html5-img
1 / 10

Structural Vulnerability Assessments

Structural Vulnerability Assessments. An example of theory-informed, data-driven research to support for the formulation of actionable policy options. March 2014. Approach.

lisle
Télécharger la présentation

Structural Vulnerability Assessments

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. Structural Vulnerability Assessments An example of theory-informed, data-driven research to support for the formulation of actionable policy options March 2014

  2. Approach • Specify the goal (e.g. to minimize violent conflict) as measured by a third party measure (Heidelberg’s Conflict Barometer) – the target • Select a broad range of comparable structural indicators that are suggested to escalate the level of conflict – the drivers • Compile a structural indicator data set with country profiles for the world, continent and region over at least a decade – the profiles • Train & Test the model based on the historical data and test its performance, refining and iterating until optimized – the model • Forecast levels of conflict going into the future, identifying common and country-specific drivers for diagnosis – the “input” • Formulate options to promote the prevention or escalation of conflict (i.e. to promote peace)– the recommended “options”

  3. Assumptions & Requirements • The choice of Target measure is guided by the Institution’s Mandate • History Continuity and Learning • Model can be trained on the association of past profiles & levels of conflict, with measurable performance, but • Beware of novelties and discontinuities • Statistical method must be tolerant of indicator collinearity, data noise and missing values • Tools must be customizable, interactive and able to track performance metrics Recall = TP / (TP + FN) <<< most important for early intervention Precision = TP / (TP + FP) F Score = harmonic mean of recall & precision - BEST OVERALL MEASURE(TP = true positives, FP = false positives, TN = true negative, FN = false negatives)

  4. Data Criteria: in descending order of importance • Mandated Focus & Scope (e.g. gender) • Available, at least 50% non-missing data • Actionable (e.g. terrain versus education) • Theory-informed (linkage to target variable) • Open source, with regular updates • Comparable, national, continental & global • Replicable, with full documentation • Historical, a decade plus for training

  5. Data Sources: Preferred, Usable and Others • Member States – preferred • International Governmental Organizations • AU, RECs, UN, World Bank, AfDB, ILO, etc. (especially African) • Nongovernmental Organizations • Academic Centers (e.g. Uppsala, Heidelberg, George Mason) • Research Units (e.g. CRED, IISS, SIPRI) • Advocacy (World Economic Forum, Freedom House) • Ad hoc and internally generated, particularly intra-regional, for example • Informal cross-border trade internally generated • Country-specific measures limited to a region

  6. Data Challenges: Missing Data and Alternate Measures • 5,814 indicators across five databases (Africa, Development, Education, Gender & HPN), but • 4,485 unique indicators • 1,940 indicators with more than 50% non-missing data (Only 43% usable for global comparisons) • With numerous variations of each: • 219 individual measures with a GDP component • 98 individual measures on school enrollment • 21 measures on education (mostly spending) Based on June 2012 World Bank data

  7. Data Challenges:Two More Examples • Unemployment and Employment • 56 indicators on unemployment, by age, education, gender & sector, but none with more than 46% non-missing data • 145 indicators on employment, with 15 having non-missing data greater than 78% • Distribution of Income (HDI as alternative) • 22 GINI-related measures, none with more than 14 % non-missing data • 12 income share-related measures, none with more than 14 % non-missing data

  8. Analysis Process:Transparent & Participatory Approach • Engage stakeholders in discussions of target, indicators & data sources, with several iterations of each • Test & re-test both DV and IV operationalizations • Solicit regional expert ideas on the indicators • Explore national sources first, then IGOs and others • Communicate progress on intermediate results, especially on their communication & ultimate use • Ongoing collaboration, review & validation (national and IGO officials, regional experts and academics) is required • Focus on drivers, both common and country-specific • Calculate discrimination value & distributions • Emphasize interpretation & formulation of options

  9. Interpretation:Guidelines • Applies to both Common & Country-Specific Drivers • Consider • Performance Metrics • Distribution • Triangulation • Missing Drivers (if indicator is missing, it cannot discriminate ) • Indicator utility in specific contexts, including • Indicator relevance, and • A “Smell Test” of intuition and grounded expertise

  10. Formulation of Options: Guidelines • Within the Institutional Mandate • Actionable Prevention and/or Mitigation • Consider Intermediate Requirements • Define Progress Milestones • Specify linkage and expected outcomes

More Related