Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
Cohesive Societies
Sustainable Security
Other Resource Pages
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
External Podcasts
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National SecurityInstitute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      Cohesive SocietiesSustainable SecurityOther Resource PagesNews ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio ChannelExternal Podcasts
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS

      Get in Touch

    Connect
    Search
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • CO13156 | Do Policy Prescriptions Work? Studying Effect of Race & Religion on People’s Behaviour
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • RSIS Commentary Series
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • Future Issues
    • IDSS Papers
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers

    CO13156 | Do Policy Prescriptions Work? Studying Effect of Race & Religion on People’s Behaviour
    S. P. Harish

    23 August 2013

    download pdf

    Synopsis

    How can academics who provide policy prescriptions and policymakers who implement policy determine whether a given strategy works? Controlled Randomised Trials are a useful way to identify racial and religious discrimination, to evaluate policy, and to bridge academic research and policy outcomes.

    Commentary

    THE SINGAPORE Government has identified social cohesion as an important policy pillar to support the goal of nation-building. This has arisen out of awareness that societal differences in Singapore are an issue that needs to be managed with care. Whether it concerns race, religion, or nationality, these differences are perceived to have the potential to create or increase tensions between different groups, destabilise society and even result in violent conflict.

    Besides the ethnic-religious riots in 1964, the Jemaah Islamiah terrorist arrests in 2001, the Amy Cheong rant against Malay weddings or the illegal bus strike last year, were events which tested ethnic, religious or national ties.

    What is social cohesion?

     Social cohesion is defined by scholars as a situation where Singaporeans believe they belong to society, have a stake in it and are involved in its development. High levels of cohesion involve strong social bonds, trust in institutions, and norms that promote reciprocity. Towards this end, the government has pursued a multi-pronged strategy to manage racial and religious harmony and relations. They include the management of society through the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) in public housing; National Service (NS) for male Singaporeans; self-help groups for the respective ethnic communities; celebration of Racial Harmony Day; and the creation of institutions such as the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circle (IRCC).

    These government policies have, in sum, worked in building social cohesion in Singapore. But which policy worked? Was it the management of society along the ethnic policy categorisations of Chinese, Malay, Indian, Other (CMIO); EIP for public housing; or was it a combination of bothCMIO and EIP? What precise effect does NS have on social cohesion in Singapore today? Or did all the above policies serve to achieve the level of cohesion we observe today? While something worked we cannot precisely identify what has worked.

    How then can scholars who provide policy prescriptions and policymakers who implement policy determine whether a given strategy works? How can we know whether a given policy has had the desired effect on people’s attitudes and behaviour? To know whether a policy has worked, we need to imagine what academics call a counterfactual: a world where this particular policy was not implemented but everything else remains the same.

    For example, consider a Singapore where EIP was not implemented but everything else stayed the same. Depending on whether we imagine a Singapore with ethnic ghettos and skewed housing prices, or a Singapore where most things remain the same, we would have a different estimation of the effectiveness of this particular policy. Indeed, most debates over the effectiveness of a policy are basically debates about counterfactuals.

    Controlled Randomised Trials

    Controlled Randomised Trials (CRTs) are a useful way to identify racial and religious discrimination, to evaluate policy, and to bridge academic research and policy outcomes. The roots of CRTs lie in the medical sciences where human trials are mandatory. For example, consider a new drug that claims to cure fever. The drug company is required to conduct a CRT where they would randomly allocate people to two groups: a Treatment group which receives the new drug, and a Control group which does not receive the new drug. Any difference in measures of fever between the two groups is attributable only to the new drug. Replace ‘drug’ with ‘policy’, and replace ‘cure fever’ with ‘change attitudes/behaviour’ in the above example and we can see the usefulness of CRTs to evaluate policy. Its main advantage is that the Control group described above is the true counterfactual.

    CRTs have been used to identify areas where discrimination could take place along lines of race and religion. For instance, two US scholars conducted a study in 2004 to identify racial discrimination in the labour market. They sent out resumes in response to help-wanted advertisements in Chicago and Boston newspapers and measured the call-back rate for an interview for each resume. They used a fictitious job applicant and randomly manipulated the name with White American names like ‘Emily Walsh’ or ‘Greg Baker’, and African-American sounding names like ‘Lakisha Washington’ and ‘Jamal Jones’.

