**Table A.11:** Robustness Checks on Bureaucrat Alignment (Table 5)

||**Offcials/c**|**itizens agree on:**|**Complain**|**ts received about:**|**Village t**|**akes action on:**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Village Services:**|Priority|Worst-quality|Priority|Worst-quality|Priority|Worst-quality|
||(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|(6)|
|1. Baseline|0.105<br>(0.116)|0.236<sup>_∗∗_</sup><br>(0.117)|0.162<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup><br>(0.068)|0.174<sup>_∗∗_</sup><br>(0.079)|0.127<sup>_∗_</sup><br>(0.079)|0.213<sup>_∗∗_</sup><br>(0.103)|
|2. No controls|0.046<br>(0.132)|0.224<sup>_∗∗_</sup><br>(0.120)|0.192<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup><br>(0.070)|0.167<sup>_∗∗_</sup><br>(0.083)|0.139<sup>_∗∗_</sup><br>(0.076)|0.202<sup>_∗_</sup><br>(0.122)|
|3. Region fxed effects|0.074<br>(0.117)|0.250<sup>_∗∗_</sup><br>(0.119)|0.159<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup><br>(0.063)|0.135<sup>_∗_</sup><br>(0.079)|0.138<sup>_∗∗_</sup><br>(0.071)|0.197<sup>_∗∗_</sup><br>(0.110)|
|4. 3rd-Degree polynomial|0.129<br>(0.178)|0.337<sup>_∗∗_</sup><br>(0.165)|0.242<sup>_∗∗_</sup><br>(0.102)|0.202<sup>_∗_</sup><br>(0.115)|0.168<br>(0.125)|0.396<sup>_∗∗_</sup><br>(0.180)|
|5. 1/2 MSE-opt. bandwidth|0.122<br>(0.248)|0.289<br>(0.248)|0.198<sup>_∗_</sup><br>(0.167)|0.163<sup>_∗_</sup><br>(0.106)|0.122<br>(0.144)|0.317<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup><br>(0.183)|
|6. 3/4 MSE-opt. bandwidth|0.104|0.268|0.175<sup>_∗∗_</sup>|0.163<sup>_∗_</sup>|0.129|0.254<sup>_∗∗_</sup>|
||(0.178)|(0.186)|(0.114)|(0.097)|(0.112)|(0.149)|
|7. 2x MSE-opt. bandwidth|-0.005<br>(0.108)|0.099<sup>_∗∗_</sup><br>(0.111)|0.118<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup><br>(0.063)|0.182<sup>_∗∗_</sup><br>(0.073)|0.092<sup>_∗∗_</sup><br>(0.068)|0.140<sup>_∗∗_</sup><br>(0.093)|
|8. Excl. Suharto villages|0.097<br>(0.116)|0.247<sup>_∗∗_</sup><br>(0.122)|0.147<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup><br>(0.059)|0.176<sup>_∗∗_</sup><br>(0.081)|0.124<sup>_∗_</sup><br>(0.074)|0.260<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup><br>(0.111)|
|9. Fuzzy RD|-0.001|0.301<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|0.190<sup>_∗∗_</sup>|0.148|0.155<sup>_∗_</sup>|0.321<sup>_∗∗_</sup>|
||(0.147)|(0.144)|(0.094)|(0.119)|(0.096)|(0.148)|
|10. Excl. lame-duck|0.125|0.277<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|0.127<sup>_∗∗_</sup>|0.189<sup>_∗∗_</sup>|0.142<sup>_∗∗_</sup>|0.153<sup>_∗_</sup>|
||(0.118)|(0.111)|(0.060)|(0.079)|(0.079)|(0.102)|
|Observations|1067|1067|1067|1067|443|443|
|Control mean|0.75|0.32|0.87|0.71|0.94|0.88|
|MSE-opt. bandwidth|17.5|17.0|18.4|25.7|22.7|26.4|

_Notes_ : This table reports robustness checks on Table 5. The first row reports our baseline estimates. In the second row, we remove election year dummies and our control for the survey experiment treatment, which are included in our baseline estimation. In the third row, we include region fixed effects and dummies for pairs of election years (2015-2016, 2017-2018, etc.). The main regions in our sample are Java, Sulawesi, Sumatra, Kalimantan, and NTB-Bali. In the fourth row, we use a 3rd-degree polynomial to construct the point estimator. In the fifth, sixth, and seventh rows, we use a RD bandwidth equal to 1/2, 3/4, and twice the MSE-optimal bandwidth from Calonico et al. (2014), respectively. In the eighth row, we exclude villages with bureaucrats appointed during the Suharto era. In the ninth row, we report fuzzy RD estimates of _γ_ in equation (1). We use 1 (margin _jt >_ 0) from equation (1) to instrument for a dummy equal to 1 if the current village head in our survey sample is a different individual from the incumbent who competed in the last election. In the tenth row, we exclude villages where the current village head is serving in their third term. The dependent variables are identical to those in Table 5. The bottom panel reports the bandwidth size for the baseline estimation. * p _<_ 0.1, ** p _<_ 0.05, *** p _<_ 0.01. Robust bias-corrected standard errors clustered by village in parentheses.

51