1 / 19

The global framework Objective Main partners The implementation process

Using Household Surveys as a tool for monitoring Poverty, Governance and Democracy in Africa and the Andean Region Javier Herrera Mireille Razafindrakoto François Roubaud DIAL - IRD Workshop on Governance Indicators New-Delhi, April, 20-22, 2005. The global framework Objective

ornice
Download Presentation

The global framework Objective Main partners The implementation process

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using Household Surveys as a tool for monitoring Poverty, Governance and Democracy in Africa and the Andean RegionJavier Herrera Mireille RazafindrakotoFrançois Roubaud DIAL - IRDWorkshop on Governance Indicators New-Delhi, April, 20-22, 2005

  2. The global framework • Objective • Main partners • The implementation process • Importance of the dissemination policy • The Tool • The Mirror Survey • Results / Type of indicators • Desagregated data (by sex, by level of income, level of education, ethnic groups, etc.) • Comparable data • Geographical data • Time-series • Multi-dimensional approach DIAL Développement Institutions et Analyses de Long terme

  3. Objective  To refine measurement tools and to test the capacity of statistical household surveys (1-2-3 survey) to provide relevant information on key aspects of democracy and governance.  Implementation of representative sample surveys on households’ experiences, perceptions and expectations  Methodology : Qualitative modules on Governance and Democracy (=opinion polls) grafted onto conventional household quantitative survey(the 1-2-3 survey on employment, informal sector, consumption and poverty  extended to Governance and Democracy issues).  Multi-country approach: • In Africa: 7 capital cities of Western African countries (Benin, Burkina-Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Togo), + 7 cities of Madagascar. • In Latin America: 5 countries of the Andean Community (Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela DIAL Développement Institutions et Analyses de Long terme

  4. The global framework Main partners: • Andean Community General Secretariat and Statistical offices of the region; • Afristat and Statistical Offices of the region • Surveys are conducted by National Statistical offices • DIAL : responsible for coordination and technical assistance  Integration in the National Statistical System ( Institutionalisation can be considered)  Statistical Office’s function: to provide data to help decision-making process  In many very poor countries, Statistical office is the most qualified to implement surveys with large sample and with reliable results • Mobilisation of existing tools (Household surveys already implemented)  Marginal cost DIAL Développement Institutions et Analyses de Long terme

  5. Implementation process Design of the questionnaire is based on more than five years experiences in Madagascar (started in 1995) • First phase in Madagascar : • variable thematic modules (adjusted every years)  Test of the relevance of questions included in the survey  Importance of the dissemination policy : Systematic presentation / publication of the result  wide audience : public conference, dissemination in the media, etc. (thirst for evidence-based information, for meaningful figures)  Reactions  validation of the relevance of the questions  Gives raise to specific demand from different stakeholders ( partnership with civil society, media)  Second phase at a regional level : the same questionnaire in 7 capital cities in West Africa (test of relevance) The 1-2-3 household survey was already planned in these countries The suggestion of added modules on governance and democracy • met the demand in some countries • gave raise to demand in others Need for evidence, convincing result (to demonstrate the relevance of the approach and the questions addressed)  Initiative from countries to reconduct the survey OWNERSHIP DIAL Développement Institutions et Analyses de Long terme

  6. The tool : Module grafted onto conventional household survey Main principles • Light, flexible tool  Reconductible Time-series • Transparency, representativeness of the information collected (voicing) • Quantification of the phenomenon.  combination and monitoring over time of 3 types of information: - subjective issues (assessment of the working of democracy and the State, level of support for policies, perception of discrimination, value systems), - objective facts on social practices and behaviour (access to public services, political involvement, incidence of corruption etc.) • conventional socio-economic characteristics (gender, education, level of income, age, migration, employment, income, consumption etc.).  multiple possibilities to break down the information according to different category of households or individuals (by level of income, by sex, by ethnic group, etc.). DIAL Développement Institutions et Analyses de Long terme

  7. The mirror survey To round out the collection of surveys on Governance and Democracy in seven West African capitals and in Madagascar (Antananarivo),  an additional survey to get the opinions of a certain number of Southern and Northern experts (researchers, development practitioners, decision-makers, senior civil servants, politicians, etc.). The aim  to compare answers from the population surveyed in each country with the experts’ point of view.

