Afrobarometer Namibia 2003 Christiaan Keulder Institute for Public Policy Research.
Afrobarometer, Where is Africa Going? And How Does Namibia Fit In? 23 June 2006 Windhoek, Namibia.
-
Upload
ezra-ilsley -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of Afrobarometer, Where is Africa Going? And How Does Namibia Fit In? 23 June 2006 Windhoek, Namibia.
Afrobarometer, Where is Africa Going?
And How Does Namibia Fit In?
23 June 2006
Windhoek, Namibia
• The Afrobarometer
• Lived Poverty
• Africans’ Views of Economics
• Africans’ Views of Corruption
• Partisan Identification
• Africans’ Views of Democracy
Afrobarometer
Purpose
• A comparative series of national public attitude surveys in Africa on Democracy, Markets and Civil Society
• Scientific project dedicated to accurate and precise measurement of nationally representative samples of publics
• Policy relevant project that inserts results into national and global policy discussion
• Ultimately, advancing democracy in Africa by promoting the voice of public opinion
When and Where
• In “reforming” African countries (generally, multi party regimes that have had a founding democratic election, or a re-democratizing election)
• Round 1 (12 countries, mid-1999 to mid 2001) • in West Africa: Ghana, Mali, Nigeria• in East Africa: Uganda and Tanzania• in Southern Africa: Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa,
Zambia and Zimbabwe
• Round 2 (16 countries, mid 2002-late 2003) – repeats original 12 (Zimbabwe in early 2004)– Adds Cape Verde, Kenya, Mozambique, and Senegal
• Round 3 (18 countries, 2005)– Adds Madagascar and Benin
Who Does It?Network• 3 Core Partners
– Institute for Democracy in South Africa (Idasa)– Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana)– Michigan State University
• 16 National Partners (NGO, public, private)– Other Individual and Institutional Research Associates
• Regular Workshops– To discuss policies and protocols and appoint committees to produce
concentrated pieces of work like draft questionnaires or revisions of survey methodologies
• Summer School / Capacity Building– To build Network skills in scientific analysis, including social statistics, report
writing and relevant literature
Who Does It?
Southern Africa– Institute for Democracy in South Africa (Idasa)
West Africa– Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-
Ghana)
East Africa– Michigan State University / – Wilsken Agencies (Uganda)
By Round 4
Southern Africa– Institute for Democracy in South Africa (Idasa)
West Africa– Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana)
East Africa– Wilsken Agencies
Support Units– Michigan State University– University of Cape Town
Who Supports It?
• Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA)• U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)• Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs (NMFA)• Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation• Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs• World Bank• UK Department for International Development (DFID)• Danish Governance Trust Fund at the World Bank• Royal Dutch Embassy in Namibia• Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation• Trocaire Regional Office for Eastern Africa • Michigan State University• African Development Bank • U.S. National Science Foundation • Konrad Adenauer Stiftung
Sampling
• Random• Clustered• Stratified• Area Probability• Proportionate (some exceptions: e.g Tanzania, South
Africa)• Multi Stage• Nationally representative• Minimum Sample Size of 1200 gives a margin of
sampling error of +/- 3 percentage points (2.8 points)
Interviewing
• Personal, face-to-face interviews
• Questionnaires translated in to local languages
• Interviewers fluent in local languages
Lived Poverty
Measuring Lived Poverty
• Over the past year, how often, if ever have you or your family gone without:– Enough food to eat?– Enough clean water for home use?– Medicines of medical treatment?– Electricity in your home?– Enough fuel to cook your food?– A cash income?
Measuring Lived Poverty
• Over the past year, how often, if ever have you or your family gone without:– 0. Never– 1. Just Once or Twice– 2. Several Times– 3. Many Times– 4. Always
Lived Poverty Food Shortages
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Always Many times Several times Just once or twice
Lived Poverty
565753
4551
44
58 5859
75 77 78
0
20
40
60
80
100
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
w/o food
w/o water
w/o medical care
w/o income
Increasing Lived PovertyFood Shortages (2000-2005)
57
83
71
4145
5865
82 82
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
Malawi
Nigeria
Zimbabwe
Decreasing Lived PovertyFood Shortages (2000-2005)
72
80
56
66
43
5353
3740
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
Lesotho
Namibia
South Africa
Africans’ Views of Economics
Measuring Economic Evaluations
• Present – In general, how would you describe: The present economic
condition of this country?
• Past– Looking back, how do you rate the following compared to
twelve months ago? Economic conditions in this country?
