Afrobarometer, Where is Africa Going? And How Does Namibia Fit In? 23 June 2006 Windhoek, Namibia.

Afrobarometer, Where is Africa Going?

And How Does Namibia Fit In?

23 June 2006

Windhoek, Namibia

• The Afrobarometer

• Lived Poverty

• Africans’ Views of Economics

• Africans’ Views of Corruption

• Partisan Identification

• Africans’ Views of Democracy

Afrobarometer

Purpose

• A comparative series of national public attitude surveys in Africa on Democracy, Markets and Civil Society

• Scientific project dedicated to accurate and precise measurement of nationally representative samples of publics

• Policy relevant project that inserts results into national and global policy discussion

• Ultimately, advancing democracy in Africa by promoting the voice of public opinion

When and Where

• In “reforming” African countries (generally, multi party regimes that have had a founding democratic election, or a re-democratizing election)

• Round 1 (12 countries, mid-1999 to mid 2001) • in West Africa: Ghana, Mali, Nigeria• in East Africa: Uganda and Tanzania• in Southern Africa: Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa,

Zambia and Zimbabwe

• Round 2 (16 countries, mid 2002-late 2003) – repeats original 12 (Zimbabwe in early 2004)– Adds Cape Verde, Kenya, Mozambique, and Senegal

• Round 3 (18 countries, 2005)– Adds Madagascar and Benin

Who Does It?Network• 3 Core Partners

– Institute for Democracy in South Africa (Idasa)– Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana)– Michigan State University

• 16 National Partners (NGO, public, private)– Other Individual and Institutional Research Associates

• Regular Workshops– To discuss policies and protocols and appoint committees to produce

concentrated pieces of work like draft questionnaires or revisions of survey methodologies

• Summer School / Capacity Building– To build Network skills in scientific analysis, including social statistics, report

writing and relevant literature

Who Does It?

Southern Africa– Institute for Democracy in South Africa (Idasa)

West Africa– Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-

Ghana)

East Africa– Michigan State University / – Wilsken Agencies (Uganda)

By Round 4

Southern Africa– Institute for Democracy in South Africa (Idasa)

West Africa– Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana)

East Africa– Wilsken Agencies

Support Units– Michigan State University– University of Cape Town

Who Supports It?

• Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA)• U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)• Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs (NMFA)• Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation• Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs• World Bank• UK Department for International Development (DFID)• Danish Governance Trust Fund at the World Bank• Royal Dutch Embassy in Namibia• Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation• Trocaire Regional Office for Eastern Africa • Michigan State University• African Development Bank • U.S. National Science Foundation • Konrad Adenauer Stiftung

Sampling

• Random• Clustered• Stratified• Area Probability• Proportionate (some exceptions: e.g Tanzania, South

Africa)• Multi Stage• Nationally representative• Minimum Sample Size of 1200 gives a margin of

sampling error of +/- 3 percentage points (2.8 points)

Interviewing

• Personal, face-to-face interviews

• Questionnaires translated in to local languages

• Interviewers fluent in local languages

Lived Poverty

Measuring Lived Poverty

• Over the past year, how often, if ever have you or your family gone without:– Enough food to eat?– Enough clean water for home use?– Medicines of medical treatment?– Electricity in your home?– Enough fuel to cook your food?– A cash income?

Measuring Lived Poverty

• Over the past year, how often, if ever have you or your family gone without:– 0. Never– 1. Just Once or Twice– 2. Several Times– 3. Many Times– 4. Always

Lived Poverty Food Shortages

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Always Many times Several times Just once or twice

Lived Poverty

565753

4551

44

58 5859

75 77 78

0

20

40

60

80

100

Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005

w/o food

w/o water

w/o medical care

w/o income

Increasing Lived PovertyFood Shortages (2000-2005)

57

83

71

4145

5865

82 82

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Malawi

Nigeria

Zimbabwe

Decreasing Lived PovertyFood Shortages (2000-2005)

72

80

56

66

43

5353

3740

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Lesotho

Namibia

South Africa

Africans’ Views of Economics

Measuring Economic Evaluations

• Present – In general, how would you describe: The present economic

condition of this country?

• Past– Looking back, how do you rate the following compared to

twelve months ago? Economic conditions in this country?

• Future: – Looking ahead, do you expect the following to be better or

worse? Economic conditions in this country in twelve months time?

