Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. AbstractDo citizens view state and traditional authorities as substitutes or complements? Past work has been divided on this question. Some scholars point to competition between attitudes toward these entities, suggesting substitution, whereas others highlight positive correlations, suggesting complementarity. Addressing this question, however, is difficult, as it requires assessing the effects of exogenous changes in the latent valuation of one authority on an individual's support for another. We show that this quantity-a type of elasticity-cannot be inferred from correlations between support for the two forms of authority. We employ a structural model to estimate this elasticity of substitution using data from 816 villages in the Democratic Republic of Congo and plausibly exogenous rainfall and conflict shocks. Despite prima facie evidence for substitution logics, our model's outcomes are consistent with complementarity; positive changes

No abstract

This paper describes the development and testing of a novel approach to evaluating development interventions – the POInT approach. The authors used Bayesian causal modelling to integrate process and outcome data to generate insights about all aspects of the theory of change, including outcomes, mechanisms, mediators and moderators. They partnered with two teams who had evaluated or were evaluating complex development interventions: The UPAVAN team had evaluated a nutrition-sensitive agriculture intervention in Odisha, India, and the DIG team was in the process of evaluating a disability-inclusive poverty graduation intervention in Uganda. The partner teams’ theory of change were adapted into a formal causal model, depicted as a directed acyclic graph (DAG). The DAG was specified in the statistical software R, using the CausalQueries package, having extended the package to handle large models. Using a novel prior elicitation strategy to elicit beliefs over many more parameters than has previously been possible, the partner teams’ beliefs about the nature and strength of causal links in the causal model (priors) were elicited and combined into a single set of shared prior beliefs. The model was updated on data alone as well as on data plus priors to generate posterior models under different assumptions. Finally, the prior and posterior models were queried to learn about estimates of interest, and the relative role of prior beliefs and data in the combined analysis.

Do citizens view state and traditional authorities as substitutes or complements? Past work has been divided on this question. Some scholars point to competition between attitudes toward these entities, suggesting substitution, whereas others highlight positive correlations, suggesting complementarity. Addressing this question, however, is difficult, as it requires assessing the effects of exogenous changes in the latent valuation of one authority on an individual’s support for another. We show that this quantity—a type of elasticity—cannot be inferred from correlations between support for the two forms of authority. We employ a structural model to estimate this elasticity of substitution using data from 816 villages in the Democratic Republic of Congo and plausibly exogenous rainfall and conflict shocks. Despite prima facie evidence for substitution logics, our model’s outcomes are consistent with complementarity; positive changes in citizen valuation of the chief appear to translate into positive changes in support for the government.