• Future: – Looking ahead, do you expect the following to be better or
worse? Economic conditions in this country in twelve months time?
Present National Economic Conditions
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Very good Fairly good
Evaluations of the National Economy
29 33 29
30
36
31
4437
49
0
20
40
60
80
100
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
Present
Past
Future
Increasing Satisfaction WithPresent National Economic Conditions In Africa (2000-2005)
12 11
19
42
57 59
15
30
51
22
3330
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
Lesotho
Namibia
South Africa
Tanzania
Stable / Stagnant Satisfaction WithPresent National Economic Conditions In Africa (2000-2005)
32
45
33
19
32
19
3
31
40
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
Botswana
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Declining Satisfaction WithPresent National Economic Conditions in Africa (2000-2005)
26
1916
25
15
45
64
45 46
263134
34
2632
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
Ghana
Malawi
Mali
Nigeria
Uganda
Measuring Support for Economic Reform
• User fees – It is better to raise educational standards, even if we have to pay school
fees
• Job cuts – The government cannot afford so many public employees and should
lay some of them off.
• Economic impact – The government’s economic policies have helped most people; only a
few have suffered (percent agree/agree very strongly).
• Economic patience– In order for the economy to get better in the future, it is necessary for
us to accept some hardships now.
Economic Reform
53
23
57
30
6062
32
24
46
57
28
31
0
20
40
60
80
100
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
User fees
Job cuts
Economic patience
Economic impact
Economic Impact
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Agree Very Strongly Agree
Economic Patience
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Strongly Agree Agree
Increasing Economic Patience in Africa (2000-2005)
38
72
65
56
67
40
61
49
57
67
45
5359
45
56
47
5955
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Circa 2000 Circa 20002 Circa 2005
Ghana
Lesotho
Malawi
Mali
Nigeria
South Africa
Uganda
Stable Economic Patience in Africa (2000-2005)
56 57
50 49
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Circa 2000 Circa 20002 Circa 2005
Zimbabwe
Zambia
Decreasing Economic Patience (2000-2005)
72
5560
52
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Circa 2000 Circa 20002 Circa 2005
Botswana
Namibia
Africans’ Views of Corruption
Measuring Understandings of Corruption
• For each of the following, please indicate whether you think the act is not wrong at all, wrong but understandable, or wrong and punishable. – A public official decides to locate a development project in
an area where his friends and supporters lived
– A government official gives a job to someone from his family who does not have adequate qualifications
– A government official demands a favour or an additional payment for some service that is part of his job
Jobs For Relatives
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Jobs for Relatives
Measuring Perceptions of Corruption
• How many of the following people do you think are involved in corruption, or haven’t you heard enough about them to say – The President and officials in his office– Members of Parliament– Elected local government councilors– National government officials– Local government officials– Police– Tax officials– Judges and magistrates– Health workers– Teachers and school administrators
Perception of Corruption National Government Officials
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
All of them Most of them
Perception of CorruptionPolice
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
All of them Most of them
Perceptions of Corruption, 2000-2005
2726
40
52
34
48
33
0
20
40
60
80
100
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
MPs
Govt. officials
Local govt.
Declining Perceptions of CorruptionNational Govt Officials (2000-2005)
70
36
49
36
50
3643 45
2528
19
28
52
2727
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Circa2000
Circa2002
Circa2005
Zimbabwe
Zambia
South Africa
Malawi
Lesotho
Stable Perceptions of CorruptionNational Govt Officials (2000-2005)
33
2529
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
Botswan
Increasing Perceptions of CorruptionNational Govt Officials (2000-2005)
2530
35
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
Namibia
Measuring Victimization by Corruption
• In the past year, how often (if ever) have you had to pay a bribe, give a gift, or do a favour to government officials in order – Get a document or a permit? – Get a child into school? – Get a household service (like piped water, electricity or phone)? – Get medicine or medical attention from a health worker – Avoid a problem with the police (like passing a checkpoint or
avoiding a fine or arrest)? – And during the XXXX election, how often (if ever) did a
candidate or someone from a political party offer you something, like food or a gift, in return for your vote?