    They found that African Americans had to send, on average, 50 percent more resumes than White Americans for an interview callback. This study was a CRT since they randomly manipulated the name of the job seeker but ensured that all other aspects of the resumes were identical. This allowed them to conclude that the 50 percent difference can be precisely attributed to racial discrimination and not to any other extraneous factor.

    Possible CRTs in Singapore

    In Singapore, we could conduct similar studies to identify potential discrimination along race, religion, age, gender and nationality in the labour market. Ideally we would want to eliminate any systematic discrimination along these lines since it can affect social cohesion, and CRTs can help detect such cases in the job market. For instance, CRTs could identify instances where employers may favour people of certain races and religion, or perhaps prefer younger to older employees, or perhaps choose a foreigner over a Singaporean.

    It would involve performing a study similar to the one described above – keeping everything the same in the resume but randomly manipulating the race, religion, age, gender or nationality of the respondent. In a similar vein, this could also be expanded to areas such as the food and rental markets. For example, a CRT could help identify if some food stalls overcharge tourists or some house owners discriminate against tenants from a certain country of origin.

    Once a problem is identified, CRTs could also assist in evaluating policy. For instance, CRTs can be used to identify the effect of inter-racial/religious groups in schools and workplace, building social space with foreigners, or tweaking EIP to include foreigners. We can also envision evaluating programmes like National Education and the Speak English/Mandarin campaigns. In some instances, we may have formulated the right policy but the mode of public communication could dilute its effect.

    CRTs can help identify the right type of communication strategy that will deliver the desired change in attitudes and behaviour of the mass public. Further, CRTs can also be used to evaluate the precise effect of social media on shaping the attitudes of Singaporeans, especially younger minds. Each CRT listed above would involve randomly allocating individuals to treatment and control groups, and ensuring that only the treatment group gets the policy that we wish to evaluate.

    In sum, CRTs provide us with a way to evaluate policy before it is implemented in the broader society. If we have a rule in place that no new drug will be disseminated to the public without clear control randomised trials to show that it works, why should it be any different for public policy?

    About the Author

    S.P.Harish is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Politics at New York University. He is currently a Visiting Research Associate at the Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS), a constituent unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Global

    Synopsis

    How can academics who provide policy prescriptions and policymakers who implement policy determine whether a given strategy works? Controlled Randomised Trials are a useful way to identify racial and religious discrimination, to evaluate policy, and to bridge academic research and policy outcomes.

    Commentary

    THE SINGAPORE Government has identified social cohesion as an important policy pillar to support the goal of nation-building. This has arisen out of awareness that societal differences in Singapore are an issue that needs to be managed with care. Whether it concerns race, religion, or nationality, these differences are perceived to have the potential to create or increase tensions between different groups, destabilise society and even result in violent conflict.

    Besides the ethnic-religious riots in 1964, the Jemaah Islamiah terrorist arrests in 2001, the Amy Cheong rant against Malay weddings or the illegal bus strike last year, were events which tested ethnic, religious or national ties.

    What is social cohesion?

     Social cohesion is defined by scholars as a situation where Singaporeans believe they belong to society, have a stake in it and are involved in its development. High levels of cohesion involve strong social bonds, trust in institutions, and norms that promote reciprocity. Towards this end, the government has pursued a multi-pronged strategy to manage racial and religious harmony and relations. They include the management of society through the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) in public housing; National Service (NS) for male Singaporeans; self-help groups for the respective ethnic communities; celebration of Racial Harmony Day; and the creation of institutions such as the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circle (IRCC).

    These government policies have, in sum, worked in building social cohesion in Singapore. But which policy worked? Was it the management of society along the ethnic policy categorisations of Chinese, Malay, Indian, Other (CMIO); EIP for public housing; or was it a combination of bothCMIO and EIP? What precise effect does NS have on social cohesion in Singapore today? Or did all the above policies serve to achieve the level of cohesion we observe today? While something worked we cannot precisely identify what has worked.

    How then can scholars who provide policy prescriptions and policymakers who implement policy determine whether a given strategy works? How can we know whether a given policy has had the desired effect on people’s attitudes and behaviour? To know whether a policy has worked, we need to imagine what academics call a counterfactual: a world where this particular policy was not implemented but everything else remains the same.

