Poor public service provision and government accountability is commonplace in low-income countries. Although mobile phone–based platforms have emerged to allow constituents to report service deficiencies to government officials, they have been plagued by low citizen participation. We question whether low participation may root in low political efficacy to politically participate. In the context of a text message–reporting platform in Uganda, we investigate the impact of adding efficacy-boosting language to mobilization texts—(a) citizen name personalization and (b) politician encouragement—on citizens’ willingness to report service deficiencies to politicians via text messages. Both treatments, designed to increase internal and external efficacy, respectively, have a large, positive effect on participation. The results are driven by traditionally less internally efficacious constituents (females) and less externally efficacious constituents (those represented by opposition party members), respectively.
AndrabiT.DasJ.KhwajaA. I. (2015). Report cards: The impact of providing school and child test scores on educational markets (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 7226). Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2610916
2.
ArceneauxK.NickersonD. W. (2009). Who is mobilized to vote? A re-analysis of 11 field experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 1-16.
3.
BalchG. I. (1974). Multiple indicators in survey research: The concept “sense of political efficacy.”Political Methodology, 1, 1-43.
4.
BaloyraE. A. (1979). Criticism, cynicism, and political evaluation: A Venezuelan example. American Political Science Review, 73, 987-1002.
5.
BanerjeeA. V.BanerjiR.DufloE.GlennersterR.KhemaniS. (2010). Pitfalls of participatory programs: Evidence from a randomized evaluation in education in India. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2, 1-30.
6.
BanerjeeA. V.ColeS.DufloE.LindenL. (2007). Remedying education: Evidence from two randomized experiments in India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122, 1235-1264.
7.
BarrA.PackardT.SerraD. (2014). Participatory accountability and collective action: Experimental evidence from Albania. European Economic Review, 68, 250-269.
8.
BjorkmanM.SvenssonJ. (2009). Power to the people: Evidence from a randomized field experiment on community-based monitoring in Uganda. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124, 735-769.
9.
BlairG.LittmanR.PaluckE. L. (2015). Inciting action against corruption in Nigeria. Unpublished manuscript.
10.
BlaschkeS.CarrollP.ChavesD. R.FindleyM.GleaveM.MorelloR.NielsonD. (2013, February). Extrinsic, intrinsic, and social incentives for UNICEF’s crowdsourcing development information in Uganda: A field experiment. 6th Annual Conference on the Political Economy of International Organizations, Universities of Mannheim and Heidelberg, Germany.
11.
BleckJ. (2015). Education and empowered citizenship in Mali. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
12.
BradyH. E.SchlozmanK. L.VerbaS. (1999). Prospecting for participants: Rational expectations and the recruitment of political activists. American Political Science Review, 93, 153-168.
13.
BrattonM. (1999). Political participation in a new democracy: Institutional considerations from Zambia. Comparative Political Studies, 32, 549-588.
14.
CameronA. C.GelbachJ. B.MillerD. L. (2008). Bootstrap-based improvements for inference with clustered errors. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 90, 414-427.
15.
CampanteF. R.ChorD. (2012). Why was the Arab world poised for revolution? Schooling, economic opportunities, and the Arab Spring. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26, 167-187.
16.
CampbellA.GurinG.MillerW. E. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
17.
ChaudhuryN.HammerJ.KremerM.MuralidharanK.RogersF. H. (2006). Missing in action: Teacher and health worker absence in developing countries. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 91-116.
18.
ClarkeH. D.AcockA. C. (1989). National elections and political attitudes: The case of political efficacy. British Journal of Political Science, 19, 551-562.
19.
ClaytonA.JosefssonC.WangV. (2014). Present without presence? Gender, quotas and debate recognition in the Ugandan parliament. Representation, 50, 379-392.
20.
ColemanK. M.DavisC. L. (1976). The structural context of politics and dimensions of regime performance: Their importance for the comparative study of political efficacy. Comparative Political Studies, 9, 189-206.
21.
CraigS. C.MaggiottoM. A. (1982). Measuring political efficacy. Political Methodology, 8, 85-109.
22.
CraigS. C.NiemiR. G.SilverG. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12, 289-314.
23.
CrokeK.GrossmanG.LarreguyH. A.MarshallJ. (2016). Deliberate disengagement: How education decreases political participation in electoral authoritarian regimes. American Political Science Review, 110, 579–600.
24.
DaleA.StraussA. (2009). Don’t forget to vote: Text message reminders as a mobilization tool. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 787-804.
25.
DavisR. (1998). The web of politics: The Internet’s impact on the American political system. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
26.
FinkelS. E. (1985). Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: A panel analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 891-913.
27.
FreeC.KnightR.RobertsonS.WhittakerR.EdwardsP.ZhouW.. . . RobertsI. (2011). Smoking cessation support delivered via mobile phone text messaging (txt2stop): A single-blind, randomised trial. The Lancet, 378, 49-55.
28.
GentzkowM. (2006). Television and voter turnout. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 9, 931-972.
29.
GleerupM.LarsenA.Leth-PetersenS.TogebyM. (2010). The effect of feedback by text message (SMS) and email on household electricity consumption: Experimental evidence. Energy Journal, 31, 113-132.
30.
GottliebJ. (2016). Greater expectations? A field experiment to improve accountability in Mali. American Journal of Political Science, 60, 143-157.
