participation and beyond: the contribution of the World Values - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Measuring inclusive participation and beyond: the contribution of the World Values Survey to the SDGs monitoring KSENIYA KIZILOVA HEAD OF SECRETARIAT AT THE W ORLD VALUES SURVEY ASSOCIATION VICE-DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPARATIVE
KSENIYA KIZILOVA HEAD OF SECRETARIAT AT THE W ORLD VALUES SURVEY ASSOCIATION VICE-DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPARATIVE SURVEY RESEARCH VIENNA, AUSTRIA
The World Values Survey (WVS) is a global cross-national cross-sectional research program exploring human values and beliefs, their stability or change over time, and how they influence social, political and economic development of societies around the globe.
Largest non-commercial academic social survey program: covers 115 countries representing 92% of the world population Time-series data for 38-years (1981- 2019), over 700 indicators measured in this period Over 15 000 publications, including academic articles and books, working papers, development reports High-quality national-wide random representative samples (1200 to 6000 respondents per country); interviews in face to face mode Collaboration of over 400 highly professional national survey teams worldwide Free access to the data for researchers, civil society, international development agencies: www.worldvaluessurvey.org
SDG Target 16.5: Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms
GERMANY INDONESIA AUSTRALIA JORDAN THAILAND ARGENTINA ANDORRA USA BRAZIL CHILE SOUTH KOREA RUSSIA KAZAKHSTAN PUERTO RICO GREECE IRAQ EGYPT MALAYSIA LEBANON ROMANIA PAKISTAN NIGERIA PERU ECUADOR SERBIA BANGLADESH BOLIVIA
1.30 1.50 1.70 1.90 2.10 2.30 2.50 2.70 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10.00
Frequency ordinary people pay a bribe Perceived scale of corruption
Source: World Values Survey (2017-2019); www.worldvaluessurvey.org
WVS data for the SDGs measurement ▪ WVS survey contains 200+ indicators valid for monitoring SDGs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17 as supplement measures. ▪ High quality samples: extrapolation of findings
▪ Possibility of disaggregation by age, gender, education, wellbeing, social class, migration background, region of residence, type of settlement. ▪ Possibility of cross-country and cross- regional comparison for the same measures; ▪ All data in free access for individuals and
for any non-commercial purpose of use; ▪ Wide network of national research teams to explore national context and engage with CSO/NGO actors.
SDG Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere
Source: World Values Survey (2014-2019); www.worldvaluessurvey.org
BRAZIL CHILE MEXICO SOUTH AFRICA ARGENTINA PERU PHILIPPINES ALGERIA URUGUAY ECUADOR HAITI COLOMBIA MALAYSIA NIGERIA GREECE ZIMBABWE BOLIVIA AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND MOROCCO KAZAKHSTAN TUNISIA INDIA USA RWANDA LEBANON PAKISTAN KYRGYZSTAN IRAQ THAILAND KUWAIT RUSSIA GHANA UKRAINE HONG KONG YEMEN SPAIN SERBIA BELARUS TURKEY SOUTH KOREA ARMENIA SWEDEN ROMANIA JORDAN JAPAN CYPRUS INDONESIA LIBYA ESTONIA BANGLADESH POLAND NETHERLANDS EGYPT GERMANY CHINA TAIWAN SINGAPORE SLOVENIA AZERBAIJAN QATAR UZBEKISTAN ANDORRA GEORGIA
2.25 2.45 2.65 2.85 3.05 3.25 3.45 3.65 3.85 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80
FREQUENCY OF ROBBERIES IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD
PERCEIVED SECURITY IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD
SDG Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels
Algeria Andorra Argentina Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bangladesh Belarus Belgium Bolivia Brazil Bulgaria Canada Chile China Colombia Croatia Cyprus Czechia Denmark Ecuador Egypt Estonia Ethiopia Finland France Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Guatemala Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Italy Japan Kazakhstan Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lebanon Libya Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Malaysia Mali Mexico Moldova Montenegro Morocco Netherlands New Zealand Nigeria Norway Pakistan Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Romania Russia Rwanda Serbia Singapore Slovakia Slovenia South Africa South Korea Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Tanzania Thailand Tunisia Turkey Uganda UK Ukraine Uruguay USA Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe
1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40
CONFIDENCE IN CIVIL SERVICE CONFIDENCE IN POLICE Source: World Values Survey (2014-2019); www.worldvaluessurvey.org
Pilot of tier III indicator 16.7.2: Proportion
decision-making is inclusive and responsive, by population group
How much would you say the political system in your country allows people like you to have a say in what the government does? (“a great deal” + “a lot” in %)
89.8% 83.6% 74.0% 73.5% 71.1% 71.0% 70.8% 69.7% 69.3% 68.0% 67.4% 66.7% 63.9% 63.9% 63.8% 63.1% 61.9% 54.6% Italy Slovenia Estonia Argentina Russia Lithuania Spain Poland Israel France Ireland Hungary Portugal Austria Finland Belgium Czechia UK 53.1% 50.1% 49.6% 46.4% 46.2% 43.5% 41.5% 41.5% 41.2% 33.8% 31.4% 29.6% 25.6% 25.1% 18.3% 17.9% 15.5% Sweden Iceland Germany Netherlands Andorra Malaysia Pakistan Jordan Indonesia Nigeria Norway Iraq Switzerland Lebanon Australia Brazil Egypt
Source: World Values Survey (2017-2019); European Social Survey 8 (2016)
▪ Implemented as a part of cooperation agreement between the UNDP and the WVSA. ▪ Pilot of the measure on inclusive and responsive decision-making in 2018-2020 conducted in 40 countries. ▪ In every country representative national samples are interviewed; item translated so far into 17 languages. ▪ Data collected via face-to-face interview method (PAPI; CAPI modes). ▪ Possibility of data disaggregation by population group and location. ▪ Study of correlations with measures of democracy, voting and other forms of political participation, confidence in institutions etc.
