1. National Solidarity Program Augmentation of Impact Evaluation Abdul Rahman Ayubi, HayatullahFazil, SakhiFrozish,Andrew Beath, Michael Gilligan

2. Project description  Community Facilitation  Mobilization; creation of Community Development Councils—democratic election of community representatives etc  Remobilization; re-election etc  Provision of Block Grant to communities  First round  Second round  Implementation & Management Support  Technical assistance, Monitoring & Evaluation

3. Motivation  Augmentation of some of the current measures on local governance and social capital:  To avoid respondents telling us what they think we want to hear  To increase the precision of our measures on local governance, social cohesion and political attitudes

4. Research questions  Does NSP improve local governance?  Does NSP promote social cohesion?

5. Indicators: Question 1 Trust in local/national government: We will use the altruism game with different recipients to measure this indicator. Subjects will be asked to contribute to a project for the needy. Some randomly selected subjects will be asked to contribute to a project managed by the national government, the local government and an NGO. Perception of CDC head as village leader: We will use a coordination game to measure subjects’ beliefs about whether CDC is legitimate authority Subjects are asked to predict who other subjects will choose as the leader of the community. They will choose among several candidates including CDC head and traditional leaders.

6. Indicators: Question 2  Solidarity: The Altruism game will be used to measure solidarity within and among communities. ▪ Subjects will be given a sum of money. They will be asked to contribute to a project for the needy in their village. The same process will be used for a project for the needy in a neighboring village.

7. Indicators: Question 2  Trust: Trust will be measured by the trust game within and among communities. ▪ Subjects are given a sum of money. Subjects are then divided into two groups: senders and receivers. Sender decide how much of their sum of money to send to the receiver. We triple that amount and give it to the receiver. The receiver then decides how much of the total to return to the sender.

8. Indicators: Question 2  Obligation of the individual to the community: We will measure this indicator with the public goods game. ▪ Subjects are given two choices one of which contributes money to all of the other subjects and one which offers money only to himself or herself.

9. Identification strategy  Randomized control trial: 250 treated and 250 control

10. Sample  20 persons in each of 100 villages (50 treatment 50 control) chosen randomly from the survey sample villages

11. Timeline  First round of game implementation after second follow-up survey (2011)  Second round of game implementation (2013)

12. Impact evaluation team Gov. Team:  Nasrullah Ahmadzai Consultants:  Sakhi Frozish  Shahim Ahmad Kabuli  Andrew Beath  Fotini Christia  Ruben Enikolopov DIME:  Michael Gilligan

13. Estimated budget  Approximately $270,000  $234,000 (NSP)  $36,000 (DIME)