Effect of Moderate and Radical Rules on High-Caste Behavior and Norms in India

Development and legal researchers hypothesize that a moderate law may be more effective than a radical one in changing behavior. This study tests this hypothesis in the context of discriminatory sharing norms practiced by high-caste individuals against low-caste individuals in India. The study employs a lab-in-the-field experiment in which it influences (a) high-caste participants’ social norms of sharing money with a low-caste participant and (b) introduces either a “moderate” or a “radical” rule, that is, a rule that is closer or further away from the social norm and requires high-caste participants to share a minimum amount of their money with the low-caste participant. Breaking the rule entails incurring a small fine. This study finds that the effectiveness of the moderate versus radical rule in changing behavior and norms depends on the status quo social norm. This paper provides causal empirical evidence on how social norms influence laws’ effectiveness in inducing behavioral and norm change.