1. Remaking heaven in small-scale democracy: A randomised experiment to encourage contested elections and greater representativeness in English local councils Matt Ryan, Gerry Stoker, Peter John, Alice Moseley, Oliver James, Liz Richardson, and Matia Vannoni

2. What does Schattschneider’s heaven look like? Increased (equal) political participation We have seen plenty of experiments around enhancing main forms political participation… – Voting – Standing for office? – Communicating with a representative – Joining a movement/campaign

3. What do we know about recruitment? In the majority of cases a stimulus (communication) is needed to recruit a person to stand for office (Mcleod et al 1999). Recruiters tend to look first to relatively closed networks, and value people with the same characteristics that they themselves possess (Crowder-Meyer 2011, Brady et al. 1995; 1999). Logical to want confidence that the recruit will do a good job…close personal connection or often a family connection (Van Lieffringe, 2012) May also recruit from within any number of networks of ‘purpose’ where they can recognise that members have a shared identity (Lim 2008)…weak and seemingly innocuous relationships e.g. a friend of the family (Della Porta and Diani 2005)

4. …continued… Time-scarce…use crude heuristics – as proxy assume that education, income and labour-market position are related to political interest (Stromblad 2008). For recruit personal incentives key – Will I win? Will I make a difference? Can I gain access/reward/status? – Costs - Time to campaign/stand and do the job (Norris and Lovenduski 1994), being in the public eye (Lawless 2012)

5. Enabling intervention? Literature suggests interventions need to be centred on clear understandings of the fears and ambitions of potential recruits and practically enable capacity and confidence- building through training or reassurance mechanisms.

6. Coercive Compulsory voting Quotas Other (downstream) affirmative action Targeted mobilisation Training Nudging Information Facultative Enhancing representation

7. Parish council Rural Britain – well it can be cloudy like heaven Small communities (lowest tier of government for roughly 30% of the population of England) 9,500 parish councils and 95,000 councillors. 70,000 in habitants to less than 200 residents. 80% of parish council govern are as of less than 2,500 inhabitants Councillors are disproportionately old (only 8% under forty and just over 1% under thirty) and disproportionately white males (29% women and 4% black and minority ethnicities). *last census 2006 Rarely hold contested elections = legitimacy problem.

8. May 7 Group: Hampshire, Northants, Suffolk, Surrey and Leics/Rutland

9. Sample 977 parishes 818 clerks 5 counties of Southern England 51% (498) parishes received treatment letter & briefing paper 49% (479) parishes received control letter & no briefing paper

10. Research design in a nutshell Pilot in 2013-2014 to find out best practice > treatment for 2015 Randomization of 818 clerks to take account of shared parishes Sept 2014: Control got a general letter about recruitment Sept 2014: Treatment got a letter & briefing paper from researchers with inclusion of research findings + invited to training sessions with Stoker and John Nov 2014: training takes place (two crossovers) Measurement of taking the treatment by a survey and crosschecking websites Outcomes measures by contested elections and seats, and survey measures investigating the extent of activity to recruit candidates

11. Experimental flow chart

17. We think there are some “elephants” in the room Elections cost money that could be spent on more practical things Asking existing councillors to recruit new councillors: Isn’t that a bit like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas Do “friends and neighbours” want to compete

18. Using social media Identify groups where residents interact online. Not necessarily commensurate with Parish boundaries Can highlight role as a response to opinion on a local issue

19. Strong and weak ties The council tends to attract the same type of people because we are programmed to recruit through strong ties with people we know. It is worth considering ways in which we can target ‘weak ties’ – that is people we know of who may seem like good citizens but do not talk to everyday. One way of doing this is through a short ‘roadshow’ outside the school or supermarket where we have targeted conversations with people we might not normally ask.

20. Candidate recruitment activity score = added item of widening recruitment to meeting agenda (1/0) + held event to recruit candidates (1/0) + advertised for candidates in parish newsletter (1/0) + advertised for candidates on parish website (1/0) + advertised for candidates using social media (1/0) + advertised for candidates using other media eg local radio/ newspaper (1/0) Range 0-6

21. Range = 0-7 Electoral activity score = added item of election to meeting agenda (1/0) + discussed election at council meeting (1/0) + held event to advertise election (1/0) + advertised election in parish newsletter (1/0) + advertised election on parish website (1/0) + advertised election by poster (1/0) + advertised election by leaflet (1/0)

22. Pearson chi2(1) = 2.8110 Pr = 0.094 %

23. % Pearson chi2(1) = 3.6324 Pr = 0.057

25. Min = 0, Max = 44

26. Marginally more candidates to seats in non-treated parishes, but non-significant Mean difference = 0.011, t= 0.5093, p=0.6107. Range = 0-3.14

27. Other points If we make some assumptions it is possible to use a 2SLS model with training as the endogenous variable and random allocation as the instrument >>> no effect Might try CACE Something odd with effects by county Only treatment effect is the use of social media - was stressed in the training sessions

28. Conclusions: why did it not work? Always realized it was a tough call because recruiting through the councils themselves, (but there was enthusiasm for the treatment in the sessions) We let the CALCs write to the control group – hence good survey results? But a short letter Treatment too weak? What can be done in future? Too hard?

29. Role is time consuming (65%) Lack of knowledge of parish councillor role (44%) Perception that parish councils have limited power to make a difference (44%) 341 responses from 977 parishes (35% response rate)