UNDP-ICSSR International Workshop, New Delhi April 20-22, 2005 Governance Indicators for Pro-Poor...
-
Upload
leonard-garrett -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of UNDP-ICSSR International Workshop, New Delhi April 20-22, 2005 Governance Indicators for Pro-Poor...
UNDP-ICSSR International Workshop, New Delhi April 20-22, 2005UNDP-ICSSR International Workshop, New Delhi April 20-22, 2005
Governance Indicators for Pro-Poor and Gender-Sensitive Policy Reform
Javier Herrera, Mireille Razafindrakoto, François Roubaud
(DIAL-IRD)
http://www.dial.prd.fr
Poverty and gender sensitive governance indicators: African and Latin American experiences
Governance indicators: main issuesGovernance indicators: main issues(workshop background paper)(workshop background paper)
Poverty and gender orientedPoverty and gender oriented
Policy-action orientedPolicy-action oriented
Nationally owned and participatory Nationally owned and participatory
Methodologically soundMethodologically sound
Peru Ecuador Bolivia
Sample size 32,130 households; 151,200 individuals (32,130 in GDSP)
19,059 households; 39,386 individuals (19,059 in GDSP)
9,330 households; 39,386 individuals (1658 in GDSP)
Survey Period Continuous (may 2003-décember 2004-…)
March 2004 November 2003/2004; (GDSP: sept-nov 2004)
Geographic & thematic coverage
and inference levels
National, regional, « departamental » &
demo+socio economic+ GDSP
National, regional, « parroquias » &
demo+socio economic+ GDSP
National, regional & demo+socio
economic+ GDSP
Regional questionary armonization process
CAN-METAGORA CAN-METAGORA CAN-METAGORA
Participatory process, institutionalization
NSO (INEI)NGOs; Academics;
Public agencies
INDEC (NSO) INE (NSO)
Governance, democracy indicators
Objectif (process & outcomes) and
perceptions
Objectif (process & outcomes) and
perceptions
Objectif (process & outcomes) and
perceptions
Policy impact Institutional & poverty gender disagregation
Institutional & poverty gender disagregation
Institutional & poverty gender disagregation
Survey characteristicsSurvey characteristics
The ownership process in PeruThe ownership process in Peru The strategy: A bottom-up approachThe strategy: A bottom-up approach
The strong national ownership (project adopted by INEI; The strong national ownership (project adopted by INEI;
part of the National Statistical System, financed by part of the National Statistical System, financed by
national budget; results used as policy input by Ministry national budget; results used as policy input by Ministry
of Finance + Prime Minister Cabinet)of Finance + Prime Minister Cabinet)
The enlarged participatory process in designing and The enlarged participatory process in designing and
analyzing the survey (civil society participation)analyzing the survey (civil society participation)
The institutionalization of the process of revision of the The institutionalization of the process of revision of the
survey designsurvey design
The potential for South-South cooperation (from The potential for South-South cooperation (from
Peruvian experts towards other Andean countriesPeruvian experts towards other Andean countries))
Public good: data available in the web ensures demand for Public good: data available in the web ensures demand for
governance survey (governance survey (http://www.inei.gob.pe) and public ) and public
debatedebate
DrawbacksDrawbacks: :
every NGOs and public institution wishes to add specific every NGOs and public institution wishes to add specific
questions or modify sample design overlooking technical questions or modify sample design overlooking technical
considerations;considerations;
International comparisons jeopardizedInternational comparisons jeopardized
LessonsLessons: :
Discussions should be framed by pilot experience and Discussions should be framed by pilot experience and
technical guidance by National Statistics Officetechnical guidance by National Statistics Office
Wide consultation processWide consultation processNational
Public Agencies Ministerio de EconomíaContraloría General de la RepúblicaDefensoría del PuebloCongreso de la RepúblicaPresidencia del consejo de MinistrosComisión Nacional de la Juventud
Civil SocietyInstituto de Estudios Peruanos (NGO)Ciudadanos al Día (NGO)Academic centres
InternationalThe World Bank (in depth discussions and videoconference)
DisaggregationDisaggregation By institutionsBy institutions allowing precise diagnosis allowing precise diagnosis
and favoring more focused policy and favoring more focused policy intervention. In which public institutions intervention. In which public institutions governance problems are more acute?governance problems are more acute?
Regional/local levelRegional/local level: : some regions may suffer more than other some regions may suffer more than other
from governance problemsfrom governance problems There are local-specific governance issues There are local-specific governance issues
(ie. descentralization policies; local (ie. descentralization policies; local accountability).accountability).
