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
HH visits and
Pre-Election
Survey
Feb 18
Feb 18-19
National
Elections
Voting
Verification
March 5-25
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
Comparison:
Panel A: Household Characteristics
Household size
Number of women in the household (*)
Asset index
Total owned land (in acres)
Average monthly expenditure
House quality index
Distance to polling station (Km)
Low Zaat status
N. Obs
Treatment vs
control
households
T-C
(1)
Treatment 1 vs
control
households
T1-C
(2)
Treatment 2 vs
control
households
T2-C
(3)
Control
households in
Treated
treated clusters
Treated clusters households only vs households in
vs control clusters vs control clusters control clusters
TN-CN
T-CN
CTN-CN
(4)
(5)
(6)
0.271
[0.337]
0.099
[0.103]
0.014
[0.131]
0.954**
[0.403]
475.107
[400.192]
-0.031
[0.099]
-0.033
[0.080]
0.027
[0.059]
0.247
[0.338]
0.072
[0.108]
0.08
[0.158]
0.973*
[0.513]
235.091
[377.321]
-0.058
[0.119]
-0.056
[0.089]
-0.002
[0.067]
-0.002
[0.365]
0.019
[0.112]
-0.077
[0.187]
-0.137
[0.515]
220.944
[366.025]
0.034
[0.120]
0.03
[0.109]
0.03
[0.733]
0.533
[0.421]
0.01
[0.150]
-0.042
[0.199]
0.783
[0.515]
325.878
[569.725]
-0.171
[0.124]
0.137
[0.135]
0.063
[0.099]
0.519
[0.397]
0.11
[0.138]
-0.031
[0.193]
0.939*
[0.536]
414.563
[591.562]
-0.152
[0.123]
0.102
[0.126]
0.061
[0.097]
0.598
[0.597]
0.03
[0.173]
-0.099
[0.207]
-0.004
[0.391]
-140.57
[486.687]
-0.286**
[0.136]
0.318*
[0.165]
0.087
[0.069]
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 preelection visit. Variables are defined in Table A1 in the Appendix.
14
Woman Characteristics by Treatment Status
Comparison:
Panel B: Woman Characteristics
Age
Woman has some schooling (1=yes)
Woman is married (1=yes)
Number of children under 5 years old
Woman has a NIC or CNIC (1=yes)
Voted last year (1=yes) (*)
Access to radio (1=yes)
Access to TV (1=yes)
Access to cable (1=yes)
Allowed to move outside settlement (0 to 3)
Woman allowed to join a NGO (1=yes)
MRDO membership (*)
Get advice from the Pir
N. Obs
Treatment vs
control
households
T-C
(1)
Treatment 1 vs
control
households
T1-C
(2)
Treatment 2 vs
control
households
T2-C
(3)
Control
households in
Treated
treated clusters
Treated clusters households only vs households in
vs control clusters vs control clusters control clusters
TN-CN
T-CN
CTN-CN
(4)
(5)
(6)
-0.763
[0.516]
0.008
[0.019]
-0.009
[0.015]
0.087*
[0.046]
0.028
[0.026]
0.021
[0.023]
0.012
[0.033]
0.022
[0.034]
-0.059
[0.043]
0.033
[0.043]
-0.004
[0.026]
-0.004
[0.025]
-0.052
[0.033]
-0.506
[0.539]
-0.016
[0.022]
-0.023
[0.017]
0.099*
[0.054]
0.002
[0.030]
-0.022
[0.028]
0.037
[0.031]
0.044
[0.033]
-0.036
[0.049]
0.051
[0.035]
0.016
[0.025]
0.035
[0.029]
0.012
[0.041]
-0.17
[0.565]
0.026
[0.021]
0.018
[0.019]
-0.028
[0.061]
0.025
[0.024]
0.045*
[0.026]
-0.03
[0.034]
-0.028
[0.042]
-0.016
[0.051]
-0.025
[0.041]
-0.022
[0.027]
-0.044
[0.034]
-0.063
[0.044]
-1.410**
[0.627]
0.015
[0.031]
-0.017
[0.015]
0.147***
[0.050]
0.049
[0.035]
0.036
[0.030]
-0.014
[0.045]
0.026
[0.053]
-0.118*
[0.066]
0.028
[0.043]
-0.022
[0.032]
0.03
[0.036]
-0.057
[0.048]
-1.392**
[0.638]
0.016
[0.029]
-0.017
[0.015]
0.150***
[0.048]
0.048
[0.035]
