To investigate whether lack of information is one reason politicians may be unresponsive to voter preferences, we conduct a randomized control trial with senior politicians in Pakistan that collects citizen preferences using Interactive Voice Response (IVR). IVR allows politicians to script questions for citizens and allows the latter to respond on their cell phones. There is strong politician interest in soliciting opinions via IVR; additionally, response rates by citizens are relatively high. Nonetheless, politicians fail to use the new information to modify on-the-ground engagement with voters or service delivery. Nor do we observe improvements in citizen evaluations of politicians or in their electoral support for them. A forecasting exercise shows that experts find these null outcomes unexpected. Our findings reveal that even eager and informed politicians may be unable to respond to citizen preferences due to institutional capacity constraints, highlighting limits of information-centric theories of accountability.
AhrenshopM.GoldenM. A.GulzarS.SonnetL. (2024). Inaccurate forecasting of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 11(3), 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2023.28
2.
AriasE.PabloB.HoracioL.MarshallJ.QuerubinP. (2019). Information provision, voter coordination, and electoral accountability: Evidence from Mexican social networks. American Political Science Review, 113(2), 475–498. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055419000091
3.
AuerbachA. M. (2019). Demanding development: The politics of public goods pro-vision in India’s urban slums. Cambridge University Press.
4.
BafumiJ.HerronM. C. (2010). Leapfrog representation and extremism: A study of American voters and their members in congress. American Political Science Review, 104(3), 519–542. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055410000316
5.
BartelsL. M. (2008). Unequal democracy: The political econom of the new gilded age. Princeton University Press.
6.
BarthF. (1965). Political leadership among swat Pathans. London School of economics monographs on social anthropology (Book 19). Berg Publishers.
7.
BesleyT.PerssonT. (2011). Pillars of prosperity: The political economics of development clusters. Princeton University Press.
8.
BlairG.LittmanR.PaluckE. L. (2019). Motivating the adop-tion of new community-minded behaviors: An empirical test in Nigeria. Science Advances, 5(3), Article eaau5175. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau5175
9.
BroockmanD. E.KallaJ. L.CaballeroC.EastonM. (2024). Political practitioners poorly predict which messages persuade the public. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(45), Article e2400076121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2400076121
10.
BroockmanD. E.SkovronC. (2018). Bias in perceptions of public opinion among political elites. American Political Science Review, 112(3), 542–563. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055418000011
11.
BuntaineM. T.HunnicuttP.KomakechP. (2020). The challenges of using citizen reporting to improve public services: A field experiment on solid waste services in Uganda. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 108–127. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa026
12.
BuntaineM. T.NielsonD. L.SkaggsJ. T. (2019). Escaping the disengagement dilemma: Two field experiments on motivating citizens to report on public services. British Journal of Political Science, 51(2), 685–705. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123419000322
13.
BussellJ. (2019). Clients and constituents: Political reponsiveness in patronage democracies. Oxford University Press.
14.
ButlerD. M.NickersonD. W. (2011). Can learning constituency opinion affect how legislators vote? Results from a field experiment. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 6(1), 55–83. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00011019
15.
CarnesN. (2013). White-collar government: The hidden role of class in economic policy making. University of Chicago Press.
16.
CarnesN.FerrerJ.GoldenM.LillywhiteE.LupuN.NazrullaevaE. (2025). The global legislators database: Characteristics of national legislators in the world’s democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 55(1), Article e27. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000712342400053x
CaseyK.GlennesterR.MiguelE.VoorsM. (2023). Skill versus voice in local development. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 105(2), 311–326.
19.
ChandraK. (2004). Why ethnic parties succeed: Patronage and ethnic head counts in India. Cambridge University Press.
20.
CheemaA.KhanS.LiaqatA.MohmandS. K. (2023). Canvass-ing the gatekeepers: A field experiment to increase women voters’ turnout in Pakistan. American Political Science Review, 117(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055422000375
ChongA.AnaL.De LaO.DeanK.LeonardW. (2015). Does corruption information inspire the fight or quash the hope? A field experiment in Mexico on voter turnout, choice and participation. The Journal of Politics, 77(1), 55–71.
23.
