link

Document Sample
link Powered By Docstoc
					Together We Will: Evidence from a
Field Experiment on Female Voter
        Turnout in Pakistan

      Xavier Gine & Ghazala Mansuri
           DECRG, World Bank
                               Motivation
• Over the 20th century, women have acquired de jure rights to participate in
  democratic institutions
            – Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
            – Convention on the Political Rights of Women (1952)
            – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)
            – Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
              against Women (1979)
• However, barriers to effective participation by women both as voters and as
  legislators remain significant
• Number of efforts to introduce quotas for women legislators. Results suggest
  some impact on policy choices as well as perceptions (Chattopadhyay & Duflo
  (2004); Bardhan et al (2005, 2008); Ban and Rao (2008))
• But women also have:
               » Lower participation rates as voters
               » They are also more likely to vote in accordance with the
                 preference of male clan and household heads (family voting)–
                 unlike men of all ages
                   Why should we care?

• Good governance and development viewed as intrinsically linked
  (Sen 1999); World Bank (2005)
• Voting is essential for electoral accountability: Basic premise of
  representative democracy is that those who are subject to policy
  should have a voice in its making.

• Preference Heterogeneity: Women have different preferences so
  their participation could lead to different policy choices

• Human Rights/Equity
  Potential barriers to female participation in the
                  electoral process
• Costs of Participation:
   – Social constraints may restrict choices and/or restrict women’s
     freedom of movement
   – Traditions, social and cultural stereotypes may lead to a sense of
     disempowerment and discourage women from participation in
     electoral processes or exercising their own preferences
   – Concerns about security in conflict environments may have a greater
     impact on female participation
• Information:
   – Women have fewer and poorer sources of information about the
     significance of political participation and/or the balloting process, in
     part due to illiteracy and mobility constraints
   – Lack of information may reinforce disempowerment and stereotypes
                       What we assess
1. How important is information for turnout and candidate choice?
    – Why?
        • Attitudes change slowly but information can be provided quickly and
          may serve to
           – enhance equity
           – induce a change in attitudes (Beaman et al (2007))
           – be habit forming (Gerber, Green, Shachar (2003))
           – change policy (Edlund & Pande (2002); Lott & Kenny (1999))
2. Are there significant peer effects?
    – Why?
    – Is this a cost effective way to boost participation?
             – Evidence of spillovers (Duflo & Saez (2003); Kremer & Miguel
                 (2004 & 2007))
             – Evidence of contagion within family (Nickerson(2008))
3. Does information matter more/less when an election takes place in a politically
   volatile environment and is highly contested?
                           Context
• Rural Pakistan

• According to the 1998 Human Development Report, Pakistan
  ranked
   – 138 out of 174 on the Human Development Index (HDI)
   – 131 out of 163 on the Gender Development Index (GDI)
   – 100 out of 102 on the Gender Empowerment Measure(GEM)
• “Political parties, by and large, tend to view women as a
  passive vote bank, following the dictates of men within their
  families or clans. Even within their own parties, they treat
  them largely as followers to be strategically used for election
  canvassing and public campaigns. Thus, most parties do not
  even have lists of female members.”
                               “ Aurat Foundation, 2004

                                                                6
                     What we do

• Conduct a door to door voter information campaign
  directed at rural women just before the February
  2008 national elections in Pakistan

• Two “treatments”
  – The importance of voting (T1)
  – T1 plus the significance of secret balloting: Ability to vote
    in accordance with one’s own preferences without
    external pressure (T2)

  – The information campaign was developed as a set of
    simple visual messages
                             Study Design-1
•    Two districts in Sindh, Sukkur and Khairpur, selected because sharp electoral
     competition between two major political parties
    –    Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) (secular-left leaning)
         and
     – Pakistan Muslim League (F) (allied with the military, led mainly by large
     landlords who are also religious leaders “pirs”).

•   6 villages selected from each district, where an NGO, MRDO, which mobilizes
    women using a CBD approach was either working (or about to start work)

•   3 villages in Khairpur dropped just before the elections due to security
    concerns. These had more contested polling stations relative to our sample
    villages

•   Final sample has 9 villages and 21 polling stations

•   Average village population: approx 300 households
                           Study Design-2
• Variation in treatment type (T1 or T2) as well as treatment
  intensity to look at peer effects
   – Village divided into geographical clusters
   – Clusters randomly assigned to get T1, T2 or nothing as follows:
           – start in a random cluster, deliver T1
           – leave a gap cluster
           – in the next cluster, deliver either T2 or nothing using a coin flip
           – leave a gap cluster
           – deliver either T2 or nothing depending on prior coin toss result
           – process repeated till all clusters in village covered
   – Households within clusters selected as follows:
          – starting from any one end, every fourth household selected until up
            to 18 households covered
          – In T1 and T2 clusters every 5th selected household left as a control.
            So 2 to 4 control households in treated clusters.
          – In controls clusters, all selected household left as controls.
                   Timeline


 Feb 5 -15      Feb 18      Feb 18-19       March 5-25




HH visits and   National    Voting
Pre-Election    Elections   Verification
Survey
                                           Post-Election
                                           Survey
                           Data I

• Pre-Election Visit (information intervention):
        – Household location (GIS); basic roster of all adult women, plus
          past voting record and the name and address of closest
          friend/confidant in the village
        – No refusals, so we have 100% compliance

• Post-election verification:
        – Self report and verification by checking ink stain
        – One friend per household, randomly selected from among
          women “eligible” to vote (had NIC or claimed to be on the voter
          list)