Present National Economic Conditions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Very good Fairly good

Evaluations of the National Economy

29 33 29

30

36

31

4437

49

0

20

40

60

80

100


Present

Past

Future

Increasing Satisfaction WithPresent National Economic Conditions In Africa (2000-2005)

12 11

19

42

57 59

15

30

51

22

3330

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Lesotho

Namibia

South Africa

Tanzania

Stable / Stagnant Satisfaction WithPresent National Economic Conditions In Africa (2000-2005)

32

45

33

19

32

19

3

31

40

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Botswana

Zambia

Zimbabwe

Declining Satisfaction WithPresent National Economic Conditions in Africa (2000-2005)

26

1916

25

15

45

64

45 46

263134

34

2632

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Ghana

Malawi

Mali

Nigeria

Uganda

Measuring Support for Economic Reform

• User fees – It is better to raise educational standards, even if we have to pay school

fees

• Job cuts – The government cannot afford so many public employees and should

lay some of them off.

• Economic impact – The government’s economic policies have helped most people; only a

few have suffered (percent agree/agree very strongly).

• Economic patience– In order for the economy to get better in the future, it is necessary for

us to accept some hardships now.

Economic Reform

53

23

57

30

6062

32

24

46

57

28

31

0

20

40

60

80

100


User fees

Job cuts

Economic patience

Economic impact

Economic Impact

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Agree Very Strongly Agree

Economic Patience

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Strongly Agree Agree

Increasing Economic Patience in Africa (2000-2005)

38

72

65

56

67

40

61

49

57

67

45

5359

45

56

47

5955

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Ghana

Lesotho

Malawi

Mali

Nigeria

South Africa

Uganda

Stable Economic Patience in Africa (2000-2005)

56 57

50 49

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Zimbabwe

Zambia

Decreasing Economic Patience (2000-2005)

72

5560

52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Botswana

Namibia

Africans’ Views of Corruption

Measuring Understandings of Corruption

• For each of the following, please indicate whether you think the act is not wrong at all, wrong but understandable, or wrong and punishable. – A public official decides to locate a development project in

an area where his friends and supporters lived

– A government official gives a job to someone from his family who does not have adequate qualifications

– A government official demands a favour or an additional payment for some service that is part of his job

Jobs For Relatives

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Jobs for Relatives

Measuring Perceptions of Corruption

• How many of the following people do you think are involved in corruption, or haven’t you heard enough about them to say – The President and officials in his office– Members of Parliament– Elected local government councilors– National government officials– Local government officials– Police– Tax officials– Judges and magistrates– Health workers– Teachers and school administrators

Perception of Corruption National Government Officials

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

All of them Most of them

Perception of CorruptionPolice

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

All of them Most of them

Perceptions of Corruption, 2000-2005

2726

40

52

34

48

33

0

20

40

60

80

100


MPs

Govt. officials

Local govt.

Declining Perceptions of CorruptionNational Govt Officials (2000-2005)

70

36

49

36

50

3643 45

2528

19

28

52

2727

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Circa2000

Circa2002

Circa2005

Zimbabwe

Zambia

South Africa

Malawi

Lesotho

Stable Perceptions of CorruptionNational Govt Officials (2000-2005)

33

2529

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Botswan

Increasing Perceptions of CorruptionNational Govt Officials (2000-2005)

2530

35

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Namibia

Measuring Victimization by Corruption

• In the past year, how often (if ever) have you had to pay a bribe, give a gift, or do a favour to government officials in order – Get a document or a permit? – Get a child into school? – Get a household service (like piped water, electricity or phone)? – Get medicine or medical attention from a health worker – Avoid a problem with the police (like passing a checkpoint or

avoiding a fine or arrest)? – And during the XXXX election, how often (if ever) did a

candidate or someone from a political party offer you something, like food or a gift, in return for your vote?

Pay a Bribe for Official Document / Permit

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Often A Few Times Once or Twice

Pay a Bribe to Avoid Problem With Police

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Often A Few Times Once or Twice

Partisan Politics

Party Identification (2005-2006)

20 20 21 2228

3438

43 44 4651

61 6369

73

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Opposition Independent Ruling Party

Partisan Identification and Voter Turnout, (12 Afrobarometer Countries, 1999-2001)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Opposition Independents Ruling Party

Did Not Vote Decided Not to VoteUnable to Vote Voted In Previous Election

Trust In Ruling Parties (2005-2006)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

A lot Somewhat

Trust In Opposition Parties (2005-2006)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