Proportion of adult population in Bangladesh who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive, by population groups and region (%)
Source: World Values Survey in Bangladesh (2018); www.worldvaluessurvey.org 53.70% 45.80% 49.10% 51.70% 47.50% 43.80% 58.70% 56.40% 50.10% 42.30% 46.50% 50.70% Males Females 18-29 years 30-45 years 46-99 years Primary, secondary education Tertiary education Low income Medium income High income Urban Rural
Proportion of adult population in Malaysia who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive, by population groups and regions (%)
42.50% 46.50% 45.50% 46.50% 37.10% 46.30% 31.10% 45.80% 43.40% 36.80% 34.30% 59.10% Males Females 18-29 years 30-49 years 50 and
Primary, secondary education Tertiary education Low income Medium income High income Urban Rural Source: World Values Survey in Malaysia (2018); www.worldvaluessurvey.org
Proportion of adult population in Pakistan who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive, by population groups and regions (%)
41.60% 41.30% 47.80% 40.50% 39.10% 40.30% 45.70% 38.80% 41.80% 48.40% 43.70% 40.40% Males Females 18-25 years 26-40 years 41-99 years Primary, secondary education Tertiary education Low income Medium income High income Urban Rural Source: World Values Survey in Pakistan (2018); www.worldvaluessurvey.org
64.1 28.5 26.1 24.9 18.3 17.1 60.7 25.7 28.0 22.2 21.3 13.6 61.1 29.2 26.7 25.7 25.9 14.0 Voted in last elections Donated to a group
Searched information about politics online Encouraged others to vote Signed a petition Contacted a government official Political system responsiveness: Very much or a lot Some Little or no 13.5 11.5 11.3 8.6 6.3 6.0 10.6 14.2 9.0 6.8 3.8 6.0 14.7 14.4 11.2 10.1 3.7 7.0 Attended peaceful demonstration Signed an e-petition Encouraged others to take an action about political issue Joined a strike Organized a event, protest using social media Joined in boycott
Perceptions of inclusive and responsive decision-making and reported forms of political participation and civil activity (%)
Source: World Values Survey (2017-2019); www.worldvaluessurvey.org
Variation in interpretation of “having a say” which affects the translation and the overall question meaning in other languages => remark for translators required; In most languages, very close distance between scale positions 1=Very much; 2=A lot => difficulty to reproduce the required difference between the two points; Item is a valid measure of external efficacy, responses correlate highly with the perceived satisfaction with democracy and the way political system is developing in the country, confidence in the government; Question was possible to ask in all countries regardless of the type of political regime, in less democratic countries the respondents more often tend to select “hard to say” or “refuse to answer” (up to 20%) => consider developing supplementary measures.
Continue cooperation with UNDP and OGC on piloting SDG 16.7.2 in 2019-2020; Complete the pilot in 40 countries by July 2020; Submit the findings and methodological remarks for the further question polishing/ reclassification of the indicator from tier III to tier II; Explore possibilities to engage with other international development and civil society
national basis; Expand further the number of SDG measures in the WVS questionnaire, in particular – for the next WVS-8 round (2022-2025); Explore possibilities of combining survey activity with additional actions, events engaging local communities, CSOs and policy-makers in the studied countries.
WEB: WWW.WORLDVALUESSURVEY.ORG MAIL: WVSA.SECRETARIAT@GMAIL.COM FACEBOOK: WWW.FACEBOOK.COM/WORLDVALUESSURVEY TWITTER: TWITTER.COM/VALUESSTUDIES Kseniya Kizilova Head of the WVSA Secretariat ksenniya.kizilova@gmail.com