                                                                            11
                              Data II
• Post election survey
  – Household demographics, including caste (zaat/biradari)
  – Intervention checks
  – Mobility constraints
  – Access to media
  – Knowledge of location of polling station and the protocol for casting
    a vote
  – Election day environment
  – Knowledge of: candidates, party platforms, recent political events,
    election outcomes
  – Knowledge of whether other household members voted and for
    whom

• Polling Station data
  – Electoral results by gender and by candidate/party
                                                                      12
                                 Final Sample
• Pre-election visit:
     – 64 clusters
     – 1019 households
     – 2735 women
     – 2735 friends

• Post-election verification visit:
     – 64 clusters
     – 992 households
     – 2637 women
     – 727 friends
•   98 women (27 households) lost because of temporary or permanent household
    migration. Friends of women in lost households not verified.
•   Attrition is orthogonal to treatment
•   Ink mark was missing for 135 women who claimed to have cast a vote. Err on the safe
    side by treating these women as not having voted
   Household Characteristics by Treatment Status
                                                                                                                                                                      Control
                                                                                                                                                                   households in
                                                          Treatment vs         Treatment 1 vs       Treatment 2 vs                                 Treated        treated clusters
                                                             control               control              control            Treated clusters households only vs households in
                                                           households            households           households          vs control clusters vs control clusters control clusters
     Comparison:                                               T-C                   T1-C                 T2-C                  TN-CN                T-CN              CTN-CN
                                                               (1)                    (2)                  (3)                    (4)                 (5)                (6)
Panel A: Household Characteristics
    Household size                                                     0.271                0.247                -0.002                 0.533                0.519                0.598
                                                                     [0.337]              [0.338]               [0.365]               [0.421]              [0.397]              [0.597]
     Number of women in the household (*)                              0.099                0.072                 0.019                  0.01                 0.11                 0.03
                                                                     [0.103]              [0.108]               [0.112]               [0.150]              [0.138]              [0.173]
     Asset index                                                       0.014                 0.08                -0.077                -0.042               -0.031               -0.099
                                                                     [0.131]              [0.158]               [0.187]               [0.199]              [0.193]              [0.207]
     Total owned land (in acres)                                    0.954**                0.973*                -0.137                 0.783               0.939*               -0.004
                                                                     [0.403]              [0.513]               [0.515]               [0.515]              [0.536]              [0.391]
     Average monthly expenditure                                    475.107              235.091               220.944               325.878              414.563              -140.57
                                                                  [400.192]            [377.321]             [366.025]             [569.725]            [591.562]            [486.687]
     House quality index                                              -0.031               -0.058                 0.034                -0.171               -0.152            -0.286**
                                                                     [0.099]              [0.119]               [0.120]               [0.124]              [0.123]              [0.136]
     Distance to polling station (Km)                                 -0.033               -0.056                  0.03                 0.137                0.102               0.318*
                                                                     [0.080]              [0.089]               [0.109]               [0.135]              [0.126]              [0.165]
     Low Zaat status                                                   0.027               -0.002                  0.03                 0.063                0.061                0.087
                                                                     [0.059]              [0.067]               [0.733]               [0.099]              [0.097]              [0.069]

     N. Obs                                                             952                   952                  952                   952                  826                   295
Notes: T refers to the sample of treated households, C control households, C TN control households in treated clusters, TN households in treated clusters (including both treated and
control households) and C N households in control clusters (all are control households). The symbol * indicates that the variable is created using only the sample from the pre-
election visit. Variables are defined in Table A1 in the Appendix.


                                                                                                                                                                               14
    Woman Characteristics by Treatment Status
                                                                                                                                                                      Control
                                                                                                                                                                   households in
                                                          Treatment vs         Treatment 1 vs       Treatment 2 vs                                 Treated        treated clusters
                                                             control               control              control            Treated clusters households only vs households in
                                                           households            households           households          vs control clusters vs control clusters control clusters
     Comparison:                                               T-C                   T1-C                 T2-C                  TN-CN                T-CN              CTN-CN
                                                               (1)                    (2)                  (3)                    (4)                 (5)                (6)
Panel B: Woman Characteristics
    Age                                                              -0.763                -0.506                 -0.17            -1.410**             -1.392**              -1.478**
                                                                    [0.516]               [0.539]              [0.565]               [0.627]              [0.638]               [0.700]
     Woman has some schooling (1=yes)                                 0.008                -0.016                0.026                 0.015                0.016                 0.018
                                                                    [0.019]               [0.022]              [0.021]               [0.031]              [0.029]               [0.037]
     Woman is married (1=yes)                                        -0.009                -0.023                0.018                -0.017               -0.017                -0.017
                                                                    [0.015]               [0.017]              [0.019]               [0.015]              [0.015]               [0.022]
     Number of children under 5 years old                            0.087*                0.099*               -0.028             0.147***             0.150***                 0.139*
                                                                    [0.046]               [0.054]              [0.061]               [0.050]              [0.048]               [0.083]
     Woman has a NIC or CNIC (1=yes)                                  0.028                 0.002                0.025                 0.049                0.048                 0.048
                                                                    [0.026]               [0.030]              [0.024]               [0.035]              [0.035]               [0.032]
     Voted last year (1=yes) (*)                                      0.021                -0.022               0.045*                 0.036                0.036                 0.036
                                                                    [0.023]               [0.028]              [0.026]               [0.030]              [0.030]               [0.033]
     Access to radio (1=yes)                                          0.012                 0.037                 -0.03               -0.014               -0.008                -0.046
                                                                    [0.033]               [0.031]              [0.034]               [0.045]              [0.046]               [0.045]
     Access to TV (1=yes)                                             0.022                 0.044               -0.028                 0.026                0.028                 0.028
                                                                    [0.034]               [0.033]              [0.042]               [0.053]              [0.053]               [0.053]
     Access to cable (1=yes)                                         -0.059                -0.036               -0.016               -0.118*              -0.116*             -0.116**
                                                                    [0.043]               [0.049]              [0.051]               [0.066]              [0.065]               [0.051]
     Allowed to move outside settlement (0 to 3)                      0.033                 0.051               -0.025                 0.028                0.033                 0.009
                                                                    [0.043]               [0.035]              [0.041]               [0.043]              [0.041]               [0.046]
     Woman allowed to join a NGO (1=yes)                             -0.004                 0.016               -0.022                -0.022               -0.019                -0.031
                                                                    [0.026]               [0.025]              [0.027]               [0.032]              [0.033]               [0.037]
     MRDO membership (*)                                             -0.004                 0.035               -0.044                  0.03                0.023                 0.073
                                                                    [0.025]               [0.029]              [0.034]               [0.036]              [0.035]               [0.044]
     Get advice from the Pir                                         -0.052                 0.012               -0.063                -0.057               -0.062                -0.042
                                                                    [0.033]               [0.041]              [0.044]               [0.048]              [0.049]               [0.053]