31.
GreenD. P.GerberA. S. (2015). Get out the vote: How to increase voter turnout (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
32.
GrossmanG.HumphreysM.Sacramone-LutzG. (2014). “I wld like u WMP to extend electricity 2 our village”: On Information Technology and Interest Articulation. American Political Science Review, 108, 688-705.
33.
GrossmanG.HumphreysM.Sacramone-LutzG. (2016, June). Information technology and political engagement: Mixed evidence from Uganda. Paper presented at the European Political Science Association Annual Conference, at Brussels, Belgium.
34.
HaynesL. C.GreenD. P.GallagherR.JohnP.TorgersonD. J. (2013). Collection of delinquent fines: An adaptive randomized trial to assess the effectiveness of alternative text messages. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32, 718-730.
35.
IsakssonA.-S.KotsadamA.NermanM. (2014). The gender gap in African political participation: Testing theories of individual and contextual determinants. Journal of Development Studies, 50, 302-318.
36.
KarlanD.McConnellM.MullainathanS.ZinmanJ. (2016). Getting to the top of mind: How reminders increase saving. Management Science. Advance online publication.
37.
KarpJ. A.BanducciS. A. (2008). Political efficacy and participation in twenty seven democracies: How electoral systems shape political behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 311-334.
38.
KeeferP.KhemaniS. (2014). Mass media and public education: The effects of access to community radio in Benin. Journal of Development Economics, 109, 57-72.
39.
KhemaniS. (2007). Can information campaigns overcome political obstacles to serving the poor? In DevarajanS.WidlundI. (Eds.), The politics of service delivery in democracies—Better access for the poor (pp. 56-69). Washington, DC: Expert Group on Development Issues.
40.
KosackS.FungA. (2014). Does transparency improve governance?Annual Review of Political Science, 17, 65-87.
41.
KuenziM.LambrightG. M. S. (2011). Who votes in Africa? An examination of electoral participation in 10 African countries. Party Politics, 17, 767-799. doi:10.1177/1354068810376779
42.
LambrightG. M. S. (2011). Decentralization in Uganda: Explaining successes and failures in local governance. Boulder, CO: FirstForumPress.
43.
LevitskyS.WayL. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the cold war. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
44.
LiebermanE. S.PosnerD. N.TsaiL. L. (2014). Does information lead to more active citizenship? Evidence from an education intervention in rural Kenya. World Development, 60, 69-83.
45.
LinW. (2013). Agnostic notes on regression adjustments to experimental data: Reexamining Freedman’s critique. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 7, 295-318.
46.
LindbergS. (2010). What accountability pressures do MPs in Africa face and how do they respond? Evidence from Ghana. Journal of Modern African Studies, 48, 117-142.
47.
MadsenD. (1978). A structural approach to the explanation of political efficacy levels under democratic regimes. American Journal of Political Science, 22, 867-883.
48.
MalhotraN.MichelsonM. R.RogersT.ValenzuelaA. A. (2011). Text messages as mobilization tools: The conditional effect of habitual voting and election salience. American Politics Research, 39, 664-681.
49.
MaratheM.O’NeillJ.PainP.ThiesW. (2016). ICT-enabled grievance redressal in Central India: A comparative analysis. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development (p. 4). Ann Arbor, MI: ACM Press.
NiemiR. G.CraigS. C.MatteiF. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review, 85, 1407-1413.
52.
OlkenB. A. (2007). Monitoring corruption: Evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia. Journal of Political Economy, 115, 200-249.
53.
Peña-LópezI. (2016). World development report 2016: Digital dividends. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
54.
RezaeeA.HasanainA.KhanY. (2015). Crowdsourcing government accountability: Experimental evidence from Pakistan. Unpublished manuscript.
55.
RosenstoneS. J.HansenJ. M. (2002). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America (Longman Classics edition). Longman Publishing Group.
56.
RossM. (2006). Is democracy good for the poor?American Journal of Political Science, 50, 860-874.
57.
SchedlerA. (2006). Electoral authoritarianism: The dynamics of unfree competition. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
58.
SeligsonM. A. (1980). Trust, efficacy and modes of political participation: A study of Costa Rican peasants. British Journal of Political Science, 10, 75-98.
59.
TrippA. M. (2010). Museveni’s Uganda: Paradoxes of power in a hybrid regime. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
60.
TrippA. M. (2012). Women and politics in Uganda. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
61.
van der WindP.HumphreysM. (2016). Crowdseeding in Eastern Congo: Using cell phones to collect conflict events data in real time. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 60, 748-781.
62.
VerbaS.BurnsN.SchlozmanK. L. (1997). Knowing and caring about politics: Gender and political engagement. The Journal of Politics, 59, 1051-1072.
63.
VerbaS.SchlozmanK. L.BradyH. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics (Vol. 4). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
64.
WaneW.MartinG. H. (2013). Education and health services in Uganda: Data for results and accountability (Technical report). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
65.
WantchekonL. (2003). Clientelism and voting behavior: Evidence from a field experiment in Benin. World Politics, 55, 399-422.
66.
WeinsteinL. (2011). The politics of government expenditures in Tanzania, 1999–2007. African Studies Review, 54, 33-57.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