Incidence of corruption within Public AgenciesIncidence of corruption within Public Agencies
Note: has been asked, felt forced or gave voluntarily gifts, tips, gratuities, bribes, etc.
National
% Urban
% Rural
% Poor
% Non Poor
%
Policía 30.3 31.5 24 33.4 29.2 Poder judicial 14.9 14.3 17.4 16.2 14.4 Min. Agricultura 6.8 9.1 5.7 4.3 9.3 Dir. de Migraciones 6.4 5.0 32.2 18.2 5.7 Municipalidad 5.9 6.2 5.0 4.6 6.7 Oficina de Arbitraje y Conciliación 4.8 2.9 13.5 7.6 3.4 FONCODES 3.2 1.7 3.7 4.7 1.1 ONPE 2.8 3.3 1.0 3.0 2.6 JNE 2.7 0 12.8 6.9 0 RENIEC 2.0 1.8 2.6 2.1 2.0
Elaboración nuestra a partir de ENAHO 2002-IV.
Departamentos desfavorable,
no sabe favorable Total Amazonas 88,9% 76,6% 80,4% Ancash 67,8% 51,3% 55,6% Apurimac 85,6% 74,2% 77,0% Arequipa 51,5% 36,3% 39,2% Ayacucho 77,4% 70,0% 72,8% Cajamarca 83,8% 73,3% 76,8% Cusco 68,5% 59,8% 61,7% Huancavelica 87,3% 82,5% 83,7% Huanuco 83,5% 83,1% 83,2% Ica 46,3% 41,1% 42,6% Junin 68,2% 59,9% 62,7% La Libertad 57,0% 48,4% 50,2% Lambayeque 60,3% 62,5% 62,1% Lima 43,4% 34,0% 35,6% Loreto 73,7% 65,3% 66,4% Madre de Dios 45,3% 52,7% 50,8% Moquegua 38,3% 35,2% 35,7% Pasco 69,6% 64,5% 65,6% Piura 70,9% 62,3% 64,1% Puno 83,4% 78,3% 79,8% San Martin 55,5% 54,0% 54,3% Tacna 40,3% 30,1% 31,3% Tumbes 48,5% 36,0% 37,9% Ucayali 72,8% 68,3% 69,3% Total 63,9% 51,8% 54,5%
% of poor and non poor that support descentralization
Departamentos greater participation in
decision making
an improuvement in public services
better attention to
peoples' demands
more injustices
and abuses
Amazonas 38,4 41,7 42,2 39,9
Ancash 41,8 51,4 51,2 54,1
Apurimac 32,9 35,4 35,9 33,6
Arequipa 69,6 82,9 81,1 48,3
Cusco 56,1 61,1 63,3 40,2
Huancavelica 55,1 61,9 61,5 34,2
Huanuco 44,5 49,2 48,5 43,8
Ica 76,1 80,9 89,9 76,8
Junin 66,9 80,7 78,5 39,3
La Libertad 50,3 60,1 57,1 38,0
Lambayeque 48,4 66,1 76,3 81,8
Lima 43,3 49,5 54,7 38,4
Loreto 35,9 37,7 34,1 44,4
Pasco 77,2 70,4 76,9 26,9
…… …… …… …… ……
Total 50,6 57,4 59,4 43,9
Source: our preliminary estimation based on ENAHO 2004 Note: a lot+ more or less
Do you agree that the decentralization process has implied?
RobustnessRobustnessProbabilistic surveys allows a quantitative assessement of indicators’ Probabilistic surveys allows a quantitative assessement of indicators’ precisionprecision (also relevant for group and intertemporal comparaisons) (also relevant for group and intertemporal comparaisons)
rural urban Total
has increased 31,0 39,1 36,6
95% confidence 95% confidence intervalinterval
[29,0 - 33,0] [37,4 - 40,9] [35,3 - 38,0]
has decreased 8,43 10,47 9,85
95% confidence 95% confidence intervalinterval
[7,5 - 9,5] [9,5 - 11,6] [9,1 - 10,7]
is the same 49,1 48,8 48,9
95% confidence 95% confidence intervalinterval
[47,5 - 14,0] [46,9 - 50,6] [47,4 - 50,3]
don't know 11,5 1,6 4,7
95% confidence 95% confidence intervalinterval
[10,3 - 12,9] [1,3 - 2,1] [4,2 - 5,2]
Total 100 100 100
In your opinion, corruption since last year?
Source: our estimation based on ENAHO july 2003-june 2004
Time seriesTime series
Relevant to evaluate policies. Allows to Relevant to evaluate policies. Allows to construct a baseline against witch public construct a baseline against witch public policy can be monitored and outcomes policy can be monitored and outcomes compared over the intervention period.compared over the intervention period.