ChristensenG.FreeseJ.MiguelE. (2019). Transparent and reproducible social science research: How to do open science. University of California Press.
24.
ChristensenJ.MoynihanD. P. (2020). Motivated reasoning and policy information: Politicians are more resistant to debiasing interventions than the general public. Behavioural Public Policy, 8(1), 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2020.50
25.
DahlR. A. (1972). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. Yale University Press.
26.
DasguptaA.KapurD. (2020). The political economy of bureaucratic over-load: Evidence from rural development officials in India. American Political Science Review, 114(4), 1316–1334. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055420000477
27.
DellaVignaS.PopeD. (2018). Predicting experimental results: Who knows what?Journal of Political Economy, 126(6), 2410–2456. https://doi.org/10.1086/699976
28.
DunningT.GrossmanG.HumphreysM.HydeS. D.McIntoshC. (Eds.), (2019). Information and accountability: A new method of cumulative learning. Cambridge University Press.
29.
ErlichA.JungD. F.LongJ. D.CraigM. I. (2018). The double-edged sword of mobilizing citizens via mobile phone in developing countries. Development Engineering, 3(1), 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.deveng.2017.11.001
FerraliR.GrossmanG.IzamaM. P.RoddenJ. (2016). Ex-plaining uptake of the U-bridge program: Network analysis final report. Unpublished paper.
32.
FrancoA.MalhotraN.SimonovitsG. (2014). Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer problem. Science, 345(6203), 1502–1505. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255484
GilensM. (2012). Affuence and influence: Economic inequality and political power in America. Princeton University Press.
35.
GoldenM. A.GulzarS.SonnetL. (2025). Replication data for: ‘Press 1 for roads’: Bridging communication gaps in political representation. Harvard Dataverse, V1. URL. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/9PWQZT
36.
GoldenM. A.GulzarS.SonnetL. (2017). Improving political communication: Results of a pilot field experiment in Pakistan. International Growth Center S-37412-PAK-2.
37.
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(3), 688–705. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055414000331
38.
GrossmanG.HumphreysM.Sacramone-LutzG. (2020). Information technology and political engagement: Mixed evidence from Uganda. The Journal of Politics, 82(4), 1321–1336. https://doi.org/10.1086/708339
39.
GrossmanG.MichelitchK.SantamariaM. (2017). Texting complaints to politicians: Name personalization and politicians’ encouragement in citizen mobilization. Comparative Political Studies, 50(10), 1325–1357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414016666862
40.
GulzarS.HaiZ.PaudelB. K. (2021). Information, candidate selection, and the quality of representation: Evidence from Nepal. The Journal of Politics, 83(4), 1511–1528. https://doi.org/10.1086/711898
41.
HartmanE.Daniel HidalgoF. (2018). An equivalence approach to balance and placebo tests. American Journal of Political Science, 62(4), 1000–1013. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12387
42.
Hertel-FernandezA.MildenbergerM.StokesL. C. (2019). Legislative staff and representation in congress. American Political Science Review, 113(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055418000606
43.
HugS.FrédéricV.HelferL.WalgraveS.SoontjensK.ShefferLr (2024). The role of politicians’ perceptual accuracy of voter opinions in their electoral career. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 50(1), 107–122.
44.
HuntingtonS. P. (1968). Political order in changing societies. Yale University Press.
45.
JablonskiR.SeimB. (2024). What politicians do not know can hurt you: The effects of information on politicians’ spending decisions. American Political Science Review, 118(3), 1497–1517. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055423001132
46.
KallaJ. L.BroockmanD. E. (2016). Campaign contributions faciliate access to congressional officials: A randomized field experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 60(3), 545–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12180
47.
KallaJ. L.PorterE. (2021). Correcting bias in perceptions of public opinion among American elected officials: Results from two field experiments. British Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 1792–1800. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123419000711
48.
KitscheltH.WilkinsonS. I. (Eds.). (2007). Patrons, clients, and policies: Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition. Cambridge University Press.
49.
Kruks-WisnerG. (2018). Claiming the state: Active citizenship and social welfare in rural India. Cambridge University Press.
50.
