Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T13:48:33.235Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Get-Out-the-Vote Experiment on the World’s Largest Participatory Budgeting Vote in Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2017

Tiago Peixoto ,
Fredrik M. Sjoberg  and
Jonathan Mellon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

get out the voteexperimentturnoutvote choiceparticipatory budgetingBrazil
Type
Note
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 381 - 389
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Digital Engagement Evaluation Team, World Bank (emails: [email protected], [email protected]), Digital Engagement Evaluation Team, World Bank and Manchester University (email: [email protected]). The pre-analysis plan was submitted to the Evidence in Governance and Politics pre-registration repository prior to random assignment and treatment application (20140523AA). We would like to thank Vincius Wu from the Rio Grande do Sul Government, Motta, Davi Schmidt, Paulo Coelho at SEPLAG, Uirá Porã, Luiz Damasceno and the rest of the staff at Gabinete Digital, Rosane Maria Ludtke Leite and Guilherme Donato at PROCERGS, and Louis Dorval at Voto Mobile. Funding for this research was provided by the World Bank. Note that no pre-approval by an Institutional Review Board was sought for this study, since no such process exists within the World Bank. However, the study was approved post facto by three World Bank research staff who were not involved with the original research; they agreed that it adhered to the research and ethical standards of World Bank research. Data replication sets are available in Harvard Dataverse at: https://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/PSWLYR, and an online appendix at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000412.

References

Arceneaux, Kevin. 2005. Using Cluster Randomized Field Experiments to Study Voting Behavior. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 601:169–179.Google Scholar
Arceneaux, Kevin. 2007. I’m Asking for Your Support: The Effects of Personally Delivered Campaign Messages on Voting Decisions and Opinion Formation. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2:43–65.Google Scholar
Benjamini, Yoav, and Hochberg, Yosef. 1995. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society . Series B (Methodological) 57:289–300.Google Scholar
Bhatti, Yosef, Dahlgaard, Jens Olav, Hansen, Jonas H., and Hansen, Kasper M.. 2015. Getting Out the Vote With Evaluative Thinking. American Journal of Evaluation 36:389–400.Google Scholar
Enos, Ryan D., Fowler, Anthony, and Vavreck, Lynn. 2014. Increasing Inequality: The Effect of GOTV Mobilization on the Composition of the Electorate. The Journal of Politics 76:273–288.Google Scholar
Fehr, Ernst, and Falk, Armin. 2002. Psychological Foundations of Incentives. European Economic Review 46:687–724.Google Scholar
Fehr, Ernst, and Fischbacher, Urs. 2002. Why Social Preferences Matter–The Impact of Non-Selfish Motives on Competition, Cooperation and Incentives. The Economic Journal 112:C1–C33.Google Scholar
Filer, John E., Kenny, Lawrence W., and Morton, Rebecca B.. 1993. Redistribution, Income, and Voting. American Journal of Political Science 37:63–87.Google Scholar
Fowler, Anthony. 2015. Regular Voters, Marginal Voters and the Electoral Effects of Turnout. Political Science Research and Methods 3:205–219.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P.. 2000. The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment. American Political Science Review 94:653–663.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Green, Donald P., and Larimer, Christopher W.. 2008. Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence From a Large-Scale Field Experiment. American Political Science Review 102:33–48.Google Scholar
Goldfrank, Benjamin, and Schneider, Aaron. 2006. Competitive Institution Building: The PT and Participatory Budgeting in Rio Grande Do Sul. Latin American Politics & Society 48:1–31.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P., McGrath, Mary C., and Aronow, Peter M.. 2013. Field Experiments and the Study of Voter Turnout. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 23:27–48.Google Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, and Strauss, Aaron. 2010. Estimation of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects From Randomized Experiments, With Application to the Optimal Planning of the Get-Out-the-Vote Campaign. Political Analysis 19:1–19.Google Scholar
Larcinese, Valentino. 2007. Voting Over Redistribution and the Size of the Welfare State: The Role of Turnout. Political Studies 55:568–585.Google Scholar
Mahler, Vincent A. 2008. Electoral Turnout and Income Redistribution by the State: A Cross-National Analysis of the Developed Democracies. European Journal of Political Research 47:161–183.Google Scholar
Malhotra, Neil, Michelson, Melissa R., Rogers, Todd, and Valenzuela, Ali Adam. 2011. Text Messages as Mobilization Tools: The Conditional Effect of Habitual Voting and Election Salience. American Politics Research 39:664–681.Google Scholar
Nickerson, David W. 2007. The Ineffectiveness of E-Vites to Democracy Field Experiments Testing the Role of E-Mail on Voter Turnout. Social Science Computer Review 25:494–503.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peixoto, Tiago, Sjoberg, Fredrik M., and Mellon, Jonathan. 2017. Replication Data for: A Get Out The Vote (GOTV) Experiment on the World’s Largest Participatory Budgeting Vote in Brazil. doi:10.7910/DVN/SWLYR, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:w3WwhWET1CyJgTqa2osvYg==.Google Scholar
Pons, Vincent. 2014. Does Door-To-Door Canvassing Affect Vote Shares? Evidence from a Countrywide Field Experiment in France.Google Scholar
Powell Jr, G. Bingham. 1986. American Voter Turnout in Comparative Perspective. The American Political Science Review 80:17–43.Google Scholar
Rogers, Todd, and Middleton, Joel. 2015. Are Ballot Initiative Outcomes Influenced by the Campaigns of Independent Groups? A Precinct-Randomized Field Experiment Showing That They Are. Political Behavior 37:567–593.Google Scholar
Spada, Paolo, Mellon, Jonathan, Peixoto, Tiago, and Sjoberg, Fredrik Matias. 2016. Effects of the Internet on Participation: Study of a Public Policy Referendum in Brazil. Journal of Information Technology and Politics 13:187–207.Google Scholar
Sun, Lei, Craiu, Radu V., Paterson, Andrew D., and Bull, Shelley B.. 2006. Stratified False Discovery Control for Large-Scale Hypothesis Testing With Application to Genome-Wide Association Studies. Genetic Epidemiology 30:519–530.Google Scholar
Warren, Mark E. 1999. Democracy and Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Peixoto et al Dataset

Dataset

https://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/PSWLYR
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Peixoto et al supplementary material

Peixoto et al supplementary material 1

Download Peixoto et al supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 932.3 KB