0.036
[0.030]
-0.008
[0.046]
0.028
[0.053]
-0.116*
[0.065]
0.033
[0.041]
-0.019
[0.033]
0.023
[0.035]
-0.062
[0.049]
-1.478**
[0.700]
0.018
[0.037]
-0.017
[0.022]
0.139*
[0.083]
0.048
[0.032]
0.036
[0.033]
-0.046
[0.045]
0.028
[0.053]
-0.116**
[0.051]
0.009
[0.046]
-0.031
[0.037]
0.073
[0.044]
-0.042
[0.053]
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 preelection 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
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
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 A: Household Characteristics
Panel B: Woman Characteristics
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)
High Contestation (dummy=1 if contestation index above median)
21
21
0.37
0.48
0.18
0.51
0.18
0
0.43
0
0.43
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
Comparison:
Treatment vs
control
households
T-C
Treated
Treated
clusters vs
households
control only vs control
clusters
clusters
TN-CN
T-CN
Control
households in
treated
clusters vs
households in
control
clusters
CTN-CN
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
0.06
[0.045]
0.118
[0.073]
0.120*
[0.071]
0.121*
[0.062]
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.21
0.034
[0.052]
0.093*
[0.048]
0.095
[0.077]
0.145*
[0.077]
0.094
[0.075]
0.152**
[0.074]
0.109
[0.070]
0.135*
[0.079]
R-squared
Observations
Mean dependent variable
0.18
2637
0.59
0.19
2637
0.59
0.2
2304
0.58
0.21
767
0.56
P-value (T1 = T2)
P-value (F-test for joint significance of T1 & T2)
0.22
0.15
0.31
0.16
0.23
0.11
0.75
0.15
Panel A: Treatment
Treatment (T)
R-squared
Panel B: T1 vs T2
Importance of voting (T1)
Importance of voting & secret balloting (T2)
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
Panel A: Treatment
Treatment (T)
Number of households within radius
R-squared
Panel B: T1 vs T2
Importance of voting (T1)
Importance of voting & secret balloting (T2)
Number of households within radius
R-squared
Observations
Mean dependent variable
P-value (T1 = T2)
P-value (F-test for joint significance of T1 & T2)
75m
(1)
100m
(2)
200m
(3)
0.127*
[0.065]
0.005
[0.004]
0.2
0.158**
[0.074]
0.005*
[0.003]
0.21
0.131*
[0.078]
0.003*
[0.002]
0.21
0.103
0.137*
0.112
[0.070]
0.156**
[0.079]
0.183**
[0.082]
0.155*
[0.067]
0.005
[0.004]
0.2
2207
0.58
[0.075]
0.005
[0.003]
0.21
2128
0.58
[0.079]
0.003*
[0.002]
0.21
2049
0.58
0.25
0.06
0.31
0.05
0.33
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)
Number of treated households within 0-200 radius
Number of treated households within 200-400 radius
Number of treated households within 400-600 radius
Number of treated households within 600-800 radius
Number of treated households within 800-1000 radius
Number of treated households within 1000-1,200 radius
Number of households within 0-200 radius
Number of households within 200-400 radius
Number of households within 400-600 radius
Number of households within 600-800 radius
Number of households within 800-1000 radius
Number of households within 1000-1,200 radius
R-squared
Mean dependent variable
Observations
0.027
[0.031]
0.017***
[0.004]
0.022***
[0.004]
0.017***
[0.005]
0.008
[0.006]
0.008
[0.008]
0.004
[0.007]
-0.008***
[0.003]
-0.012***
[0.003]
-0.013***
