Session iv presentation rk+csend
-
Upload
julien-grollier -
Category
Documents
-
view
437 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Session iv presentation rk+csend
SECOND FEATS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
HARNESSING AGRICULTURE FOR DEVELOPMENT THROUGH TRADE
GENEVA, 21 FEBRUARY 2011
Further Development of Inclusive Trade Policy Making Index (ITPMI)
By Dr Lichia Saner-Yiu and Rashid S. Kaukab
STRUCTURE OF PRESENTATION
Beginning: Objectives and conceptual development
First Application: FEATS first phase country research studies on
trade policy making processes and role of stakeholders (2009)
Evolution: Technical improvements
Second Application: Results of 2010 survey during second phase
FEATS research
Way Forward2
I. BEGINNING
Why Inclusiveness?
Key aspect of good governance
Legitimacy
Quality of outcomes
Ownership and implementation
Inclusive process inclusive development
3
I. BEGINNING
Objectives of ITPM Index
Raising awareness about political economy aspects
Assessing inclusiveness of a country’s trade policy making process
Identifying the weaknesses and gaps for targeted actions and capacity building
Identifying best practices by cross-country comparison
Improving domestic ownership of trade policies
4
I. BEGINNING
Conceptual Development
Development of analytical framework
Constructing initial ITPM Indices for five project countries
Validation of the framework and the initial IPTM Index values and finalization
5
I. BEGINNING
ITPMI: Main Actors
1. Ministry Responsible for Trade Policy Making
2. Other Relevant Government Ministries
3. Private Sector
4. CSOs
6
I. BEGINNING
ITPMI: Action Variables
7
2, 3, 4
Regular participation and inputsFaithful representation
Investment in knowledge and expertise
1
Identification of stakeholdersCreation of awareness
Establishment of consultative forumsRegular functioning of forums
Regular information flow
I. BEGINNING
8
ITPMI: Values for Action Variables
• maximum value of 1• when appropriate action has been taken by the actor
concernedYes
• high value of 0.75• when quite a lot has been done but some gaps remain
Many/Most
• intermediate value of 0.5• when action has been taken but is not sufficientSome
• low value of 0.25• when some action has been taken but much remains
Few / Little
• 0 value assigned• when no action has been taken by the actor concerned No
II. FIRST APPLICATION: ITPMI 2009
9
ITPM Action Variable KENYA MALAWI TANZANIA UGANDA ZAMBIA
Part I. Ministry responsible for Trade A. Identification of all key stakeholders 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.75
B. Creating awareness about the need for trade policy 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.75
C. Establishment of formal consultative mechanisms 0.75 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00
D. Functioning of formal consultative mechanisms 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.75
E. Regular information flow to the stakeholders including on the content of trade policy
0.50 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.50
Part I Score 3.50/5.0 3.25/5.0 2.50/5.0 2.75/5.0 3.75/5.0
II: FIRST APPLICATION: ITPMI 2009
10
ITPM Action Variable KENYA MALAWI TANZANIA UGANDA ZAMBIA
Part II. Other relevant government
ministries/agencies
F. Regular participation in the process and feedback to the relevant authorities
1.00 0.75 0.50 0.75 0.75
G. Faithful representation of and regular feedback to the represented constituencies
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
H. Acquiring relevant knowledge and expertise 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Part II Score 2.00/3.0 1.75/3.0 1.50/3.0 1.75/3.0 1.75/3.0
II: FIRST APPLICATION: ITPMI 2009
11
ITPM Action Variable KENYA MALAWI TANZANIA UGANDA ZAMBIA
Part III. Private sector and business umbrella
organizations
I. Regular participation in the process and feedback to the relevant authorities
1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00
J. Faithful representation of and regular feedback to the represented constituencies
0.50 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.50
K. Acquiring relevant knowledge and expertise 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Part III Score 2.00/3.0 2.25/3.0 2.00/3.0 2.00/3.0 2.00/3.0
II: FIRST APPLICATION: ITPMI 2009
12
ITPM Action Variable KENYA MALAWI TANZANIA UGANDA ZAMBIA
Part IV. Civil society organizations
L. Regular participation in the process and feedback to the relevant authorities
0.75 0.25 0.50 0.25 1.00
M. Faithful representation of and regular feedback to the represented constituencies
0.75 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