A lot Somewhat

Rising Voter Identification With Ruling Political Parties, 2000-2005

73

63

69

36

56

63

34

41

51

22

36

44

5958

61

55

61

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Mozambique

Tanzania

Lesotho

Namibia

South Africa

Uganda

Stable Voter Identification With Ruling Political Parties, 2000-2005

46

3843

36 38

24 2428

464444

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Botswana

Ghana

Senegal

Nigaria

Declining Voter Identification With Ruling Parties, 2000-2005

52

34

4744

31

26

20

3032

22

2020

30

40

50

60

70

80


Kenya

Malawi

Zambia

Zimbabwe

Africans’ Views of Democracy

Measuring Demand for Democracy

• Support for Democracy– Which of these three statements is closest to your own opinion?

• A. Democracy is preferable to any other form of government• B. In certain situations, a non-democratic government can be preferable• C. To people like me, it doesn’t matter what form of government we

have.”

• Rejection of Authoritarian Rule– There are many ways to govern a country. Would you disapprove or

approve of the following alternatives?• The army comes in to govern the country (Military rule)• Only one political party is allowed to stand for election and hold office

(One-party rule)• Elections and the parliament are abolished so that the president can decide

everything (One-man rule)

Support for Democracy

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Democracy Always Preferable

Rejection of Authoritarian RegimesPresidential Dictatorship

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Strongly Disapprove Disapprove

Demand for Democracy

62

69617066 73

82

8078

78

46

5656

0

20

40

60

80

100


Support for democracy

Reject one-party rule

Reject military rule

Reject one man rule

Political patience

Increasing Support for Democracy, 2000-2005

40

50 50

60

7168

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Lesotho

Mali

Decreasing Support for Democracy, 2000-2005

75

6568

38

75

85

69

64

56

65

8184

65

80 75

61

70

64

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Botswana

Malawi

Nigeria

Tanzania

Uganda

Zambia

Increasing Demand Over Three Rounds(Reject 3 Forms of Authoritarianism)

36

52

61

21

27

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Lesotho

Mozambique

Constant Demand Over Three Rounds(Reject 3 Forms of Authoritarianism)

69

56

68

50 50

6366

70

41

50

39

44 45 45

75

66

77

6866

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Botswana

Cabo Verde

Ghana

Kenya

South Africa

Uganda

Zambia

Declining Demand Over Three Rounds(Reject 3 Forms of Authoritarianism)

63

53

30

4345

39

3028

76

52 51

5754

36

54

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Malawi

Mali

Namibia

Nigeria

Tanzania

Measuring the Supply of Democracy

• Satisfaction with Democracy– How satisfied are you with the way democracy works in ____ ?

• Extent of Democracy– In your opinion, how much of a democracy is ____ today?

• A full democracy• A democracy, but with minor problems• A democracy, but with major problems• Not a democracy

• Freeness and Fairness of Elections– On the whole, how would you rate the freeness and fairness of the last

national election, held in _____? • Completely free and fair• Free and fair, with minor problems• Free and fair, but with major problem• Not free and fair at all

Satisfaction With Democracy

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Very satisfied Fairly satisfied

Extent of Democracy

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

A full democracy A democracy, but with minor problems

Free and Fair Elections

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Completely free and fair Free and fair, but with minor problems

Supply of Democracy

50 4849

58

45

52

67

62

0

20

40

60

80

100


Extent of democracy

Satisfaction withdemocracy

Elections free and fair

Constant Supply, 2000-20005 (Country is Democratic + Satisfied With Democracy)

4648

42 43

28

36

31

45

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Mozambique

Uganda

Lesotho

Declining Supply, 2000-2005 (Country is Democratic + Satisfied With Democracy)

70

46

54

66

42

51

27

46

39

21

45

51

35

47

36

211515

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Botswana

Kenya

Malawi

Nigeria

Tanzania

Zambia

Increasing Supply, 2000-2005 (Country is Democratic + Satisfied With Democracy)

53

65

50

61

19

35

43

36

64

4543

29

5650

35

15

25

35

45

55

65

75


Namibia

Cabo Verde

Ghana

Mali

South Africa

For More Information:including

downloadable versions of questionnaires, data sets, results and publications

see

www.afrobarometer.org

Afrobarometer, Where is Africa Going? And How Does Namibia Fit In? 23 June 2006 Windhoek, Namibia.

Documents

Transcript of Afrobarometer, Where is Africa Going? And How Does Namibia Fit In? 23 June 2006 Windhoek, Namibia.