[0.004]
-0.004
[0.004]
-0.008
[0.005]
0.001
0.23
0.59
2637
22
Table 6: Spillover Effects via Friendship
Treatment
Treatment controlling for the
characteristics of sample women
N. obs
Mean dependent variable
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
0.107
0.104
0.124*
[0.078]
[0.075]
[0.070]
0.12
[0.075]
797
0.6
0.117
[0.071]
692
0.6
0.124*
[0.068]
245
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
treated
treated
sample
control clusters
Treatment
-0.026
-0.022
-0.022
-0.011
[0.024]
[0.030]
[0.030]
[0.026]
Man reporting about woman
-0.066***
-0.031
-0.024
-0.048*
[0.024]
[0.024]
[0.024]
[0.025]
Interaction between
treatment & man reporting
-0.043
-0.074**
-0.084**
-0.043
[0.030]
[0.033]
[0.034]
[0.042]
Number of households
within radius
Mean dependent variable
N.obs
R-Sq
0.91
2825
0.068
0.91
2825
0.067
0.91
2454
0.072
0.94
672
0.12
75 Meter
Radius
100 Meter
Radius
200 Meter
Radius
-0.011
[0.032]
-0.027
[0.027]
0.012
[0.036]
-0.04
[0.034]
0.019
[0.047]
-0.025
[0.024]
-0.082**
[0.038]
-0.069
[0.044]
-0.083**
[0.040]
0.002
[0.003]
0.07
2408
0.905
0.002
[0.002]
0.08
2349
0.903
0
[0.001]
0.07
2289
0.901
Table 9: Contestation and Information
Spillovers within Clusters
Treated clusters vs
control clusters
TN-CN
Treated households
only vs control
clusters
T-CN
Control
households in
treated clusters vs
households in
control clusters
CTN-CN
Panel A: Herfindahl for the Share of Votes Obtained by the Major Political Parties (Contestation I)
Treatment
Contestation I
Treated Woman X Contestation I
R-Sq
-0.117
[0.121]
-0.615*
[0.337]
0.657*
[0.357]
-0.114
[0.116]
-0.654**
[0.327]
0.654*
[0.346]
-0.151
[0.125]
-0.477
[0.313]
0.732**
[0.340]
0.19
0.2
0.23
-0.065
[0.084]
-1.449
[1.146]
-0.058
[0.082]
-1.438
[1.110]
-0.109
[0.075]
-1.445
[1.135]
2.102*
[1.125]
2.058*
[1.090]
2.285**
[0.995]
0.22
0.59
2637
0.23
0.58
2304
0.25
0.56
767
Panel B: Share of Votes Obtained by PML-F (Contestation II)
Treatment
Contestation II
Treated Woman X Contestation II
R-Sq
Mean Dependent Variable
N.obs
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
Visit before elections (1=Yes)
Neighbors joined during visit (1=Yes)
Neighbor talked to woman (1=Yes)
Issues raised
Importance of voting
Importance of secret voting
Both
N. Obs
1
2505
1862
2505
All
2
0.71
0.11
0.44
T
3
1.00
0.11
0.55
T1
4
1.00
0.08
0.50
T2
5
1.00
0.15
0.62
1867
1867
1867
0.64
0.06
0.30
0.64
0.06
0.30
0.98
0.02
0.01
0.19
0.12
0.69
C with at C with at
least 1 T least 1 T C with no C with no
within within T within T within
75m
100m
75m
100m
6
7
8
9
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.25
0.04
0.03
0.58
0.04
0.38
0.58
0.04
0.38
0.20
0.00
0.80
0.00
0.00
1.00
47
Table A3: Gender Differences in Radio and TV Access and Exposure
to News
N. Obs Mean Dependant Variable
Female
Male
Access to Radio
Number of hours of radio
listened to in an average
Access to TV
Number of hours of TV
watched in an average week
Access to cable TV
Listen
BBCTV
forchannels
world news
Watch to
cable
for
national news
P-value
1923
0.469
0.417
0.061
852
1923
9.739
0.668
9.633
0.629
0.867
0.103
1222
1951
847
15.294
0.289
0.095
11.033
0.224
0.483
0.000
0.004
0.000
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