     N. Obs                                                            2637                 2637                  2637                 2637                  2304                  767
Notes: T refers to the sample of treated households, C control households, C TN control households in treated clusters, TN households in treated clusters (including both treated and
control households) and C N households in control clusters (all are control households). The symbol * indicates that the variable is created using only the sample from the pre-
election visit. Variables are defined in Table A1 in the Appendix.
            Randomization worked
– Little difference in household characteristics. Treatment
  households have a little more land than control
  households in some comparisons, but no difference in
  assets or housing quality
– Women in treated households are a little younger in
  some comparisons and have more young kids as a result
  and also appear to have less access to cable TV, perhaps
  due to their lower mobility
– In the analysis, we control for the household and
  woman characteristics that we lack balance on as well
  as the total number of women registered to vote in a
  polling station
– We also control for whether the woman had a national
  id card (NIC), which is needed to cast a ballot, since
  young women are also less likely to have an NIC or to
  have voted in the past
Table 1: Summary Statistics
                                                                                  N. Obs       Mean       St. Dev   Percentile 10   Percentile 50   Percentile 90
Panel A: Household Characteristics
   Household size                                                                  963          10.2       5.17            5               9               16
   Number of women in the household (*)                                            991          2.69       1.48            1               2               5
   Asset Index                                                                     963          0.00       1.85          -2.03           -0.49            2.66
   Total owned land (in acres)                                                     963          2.58       7.55          0.01            0.04             7.02
   Average monthly expenditure (in thousands)                                      963          8.80       4.71          3.00            9.00            12.50
   House quality index                                                             963          0.00       1.38          -1.62           -0.32            1.97
   Distance to polling station (Km.)                                               991          0.42       0.94            0               0               2
   Low Zaat Status                                                                 963          0.26       0.44            0               0               1
Panel B: Woman Characteristics
   Age                                                                            2,637        37.76      16.09           20              35               60
   Woman has formal schooling (1=Yes)                                             2,637         0.18       0.39            0               0               1
   Woman is married (1=Yes)                                                       2,622         0.80       0.40            0               1               1
   Number of children under 5 years old                                           2,637         0.86       1.19            0               0               3
   Woman has a National Identity Card (1=Yes)                                     2,637         0.70       0.46            0               1               1
   Woman voted in last local level elections (1=Yes) (*)                          2,735         0.70       0.46            0               1               1
   Access to radio (1=Yes)                                                        2,637         0.48       0.50            0               0               1
   Access to TV (1=Yes)                                                           2,637         0.70       0.46            0               1               1
   Access to cable (1=Yes)                                                        2,637         0.30       0.46            0               0               1
   Mobility (0 to 3)                                                              2,637         2.17       0.42            2               2               3
   Woman allowed to join a village organization (1=Yes)                           2,637         0.73       0.44            0               1               1
   Woman is a member of MRDO, an NGO in the village (1=Yes) (*)                   2,735         0.11       0.31            0               0               1
   Woman gets advice from a religious leader or "Pir" (1=Yes)                     2,479         0.64       0.48            0               1               1
Panel C: Polling Station Characteristics
   Number of women registered in each polling station                                     21   433.95     196.71         195              464             656
   Percentage of women with access to cable in the polling station                        21    0.34       0.26          0.06            0.23             0.75
   Percentage of women voting for PMLF party in the polling station                       21    0.15       0.18            0             0.05             0.48
   St. Dev of asset index                                                                 21    1.76       0.30          1.46            1.72             2.09
   St. Dev of distance index                                                              21    0.79       0.52          0.16            0.69             1.31
   Index of Contestation (for each polling station)                                       21    0.37       0.18          0.18            0.43             0.43
   High Contestation (dummy=1 if contestation index above median)                         21    0.48       0.51            0              0                1
Notes: The symbol * indicates that the variable is created using only the sample from the pre-election visit. Variables are defined in Table A1 in the Appendix.
       Regression specification-Woman Level
Average Effect
• For woman i in household h in village v:

        Yihv = bThv + fXihv + uv + εihv

   –   Yihv = Women voted (1=Yes) based on verification
   –   Thv = treatment indicator
   –   Xihv = vector of control variables
   –   uv = village fixed effect

