1. Civic action: Support to take action on a 5-Point Likert Scale from ‘very much agree’ to ‘very much disagree’.
2. Gender quota: Agreement with proposed quota policy on a 5-Point Likert Scale from ‘very much agree’ to ‘very much disagree’
3. Meritocracy: Scale of importance for each element of merit – education, experience, effort – on a scale from 1- Not at all important to 10- Very important.
4. Patronage: Choice of candidate as Speaker when the two candidates only differ in whether or not they have family relations to other Members of Parliament. (1- The candidate with no family relations; 2- The candidate with family relations)
|
After
(A) Differences in estimated vs. ideal number of seats for women in parliament and committee
(B) Differences in actual (objective) vs. estimated/ideal (subjective) number of seats for women in parliament and committee
(C) Survey experiments:
1. Civic action: Support to take action on a 5-Point Likert Scale from ‘very much agree’ to ‘very much disagree’.
2. [First round only] Gender quota: Agreement with proposed quota policy on a 5-Point Likert Scale from ‘very much agree’ to ‘very much disagree’
3. Meritocracy: Scale of importance for each element of merit – education, experience, effort – on a scale from 1- Not at all important to 10- Very important.
4. Patronage: Choice of candidate as Speaker when the two candidates only differ in whether or not they have family relations to other Members of Parliament. (1- The candidate with no family relations; 2- The candidate with family relations)
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
For each treatment arm, we expect ca. 250 students (2 treatment groups), except of for the gender quota experiment, where we have 3 treatment arms, i.e. ca. 166 respondents in each.
|
After
For each treatment arm, we expect ca. 250 students (2 treatment groups), except of for the gender quota experiment [first round only], where we have 3 treatment arms, i.e. ca. 166 respondents in each.
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
TREATMENT EFFECTS FROM SURVEY EXPERIMENTS
1. Survey Experiment Civic Action:
Treatment is to increase the cost of civic action in support of the gender quota:
Probability(Take Action | High Cost) – Probability(Take Action | Low Cost)
2. Survey Experiment Gender Quota:
Questions vary for whether there is support to increase, decrease, or keep the quota constant.
3. Survey Experiment Merit:
Treatment is to indicate importance of merit for either a male or a female candidate:
Importance Effort | Female – Importance Effort | Male
Importance Education | Female – Importance Education | Male
Importance Experience | Female – Importance Experience | Male
4. Survey Experiment Patronage:
Treatment is to choose from two male or two female candidates either one with or one without family relations.
Probability (Punish for Family Relations | Female) – Probability (Punish for Family Relations | Male)
HETEROGENEOUS EFFECTS:
by self-identification, demographics, gender norms, support of gender quotas, interest in politics, peer effects.
|
After
TREATMENT EFFECTS FROM SURVEY EXPERIMENTS
1. Survey Experiment Civic Action:
Treatment is to increase the cost of civic action in support of the gender quota:
Probability(Take Action | High Cost) – Probability(Take Action | Low Cost)
3. Survey Experiment Merit:
Treatment is to indicate importance of merit for either a male or a female candidate:
Importance Effort | Female – Importance Effort | Male
Importance Education | Female – Importance Education | Male
Importance Experience | Female – Importance Experience | Male
4. Survey Experiment Patronage:
Treatment is to choose from two male or two female candidates either one with or one without family relations.
Probability (Punish for Family Relations | Female) – Probability (Punish for Family Relations | Male)
HETEROGENEOUS EFFECTS:
by self-identification, demographics, gender norms, support of gender quotas, interest in politics, peer effects.
|