Respondent…
Mean Dependant
Variable
Female
Male
P-value
Does not know the meaning of democracy
Was aware of the imposition of emergency and the position of parties position on the
removal of judges
Able to identify political party signs correctly (proportion identifed-national assembly)
Able to identify political party names correctly (proportion identifed-national assembly)
Able to identify political party signs correctly (proportion identifed-provincial assembly)
Able to identify political party names correctly (proportion identifed-provincial assembly)
1923
1951
0.972
0.058
0.694
0.822
0
0
1951
1951
1951
1951
0.283
0.858
0.28
0.849
0.406
0.934
0.412
0.929
0
0
0
0
Knows the gender of main candidates (national assembly)
Recalled the names of the candidates correctly (proportion identified-national assembly)
Knows the gender of main candidates (provincial assembly)
Recalled the names of the candidates correctly (proportion identified-provincial assembly)
1951
1951
1951
1951
0.948
0.823
0.952
0.818
0.957
0.84
0.951
0.836
0.483
0.488
0.967
0.519
Able to recall the winning party (national assembly)
Able to recall the winning candidate (national assembly)
Able to recall the winning party (provincial assembly)
Able to recall the winning candidate (provincial assembly)
1951
1951
1951
1951
0.964
0.902
0.96
0.909
0.944
0.924
0.949
0.934
0.093
0.219
0.318
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
Female
Male
0.179
0.52
0.243
0.506
0.121
0.233
P-value
Attend community meetings
Get together to raise issues
Attend demonstrations
Take action
to rectify election official missing name in voter list
if police arrest family member wrongly
if someone seized family land
1921
1921
1921
1921
1921
1921
0.762
0.929
0.924
0.924
0.98
0.982
0.000
0.000
0.000
Index of community action taken
1921
-0.292
0.686
0.000
Contact local councilor
Contact a local political party official
1921
1921
0.252
0.224
0.372
0.378
0.000
0.000
Index of contacting formal authority
1921
-0.102
0.336
0.000
Contact religious leader
Contact traditional ruler
1921
1921
0.66
0.445
0.49
0.32
0.000
0.000
Index of contacting informal authority
1921
0.124
-0.303
0.000
0.000
0.000
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
Number of Treated Women
Percentage of Women with Access to Cable TV
SD of Asset Index
SD of Distance to the Polling Station
Number of Women Registered to Vote
Constant
Observations
R-squared
Contestation-I
(1)
(2)
0
0
[0.001]
[0.001]
0.211
[0.146]
0.268*
[0.127]
0.141*
[0.073]
0
0
[0.000]
[0.000]
0.327***
-0.329
[0.111]
[0.255]
21
21
0.01
0.38
Contestation-II
(3)
(4)
0
0
[0.001]
[0.001]
-0.114
[0.177]
0.176
[0.155]
0.009
[0.089]
0
0
[0.000]
[0.000]
0.051
-0.217
[0.109]
[0.310]
21
21
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
As percentage of registered voters
4501
76.6
2051
88.2
2450
68.7
For PPP
For PML
Others
66.4
32.1
1.4
81.8
17.1
1.1
53.6
44.7
1.7
Panel B: Sample Turnout
Total votes cast
As a percentage of women with NIC
1543
84.0
831
89.0
712
78.8
For PPP
For PML
73.68
26.23
91.53
8.47
57.34
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
Percentage of women who…
Voted for the same party as head
Voted for different party from head