Replication over time increases data Replication over time increases data quality; is a necessary condition for policy quality; is a necessary condition for policy impact and causality analysis impact and causality analysis
0
10
20
30
40
50
60m
ai-0
3
juin
-03
juil-0
3
août
-03
sept
-03
oct-
03
nov-
03
déc-
03
janv
-04
févr
-04
mar
s-04
avr-
04
mai
-04
juin
-04
juil-0
4
août
-04
sept
-04
oct-
04
nov-
04
déc-
04
%
has increased has decreased is the same don't know
Assessment of the corruption evolution in Peru
Source: our estimations based on ENAHO 2003-2004
Multidimensional governance indicatorsMultidimensional governance indicators
Objective indicatorsObjective indicators Public administration efficiency (incidence Public administration efficiency (incidence
and costs)and costs) Corruption (incidence and costs)Corruption (incidence and costs) Anticorruption protectionAnticorruption protection
GovernanceGovernance
Disaggregated by institutions and from the poor and socially discriminated viewpoint
At the national, regional and local level
Time series
Subjective indicatorsSubjective indicators
Major country problemsMajor country problems
Public administration efficiencyPublic administration efficiency
Confidence/trust on institutionsConfidence/trust on institutions
Corruption level and past year evolutionCorruption level and past year evolution
Working of democracyWorking of democracy
Civil and human rightsCivil and human rights
Confidence in the institutionsConfidence in the institutionsDo you have confidence in the
following institutions:
A lot/ More or
less
A few/ Not at
all
Don’t know
Los partidos políticos 17.9 80.6 1.6 El Congreso 23.6 72.5 3.9 El poder judicial 26.2 56.7 17.2 Los sindicatos 30.6 62.3 7.1 La Policía nacional del Perú 30.7 65.7 3.6 CTAR 36.6 51.0 12.5 La prensa escrita 41.1 57.9 1.0 FONCODES 42.6 47.0 10.4 Municipalidad 44.1 53.1 2.9 Defensoría del pueblo 49.1 49.5 1.3 La radio o televisión 53.8 37.3 8.9 ESSALUD 57.2 40.7 2.2 RENIEC 59.1 35.2 5.8 Ministerio de salud 72.0 27.0 1.0 Ministerio de educación 73.4 25.4 1.2 Elaboración nuestra a partir de ENAHO 2002-IV.
Main problems of the CountryMain problems of the CountryAccording to you, what are the main
problems of the country
Main Problems
%
Priority %
Corruption 32.3 10.9 Low credibility of the goverment 13.2 3.2 Lack of tranparency 6.4 1.2 Lack of job 74.2 47.3 Crime 11.1 1.5 Drugs 7.2 0.6 Prostitution 3.2 0.2 La violencia en los hogares 4.7 0.4 La falta de cobertura y mala atención del SSP 4.9 0.5 La falta de cobertura del IPSS 2.7 0.1 La mala calidad de la educación 11.1 2.3 Poverty 60.6 27.8 Otro 10.3 4.1 Elaboración nuestra a partir de ENAHO 2002-IV.
Public services failuresPublic services failures
Servicios No pobres
% Pobres
% Nacional
%
Municipalidad 14.8 11.3 13.4 Seguro social 12.6 8.7 11.9 Bancos Estatales 4.9 3.1 4.5 Poder judicial 22.6 16.4 20.8 Servicios de agua 3.3 3.0 3.2 Empresa de teléfono 3.7 3.3 3.6 Empresas eléctricas 2.3 2.1 2.2 Centro de estudios estatales 3.6 2.6 3.0 Oficina de Arbitraje y Conciliación 8.3 1.3 6.1 Min. Agricultura 13.1 7.8 10.5 Min. Industria 7.8 18.4 8.8 SUNAT 3.5 6.2 3.8 Hospital publico 11.1 7.8 9.6 RENIEC 5.5 7.6 6.4 Dir. de Migraciones 8.7 2.1 8.3 Policía 17.7 11.7 16.1 ONPE 6.6 3.9 5.6 JNE 17.4 6.1 13.1 FONCODES 10.1 10.2 10.2 PRONAA 13.0 11.6 12.2 Otros 13.4 9.3 12.3
Elaboración nuestra a partir de ENAHO 2002-IV.
