1 / 27

Seminar on “The Empirics Of Governance“ May 1 – 2, 2008, Washington DC

Indicators based on representative surveys of firms, households and service providers Javier Herrera (IRD - DIAL) Mireille Razafindrakoto (IRD - DIAL), and François Roubaud (IRD - DIAL) Seminar on “The Empirics Of Governance“ May 1 – 2, 2008, Washington DC PRESENTATION SCHEME

richard_edik
Télécharger la présentation

Seminar on “The Empirics Of Governance“ May 1 – 2, 2008, Washington DC

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. Indicators based on representative surveys of firms, households and service providersJavier Herrera (IRD - DIAL)Mireille Razafindrakoto (IRD - DIAL), and François Roubaud(IRD - DIAL) Seminar on “The Empirics Of Governance“ May 1 – 2, 2008, Washington DC

  2. PRESENTATION SCHEME • Uses of household surveys • Taking into account sources of bias • Objective vs subjective corruption indicators • Conclusions & Perspectives DIAL Développement, Institutions et Analyse de Long terme

  3. I. Uses of household surveys • Household survey as a « voicing » instrument; public awareness on corruption (particularly in of authoritarian political contexts). • Complex links with policy

  4. Historical perspective  First estimation of the extent of corruption in 1995 in Madagascar (with Household survey) • Headlines in the press: « Outcry against corruption! »  It then became impossible to ignore the problem

  5. 1995 It then became impossible to ignore the problem • the Ministry of Justice took steps to introduce a system of sanctions. • a draft law on the fight against corruption BUT Draft law rejected by the Government Council in 1999 • Importance of context & characteristics of institution (~ authoritarian regime and problem of governance) 2002 Institutional change  Stress put on transparency • 2003 Creation of an independent council (CSLCC) • 2004 Independent anti-corruption office (BIANCO) MEASURE 1995  1998  DEFINITION OF POLICY QUALITY OF INSTITUTIONS / Political Regime Positive Impact Interactions

  6. Headlines in the press in may 2005: « More confidence & less corruption » after the public conference presenting the first results of the survey on « governance, democracy and fight against poverty »

  7. GOVERNANCE An improvement of civil servant wages or an active anti-corruption policy  a sharp drop in the incidence of corruption Civil servant salaries and corruption levels in Madagascar 1995-2004 Sources : Razafindrakoto, Roubaud (2002) and 1-2-3 Survey 2002-2004, INSTAT, DIAL, authors calculations.

  8. II. Taking into account sources of bias • Who answers the question matters (random sample selection within the household) • But also it matters to know more about who don’t answer (non respondent profile) • Taking into account the working of corruption (middlemen, social norms, etc.) • Robustness needs to be assessed • Informal production units needs adapted survey approach (the 123 surveys)

  9. III. Taking into account sources of bias • The wording and sequence of question matters (but not only when measuring corruption, ie. labor surveys). Pilot surveys are important. • Non response to governance questions in HH surveys are lower than in standard questions (ie. Income) • Unobserved heterogeneity (« over optimistic »/ »under optimistic », use panel data -ongoing research)

  10. The surveys Governance and Democracy Modules grafted onto official household survey conducted by National Statistical Institutes Survey support (stratified multi-stage sample surveys: area/HH) for the Modules (Individuals): • In Africa: 1-2-3 Survey (LFS, informal sector, consumption and poverty) - Madagascar 1995-2004, Capital + urban areas (2000, 2001), rural, entreprises surveys (time series) - West Africa 2001/2003, in 7 WAEMU capital cities (Abidjan, Bamako, Cotonou, Dakar, Lomé, Ouagadougou and Niamey) 35 594 persons interviewed • In Latin America: Standard National Household surveys (ECH, Bolivia; SIE-ENEMDU, Ecuador; ENAHO, Peru). National and regional inference for Peru and Ecuador. • Peru 2002-, national level (18 000 HH sample in 2002; continuous survey from 2003 to date). • Ecuador 2004, (20 000 HH) • Bolivia 2004, national (1 700 HH). • The survey is taking place in Colombia during the 2nd term of 2005. More than 50 000 persons interviewed

  11. Ownership Reliability Sustainability Conducted by National Statistical Institute  Integration in the National Statistical System Relevance Systematic Presentation / Publication of the result  wider public • Validation • Democratic debate • demand Bottom-up approach Investment in capacity building Light, flexible tool • Reconductible • time-series Marginal cost HH survey « Voicing »  empowerment, accountability Strong points / Basic principles: Supply side Demand side Interactions

  12. Non responseThere is (often) more willingness to answer questions on governance and democray than usual economic questions Non response rate to selected questions Sources : 1-2-3 Surveys, Phase 1, Governance and Democracy module, 2001/2003, National Statistical Institutes, AFRISTAT, DIAL, authors’ calculations.

