Self-Efficacy and Citizen Engagement in Development: Experimental Evidence from Tanzania
IF 3.2
Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
引用次数: 7
Abstract
Abstract Recent studies of efforts to increase citizen engagement in local governance through information campaigns report mixed results. We consider whether low levels of self-efficacy beliefs limit engagement, especially among poor citizens in poor countries. Citizens may be caught in an “efficacy trap” which limits their realization of better public goods provision. We describe results from a series of experimental studies conducted with over 2,200 citizens in rural Tanzania, in which we compare the effects of standard information campaigns with Validated Participation (VP), an intervention designed to socially validate citizens’ participation. We implement a staged approach to experimental research, seeking to balance ethical and cost concerns about field experimentation. In our main analyses, we find that VP did not lead to increased levels of self-efficacy or more active citizen behaviors relative to standard informational treatments. Nonetheless, we find some promising evidence for VP in a follow-up qualitative study with teachers. We conclude by discussing lessons from this research and directions for future investigation of the possible role of self-efficacy traps in development.自我效能感与发展中的公民参与:来自坦桑尼亚的实验证据
摘要最近关于通过宣传运动增加公民参与地方治理的努力的研究报告了喜忧参半的结果。我们考虑低水平的自我效能信念是否限制了参与，尤其是在贫困国家的贫困公民中。公民可能会陷入“功效陷阱”，这限制了他们实现更好的公共产品供应。我们描述了对坦桑尼亚农村2200多名公民进行的一系列实验研究的结果，在这些研究中，我们将标准信息运动的效果与验证参与（VP）进行了比较，验证参与是一种旨在从社会上验证公民参与的干预措施。我们对实验研究采取分阶段的方法，试图平衡实地实验的伦理和成本问题。在我们的主要分析中，我们发现与标准信息治疗相比，VP并没有导致自我效能水平的提高或更积极的公民行为。尽管如此，在对教师的后续定性研究中，我们发现了一些有希望的VP证据。最后，我们讨论了这项研究的经验教训，以及未来自我效能陷阱在发展中可能作用的研究方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文
求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Experimental Political Science
Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
25
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Experimental Political Science (JEPS) features cutting-edge research that utilizes experimental methods or experimental reasoning based on naturally occurring data. We define experimental methods broadly: research featuring random (or quasi-random) assignment of subjects to different treatments in an effort to isolate causal relationships in the sphere of politics. JEPS embraces all of the different types of experiments carried out as part of political science research, including survey experiments, laboratory experiments, field experiments, lab experiments in the field, natural and neurological experiments. We invite authors to submit concise articles (around 4000 words or fewer) that immediately address the subject of the research. We do not require lengthy explanations regarding and justifications of the experimental method. Nor do we expect extensive literature reviews of pros and cons of the methodological approaches involved in the experiment unless the goal of the article is to explore these methodological issues. We expect readers to be familiar with experimental methods and therefore to not need pages of literature reviews to be convinced that experimental methods are a legitimate methodological approach. We will consider longer articles in rare, but appropriate cases, as in the following examples: when a new experimental method or approach is being introduced and discussed or when novel theoretical results are being evaluated through experimentation. Finally, we strongly encourage authors to submit manuscripts that showcase informative null findings or inconsistent results from well-designed, executed, and analyzed experiments.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
