7,440 rated or chosen profiles from 938 respondents, in up to 4 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 4 attributes.

About this table

Description	Candidates in Tunisia's 2018 municipal elections (Local Election Candidate Survey, n = 938) made four forced choices between two local development projects with randomized co-financing organization (local CSO, CPSCL, World Bank, GIZ, USAID), project type, supporters and municipal cost.
Reference	Blackman, A. D., Sasmaz, A., Singh, R., & Williamson, S. (2025). Anti-Americanism and foreign aid preferences among political elites: Evidence from Tunisia [Working paper]. University of Oxford.
Licence	CC0 1.0
Source data	https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/POIP41

Notes

Conjoint table (irw_conjoint). Forced choice between two development projects ('Which project do you prefer for your municipality?'), no opt-out, 4 tasks; 36 unanswered tasks omitted. Levels are the paper's English Table 1 text mapped from the deposit's short labels. Profile position inferred from the deposit's stacked row order (which project was shown first is assumed). Attribute order randomized per respondent, not recorded. Municipality ID dropped.

These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.

Size and shape

Respondents	938
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)	7,440
Tasks per respondent (most)	4
Profiles per task	2
Attributes	4
Tasks with no profile chosen	0

Design

Topic	public administration
A profile represents	policy
Country	TN
Language shown	unknown
Language of stored levels	en
Task order	recorded in the deposit
Profile position	inferred from row order

Task order or profile position was rebuilt from row order; analyses of position or task order should leave it out.

Outcomes:

choice

After you are a member of the municipal council, you will have the opportunity to vote for or against different project proposals for your municipality. Imagine that you are presented with two different development projects for your municipality and can only support one of them. Below you are presented with the details of the two projects. Which project do you prefer for your municipality? [choice, forced]

Columns

attr_cofinancingattr_costattr_projectattr_supportchoicecov_age_groupcov_coalition_membercov_edu_highercov_employedcov_gendercov_incomecov_list_classcov_mun_unemployment_ratecov_mun_urbanizationcov_policy_governorcov_prev_admincov_prev_counciloridprofiletask

The layout (one row per respondent, task and profile; choice/rating outcomes; attr_ columns holding each attribute level as displayed) is defined in the IRW conjoint standard. What the outcomes asked is under Design above.

Get the data

Download CSVno account needed Browse on Redivisexplore and query Croissant metadataHugging Face, Kaggle, OpenML

Or load it directly in R or Python (both need a free Redivis account; the first call opens a browser to sign in):

# R
install.packages("remotes")
remotes::install_github("itemresponsewarehouse/Rpkg")
library(irw)
df <- irw_fetch("blackman_2025_aid_tunisia", source = "conj")

# Python
pip install irw

import irw
df = irw.fetch("blackman_2025_aid_tunisia", source="conj")

How to cite

@misc{https://doi.org/10.7910/dvn/poip41,
  doi = {10.7910/DVN/POIP41},
  url = {https://dataverse.harvard.edu/citation?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/POIP41},
  author = {Blackman, Alexandra and Şaşmaz, Aytuğ and Singh, Renu and Williamson, Scott},
  keywords = {Social Sciences},
  title = {Replication Data for: Anti-Americanism and Foreign Aid Preferences Among Political Elites: Evidence from Tunisia},
  publisher = {Harvard Dataverse},
  year = {2025}
}

Version and provenance

IRW version	v584
Redivis dataset	irw_conjoint v4.2
Redivis dataset DOI	10.57761/qkye-q530
Manifest pin for this IRW version	v4.2
Metadata source	irw_meta v44.0