  13. RobustnessProbabilistic surveys allows a quantitative assessement of indicators’ precision (also relevant for group and intertemporal comparaisons) In your opinion, corruption since last year? Source: our estimation based on ENAHO july 2003-june 2004, INEI, Peru.

  14. Taking into account the working of corruption: middlemen; failed corruption; “accepted” corruption, amounts paid, access to services; links with inefficiency… Source: ENAHO 2004 HH survey Peru

  15. Corruption incidence taking into account access to public services • Incidence (percentage of households victims) has decreased • Total amount paid has decreased in real terms • The poor as well as the rich had benefited from this improvement Incidence and cost of corruption (2002/2003 and 2004 in Antananarivo) Source : Enquête 1-2-3, modules qualitatifs, 2003 et 2004, INSTAT, authors calculations.

  16. “Don’t know” answer is not random: it concerns mainly the poor, the rural, the less educated, the socially excluded Importance of democracy

  17. Corruption incidence for the informal sector production units can be measured Source: Alain Brilleau et al. « Le secteur informel : Performances, insertion, perspectives, enquête 1-2-3 phase 2 », STATECO n°99, 2005 p.82.

  18. III. Objective vs subjective corruption indicators • Expert’s surveys vs. HH surveys • Do they measure the same phenomena? (petty vs. big corruption) • Minding the gap between : • -perceptions and objective indicators • -aspirations and perceived outcomes

  19. 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 specialists’ point of view.

  20. The mirror survey (…) Two sets of questions: -what the experts think 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 Sample size : 250 experts (30 per country in average) DIAL Développement, Institutions et Analyse de Long terme

  21. The need for complementary approaches / indicators How far can we trust the experts’ opinion on corruption? • Discrepancies between real extent of corruption and experts’ perception in Francophone Africa  On the level of corruption / To what extent corruption acceptable  On the relative positions (rank) of the different countries Sources: General Household Survey (35,594 persons interviewed; 4500 for each country in average); Expert panel survey or Mirror survey (246 persons surveyed; 30 experts for each country in average). * In Madagascar, results are drawn from the 2003 survey. Authors calculations.

  22. DEMOCRACY • Measuring the gap between aspirations and effectiveness as regards democratic principles Perception of the main democratic principles by the population  Are they fundamental? Are they respected in the country? Sources : Enquêtes 1-2-3, module Démocratie, 2001/2003, Instituts Nationaux de la Statistique, AFRISTAT, DIAL authors calculations.

  23. DEMOCRACY • Measuring the gap between aspirations and effectiveness as regards democratic principles Sources : Enquêtes 1-2-3, module Démocratie, 2001/2003, Instituts Nationaux de la Statistique, AFRISTAT, DIAL authors calculations.

  24. The need for complementary approaches / indicators No correlation between  Objective measure (incidence of corruption)  Subjective perception of the working of civil service  

  25. The global lessons • Advantages of household sample surveys • Transparency of measurement procedures • Representativeness • Quantification, • Comparability of indicators over time. • In-depth policy-oriented analyses More appropriate than international indicators and aggregates. • Both objective (behaviour, actual experiences) and subjective information (perception, satisfaction) Monitoring and relating the two fundamental dimensions of these phenomena. • Socio-economic disaggregation These two dimensions can be combined with traditional variables related to the socio-economic characteristics of individuals and households (income, occupation, sex, age, ethnic group, etc.). Possibility to disaggregate information between different population categories (gender, poverty, ethnic groups, discriminated people, etc. • International comparability

  26. IV. Conclusions & Perspectives • Measure different dimensions of governance • A detailed understanding of different forms of corruption is necessary to analyse its determinants and consequences • Different sources of potential bias should be considered in designing & analysing surveys • Both, objective and subjective, governance indicators need to be collected to better understand aspiration/outcome gaps and why corruption may become or not a political issue.

  27. END For more works on Governance, Democracy and Poverty see our web site http://www.dial.prd.fr Our article: “Governance, Democracy and Poverty Reduction: Lessons drawn from household Surveys”, International Statistical Review (2007), vol. 75, issue 1, pp.70-95 is available upon request

More Related