4,172 rated or chosen profiles from 1,043 respondents, in up to 2 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 3 attributes.

About this table

Description	Paired conjoint on how a district allocates a public-goods project: 1,043 Ghanaian adults (Ipsos face-to-face, nationally representative, 2023) compared 2 pairs of decision processes (status quo, citizen-elite deliberation, participatory, mini-public) varying party endorsement and whether their community gets the project; choice plus 1-7 fairness and democratic ratings.
Reference	Kramon, E. (2025). Are democratic innovations legitimate to the broader public? Evidence from survey experiments in Ghana. British Journal of Political Science.
DOI	10.1017/S000712342510094X
Licence	CC0 1.0
Source data	https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/JDUUGI

Notes

Conjoint table (irw_conjoint). Two pairs of district decision processes; choice = 'Which of these processes would you prefer?' (forced); rating_fair / rating_democratic = 'Thinking of process A [B], how fair / democratic would you say it is?' 1-7 (7 = extremely fair / democratic). Levels are the author's short labels; level shares unequal (status quo 35%, no endorsement 43%) though described as independently randomized. 1,043 respondents as in the paper.

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	1,043
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)	4,172
Tasks per respondent (most)	2
Profiles per task	2
Attributes	3
Tasks with no profile chosen	0

Design

Topic	democracy institutions
A profile represents	policy
Country	GH
Language shown	dag, ee, gaa, tw
Language of stored levels	en
Task order	recorded in the deposit
Profile position	recorded in the deposit

Outcomes:

choice	Which of these processes would you prefer? [choice, forced]
rating_democratic	Thinking of process A [B], how democratic would you say it is? [rating, 1 (Extremly not democratic) to 7 (Extremly democratic)]
rating_fair	Thinking of process A [B], how fair would you say it is? [rating, 1 (Extremly unfair) to 7 (Extremly fair)]

Columns

attr_endorsementattr_processattr_projectchoicecov_age_groupcov_gendercov_ndc_partisancov_npp_partisancov_ruralidprofilerating_democraticrating_fairtask

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("kramon_2025_democratic_innovations", source = "conj")

# Python
pip install irw

import irw
df = irw.fetch("kramon_2025_democratic_innovations", source="conj")

How to cite

@article{Kramon_2025, title={Are Democratic Innovations Legitimate to the Broader Public? Evidence from Survey Experiments in Ghana}, volume={55}, ISSN={1469-2112}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S000712342510094X}, DOI={10.1017/s000712342510094x}, journal={British Journal of Political Science}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Kramon, Eric}, 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