IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cge/wacage/601.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Voice and Political Engagement: Evidence From a Natural Field Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Anselm Hager

    (Humboldt University)

  • Lukas Hensel

    (Peking University)

  • Christopher Roth

    (University of Cologne)

  • Andreas Stegmann

    (University of Warwick)

Abstract

We conduct a natural field experiment with a major European party to test whether giving party supporters the opportunity to voice their opinions increases their engagement in the party’s electoral campaign. In our experiment, the party asked a random subset of supporters for their opinions on the importance of different topics. Giving supporters more opportunities to voice their opinions increases their engagement in the campaign as measured using behavioral data from the party’s smartphone application. Survey data reveals that our voice treatments also increase other margins of campaign effort as well as perceived voice. Our evidence highlights that parties can increase their supporters’ investment in the democratic process by implementing policies that increase their voice.

Suggested Citation

  • Anselm Hager & Lukas Hensel & Christopher Roth & Andreas Stegmann, 2021. "Voice and Political Engagement: Evidence From a Natural Field Experiment," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 601, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    • Handle: RePEc:cge:wacage:601
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/manage/publications/wp601.2021.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Achyuta Adhvaryu & Anant Nyshadham & Jorge A. Tamayo, 2019. "Managerial Quality and Productivity Dynamics," NBER Working Papers 25852, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Anselm Hager & Lukas Hensel & Johannes Hermle & Christopher Roth, 2023. "Political Activists as Free Riders: Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 133(653), pages 2068-2084.
    3. Marco Manacorda & Andrea Tesei, 2020. "Liberation Technology: Mobile Phones and Political Mobilization in Africa," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 533-567, March.
    4. González, Felipe, 2020. "Collective action in networks: Evidence from the Chilean student movement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    5. Leonardo Bursztyn & Davide Cantoni & David Y. Yang & Noam Yuchtman & Y. Jane Zhang, 2021. "Persistent Political Engagement: Social Interactions and the Dynamics of Protest Movements," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 3(2), pages 233-250, June.
    6. George A. Akerlof & Rachel E. Kranton, 2005. "Identity and the Economics of Organizations," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(1), pages 9-32, Winter.
    7. Robert Gibbons, 1998. "Incentives in Organizations," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 115-132, Fall.
    8. Oriana Bandiera & Iwan Barankay & Imran Rasul, 2010. "Social Incentives in the Workplace," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 77(2), pages 417-458.
    9. Oriana Bandiera & Iwan Barankay & Imran Rasul, 2009. "Social Connections and Incentives in the Workplace: Evidence From Personnel Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(4), pages 1047-1094, July.
    10. Casey, Katherine & Kamara, Abou Bakarr & Meriggi, Niccolo, 2021. "An Experiment in Candidate Selection," CEPR Discussion Papers 15695, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Jarkko Harju & Simon Jäger & Benjamin Schoefer, 2021. "Voice at Work," NBER Working Papers 28522, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Achyuta Adhvaryu & Teresa Molina & Anant Nyshadham, 2019. "Expectations, Wage Hikes, and Worker Voice: Evidence from a Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 25866, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Mitchell Hoffman & Steven Tadelis, 2021. "People Management Skills, Employee Attrition, and Manager Rewards: An Empirical Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(1), pages 243-285.
    14. Gwyneth H. McClendon, 2014. "Social Esteem and Participation in Contentious Politics: A Field Experiment at an LGBT Pride Rally," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(2), pages 279-290, April.
    15. Francesco Passarelli & Guido Tabellini, 2017. "Emotions and Political Unrest," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(3), pages 903-946.
    16. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán González, 2014. "Don't Ask Me If You Will Not Listen: The Dilemma of Consultative Participation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(3), pages 560-585, March.
    17. Akerlof, Robert, 2017. "Value Formation: The Role of Esteem," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 1-19.
    18. Ruben Enikolopov & Alexey Makarin & Maria Petrova, 2020. "Social Media and Protest Participation: Evidence From Russia," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(4), pages 1479-1514, July.