• Standard errors clustered at geographic cluster level
  Table 3: Average Effect of the Information Campaign on Turnout
                                                                                    Allowing for spillovers within clusters
                                                                                                                            Control
                                                                                                                      households in
                                                                                                                            treated
                                                                                        Treated         Treated          clusters vs
                                                               Treatment vs          clusters vs    households        households in
                                                                    control              control only vs control             control
                                                                households              clusters        clusters            clusters
Comparison:                                                            T-C                 TN-CN            T-CN              CTN-CN
                                                                           (1)               (2)                (3)               (4)
Panel A: Treatment
    Treatment (T)                                                        0.06              0.118            0.120*            0.121*
                                                                      [0.045]            [0.073]           [0.071]           [0.062]
    R-squared                                                             0.18              0.19              0.19               0.21
Panel B: T1 vs T2
     Importance of voting (T1)                                          0.034              0.095             0.094             0.109
                                                                      [0.052]            [0.077]           [0.075]           [0.070]
     Importance of voting & secret balloting (T2)                      0.093*             0.145*          0.152**             0.135*
                                                                      [0.048]            [0.077]           [0.074]           [0.079]
   R-squared                                                             0.18              0.19                0.2               0.21
Observations                                                             2637              2637               2304                767
Mean dependent variable                                                  0.59              0.59               0.58               0.56

P-value (T1 = T2)                                                         0.22              0.31              0.23               0.75
P-value (F-test for joint significance of T1 & T2)                        0.15              0.16              0.11               0.15
Note: The dependent variable takes the value 1 if a woman reports having voted in the February 2008 elections and had a
verifi able ink mark on her thumb. All specifi cations include village fi xed effects and woman, household and polling station level
controls. Standard errors (reported in brackets below the coefficient) are corrected for clustering within geographic clusters.
Si gnifi cantly different from zero at 99 (***), 95 (**), and 90 (*) percent confi dence.
                    Table 4: Spillover Effects via Distance I
                                                                          75m              100m                  200m
                                                                           (1)               (2)                   (3)
Panel A: Treatment
    Treatment (T)                                                       0.127*           0.158**                 0.131*
                                                                       [0.065]            [0.074]               [0.078]
     Number of households within radius                                  0.005             0.005*                0.003*
                                                                       [0.004]            [0.003]               [0.002]
R-squared                                                                  0.2               0.21                  0.21
Panel B: T1 vs T2

     Importance of voting (T1)                                           0.103             0.137*                 0.112
                                                                       [0.070]            [0.079]               [0.082]
     Importance of voting & secret balloting (T2)                     0.156**            0.183**                 0.155*
                                                                       [0.067]            [0.075]               [0.079]
     Number of households within radius                                  0.005              0.005                0.003*
                                                                       [0.004]            [0.003]               [0.002]
    R-squared                                                              0.2               0.21                  0.21
Observations                                                              2207               2128                  2049
Mean dependent variable                                                   0.58               0.58                  0.58

P-value (T1 = T2)                                                         0.25               0.31                  0.33
P-value (F-test for joint significance of T1 & T2)                        0.06               0.05                  0.14
Note: The dependent variable takes the value 1 if a woman reports having voted in the February 2008 elections and had
a verifiable ink mark on her thumb. In each specification, women in control households located within the indicated
radius of a treated household are dropped from the sample. All specifications include village fixed effects and woman,
household and polling station level controls. Standard errors (reported in brackets below the coefficient) are corrected
for clustering within geographic clusters. Significantly different from zero at 99 (***), 95 (**), and 90 (*) percent



                                                                                                                           20
      Regression Specification-Peer effects-II
• Similar to Kremer and Miguel (2004). For woman i in
  household h in village v:

  Yihv = bThv + ∑dD (gdD NTdD + kdD NdD ) + fXihv + uv + εihv

   – Yihv = Women voted (1=Yes) based on verification
   – Thv = treatment indicator
   – NTdD = number of treated households between distance d and D
     from household
   – NdD = number of households between distance d and D from
     household
   – Xihv = vector of control variables
   – uv = village fixed effect

• Standard errors clustered at geographic cluster level
 Table 5: Spillover Effects via Distance II
Treatment (T)                                                0.027
                                                           [0.031]
Number of treated households within 0-200 radius         0.017***
                                                           [0.004]
Number of treated households within 200-400 radius       0.022***
                                                           [0.004]
Number of treated households within 400-600 radius       0.017***
                                                           [0.005]
Number of treated households within 600-800 radius           0.008
                                                           [0.006]
Number of treated households within 800-1000 radius          0.008
                                                           [0.008]
Number of treated households within 1000-1,200 radius        0.004
                                                           [0.007]
Number of households within 0-200 radius                -0.008***
                                                           [0.003]
Number of households within 200-400 radius              -0.012***
                                                           [0.003]
Number of households within 400-600 radius              -0.013***
                                                           [0.004]
Number of households within 600-800 radius                  -0.004
                                                           [0.004]
Number of households within 800-1000 radius                 -0.008
                                                           [0.005]
Number of households within 1000-1,200 radius                0.001

R-squared                                                    0.23
Mean dependent variable                                      0.59
Observations                                                 2637
                                                                     22
              Table 6: Spillover Effects via Friendship

                                   Friends of Women Friends of Treated          Friends of Control
                                  in Treated Clusters Women in Treated         Women in Treated
                                        vs. Friends of Clusters vs. Friends Clusters vs. Friends of
                                   Women in Control          of Women in       Women in Control
                                              Clusters    Control Clusters                 Clusters
                                                    T-C                 T-CN                  CTN-CN
Treatment                                         0.107                0.104                  0.124*
                                                [0.078]              [0.075]                 [0.070]
Treatment controlling for the
characteristics of sample women                  0.12                 0.117                  0.124*
                                              [0.075]               [0.071]                 [0.068]
N. obs                                            797                   692                     245
Mean dependent variable                           0.6                   0.6                    0.58




                                                                                                       23
           Regression Specification
             Polling Station Level

• For polling station p in village v:
      Ypv = bNTpv + fXpv + εpv

   – Ypv = Number of valid votes cast by women
   – NTpv = Number of women treated in polling station
   – Xpv = Vector of polling station control variables,
     including the number of registered women
        Table 8: Effect on Candidate Choice Using Cross Reports from
                              Family Members

