UNDP-ICSSR International Workshop, New Delhi April 20-22, 2005 Governance Indicators for Pro-Poor and Gender-Sensitive Policy Reform Javier Herrera, Mireille

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


perceptions


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


[7,5 - 9,5] [9,5 - 11,6] [9,1 - 10,7]

is the same 49,1 48,8 48,9


[47,5 - 14,0] [46,9 - 50,6] [47,4 - 50,3]

don't know 11,5 1,6 4,7


[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


% 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


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.


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


In this country, democracy is working

In this country, democracy is working:

Rural %

Urbano %

No pobre %

Pobre %

Total %


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 %


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 %


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

Documents

UNDP-ICSSR International Workshop, New Delhi April 20-22, 2005 Governance Indicators for Pro-Poor and Gender-Sensitive Policy Reform Javier Herrera, Mireille