Incumbent Advantage, Voter Information and Vote Buying
Last registered on April 08, 2015

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Incumbent Advantage, Voter Information and Vote Buying
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0000688
Initial registration date
April 08, 2015
Last updated
April 08, 2015 2:39 PM EDT
Location(s)
Region
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
Inter-American Development Bank
PI Affiliation
University of British Columbia
Additional Trial Information
Status
On going
Start date
2013-03-01
End date
2015-06-30
Secondary IDs
Abstract
The project assess the effects of voter information on vote buying and incumbent advantage. The intervention was designed with and implemented by the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV). We collected data from candidates on their proposed policies and platforms and distributed that information in brochures to voters in randomly selected villages ahead of the May 13, 2013 mayoral elections in the Philippines. These brochures and the household visits by PPCRV volunteers to distribute and explain the brochures increased voter information about the types of public good provision that mayors could provide and to inform them of the availability of a large fund to finance provision of municipal public goods.

The intervention (and pre-analysis plan) were registered on the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) hypothesis registry on May 12, 2013.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Cruz, Cesi, Philip Keefer and Julien Labonne. 2015. "Incumbent Advantage, Voter Information and Vote Buying." AEA RCT Registry. April 08. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/688/history/4027
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
2013-05-01
Intervention End Date
2013-05-14
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
As specified in the pre-analysis plan the key outcome variables are: political knowledge, salience of local development spending on voting decisions, turnout, vote share and vote buying
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
cf. Pre-Analysis Plan
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
The randomization was done at the village-level (within municipalities).

In April 2013, we interviewed every candidate for mayor in twelve municipalities in the provinces of Ilocos Norte and Ilocos Sur, in the northern reaches of the Philippines. Candi- date names were taken from the official list of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). In the course of the interview, we gave each candidate a worksheet with a list of sectors. Candidates were told the average amount that they would have to spend from their local development fund (LDF) and asked to allocate money across sectors.

PPCRV volunteers distributed that information in brochures to voters in randomly selected villages ahead of the May 13, 2013 mayoral elections. These brochures and the household visits by PPCRV staff to distribute and explain the brochures increased voter information about the types of public good provision that mayors could provide and to inform them of the availability of a large fund to finance provision of municipal public goods.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office by a computer. Within each target municipality, villages were allocated to the treatment and control groups using a pairwise matching algorithm. First, for all potential pairs, the Mahalanobis distance was computed using village-level data on population, number of registered voters, the number of precincts, a rural dummy, turnout in the 2010 municipal election and incumbent vote share in the 2010 elections. Second, among 5,000 randomly selected partitions, the partition that minimized the total sum of Mahalanobis distance between villages in the same pairs was selected. Third, within each pair, a village was randomly selected to be allocated to treatment; the other one serving as control.
Randomization Unit
The randomization unit is the village
Was the treatment clustered?
No
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
The sample consists of 284 villages (142 treatment and 142 control) in 12 municipalities
Sample size: planned number of observations
Data were collected on 12 households per village
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
NA
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
University of Oxford
IRB Approval Date
2014-05-01
IRB Approval Number
Econ DREC Ref. No. 1213/0014
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 and Papers
Preliminary Reports
Relevant Papers