    19. Katherine Casey & Abou Bakarr Kamara & Niccoló F. Meriggi, 2021. "An Experiment in Candidate Selection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(5), pages 1575-1612, May.
    20. Lea Cassar & Stephan Meier, 2018. "Nonmonetary Incentives and the Implications of Work as a Source of Meaning," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 32(3), pages 215-238, Summer.
    21. Kalla, Joshua & Broockman, David, 2017. "The Minimal Persuasive Effects of Campaign Contact in General Elections: Evidence from 49 Field Experiments," Research Papers repec:ecl:stabus:3593, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anselm Hager & Lukas Hensel & Johannes Hermle & Christopher Roth, 2023. "Political Activists as Free Riders: Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 133(653), pages 2068-2084.
    2. Afridi, Farzana & Basistha, Ahana & Dhillon, Amrita & Serra, Danila, 2023. "Activating Change: The Role of Information and Beliefs in Social Activism," IZA Discussion Papers 16358, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Alejandra Agustina Martínez, 2023. "Raise your Voice! Activism and Peer Effects in Online Social Networks," Working Papers 277, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    4. Alejandra Agustina Martínez, 2023. "Raise your voice! Activism and peer effects in online social networks," Discussion Papers 2023-05, Nottingham Interdisciplinary Centre for Economic and Political Research (NICEP).
    5. Anselm Hager & Lukas Hensel & Johannes Hermle & Christopher Roth, 2019. "Strategic Interdependence in Political Movements and Countermovements," CESifo Working Paper Series 7790, CESifo.
    6. Jarke-Neuert, Johannes & Perino, Grischa & Schwickert, Henrike, 2021. "Free-Riding for Future: Field Experimental Evidence of Strategic Substitutability in Climate Protest," SocArXiv sh6dm, Center for Open Science.
    7. González, Felipe, 2020. "Collective action in networks: Evidence from the Chilean student movement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    8. Cantoni, Davide & Heizlsperger, Louis-Jonas & Yang, David Y. & Yuchtman, Noam & Zhang, Y. Jane, 2022. "The fundamental determinants of protest participation: Evidence from Hong Kong’s antiauthoritarian movement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    9. Boris Ginzburg & José-Alberto Guerra, 2021. "Guns, pets, and strikes: an experiment on identity and political action," Documentos CEDE 19932, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    10. Gisli Gylfason, 2023. "From Tweets to the Streets: Twitter and Extremist Protests in the United States," PSE Working Papers halshs-04188189, HAL.
    11. Hager, Anselm & Hensel, Lukas & Hermle, Johannes & Roth, Christopher, 2022. "Group Size and Protest Mobilization across Movements and Countermovements," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 116(3), pages 1051-1066, August.
    12. Artís, Annalí Casanueva & Avetian, Vladimir & Sardoschau, Sulin & Saxena, Kavya, 2022. "Social Media and the Broadening of Social Movements: Evidence from Black Lives Matter," IZA Discussion Papers 15812, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Jiang, Jiang & Li, Sherry Xin, 2019. "Group identity and partnership," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 202-213.
    14. Afridi, Farzana & Dhillon, Amrita & Sharma, Swati, 2015. "Social Networks and Labour Productivity: A Survey of Recent Theory and Evidence," Indian Economic Review, Department of Economics, Delhi School of Economics, vol. 50(1), pages 25-42.
    15. Gonzalez, Felipe & Prem, Mounu, 2020. "Police Repression and Protest Behavior: Evidence from Student Protests in Chile," SocArXiv 3xk5r, Center for Open Science.
    16. Bassi, Vittorio & Nyshadham, Anant & Tamayo, Jorge & Adhvaryu, Achyuta, 2020. "No Line Left Behind: Assortative Matching Inside the Firm," CEPR Discussion Papers 14554, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Masella, Paolo & Meier, Stephan & Zahn, Philipp, 2014. "Incentives and group identity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 12-25.
    18. Amorim, Guilherme & Lima, Rafael Costa & Sampaio, Breno, 2022. "Broadband internet and protests: Evidence from the Occupy movement," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    19. Moscelli, G.; & Sayli, M.; & Blanden, J.; & Mello, M.; & Castro-Pires, H.; & Bojke, C.;, 2023. "Non-monetary interventions, workforce retention and hospital quality: evidence from the English NHS," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 23/13, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    20. Erlend Berg & Maitreesh Ghatak & R Manjula & D Rajasekhar & Sanchari Roy, 2019. "Motivating Knowledge Agents: Can Incentive Pay Overcome Social Distance?," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 129(617), pages 110-142.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Political engagement; Inclusion; Voice; Agency; Natural Field Experiment; Canvassing JEL Classification:D8; P16;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cge:wacage:601. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jane Snape (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dewaruk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.