indices of social development - oecdregulations, rules –informal institutions: behavioural norms,...
TRANSCRIPT
-
Indices of Social Development
Ellen Webbink
[email protected] With thanks to Roberto Foa (Harvard University) and the World Bank
-
What are Indices of Social
Development? Indices = composite measures consisting of various individual
measures ranging from 2 or 3 to over 20.
Social development refers to the institutions of societies through which development is enhanced: the ‘soft’ dimensions of development, often invisible and difficult to measure – Social capital – Discrimination – Exclusion
Institutions = formal and informal social norms that structure behaviour – Formal institutions: created by states and other entities such as laws,
regulations, rules – Informal institutions: behavioural norms, attitudes, beliefs, rules of thumb
-
Why Indices of Social Development?
Show that the social development is something that we can define, measure, and ultimately advance
Help development practitioners identify countries with particular social development needs and concerns
Explore the research link between social development and other development outcomes, such as growth, governance, stability, and poverty reduction
-
6 Indices of Social Development:
Inclusion of Minorities
Non-exclusion of social minorities & indigenous peoples
Gender Equity
Non-discrimination against women
Inter-group Cohesion
Relations of trust and cohesion between defined ethnic,
religious, or linguistic identity groups
Interpersonal Safety and Trust
Norms of nonviolence between persons in society
Clubs and Associations
Relations of trust and cohesion within local communities
Civic Activism
The strength of civil society – levels of civic activism and
access to information
-
Indicator Source n (Log) Number of reported incidents of
violent riots, per capita Databanks 189 (Log) Number of reported incidents of
assassinations, per capita Databanks 189 Level of ethnic minority rebellion in country,
aggregated by group Minorities at
Risk 118
(Log) Number of reported incidents of terrorist acts, per capita Databanks 189
Level of economic and political discrimination against minorities in country, aggregated by group
Minorities at Risk 118
(Log) Number of reported incidents of guerrilla activity, per capita Databanks 189
Economic and political disparities between
minorities in country, aggregated by group Minorities at
Risk 118
(Log) Number of reported incidents of guerrilla activity, per capita Databanks 121
% of respondents who don't want people of a
different race as neighbors World Values
Survey 84
Rating on likelihood of violent demonstrations
Economist Intelligence Unit 121
% of respondents who don't want people of a
different race as neighbors World Values
Survey 50
Rating on potential for terrorist acts
Economist Intelligence Unit 121
% of respondents who don't want people of a
different language as neighbors World Values
Survey 28 rating on the "legacy of vengeance-
seeking group grievance or group paranoia" Fund for Peace 176
% of respondents who "not very much" or "not at
all" trust people of another religion World Values
Survey 22
rating on level of uneven economic development along group lines 176
% of respondents who "not very much" or "not at
all" trust people of another nationality World Values
Survey 21
Level of uneven economic development along group lines
ICRS 140
level discrimination workplace/courts/school
system/political parties/police]? Latino barometer 17
Level of civil disorder, ICRS 140
Combined percentage citing discrimination
against certain groups Latino barometer 18
Level of internal conflict ICRS 140
% reporting that their economic situation is the
‘same’ as other ethnic groups Afrobarometer 16
Risk of terrorism ICRS 140 % reporting that their political situation is the
‘same’ as other ethnic groups Afrobarometer 8
Level of ethnic tensions, ICRS 140 % population reporting that their ethnic group is
‘never’ treated unfairly Afrobarometer 4
Social Cohesion
-
Methodology
The project combines over 200 indicators from 25 independent sources.
We use the matching percentiles method used by Lambsdorff et al. (1999).
Produces similar results to the unobserved components model used by the Worldwide Governance Indicators.
In brief:
i) we order all of our indicators from the most to least reliable and representative.
ii) Scores from the second indicator are matched to the first indicator based on ranking of shared countries.
iii) These are combined with the first indicator to produced refined scores.
iv) We continue through all of the available indicators, reducing random error with each iteration to arrive at a final score.
-
Matching Equally Ranked Values
Botswana
Nigeria
Tanzania
Burundi
Congo, DR
Other
countries
0.24
0.22
0.08
0.05
0.04
Botswana
Tanzania
Nigeria
Burundi
Congo, DR
0.24
0.22
0.08
0.05
0.04
% respondent participation in demonstrations, petitions,
boycotts (WVS)
Respondent has often attended meetings of a local
development association (Afrobarometer)
-
Creating an Averaged Estimate
Botswana
Nigeria
Tanzania
Burundi
Congo, DR
Other
countries
0.24
0.22
0.08
0.05
0.04
Botswana
Tanzania
Nigeria
Burundi
Congo. DR
0.24
0.22
0.08
0.05
0.04
Botswana
Tanzania Nigeria
Burundi
Congo, DR
% respondent participation in demonstrations, petitions,
boycotts (WVS)
Respondent has often attended meetings of a local development
association (Afrobarometer)
0.23
0.16
0.15
0.05
0.04
-
Colombia
0
0,25
0,5
0,75
Civic capacity
Gender equity
Inclusion of minorities
Crime and personal security
Intergroup cohesion
Strength of community
-
Social Cohesion and GDP
0.4
0.41
0.42
0.43
0.44
0.45
0.46
0.47
15 20 25 30 35
Japan
Sudan
Guinea-Bissau
Log GDP per capita
Soci
al C
oh
esio
n
-
Social development progress
For example, levels of gender equity in Southern and Eastern Africa are higher than their GDP would lead us to expect.