Pay a Bribe for Official Document / Permit
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Often A Few Times Once or Twice
Pay a Bribe to Avoid Problem With Police
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Often A Few Times Once or Twice
Partisan Politics
Party Identification (2005-2006)
20 20 21 2228
3438
43 44 4651
61 6369
73
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Opposition Independent Ruling Party
Partisan Identification and Voter Turnout, (12 Afrobarometer Countries, 1999-2001)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Opposition Independents Ruling Party
Did Not Vote Decided Not to VoteUnable to Vote Voted In Previous Election
Trust In Ruling Parties (2005-2006)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
A lot Somewhat
Trust In Opposition Parties (2005-2006)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
A lot Somewhat
Rising Voter Identification With Ruling Political Parties, 2000-2005
73
63
69
36
56
63
34
41
51
22
36
44
5958
61
55
61
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
Mozambique
Tanzania
Lesotho
Namibia
South Africa
Uganda
Stable Voter Identification With Ruling Political Parties, 2000-2005
46
3843
36 38
24 2428
464444
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
Botswana
Ghana
Senegal
Nigaria
Declining Voter Identification With Ruling Parties, 2000-2005
52
34
4744
31
26
20
3032
22
2020
30
40
50
60
70
80
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
Kenya
Malawi
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Africans’ Views of Democracy
Measuring Demand for Democracy
• Support for Democracy– Which of these three statements is closest to your own opinion?
• A. Democracy is preferable to any other form of government• B. In certain situations, a non-democratic government can be preferable• C. To people like me, it doesn’t matter what form of government we
have.”
• Rejection of Authoritarian Rule– There are many ways to govern a country. Would you disapprove or
approve of the following alternatives?• The army comes in to govern the country (Military rule)• Only one political party is allowed to stand for election and hold office
(One-party rule)• Elections and the parliament are abolished so that the president can decide
everything (One-man rule)
Support for Democracy
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Democracy Always Preferable
Rejection of Authoritarian RegimesPresidential Dictatorship
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Strongly Disapprove Disapprove
Demand for Democracy
62
69617066 73
82
8078
78
46
5656
0
20
40
60
80
100
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
Support for democracy
Reject one-party rule
Reject military rule
Reject one man rule
Political patience
Increasing Support for Democracy, 2000-2005
40
50 50
60
7168
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
Lesotho
Mali
Decreasing Support for Democracy, 2000-2005
75
6568
38
75
85
69
64
56
65
8184
65
80 75
61
70
64
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
Botswana
Malawi
Nigeria
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
Increasing Demand Over Three Rounds(Reject 3 Forms of Authoritarianism)
36
52
61
21
27
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
Lesotho
Mozambique
Constant Demand Over Three Rounds(Reject 3 Forms of Authoritarianism)
69
56
68
50 50
6366
70
41
50
39
44 45 45
75
66
77
6866
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
Botswana
Cabo Verde
Ghana
Kenya
South Africa
Uganda
Zambia
Declining Demand Over Three Rounds(Reject 3 Forms of Authoritarianism)
63
53
30
4345
39
3028
76
52 51
5754
36
54
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
Malawi
Mali
Namibia
Nigeria
Tanzania
Measuring the Supply of Democracy
• Satisfaction with Democracy– How satisfied are you with the way democracy works in ____ ?
• Extent of Democracy– In your opinion, how much of a democracy is ____ today?
• A full democracy• A democracy, but with minor problems• A democracy, but with major problems• Not a democracy
• Freeness and Fairness of Elections– On the whole, how would you rate the freeness and fairness of the last
national election, held in _____? • Completely free and fair• Free and fair, with minor problems• Free and fair, but with major problem• Not free and fair at all
Satisfaction With Democracy
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Very satisfied Fairly satisfied
Extent of Democracy
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
A full democracy A democracy, but with minor problems
Free and Fair Elections
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Completely free and fair Free and fair, but with minor problems
Supply of Democracy
50 4849
58
45
52
67
62
0
20
40
60
80
100
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
Extent of democracy
Satisfaction withdemocracy
Elections free and fair
Constant Supply, 2000-20005 (Country is Democratic + Satisfied With Democracy)
4648
42 43
28
36
31
45
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
Mozambique
Uganda
Lesotho
Declining Supply, 2000-2005 (Country is Democratic + Satisfied With Democracy)
70
46
54
66
42
51
27
46
39
21
45
51
35
47
36
211515
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
Botswana
Kenya
Malawi
Nigeria
Tanzania
Zambia
Increasing Supply, 2000-2005 (Country is Democratic + Satisfied With Democracy)
53
65
50
61
19
35
43
36
64
4543
29
5650
35
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
Circa 2000 Circa 2002 Circa 2005
Namibia
Cabo Verde
Ghana
Mali
South Africa
For More Information:including
downloadable versions of questionnaires, data sets, results and publications
see
www.afrobarometer.org