    For example, consider a Singapore where EIP was not implemented but everything else stayed the same. Depending on whether we imagine a Singapore with ethnic ghettos and skewed housing prices, or a Singapore where most things remain the same, we would have a different estimation of the effectiveness of this particular policy. Indeed, most debates over the effectiveness of a policy are basically debates about counterfactuals.

    Controlled Randomised Trials

    Controlled Randomised Trials (CRTs) are a useful way to identify racial and religious discrimination, to evaluate policy, and to bridge academic research and policy outcomes. The roots of CRTs lie in the medical sciences where human trials are mandatory. For example, consider a new drug that claims to cure fever. The drug company is required to conduct a CRT where they would randomly allocate people to two groups: a Treatment group which receives the new drug, and a Control group which does not receive the new drug. Any difference in measures of fever between the two groups is attributable only to the new drug. Replace ‘drug’ with ‘policy’, and replace ‘cure fever’ with ‘change attitudes/behaviour’ in the above example and we can see the usefulness of CRTs to evaluate policy. Its main advantage is that the Control group described above is the true counterfactual.

    CRTs have been used to identify areas where discrimination could take place along lines of race and religion. For instance, two US scholars conducted a study in 2004 to identify racial discrimination in the labour market. They sent out resumes in response to help-wanted advertisements in Chicago and Boston newspapers and measured the call-back rate for an interview for each resume. They used a fictitious job applicant and randomly manipulated the name with White American names like ‘Emily Walsh’ or ‘Greg Baker’, and African-American sounding names like ‘Lakisha Washington’ and ‘Jamal Jones’.

    They found that African Americans had to send, on average, 50 percent more resumes than White Americans for an interview callback. This study was a CRT since they randomly manipulated the name of the job seeker but ensured that all other aspects of the resumes were identical. This allowed them to conclude that the 50 percent difference can be precisely attributed to racial discrimination and not to any other extraneous factor.

    Possible CRTs in Singapore

    In Singapore, we could conduct similar studies to identify potential discrimination along race, religion, age, gender and nationality in the labour market. Ideally we would want to eliminate any systematic discrimination along these lines since it can affect social cohesion, and CRTs can help detect such cases in the job market. For instance, CRTs could identify instances where employers may favour people of certain races and religion, or perhaps prefer younger to older employees, or perhaps choose a foreigner over a Singaporean.

    It would involve performing a study similar to the one described above – keeping everything the same in the resume but randomly manipulating the race, religion, age, gender or nationality of the respondent. In a similar vein, this could also be expanded to areas such as the food and rental markets. For example, a CRT could help identify if some food stalls overcharge tourists or some house owners discriminate against tenants from a certain country of origin.

    Once a problem is identified, CRTs could also assist in evaluating policy. For instance, CRTs can be used to identify the effect of inter-racial/religious groups in schools and workplace, building social space with foreigners, or tweaking EIP to include foreigners. We can also envision evaluating programmes like National Education and the Speak English/Mandarin campaigns. In some instances, we may have formulated the right policy but the mode of public communication could dilute its effect.

    CRTs can help identify the right type of communication strategy that will deliver the desired change in attitudes and behaviour of the mass public. Further, CRTs can also be used to evaluate the precise effect of social media on shaping the attitudes of Singaporeans, especially younger minds. Each CRT listed above would involve randomly allocating individuals to treatment and control groups, and ensuring that only the treatment group gets the policy that we wish to evaluate.

    In sum, CRTs provide us with a way to evaluate policy before it is implemented in the broader society. If we have a rule in place that no new drug will be disseminated to the public without clear control randomised trials to show that it works, why should it be any different for public policy?

    About the Author

    S.P.Harish is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Politics at New York University. He is currently a Visiting Research Associate at the Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS), a constituent unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series

    Popular Links

    About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

    Connect with Us

    rsis.ntu
    rsis_ntu
    rsisntu
    rsisvideocast
    school/rsis-ntu
    rsis.sg
    rsissg
    RSIS
    RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    Getting to RSIS

    Nanyang Technological University
    Block S4, Level B3,
    50 Nanyang Avenue,
    Singapore 639798

    Click here for direction to RSIS

    Get in Touch

      Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
      Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
      Help us improve

        Rate your experience with this website
        123456
        Not satisfiedVery satisfied
        What did you like?
        0/255 characters
        What can be improved?
        0/255 characters
        Your email
        Please enter a valid email.
        Thank you for your feedback.
        This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
        OK
        Latest Book
        more info