% of households who found immediately in their office the civil servant requested for different services:
Percentage of unsatisfied users (HHs) according to poverty:
Services Non Poor
% Poor
% National
%
Municipalidad 18.5 11.9 15.8 Seguro social 17.7 15.9 17.3 Bancos Estatales 7.1 5.1 6.6 Poder judicial 41.8 34.2 39.6 Servicios de agua 9.0 5.5 7.9 Empresa de teléfono 10.7 7.1 10.4 Empresas eléctricas 4.8 4.8 4.8 Centro de estudios estatales 5.1 3.7 4.2 Oficina de Arbitraje y Conciliación 12.6 12.3 12.5 Min. Agricultura 23.3 11.0 17.2 Min. Industria 26.4 25.5 26.3 SUNAT 6.3 10.2 6.8 Hospital publico 12.5 10.8 11.7 RENIEC 10.4 12.4 11.3 Dir. de Migraciones 17.2 15.7 17.1 Policía 33.0 33.6 33.1 ONPE 12.5 8.8 11.1 JNE 2.5 12.6 6.4 FONCODES 11.9 13.0 12.5 PRONAA 10.2 20.8 15.7 Otros 16.3 22.0 17.9
Elaboración nuestra a partir de ENAHO 2002-IV.
DemocracyDemocracy
Support to democratic values
Assessment of the working of democracy in Peru
SupportSupport to democratic valuesto democratic values
Importance of democracyDo you think that having a democratic government is
important?:
Rural %
Urban %
Not poor %
Poor %
Total %
Yes 34.8 55.9 56.3 41.5 49.4 More or less 38.0 30.6 29.7 36.6 32.9 Not much 13.7 8.4 8.7 11.6 10.0 No 4.6 3.4 3.3 4.3 3.7 Does not know 8.9 1.7 2.1 6.0 3.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Authors’ own calculations from ENAHO 2002-IV.
Working of democracyWorking of democracy
In this country, democracy is working
In this country, democracy is working:
Rural %
Urbano %
No pobre %
Pobre %
Total %
Yes 8.6 7.1 7.2 8.1 7.6 More or less 49.5 56.6 56.5 52.0 54.4 Not much 24.9 23.4 23.4 24.4 23.9 No 8.7 11.2 11.2 9.5 10.4 Does not know 8.4 1.7 1.8 6.1 3.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Authors’ own calculations from ENAHO 2002-IV
Working of democracyWorking of democracy
In this country, democracy is working
In this country, democracy is working:
Rural %
Urbano %
No pobre %
Pobre %
Total %
Yes 8.6 7.1 7.2 8.1 7.6 More or less 49.5 56.6 56.5 52.0 54.4 Not much 24.9 23.4 23.4 24.4 23.9 No 8.7 11.2 11.2 9.5 10.4 Does not know 8.4 1.7 1.8 6.1 3.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Authors’ own calculations from ENAHO 2002-IV
Evolution of democracyEvolution of democracy
Do you think that democracy has improved since 1990?Do you think that democracy has improved since 1990?
Rural %
Urban %
Not poor %
Pooor %
Total %
Improved 16.4 23.5 25.5 16.5 21.3 Stable 51.9 48.4 47.3 52.0 49.5 Worsened 23.5 26.2 25.1 25.6 25.3 Does not know 8.3 1.9 2.1 6.0 3.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Authors’ own calculations from ENAHO 2002-IV
Support to a democratic governmentSupport to a democratic government
Do you think that the most adequate government to rule the country is:
Rural %
Urban %
Not poor %
Poor %
Total %
Auhoritarian government 4.52 4.24 4.32 4.34 4.33 Army government 12.11 8.48 8.1 11.31 9.6 Democratic governement 67.35 73.22 73.85 68.6 71.4 Let the experts and not the government decide what is good for the country 10.55 12.35 11.76 11.83 11.79 Others 5.47 1.72 1.98 3.91 2.88 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Authors’ own calculations from ENAHO 2002-IV
In this country are human rights In this country are human rights respected?respected?
In this country, are human rights respected:
Rural %
Urban %
Not poor %
Poor %
Total %
Yes 8.8 5.4 5.6 7.4 6.4 More or less 42.8 45.2 45.3 43.5 44.5 Not much 28.2 27.0 27.3 27.5 27.4 No 14.7 21.2 20.6 17.5 19.2 Does not know 5.5 1.2 1.2 4.2 2.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Authors’ own calculations from ENAHO 2002-IV
Assessment of politiciansAssessment of politicians
What do you think of politicians?Do you think that politicians:? Rural
% Urban
% Not poor
% Poor
% Total
% Care about the people 8.6 5.3 5.8 6.9 6.3 Only care about their own interest 87.0 92.3 91.5 89.6 90.6 Others 0.6 1.2 1.2 0.7 1.0 Does not know 3.9 1.3 1.5 2.8 2.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Authors’ own calculations from ENAHO 2002-IV
Political participationPolitical participationThe poorest have been excluded from voting in the latest presidential elections
Vote according to quintiles and poverty
Authors’ own calculations from ENAHO 2002-IV.