Voted but head did not
Did not vote
Voted for the same party as head
Voted for different party from head
Voted but head did not
Did not vote
Voted for the same party as head
Voted for different party from head
Voted but head did not
Did not vote
Voted for the same party as head
Voted for different party from head
Voted but head did not
Did not vote
T
All
C
44.7
10.1
6.1
38.6
44.3
5.1
5.0
45.1
0.92
0.01***
0.62
TN
p-value
High Contestation
T
C
p-value
44.3
8.0
6.5
41.2
0.73
0.01***
0.65
0.07*
46.9
14.8
8.2
29.6
CN
p-value
TN
45.1
9.8
6.2
38.4
41.7
2.8
3.7
50.9
0.37
0.01***
0.19
0.01***
T
CN
44.6
10.1
6.1
38.6
Low Contestation
T
C
p-value
44.3
2.9
3.9
47.9
0.91
0.13
0.81
0.03**
42.7
6.0
4.3
46.4
CN
p-value
TN
CN
p-value
47.6
14.3
8.4
29.3
38.1
5.1
4.0
52.8
0.04**
0.02**
0.25
0.00***
42.9
5.9
4.3
46.3
44.2
1.2
3.5
49.6
0.86
0.02**
0.81
0.33
p-value
T
CN
p-value
T
CN
p-value
41.7
2.8
3.7
50.9
0.5
0.01***
0.22
0.01***
46.9
14.8
8.2
29.6
38.1
5.1
4
52.9
0.07*
0.01***
0.09*
0.00***
42.7
6
4.3
46.4
44.2
1.2
3.5
49.6
0.87
0.03**
0.98
0.32
C TN
CN
p-value
C TN
CN
p-value
C TN
CN
p-value
47.8
8.1
6.6
37.5
41.7
2.8
3.7
50.9
0.08*
0.14
0.16
0.00***
51.7
11.4
9.4
27.5
45.4
13.2
7.5
33.5
0.23
0.45
0.66
0.09*
44.6
5.4
4.4
45.7
43
5
4.1
47
0.63
0.98
0.55
0.62
0.56
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
Election was
Fair
(1)
Panel A: T-C (Treatment vs Control Households)
Treatment
0.065
[0.043]
Contestation
-0.128
[0.107]
Village
Environment
was Safe
(2)
Contestation II
Woman
Witnessed/Heard
Acts of Violence
In/Near the Village
(3)
Election was
Fair
(4)
Village
Environment
was Safe
(5)
Woman
Witnessed/Heard
Acts of Violence
In/Near the Village
(6)
0.063
[0.058]
-0.362*
[0.185]
-0.151
[0.099]
0.149
[0.222]
0.03
[0.036]
-0.198
[0.134]
0.016
[0.061]
-0.386**
[0.161]
-0.067
[0.060]
0.203
[0.173]
-0.164
[0.232]
0.82
2637
0.05
0.298
[0.253]
0.24
2637
0.02
0.19
[0.141]
0.88
2637
0.01
0.025
[0.189]
0.82
2637
0.03
0.11
[0.186]
0.24
2637
0.02
0.087
[0.095]
-0.397
[0.328]
-0.203
[0.133]
0.11
[0.303]
-0.027
[0.041]
-1.502**
[0.685]
-0.079
[0.066]
-2.901**
[1.146]
-0.01
[0.094]
1.981**
[0.822]
0.035
-0.104
[0.200]
[0.371]
Mean Dependent Variable
0.88
0.82
N.obs
2637
2637
R-Sq
0.01
0.05
Panel C: T-CN (Treated Households vs Control Clusters)
Treatment
0.061
0.089
[0.064]
[0.096]
Contestation
-0.185
-0.397
[0.183]
[0.328]
Treated Woman X Contestation
0.019
-0.129
[0.204]
[0.376]
Mean Dependent Variable
0.89
0.81
N.obs
2304
2304
R-Sq
0.01
0.05
Panel D: C TN- C N (Controls in Treated Clusters vs Control Clusters)
Treatment
-0.013
0.072
[0.074]
[0.094]
Contestation
-0.185
-0.396
[0.184]
[0.328]
Treated Woman X Contestation
0.136
0.045
[0.219]
[0.361]
Mean Dependent Variable
0.85
0.82
N.obs
767
767
R-Sq
0.01
0.04
0.313
[0.347]
0.24
2637
0.03
1.472**
[0.688]
0.88
2637
0.02
2.545**
[1.156]
0.82
2637
0.05
-1.681**
[0.836]
0.24
2637
0.03
-0.208
[0.133]
0.11
[0.303]
0.337
[0.349]
0.25
2304
0.03
-0.026
[0.042]
-1.502**
[0.685]
1.494**
[0.688]
0.89
2304
0.02
-0.085
[0.070]
-2.901**
[1.146]
2.540**
[1.159]
0.81
2304
0.05
-0.01
[0.096]
1.981**
[0.822]
-1.668*
[0.837]
0.25
2304
0.03
-0.163
[0.143]
0.11
[0.303]
0.165
[0.358]
0.27
767
0.44
-0.032
[0.049]
-1.502**