N. Acquiring relevant knowledge and expertise 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.50
Part IV Score 2.00/3.0 1.25/3.0 1.50/3.0 1.75/3.0 2.00/3.0
ITPM Index Score 9.50/14.0
8.50/14.0
7.50/14.0
8.25/14.0
9.50/14.0
II: FIRST APPLICATION: ITPMI 2009
13
KenyaMalawi
TanzaniaUganda
Zambia
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
ITPMI Score
II: FIRST APPLICATION: ITPMI 2009
14
KenyaMalawi
TanzaniaUganda
Zambia
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
CSO
CSO
II: FIRST APPLICATION: ITPMI 2009
15
KenyaMalawi
TanzaniaUganda
Zambia
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
PS
CSO
PSCSO
II: FIRST APPLICATION: ITPMI 2009
16
KenyaMalawi
TanzaniaUganda
Zambia
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
G
PS
CSO
GPSCSO
II. FIRST APPLICATION: ITPMI 2009
Gaps and challenges classified in three broad categories
Related to capacity
Related to institutional and structural issues
Related to challenges internal to each group of stakeholders
17
III. EVOLUTION Collaboration with CSEND started in 2010. The aim was to strengthen the methodological aspects of the Index making A second generation of the ITPMI questionnaire was developed jointly Data was collected during the FEATS conferences in the participating countries in
late 2010. The aim of the 2nd round of data collection and analyses was to validate the
action variables The 2010 survey also serves as a pre-test to assess the effectiveness of the
ITPM Questionnaire
18
CHANGES MADE TO THE 2009 QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Adaptation of the questions according to the action variables (AVs) based on the results of the 2009 questionnaire
2. Systematic inclusion of the actor types3. Assessment of relative importance of
AVs4. Adding qualitative questions to check
completeness of the Index
19
IV. SECOND APPLICATION: ITPMI 2010
The 2010 Questionnaire has 27 quantitative questions and 2 open questions Total number of respondents, n = 100
20
Countries Total = 100
Kenya 14
Malawi 14
Tanzania 28
Uganda 21
Zambia 23
ACTOR TYPES
Actor Types No of Responde
nts
% Valid %
Ministry/Government
29 29 32.6
Private Sector 22 22 24.7
CSO 38 38 42.7
Missing values 11 11 -
Total n = 100 100 100
21
RESULTS OF SECOND APPLICATION (EXAMPLES)
QS2H- Do you feel that you have benefited from participating in the trade policy consultation process (knowledge & expertise) ?
22
NoLittl
e
Som
ewha
t
Quite
a b
itYe
s0
10
20
30
40
50
60
%
%
RESULTS OF SECOND APPLICATION (EXAMPLES) QS2C- Did the ministry responsible for trade policy
making and implementation establish formal consultative mechanisms?
23
No For a few TPIs
For some TPIs
For most TPIs
For most all TPIs
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
%
%
RESULTS OF SECOND APPLICATION (EXAMPLES)
QS2F2 - Can you provide inputs on trade policy to relevant authorities?
24
No A little Irregular Most of the Time
Yes05
10152025303540
%
%
2ND APPLICATION: ITPMI 2010
Kenya Malawi Tanzania Uganda Zambia0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4Weighted Mean Index
Weighted Mean In-dex
25
FACTOR ANALYSIS
Method: Principal Component Analysis / Varimax Rotation Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of
sampling adequacy: 0.779 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity: .000 Total variance explained: 59.20% Factors extracted: 3
26
FACTOR ANALYSIS
Result: Three theoretical dimensions can be
meaningfully bundled together through factor analysis;
Questions regarding governance, participation and representativeness constitute a factor on their own.
27
ROTATED COMPONENT MATRIX 1
28
Questions Gover-nance
Partici-pation
Representation
S2C: Estab Consultative Mechanism 0.825
0.147
S2B: Create Awareness by Ministry Resp.
0.751
S2A: Identify Key Stakeholders 0.746
S2D: FuncConsMech established 0.711
0.359
S2E: Regular Info Flow 0.650
0.132 0.251
S2G3: Faith RepGov 0.561
0.327 0.364
Factor 1: Governance
ROTATED COMPONENT MATRIX - 2
29
Questions Gover-nance
Partici-pation
Representation
S2H: Acquired Relevant Knowledge & Expertise
0.743
S2F1: Regular Participation 0.724
0.172
S2F2: Regular Participation & Inputs 0.157 0.699G
rou
p 2
ROTATED COMPONENT MATRIX - 3
30
Questions Gover-nance
Partici-pation
Represen-tation
S2G1: Faithful Representation (Private Sector)
0.821
S2G2: Faithful Representation (CSO)
0.186
0.781
Gro
up
3:
Rep
rese
ntt
ion
V. WAY FORWARD
31
ENVISAGED IMPROVEMENTS
Technical improvements
Wider data base and benchmarking
EFFECTIVE USAGE FOR INCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT APPROACH
Beyond one-off exercise
Beyond FEATS project countries
Beyond trade policy
THANK YOU !
32