% of population who did not vote
Not poor 10.9
Poor 15.2
I 19.0 II 15.4 III 12.0 IV 11.4 V 9.5 Total 12.9
Why didn’t you vote?Why didn’t you vote?Why didn’t you vote? Not poor Poor Total
High tranportation cost 2.2 3.4 2.9 Was far from the polling station 6.4 6.4 6.4 Did not have an election card 33.1 50.7 42.8 Was not registred 4.3 9.5 7.2 To vote is useless Was minor 2.7 1.7 2.1 Other 25.7 16.2 20.5 Authors’ own calculations from ENAHO 2002-IV
Evolution of democracyEvolution of democracy
Do you think that democracy has improved since 1990?Do you think that democracy has improved since 1990?
Rural %
Urban %
Not poor %
Pooor %
Total %
Improved 16.4 23.5 25.5 16.5 21.3 Stable 51.9 48.4 47.3 52.0 49.5 Worsened 23.5 26.2 25.1 25.6 25.3 Does not know 8.3 1.9 2.1 6.0 3.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Authors’ own calculations from ENAHO 2002-IV
Support to a democratic governmentSupport to a democratic government
Do you think that the most adequate government to rule the country is:
Rural %
Urban %
Not poor %
Poor %
Total %
Auhoritarian government 4.52 4.24 4.32 4.34 4.33 Army government 12.11 8.48 8.1 11.31 9.6 Democratic governement 67.35 73.22 73.85 68.6 71.4 Let the experts and not the government decide what is good for the country 10.55 12.35 11.76 11.83 11.79 Others 5.47 1.72 1.98 3.91 2.88 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Authors’ own calculations from ENAHO 2002-IV
In this country are human rights In this country are human rights respected?respected?
In this country, are human rights respected:
Rural %
Urban %
Not poor %
Poor %
Total %
Yes 8.8 5.4 5.6 7.4 6.4 More or less 42.8 45.2 45.3 43.5 44.5 Not much 28.2 27.0 27.3 27.5 27.4 No 14.7 21.2 20.6 17.5 19.2 Does not know 5.5 1.2 1.2 4.2 2.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Authors’ own calculations from ENAHO 2002-IV
Assessment of politiciansAssessment of politicians
What do you think of politicians?Do you think that politicians:? Rural
% Urban
% Not poor
% Poor
% Total
% Care about the people 8.6 5.3 5.8 6.9 6.3 Only care about their own interest 87.0 92.3 91.5 89.6 90.6 Others 0.6 1.2 1.2 0.7 1.0 Does not know 3.9 1.3 1.5 2.8 2.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Authors’ own calculations from ENAHO 2002-IV
Political participationPolitical participationThe poorest have been excluded from voting in the latest presidential elections
Vote according to quintiles and poverty
Authors’ own calculations from ENAHO 2002-IV.
% of population who did not vote
Not poor 10.9
Poor 15.2
I 19.0 II 15.4 III 12.0 IV 11.4 V 9.5 Total 12.9
The ownership processThe ownership process
The creation of public goodsThe creation of public goods
The Governance questions added to a multitopic large scale The Governance questions added to a multitopic large scale
household surveyhousehold survey
Multidimensionality of governance approachMultidimensionality of governance approach
Desaggregation at regional & local levelsDesaggregation at regional & local levels
Relevant disaggregation for poverty/discrimination (gender & ethnic) Relevant disaggregation for poverty/discrimination (gender & ethnic)
analysisanalysis
Robustness assessment and group/time comparisonsRobustness assessment and group/time comparisons
The time series indicators for monitoring over time The time series indicators for monitoring over time
Conclusions on Conclusions on DIAL/METAGORADIAL/METAGORA experience experience
« La valeur du débat public s’applique aussi à la réflexion sur la
démocratie même. C’est une bonne chose que les pratiques de la
démocratie aient été minutieusement analysées dans les écrits sur les
affaires internationales, car certaines insuffisances peuvent être
décelées dans ce qui a été accompli par de nombreux pays possédant
des institutions démocratiques types. La discussion publique autour de
ces carences est non seulement un moyen efficace pour essayer d’y
remédier, mais c’est aussi exactement la façon dont la démocratie,
selon le mode du débat, est censée fonctionner. En ce sens, les défauts
de la démocratie exigent plus de démocratie, et non pas moins ».
Amartya Sen (2005), La démocratie des autres. Editions Payot-Rivages.
END
http://www.dial.prd.fr