                                                        Spillovers within Clusters                           Geographic Spillovers

                           Controls in
                           treatment         Controls in        Controls in       Control in
                             clusters    treatment clusters treatment clusters treated clusters
                          assumed not assumed to be            dropped from      compared to        75 Meter       100 Meter      200 Meter
                             treated          treated             sample        control clusters     Radius          Radius         Radius
Treatment                         -0.026               -0.022            -0.022            -0.011        -0.011           0.012          0.019
                                 [0.024]              [0.030]           [0.030]           [0.026]       [0.032]         [0.036]        [0.047]
Man reporting about woman     -0.066***                -0.031            -0.024          -0.048*         -0.027           -0.04         -0.025
                                 [0.024]              [0.024]           [0.024]           [0.025]       [0.027]         [0.034]        [0.024]
Interaction between
treatment & man reporting         -0.043            -0.074**          -0.084**             -0.043      -0.082**          -0.069       -0.083**
                                 [0.030]              [0.033]           [0.034]           [0.042]        [0.038]        [0.044]         [0.040]
Number of households
within radius                                                                                             0.002           0.002              0
                                                                                                        [0.003]         [0.002]        [0.001]
Mean dependent variable             0.91                 0.91               0.91            0.94           0.07            0.08           0.07
N.obs                               2825                 2825               2454             672           2408            2349           2289
R-Sq                               0.068                0.067              0.072            0.12          0.905           0.903          0.901
                           Table 9: Contestation and Information
                                                                        Spillovers within Clusters
                                                                                                              Control
                                                                                                           households in
                                                                           Treated households           treated clusters vs
                                                  Treated clusters vs         only vs control              households in
                                                    control clusters             clusters                 control clusters
                                                         TN-CN                     T-CN                       CTN-CN
Panel A: Herfindahl for the Share of Votes Obtained by the Major Political Parties (Contestation I)

Treatment                                                        -0.117                        -0.114                  -0.151
                                                                [0.121]                       [0.116]                 [0.125]
Contestation I                                                  -0.615*                     -0.654**                   -0.477
                                                                [0.337]                       [0.327]                 [0.313]
Treated Woman X Contestation I                                   0.657*                        0.654*                0.732**
                                                                [0.357]                       [0.346]                 [0.340]
R-Sq                                                                0.19                          0.2                    0.23
Panel B: Share of Votes Obtained by PML-F (Contestation II)
Treatment                                                         -0.065                      -0.058                   -0.109
                                                                 [0.084]                     [0.082]                  [0.075]
Contestation II                                                   -1.449                      -1.438                   -1.445
                                                                 [1.146]                     [1.110]                  [1.135]
Treated Woman X Contestation II                                   2.102*                      2.058*                 2.285**
                                                                 [1.125]                     [1.090]                  [0.995]
R-Sq                                                               0.22                         0.23                     0.25
Mean Dependent Variable                                            0.59                         0.58                     0.56
N.obs                                                              2637                         2304                      767
Note: Si gni fi cantl y di fferent from zero at 99 (***), 95 (**), and 90 (*) percent confi dence. Robust standard errors i n
parentheses are cl ustered at the geographi c cl uster l evel .
                                    Summing up
• Substantial peer effects
    – Accounting for spillovers, the information campaign increased turnout among
      sample women by about 12 % (little more than an additional female vote for every
      10 women (or about 4 households treated)
    – The polling station level effects are much larger. For every 10 women treated, there
      are almost 7 additional votes
• Information campaigns appear to be an effective way of reaching poor rural
  women
    – I additional vote cost about 103 Rs. (or 1.51 US$)
    – Some evidence that voting is habit forming, so sustained impacts from a single
      intervention are plausible
• Information campaigns can affect not just turnout but also independence in
  candidate choice
–      Men in treated households have significantly less knowledge about women’s candidate choice

• Information on electoral rights may be more valuable where differences in
  preferences over candidates are larger
    – The information campaign increased turnout in more contested areas, and in areas
      where PML-F had a significant vote share, although both tended to depress turnout
      among sample women
Typical village
Typical street
Communication is easy …
Communication is easy …
Visual Aids for Treatments
Visual Aids for Presentation
Visual Aids for Presentation
Visual Aids for Presentation
Visual Aids for Presentation
Visual Aids for Presentation
Visual Aids for Presentation – Secrecy of
                  Ballot
Visual Aids for Presentation
Visual Aids for Presentation
Visual Aids for Presentation
Appendix Tables




                  46
                                         Table A2: Intervention check


                                                                              C with at C with at
                                                                              least 1 T least 1 T C with no C with no
                                                                               within within T within T within
                                         N. Obs    All     T     T1     T2      75m       100m      75m       100m
                                            1       2      3      4      5        6         7          8         9
Visit before elections (1=Yes)            2505    0.71   1.00   1.00   1.00     0.00       0.00      0.00      0.00
Neighbors joined during visit (1=Yes)     1862    0.11   0.11   0.08   0.15     0.10       0.10      0.00      0.00
Neighbor talked to woman (1=Yes)          2505    0.44   0.55   0.50   0.62     0.29       0.25      0.04      0.03
Issues raised
           Importance of voting           1867    0.64   0.64   0.98   0.19     0.58      0.58      0.20      0.00
           Importance of secret voting    1867    0.06   0.06   0.02   0.12     0.04      0.04      0.00      0.00
           Both                           1867    0.30   0.30   0.01   0.69     0.38      0.38      0.80      1.00




                                                                                                                47
Table A3: Gender Differences in Radio and TV Access and Exposure
                             to News
                                  N. Obs Mean Dependant Variable              P-value
                                           Female        Male
 Access to Radio                    1923       0.469             0.417          0.061
 Number of hours of radio
 listened to in an average          852        9.739             9.633          0.867
 Access to TV                       1923       0.668             0.629          0.103
 Number of hours of TV
 watched in an average week         1222       15.294           11.033          0.000
 Access to cable TV                 1951        0.289           0.224           0.004
 Listen to BBCTV channels for
 Watch cable for world news         847         0.095           0.483           0.000
 national news                      492         0.19             0.272          0.095
 Note: P-values are from regressions with standard errors clustered at the geographic
 cluster level.




