Associations and the Exercise of Democratic ... - Citizenship DRC

IDS WORKING PAPER 285Table B.8 Propensity to be active for those with and withoutassociational participation after groups have been matched, SãoPaulo and Mexico CityOutcome One to one: Three nearestVariable Unmatched nearest neighbour neighbourWith Without With Without With WithoutAssociational Associational Associational Associational Associational AssociationalParticipation Participation Participation Participation Participation ParticipationSÃO PAULOActiveCitizens0.5597 0.2777 0.559 0.258 0.5601 0.2732Demandmaking with 0.5 0.2425 0.5 0.2309GovernmentMEXICO CITYDemandmaking with 0.5683 0.3604 0.5683 0.3908GovernmentThe columns under the heading Unmatched reports the proportions that are activecitizens or that have direct relations with government. The difference in proportionsthat make up active citizens for those with associational participation and thosewithout is significant. This difference remains consistent throughout the matchingtechnique we used. We used two matching techniques: one-to-one matching andthree nearest neighbourhood . In three nearest neighbourhood matching for activecitizenship, two observations are dropped from the group with associationalparticipation. In all cases the groups act differently. Thus we can confirm that thereare no selection biases in associational participation influencing citizen activities.No alternative models: What has been the result of various tests to substantiate theresults reported in Tables B.1 and B.2 and correspondingly Tables 5.1 and 5.2 in thetext? We believe the results for the endogeneity test show that the probit modelswhich are easier to interpret are applicable even if only for some specificationsendogeneity cannot be ruled out. Our tests do not show that we can rule outselection bias. Hence we do not interpret models other that those reported inTables B.1 and B.2.51