  8. The mirror survey Two sets of questions:(on one of the eight countries the expert know the best, his reference) - what did the experts believe the respondents answered on average. - their own answer to these same questions (“What is your personal opinion?”) Questions : - Specificity of the answers of the population / experts, specialists? • - Knowledge of Northern or Southern experts on what happens and on people’s thinking in the South? Relevance and reliability of indicators based only on appreciation of panel of experts?

  9. Some results to illustrate the usefulness of this type of surveys Results of the “mirror survey”  In general, it seems that experts are more “pessimistic” on how “Africa works” than the african citizens. • Answers (values) of the population in the South are less specific than experts think (democratic values etc.)  confirmation that it is interesting to know people’s opinion on reform  ownership

  10. Preliminary results of the mirror survey

  11. How far can we trust the experts’ opinion on corruption?An experiment based on surveys in francophone Africa Sources: General Household Survey (35,594 persons interviewed; 4500 for each country in average); Expert panel survey (246 persons surveyed; 30 experts for each country in average).

  12. How far can we trust the experts’ opinion on corruption? • experts overestimate the extent to which the general population experiences corruption. • Overall, experts hold a far more negative view of reality than the general public. • Not only overestimation: there are significant differences between the two surveys concerning the relative positions of the eight countries. • There is in fact no correlation between the rates of corruption measured by the household surveys and by the mirror survey (-0,19, n.s.) • On the other hand, the expert opinion results drawn from the mirror survey are similar to corruption indicators found in international databases (-0.52 with KKZ “control of corr.”)

  13. How far can we trust the experts’ opinion on corruption? • Experts don’t necessarily have a good understanding of the real extent of corruption in the 8 countries surveyed. • The question: what is really being measured in these perception indicators (drawn from experts panel)? • The results do not invalidate the relevance of such indicators since they do capture a common perception linked to corruption phenomena, even if they don’t correspond to the true experiences of corruption. • They should be combined with a new set of indicators based on objective measure and not only on perception in order to understand the full complexity of corruption.

  14. Results of the household surveysIncidence and determinants of the petty corruption in West Africa Sources: 1-2-3 Surveys, PARSTAT, WAEMU 2001-2003 Note : logit model (selection bias correction procedure). ++ (resp. --) : significant coefficient (positive resp. negative) at 5 %. + (resp. -) : idem at 10 %. n.s. : non significant at 5 %).some robust findings  profile of groups that are victims of corruption. -The wealthiest and heads of household appear to be more especially targets of corrupt officials- Youth (the risk decreases with age) and being a foreigner (this is the case in Abidjan) increase vulnerability, other things being equal. - Overall and contrary to the preconceived idea--> ethnic group and religion do not affect the rate of corruption (except very few cases) - Civil servants appear to be less likely to be victims of corruption (civil servant solidarity).

  15. Incidence et determinants of the petty corruption in West Africa Incidence and cost of corruption in Niamey Sources: 1-2-3 Surveys, PARSTAT, WAEMU 2001-2003  Poorest quartile (in terms of income) is less victim of corruption  The annual total amount paid by households (victims):  16% of the income of the poorest quartile of the population  1% of the income of the wealthiest quartile

  16. Public wages and corruption in Madagascar 1995-2001Measure of the incidence of corruption (objective extent of this phenomenon : the proportion of inhabitants of the capital who have fallen victim to corruption during the past year (small-scale corruption)) The measurement of this type of indicator is quite exceptional in developing countries. quantifies the problem & spurs on the authorities to take steps to deal with it.Beyond  monitoring over time (since 2000 these indicators have been included every year in official statistical surveys) improves understanding of the phenomenon. Figure illustrates the link between improving civil servant wages and a sharp drop in the incidence of corruption between 1995 and 2001. Source :Source: Razafindrakoto and Roubaud (2001) based on employment surveys 1995-2001, MADIO/INSTAT.

  17. For more informationDIAL websitewww.dial.prd.fr

  18. ANNEXES

  19. Preliminary results of the mirror survey For Senegal, 3 modalities (country/ethnic group/religion, sect) instead of 2 like in the other countries (country/ethnic group)Sources : 1-2-3 Survey 2001/02, PARSTAT. Representative sample of adults aged 18 and over.Mirror survey : 106 individuals (32% on Abidjan, 17% Cotonou, 15% Dakar, 11% Ouagadougou, 10% Bamako)A priori, the expert’s origine (Northern/Southern) is not a discriminatory factor explaining answers for the mirror surveyDifferences / ‘mistakes’ concerning experts’ appreciation confirmed when results are compared country by country.

More Related