                                                                                        48
 Table A4: Gender Differences in Knowledge about Current Political
               Issues and the Results of the Election

                                                                                               N. Obs    Mean Dependant    P-value
                                                                                                            Variable
Respondent…                                                                                              Female    Male

Does not know the meaning of democracy                                                            1923     0.972   0.694             0
Was aware of the imposition of emergency and the position of parties position on the              1951     0.058   0.822             0
removal of judges
Able to identify political party signs correctly (proportion identifed-national assembly)         1951     0.283   0.406             0
Able to identify political party names correctly (proportion identifed-national assembly)         1951     0.858   0.934             0
Able to identify political party signs correctly (proportion identifed-provincial assembly)       1951      0.28   0.412             0
Able to identify political party names correctly (proportion identifed-provincial assembly)       1951     0.849   0.929             0

Knows the gender of main candidates (national assembly)                                           1951     0.948   0.957      0.483
Recalled the names of the candidates correctly (proportion identified-national assembly)          1951     0.823    0.84      0.488
Knows the gender of main candidates (provincial assembly)                                         1951     0.952   0.951      0.967
Recalled the names of the candidates correctly (proportion identified-provincial assembly)        1951     0.818   0.836      0.519

Able to recall the winning party (national assembly)                                              1951     0.964   0.944      0.093
Able to recall the winning candidate (national assembly)                                          1951     0.902   0.924      0.219
Able to recall the winning party (provincial assembly)                                            1951      0.96   0.949      0.318
Able to recall the winning candidate (provincial assembly)                                        1951     0.909   0.934      0.119
Note: P-values are from regressions with standard errors clustered at the geographic cluster level.
                                                                                                                             49
Table A5: Gender Differences in Participation in Village Political
                      and Social Events

                                                                         N. Obs      Mean Dependant Variable         P-value
                                                                                      Female        Male
  Attend community meetings                                               1921         0.179        0.52              0.000
  Get together to raise issues                                            1921         0.243        0.506             0.000
  Attend demonstrations                                                   1921         0.121        0.233             0.000
  Take action
    to rectify election official missing name in voter list               1921           0.762              0.924     0.000
                  if police arrest family member wrongly                  1921           0.929              0.98      0.000
                            if someone seized family land                 1921           0.924              0.982     0.000
  Index of community action taken                                         1921          -0.292              0.686     0.000
  Contact local councilor                                                 1921           0.252              0.372     0.000
  Contact a local political party official                                1921           0.224              0.378     0.000
  Index of contacting formal authority                                    1921          -0.102              0.336     0.000
  Contact religious leader                                                1921            0.66               0.49     0.000
  Contact traditional ruler                                               1921           0.445               0.32     0.000
  Index of contacting informal authority                                  1921           0.124              -0.303    0.000
  Note: p va l ues were ca l cul a ted from regres s i ons tha t were cl us tered a t the nei ghborhood l evel .



                                                                                                                               50
         Table A6: Treatment Check for Measures of Political
               Contestation at the Polling Station Level

                                                             Contestation-I                    Contestation-II
                                                            (1)           (2)                (3)           (4)
Number of Treated Women                                      0              0                 0             0
                                                              [0.001]       [0.001]           [0.001]         [0.001]
Percentage of Women with Access to Cable TV                                   0.211                            -0.114
                                                                            [0.146]                           [0.177]
SD of Asset Index                                                            0.268*                             0.176
                                                                            [0.127]                           [0.155]
SD of Distance to the Polling Station                                        0.141*                             0.009
                                                                            [0.073]                           [0.089]
Number of Women Registered to Vote                                  0             0                 0               0
                                                              [0.000]       [0.000]           [0.000]         [0.000]
Constant                                                    0.327***         -0.329             0.051          -0.217
                                                              [0.111]       [0.255]           [0.109]         [0.310]
Observations                                                       21            21                21              21
R-squared                                                        0.01          0.38              0.04            0.18
Note: The dependent variable is the Herfindahl on the share of votes obtained by the two major political parties, in the
first two specifications; and is the share of votes obtained by PML-F in the last two specifications. Significantly
different from zero at 99 (***), 95 (**), and 90 (*) percent confidence. Robust standard errors in parentheses.
           Table A7: Contestation and Voter Turnout


                                                 All        Low contestationHigh contestation
Panel A: Polling Station Turnout
Total votes cast                                4501               2051                2450
As percentage of registered voters              76.6               88.2                68.7
For PPP                                          66.4              81.8                53.6
For PML                                          32.1              17.1                44.7
Others                                           1.4                1.1                 1.7

Panel B: Sample Turnout
Total votes cast                                1543               831                 712
As a percentage of women with NIC               84.0               89.0                78.8
For PPP                                         73.68              91.53              57.34
For PML                                         26.23              8.47               42.5
Note: Sample turnout rates (in Panel B) are calculated over women who could be verified as having
voted.