[0.686]
1.347*
[0.699]
0.85
767
0.03
-0.042
[0.054]
-2.901**
[1.147]
2.572**
[1.155]
0.82
767
0.11
-0.014
[0.094]
1.981**
[0.823]
-1.757**
[0.839]
0.27
54 767
0.05
Treated Woman X Contestation
-0.038
[0.134]
Mean Dependent Variable
0.88
N.obs
2637
R-Sq
0.01
Panel B: TN- C N (Treatment Clusters vs Control Clusters)
Treatment
0.05
[0.063]
Contestation
-0.185
[0.183]
Treated Woman X Contestation
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
Self reports not voting but verified as voted
27.16
38.62
28.81
37.46
0.48
0.29
24.22
32.05
31.58
28.89
0.24
0.04**
30.48
42.27
26.52
42.92
0.77
0.84
Panel B: Treatment Clusters vs Control Clusters
Self reports voting but verified as not voted
Self reports not voting but verified as voted
TN
26.61
38
CN
33.96
39.19
p-value
TN
23.64
32
CN
p-value
TN
46.34 0.04** 29.94
27.66 0.003*** 41.27
CN
26.15
47.66
p-value
Panel C: Treated Households vs Control Clusters
Self reports voting but verified as not voted
Self reports not voting but verified as voted
T
27.16
38.62
CN
33.96
39.19
p-value
T
24.22
32.05
CN
p-value
T
46.34 0.03** 30.48
27.66 0.006*** 42.27
CN
26.15
47.66
p-value
0.21
0.30
0.18
0.32
0.84
0.72
0.90
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
Woman Characteristic (WC)
Mobility
(1)
Panel A: TN- C N (Treatment Clusters vs Control Clusters)
TN
WC
Interaction between TN x WC
Mean dependent variable
Observations
R-squared
0.426***
[0.123]
0.189***
[0.056]
-0.161**
[0.064]
0.59
2637
0.12
Voting
History
(2)
Literacy
Access to TV
(3)
(4)
0.017
[0.111]
0.16
[0.106]
0.091
[0.117]
0.59
2637
0.15
0.085
[0.091]
0.028
[0.081]
0.034
[0.089]
0.59
2637
0.11
0.056
[0.113]
0.064
[0.075]
0.042
[0.086]
0.59
2637
0.12
0.399***
[0.122]
0.187***
[0.055]
0.021
[0.110]
0.162
[0.105]
0.086
[0.089]
0.019
[0.079]
0.054
[0.111]
0.062
[0.071]
-0.148**
[0.064]
0.58
2304
0.13
0.086
[0.117]
0.58
2304
0.15
0.034
[0.088]
0.58
2304
0.12
0.045
[0.084]
0.58
2304
0.12
0.153***
[0.053]
0.470***
[0.150]
-0.016
[0.098]
0.186*
[0.099]
0.093
[0.066]
0.034
[0.057]
0.063
[0.087]
0.065
[0.052]
-0.173**
[0.077]
0.56
767
0.17
0.164
[0.123]
0.56
767
0.19
0.1
[0.102]
0.56
767
0.15
0.062
[0.092]
0.56
76756
0.15
Panel B: T- C N (Treated Households vs Control Clusters)
Treatment excluding controls in treated
neighborhoods
Variable
Interaction (Treatment excluding contaminated
controls x Variable)
Mean dependent variable
Observations
R-squared
Panel c: CTN-CN (Controls in Treated Clusters vs Control Clusters)
Controls in treatment neighborhood
Variable
Interaction (Controls in treated neighborhood x
Variable)
Mean dependent variable
Observations
R-squared
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
Treated clusters vs control clusters (TN-CN) 2637
0.024
[0.059]
0.005
[0.072]
0.174**
[0.085]
0.203**
[0.092]
0.033
[0.024]
0.051*
[0.030]
0.027
[0.020]
0.005
[0.025]
0.057**
[0.025]
0.070**
[0.034]
Treated households only vs control
clusters (T-CN)
2304
0.012
[0.070]
0.212**
[0.097]
0.053*
[0.031]
0.011
[0.024]
0.075**
[0.033]
Control households in treated clusters vs
households in control clusters
767
-0.025
[0.094]
0
0.167
[0.116]
0
0.048
[0.035]
0.61
-0.036
[0.036]
0.23
0.06
[0.037]
0.88
Mean dependent variable (CTN-CN)
57