Using Household Surveys as a tool for monitoring Poverty, Governance and Democracy in Africa and the Andean Region Javier Herrera Mireille Razafindrakoto Fran - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Using Household Surveys as a tool for monitoring Poverty, Governance and Democracy in Africa and the Andean Region Javier Herrera Mireille Razafindrakoto Fran PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 79137b-ZGI5M



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Using Household Surveys as a tool for monitoring Poverty, Governance and Democracy in Africa and the Andean Region Javier Herrera Mireille Razafindrakoto Fran

Description:

Using Household Surveys as a tool for monitoring Poverty, Governance and Democracy in Africa and the Andean Region Javier Herrera Mireille Razafindrakoto – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:17
Avg rating:3.0/5.0

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Using Household Surveys as a tool for monitoring Poverty, Governance and Democracy in Africa and the Andean Region Javier Herrera Mireille Razafindrakoto Fran


1
Using Household Surveys as a tool for
monitoring Poverty, Governance and Democracy in
Africa and the Andean Region Javier 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 dIvoire,
    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 Offices 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

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 peoples 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
    peoples 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
Percentage Benin Burkina Faso Ivory Coast Mada-gascar Mali Niger Senegal Togo Average

Incidence of corruption
General population 8,7 15,2 16,5 16,3 10,1 8,2 10,8 9,6 13,1
Expert panel (what they believe public would reply) 54,1 35,2 60,7 57,1 52,0 56,1 51,1 62,5 54,0

Believes that making a bribe is acceptable behaviour
General population 3,6 8,2 5,2 10,5 5,0 3,1 2,2 3,8 5,2
Expert panel (what they believe public would reply) 31,3 28,7 29,2 32,9 33,3 33,8 35,5 21,8 31,5

Corruption is a major problem
General population 94,2 87,4 91,0 96,9 88,4 91,6 87,9 82,8 90,3
Expert panel (what they believe public would reply) 84,8 67,4 72,3 76,4 67,2 62,3 69,4 84,0 72,9
Expert panel (personal opinion) 96,3 65,0 94,1 88,9 78,1 72,7 80,5 92,3 85,3

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 dont 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 dont 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--gt
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
1995-2001 Measure 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 experts 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.
About PowerShow.com