                                                                                                    52
   Table A8: Impact of Contestation on Women's Participation and
                         Candidate Choice
                                                          All                       High Contestation                   Low Contestation
Percentage of women who…                       T           C       p-value        T         C      p-value            T        C      p-value

Voted for the same party as head             44.7        44.3       0.92         46.9       44.3        0.73        42.7        44.3       0.91
Voted for different party from head          10.1         5.1     0.01***        14.8        8.0      0.01***        6.0         2.9       0.13
Voted but head did not                        6.1         5.0       0.62          8.2        6.5        0.65         4.3         3.9       0.81
Did not vote                                 38.6        45.1       0.07*        29.6       41.2       0.03**       46.4        47.9       0.56

                                              TN          CN       p-value       TN          CN       p-value        TN          CN      p-value

Voted for the same party as head             45.1        41.7        0.37        47.6       38.1      0.04**        42.9        44.2       0.86
Voted for different party from head           9.8         2.8      0.01***       14.3        5.1      0.02**         5.9         1.2      0.02**
Voted but head did not                        6.2         3.7        0.19         8.4        4.0        0.25         4.3         3.5       0.81
Did not vote                                 38.4        50.9      0.01***       29.3       52.8      0.00***       46.3        49.6       0.33

                                               T          CN       p-value        T          CN       p-value         T          CN      p-value

Voted for the same party as head             44.6        41.7         0.5        46.9       38.1       0.07*        42.7        44.2       0.87
Voted for different party from head          10.1         2.8      0.01***       14.8        5.1      0.01***         6          1.2      0.03**
Voted but head did not                        6.1         3.7        0.22         8.2         4        0.09*         4.3         3.5       0.98
Did not vote                                 38.6        50.9      0.01***       29.6       52.9      0.00***       46.4        49.6       0.32

                                              C TN        CN       p-value       C TN        CN       p-value       C TN         CN      p-value

Voted for the same party as head             47.8        41.7       0.08*        51.7       45.4        0.23        44.6        43         0.63
Voted for different party from head           8.1         2.8        0.14        11.4       13.2        0.45         5.4         5         0.98
Voted but head did not                        6.6         3.7        0.16         9.4        7.5        0.66         4.4        4.1        0.55
Did not vote                                 37.5        50.9      0.00***       27.5       33.5        0.09*       45.7        47         0.62
Note: P-values are from regressions with village fixed effects, woman characteristics as controls and robust standard errors clustered at the
geographic cluster level. Significantly different from zero at 99 (***), 95 (**), and 90 (*) percent confidence.                                   53
Table A9: Contestation & Women's Reports Regarding Election Day
                                                        Contestation I                                          Contestation II
                                                                              Woman                                                  Woman
                                                        Village          Witnessed/Heard                         Village        Witnessed/Heard
                                  Election was       Environment          Acts of Violence    Election was    Environment        Acts of Violence
                                      Fair             was Safe         In/Near the Village       Fair          was Safe       In/Near the Village
                                       (1)                (2)                    (3)               (4)             (5)                  (6)
Panel A: T-C (Treatment vs Control Households)
Treatment                                 0.065                0.063                 -0.151            0.03            0.016                 -0.067
                                        [0.043]              [0.058]                [0.099]         [0.036]          [0.061]                [0.060]
Contestation                             -0.128              -0.362*                  0.149          -0.198        -0.386**                   0.203
                                        [0.107]              [0.185]                [0.222]         [0.134]          [0.161]                [0.173]
Treated Woman X Contestation               -0.038             -0.164                  0.298            0.19            0.025                   0.11
                                          [0.134]            [0.232]                [0.253]         [0.141]          [0.189]                [0.186]
Mean Dependent Variable                      0.88               0.82                   0.24            0.88             0.82                   0.24
N.obs                                        2637               2637                   2637            2637             2637                   2637
R-Sq                                         0.01               0.05                   0.02            0.01             0.03                   0.02
Panel B: TN- C N (Treatment Clusters vs Control Clusters)
Treatment                                    0.05              0.087                 -0.203          -0.027           -0.079                  -0.01
                                          [0.063]            [0.095]                [0.133]         [0.041]          [0.066]                [0.094]
Contestation                               -0.185             -0.397                   0.11       -1.502**         -2.901**                1.981**
                                          [0.183]            [0.328]                [0.303]         [0.685]          [1.146]                [0.822]
Treated Woman X Contestation                  0.035            -0.104                 0.313        1.472**          2.545**               -1.681**
                                            [0.200]           [0.371]               [0.347]         [0.688]          [1.156]                [0.836]
Mean Dependent Variable                        0.88              0.82                  0.24            0.88             0.82                   0.24
N.obs                                          2637              2637                  2637            2637             2637                   2637
R-Sq                                           0.01              0.05                  0.03            0.02             0.05                   0.03
Panel C: T-CN (Treated Households vs Control Clusters)
Treatment                                     0.061             0.089                -0.208          -0.026           -0.085                  -0.01
                                            [0.064]           [0.096]               [0.133]         [0.042]          [0.070]                [0.096]
Contestation                                 -0.185            -0.397                  0.11       -1.502**         -2.901**                1.981**
                                            [0.183]           [0.328]               [0.303]         [0.685]          [1.146]                [0.822]
Treated Woman X Contestation                  0.019            -0.129                 0.337        1.494**          2.540**                -1.668*
                                            [0.204]           [0.376]               [0.349]         [0.688]          [1.159]                [0.837]
Mean Dependent Variable                        0.89              0.81                  0.25            0.89             0.81                   0.25
N.obs                                          2304              2304                  2304            2304             2304                   2304
R-Sq                                           0.01              0.05                  0.03            0.02             0.05                   0.03
Panel D: C TN- C N (Controls in Treated Clusters vs Control Clusters)
Treatment                                    -0.013             0.072                -0.163          -0.032           -0.042                 -0.014
                                            [0.074]           [0.094]               [0.143]         [0.049]          [0.054]                [0.094]
Contestation                                 -0.185            -0.396                  0.11       -1.502**         -2.901**                1.981**
                                            [0.184]           [0.328]               [0.303]         [0.686]          [1.147]                [0.823]
Treated Woman X Contestation                  0.136             0.045                 0.165          1.347*         2.572**               -1.757**
                                            [0.219]           [0.361]               [0.358]         [0.699]          [1.155]                [0.839]
Mean Dependent Variable                        0.85              0.82                  0.27            0.85             0.82                   0.27
N.obs                                           767               767                   767             767              767                54 767
R-Sq                                           0.01              0.04                  0.44            0.03             0.11                   0.05
               Table A10: Impact of treatment on women's voting report



