1 / 35

Heckle and Chide: Empowering matatu passengers to enforce better driving behavior in Kenya

Heckle and Chide: Empowering matatu passengers to enforce better driving behavior in Kenya. James Habyarimana Georgetown University and William Jack Georgetown University. Motivation.

snowy
Download Presentation

Heckle and Chide: Empowering matatu passengers to enforce better driving behavior in Kenya

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Heckle and Chide:Empowering matatu passengers to enforce better driving behavior in Kenya James Habyarimana Georgetown University and William Jack Georgetown University

  2. Motivation • “Accidents happen!” he says, with a cheerful shrug. "Maniacs? Maybe we are a little bit - butyou've got to drive fast to get the money!” • A matatu driver in Kenya • “Taxi drivers put money first and passengers' and pedestrians' lives second” • Patrick Ayumu, Ghana

  3. Objectives of the project • Evaluate a randomized intervention aimed at reducing matatu accidents by • empowering passengers to…. • .…enforce better driving behavior • Using evocative messages placed inside the matatu

  4. WHY road safety? • Major cause of injury and death • Rising share in global deaths • Economically costly – 2% of national income in Kenya • Vulnerable population: working age (15-44) accounts for 75% of RT fatalities (Odero (2003))

  5. Source: Mathers and Loncar (2006)

  6. WHY matatus ? • They account for a large share of inter-city passenger transport • Vulnerable population in road traffic injuries • They are involved in 20% of recorded crashes • But larger share of injuries/fatalities • They are well suited to our intervention

  7. WHY so many crashes? • Road conditions • Vehicle conditions • Behavior of other road users • Behavior of matatu drivers Focus of study

  8. WHO can affect driver behaviour? Government (incl. police) Owners / Operators Matatu drivers Focus of study Passengers

  9. HOW do we empower passengers? • Tell them to speak up! • “Heckle and Chide” • Insert stickers with messages inside matatus

  10. WHICH stickers: heckle and chide imperatives?

  11. WHICH stickers: The soft touch?

  12. WHICH stickers: Shock therapy?

  13. Sticker Placement Plan Side door Vibaya Leg Front of matatu Driver’s seat Ajali Sit Foot

  14. HOW do we evaluate impact of the intervention? • RCT • compare randomly selected matatus with stickers to a control group of matatus without stickers • Outcome measures • Crash rates • Associated injuries/fatalities • Survey results of passenger and driver behavior

  15. Motivating the intervention • Are accident rates efficient? • Collective action problems inside matatus • If not, what is the role of regulation? • Enforcement problems in public regulation • Stickers could either: • increase perceived benefit of action – if people underestimate the effects of accidents; or • reduce the cost of taking action • stickers legitimize heckling • Focal point for passenger action

  16. Matatu-land, Nairobi

  17. Recruitment

  18. A challenging research environment

  19. Outcome variable

  20. Timeline January 2000 May 2008 March2008 August 2007 Pilot recruitment • Weekly Raffles • Accident Data Collection • Follow up surveys • Trip observations Recruitment

  21. Data • Sample of 2,276 matatus from 21 SACCOs* • 6 SACCOs account for about 50% of the sample • account for 166-312 vehicles • 40% of sample had been assigned during pilot phase • Random assignment from SACCO lists to treatment status: p=0.625 • 60% new matatus • assignment based on last digit of plate number • Odd  Treatment • Even Control * Savings and Credit Cooperatives

  22. Consent and Compliance • Informed consent obtained from drivers • Consent from owners very difficult • Better compliance in pilot sample

  23. Partial compliance

  24. Sample Balance

  25. What drives selection into actual treatment?

  26. Outcome data: accidents • Main outcome of interest is accidents • Accident occurrence • Severity - # injured, killed per accident • Collected data from two sources • Insurance companies • All vehicles are required to have minimal coverage • In theory all accidents should be observable – submission of claims endogenous • Our own data collection efforts

  27. Other outcome data • Survey data from drivers and passengers to assess behavior of both • Safety of drivers • Heckling and chiding by passengers • Direct observation of driver behavior • Send anonymous passengers on matatu trips?

  28. Empirical Specification • Difference-in-differences strategy to estimate • Parallel trends assumption • Main concern is that treatment status is potentially endogenous • Estimate intent-to-treat parameter • Use assignment to treatment as instrument • IV estimates

  29. Average treatment effect Standard errors in parentheses, + significant at 10%; * significant at 5%; ** significant at 1%

  30. Intent-to-Treat Estimator Standard errors in parentheses, + significant at 10%; * significant at 5%; ** significant at 1%

  31. Average Treatment Effects: LPM P-values in parentheses, + significant at 10%; * significant at 5%; ** significant at 1%

  32. Results so far

  33. Next Steps • Examine data on possible mechanisms • Collect more detailed claims data from insurance companies • Includes data on injuries • Types of events being affected by intervention • Direct observation

More Related