Kruks-WisnerG. (2021). Great expectations, great grievances: The politics of citizens’ complaints in India. Comparative Politics, 54(1), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041521x16106633880914
51.
LeoB.MorelloR.MellonJ.PeixotoT.DavenportS. (2015). Do mobile phone surveys work in poor countries? Working paper N. 398. Center for Global Development.
52.
LiaqatA.AliC.MohmandS. K. (2020). Who do politicians talk to? Political contact in urban Punjab. In MuftiM.ShafqatS.SiddiquiN. (Eds.), Pakistan’s political parties. Georgetown University Press.
53.
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(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.014
54.
LipsetS. M. (1963). Political man: The social bases of politics (Expanded ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press.
55.
LupuN.WarnerZ. (2022). Affluence and congruence: Unequal representation around the world. The Journal of Politics, 84(1), 276–290. https://doi.org/10.1086/714930
56.
LyonS. M. (2004). An anthropological analysis of local politics and patronage in a Pakistani village. Mellen series in anthropology (Vol. 12). Edwin Mellen Press.
57.
MalikR. (2019). (A)Political constituency development funds: Evidence from Pakistan. British Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 963–980. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123419000541
58.
MansuriG.RaoV. (2013). Can participation be induced? Some evidence from developing countries. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 16(2), 284–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2012.757918
59.
MartinN. (2014). The dark side of patronage in the Pakistani Punjab. In PiliavskyA. (Ed.), Patronage as politics in South Asia. Cambridge University Press.
60.
MartinN. (2016). Politics, landlords and Islam in Pakistan. Routledge.
61.
MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1963). Constituency influence in congress. American Political Science Review, 57(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952717
62.
MohmandS. K. (2019). Crafty oligarchs, savvy voters: Democracy under in- equality in Rural Pakistan. Cambridge University Press.
63.
PageB. I.ShaprioR. Y. (1992). The rational public: Fifty years of trends in Americans’ policy preferences. University of Chicago Press.
PereiraM. M. (2021). Understanding and reducing biases in elite beliefs about the electorate. American Political Science Review, 115(4), 1308–1324. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000305542100037x
ScottJ. C. (1977). The moral economy economy of the peasant: Rebellion and subsis-tence in Southeast Asia. Yale University Press.
69.
Shaul-CohenS.Lev-OnA. (2020). Smartphones, text messages, and political participation. Mobile Media & Communication, 8(1), 62–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157918822143
70.
ShefferL.LoewenP. J.SorokaS.WalgraveS.SheaferT. (2017). Nonrepresentative representatives: An experimental study of the decision making of elected politicians. American Political Science Review, 112(2), 302–321. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055417000569
71.
StokesS. C.DunningT.NazarenoM.BruscoV. (2013). Brokers, Voters, and clientelism: The puzzle of distributive politics. Cambridge University Press.
72.
SzwarcbergM. (2015). Mobilizing poor voters: Machine politics, clientelism, and social networks in Argentina. Cambridge University Press.
73.
WalgraveS.JansenA.SevenansJ.SoontjensK.PiletJ.-B.BrackN.FrédéricV.HelferL.VliegenthartR.van der MeerT.BreunigC.BailerS.ShefferL.LoewenP. J. (2023a). Inaccurate politicians: Elected representatives’ estimations of public opinion in four countries. The Journal of Politics, 85(1), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1086/722042
74.
WalgraveS.SoontjensK.SevenansJ. (2023a). Politicians’ reading of public opinion and its biases. Oxford University Press.
75.
WantchekonL. (2003). Clientelism and voting behavior: Evidence from a field experiment in Benin. World Politics, 55(03), 399–422. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2003.0018
76.
WilderA. R. (1999). The Pakistani voter: Electoral politics and voting behaviour in the Punjab. Oxford University Press.
77.
WilliamsM. J. (2017). The political economy of unfinished development projects: Corruption, clientelism, or collective choice?American Political Science Review, 111(4), 705–723. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055417000351
78.
ZallerJ. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press.
79.
ZamanA.MushtaqM. (2022). Public perspective about party identification in Peshawar Valley, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Social Research, 4(2), 500–513. https://doi.org/10.52567/pjsr.v4i2.499
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.