                                                                         All                          High Contestation                   Low Contestation
Panel A: Treatment vs Control Households                      T           C        p-value        T           C       p-value         T          C        p-value

Self reports voting but verified as not voted               27.16       28.81       0.48        24.22       31.58       0.24       30.48       26.52        0.77
Self reports not voting but verified as voted               38.62       37.46       0.29        32.05       28.89      0.04**      42.27       42.92        0.84
Panel B: Treatment Clusters vs Control Clusters              TN          CN        p-value       TN          CN    p-value  TN                  CN        p-value
Self reports voting but verified as not voted               26.61       33.96       0.21        23.64       46.34 0.04** 29.94                 26.15        0.84
Self reports not voting but verified as voted                38         39.19       0.30         32         27.66 0.003*** 41.27               47.66        0.72
Panel C: Treated Households vs Control Clusters               T          CN        p-value        T          CN    p-value   T                  CN        p-value
Self reports voting but verified as not voted               27.16       33.96       0.18        24.22       46.34 0.03** 30.48                 26.15        0.90
Self reports not voting but verified as voted               38.62       39.19       0.32        32.05       27.66 0.006*** 42.27               47.66        0.69
Note: P-values are from regressions with village fixed effects, woman characteristics as controls and robust standard errors clustered at the geographic cluster
level. Significantly different from zero at 99 (***), 95 (**), and 90 (*) percent confidence.




                                                                                                                                                          55
           Table A11: Effect of the Information Campaign by Woman Characteristics
                                                                     Voting
                                                     Mobility                     Literacy      Access to TV
Woman Characteristic (WC)                                            History
                                                        (1)            (2)          (3)             (4)
Panel A: TN- C N (Treatment Clusters vs Control Clusters)
TN                                                     0.426***           0.017         0.085               0.056
                                                         [0.123]        [0.111]       [0.091]             [0.113]
WC                                                     0.189***            0.16         0.028               0.064
                                                         [0.056]        [0.106]       [0.081]             [0.075]
Interaction between TN x WC                            -0.161**           0.091         0.034               0.042
                                                         [0.064]        [0.117]       [0.089]             [0.086]
Mean dependent variable                                     0.59           0.59          0.59                0.59
Observations                                                2637           2637          2637                2637
R-squared                                                   0.12           0.15          0.11                0.12
Panel B: T- C N (Treated Households vs Control Clusters)
Treatment excluding controls in treated
neighborhoods                                          0.399***           0.021         0.086               0.054
                                                         [0.122]        [0.110]       [0.089]             [0.111]
Variable                                               0.187***           0.162         0.019               0.062
                                                         [0.055]        [0.105]       [0.079]             [0.071]
Interaction (Treatment excluding contaminated
controls x Variable)                                    -0.148**          0.086         0.034               0.045
                                                          [0.064]       [0.117]       [0.088]             [0.084]
Mean dependent variable                                      0.58          0.58          0.58                0.58
Observations                                                 2304          2304          2304                2304
R-squared                                                    0.13          0.15          0.12                0.12
Panel c: CTN-CN (Controls in Treated Clusters vs Control Clusters)
Controls in treatment neighborhood                     0.153***          -0.016         0.093               0.063
                                                         [0.053]        [0.098]       [0.066]             [0.087]
Variable                                               0.470***          0.186*         0.034               0.065
                                                         [0.150]        [0.099]       [0.057]             [0.052]
Interaction (Controls in treated neighborhood x
Variable)                                               -0.173**          0.164           0.1               0.062
                                                          [0.077]       [0.123]       [0.102]             [0.092]
Mean dependent variable                                      0.56          0.56          0.56                0.56
Observations                                                  767           767           767                 76756
R-squared                                                    0.17          0.19          0.15                0.15
          Table A12: Effect of the Information Campaign on Behavior



                                                    Female  Female Woman checked       Woman        Woman thinks
                                                  knowledge opinion voter list after expresses      election was
                                            N. Obs index     index   intervention political opinion     fair

 Treatment vs control households (T-C)      2637     0.024    0.174**       0.033         0.027        0.057**
                                                    [0.059]   [0.085]      [0.024]       [0.020]       [0.025]
Treated clusters vs control clusters (TN-CN) 2637    0.005    0.203**      0.051*         0.005        0.070**
                                                    [0.072]   [0.092]      [0.030]       [0.025]       [0.034]
   Treated households only vs control
             clusters (T-CN)                2304     0.012    0.212**      0.053*         0.011        0.075**
                                                    [0.070]   [0.097]      [0.031]       [0.024]       [0.033]
Control households in treated clusters vs
     households in control clusters          767    -0.025      0.167       0.048        -0.036         0.06
                                                    [0.094]    [0.116]     [0.035]       [0.036]       [0.037]
Mean dependent variable (CTN-CN)                       0          0         0.61          0.23          0.88


                                                                                                            57

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:13
posted:8/18/2012
language:
pages:57