-
Gender Equity in Africa
Albania
Algeria
Antigua and Barbuda
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas, The
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belarus
Belgium
Benin
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Cambodia
Canada
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
China
Cote d'Ivoire
CroatiaCyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibout i
Dominica
Egypt, Arab Rep. Equatorial Guinea
Estonia
Fiji
Finland
France
French Polynesia
Gabon
Gambia, The
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Hong Kong, China
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Rep.
IrelandIsrael
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Korea, Rep.
Kuwait
Kyrgyz RepublicLao PDR
Latvia
Lebanon
Lithuania
Luxembourg
M acao, China
M acedonia, FYRM alaysia
M ali
M alta
M auritania
M aurit ius
M oldovaM ongolia
M orocco
Nepal
Netherlands
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Niger
Nigeria
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Papua New Guinea
PhilippinesPoland
Portugal
Romania
Russian Federat ion
Samoa
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovak RepublicSlovenia
Solomon Islands
Spain
Sri Lanka
St. Kit ts and NevisSt. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Sudan
Sweden
Switzerland
Syrian Arab RepublicTajikistan
Thailand
Togo
Tonga
TunisiaTurkey
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan Vanuatu
Vietnam
Yemen, Rep.
Angola
Botswana
Burundi
Cameroon
Comoros
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Congo, Rep.
EritreaEthiopia
Kenya
Lesotho
M adagascar
M alawi
M ozambique
Namibia
Rwanda
Senegal
Seychelles
South Africa
SwazilandTanzania Uganda
ZambiaZimbabwe
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
6 6,5 7 7,5 8 8,5 9 9,5 10 10,5 11
Log GDP per capita
Gen
der
Eq
uit
y
-
Social development progress
But levels of interpersonal safety and trust in Latin America and Caribbean are lower than their GDP would lead us to expect.
-
Interpersonal Safety and Trust – Latin America and Caribbean
Albania
Algeria
Antigua and Barbuda
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belarus
Belgium
Benin
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Bulgaria
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape VerdeCentral African Republic
China
ComorosCongo, Dem. Rep.
Cote d'Ivo ire
CroatiaCzech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Egypt, Arab Rep.
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia Fiji
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia, The
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Hong Kong, China
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Korea, Rep.
Kuwait
Kyrgyz RepublicLao PDR Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Lithuania
Luxembourg
M acedonia, FYRM adagascar
M alawi
M alaysia
M ali
M altaM auritania
M auritius
M oldova
M ongolia
M orocco
M ozambique
Namibia
NepalNetherlandsNew Zealand
Niger
Nigeria
NorwayOman
Pakistan
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
PolandPortugal
Romania
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Samoa
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
SeychellesSierra Leone
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Syrian Arab Republic
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Tonga
Tunisia
TurkeyTurkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen, Rep.
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Argentina
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Guyana
Haiti
HondurasJamaica
M exicoNicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Puerto Rico
Trinidad and Tobago
Uruguay
Venezuela, RB
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Log GDP per capita
Per
son
al S
afet
y an
d S
ecu
rity
-
Individual measures and policy
objectives: an example
Protest behaviour: indicator of free speech
Democracy: policy objective
-
Protest Behaviour and Democracy
Albania
Algeria
Argentina
Austria
Bangladesh
Belarus
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Chile
Croat iaCzech Republic
Denmark
Egypt, Arab Rep.
Estonia
Finland
France
GermanyGreece
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
ItalyJapan
Jordan
Korea, Rep.
Kyrgyz Republic
Latvia
Lithuania
M acedonia, FYR
M exico
M oldovaM orocco
Netherlands
Nigeria
Pakistan
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
RomaniaRussian Federat ion
Serbia and M ontenegro
Singapore
Slovak RepublicSlovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Tanzania
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Venezuela, RB
VietnamZimbabwe
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Polity IV Democracy Score
Avera
ge P
erc
en
tag
e o
f R
esp
on
den
ts T
akin
g P
art
in
Dem
on
str
ati
on
s, P
eti
tio
ns, an
d B
oyco
tts
-
Possible use for development
policy evaluation
Helps to measure country-level and regional level progress in social development and enables policy makers to compare countries and regions
Helps to monitor social development of countries and regions over time
Helps to measure invisible dimensions of development at the meso and macro level: levels of social cohesion/ social capital, degree of discrimination, extent of social exclusion, governance issues.
Suitable as a variable in macro level policy evaluation and institutional policy such as budget support and institution building and governance support
-
Limitations of ISD for policy
evaluation Not applicable at intra-country level
Time periods are averages for several years of available data so it is not possible to link data to a specific year for a series of countries
They do not distinguish between social development changes arising from aid and from trends or external factors
-
Conclusion
Indices of Social Development may be useful for macro-level policy evaluation
Indices of Social Development may complement ‘hard’ measures of development such as economic (GDP growth, credit deepening) and biological (BMI) indicators
Indices of Social Development provide quantitative variables for policy analysis, which may inform policy priorities (from country profiles showing scores on each index) and country selection (from country or regional scores or correlations of index scores with measures for policy objectives)
16 March launch www.IndSocDev.org where all the indices data can be downloaded through free access.