Transcript The Need for Democracy Indicators

Democracy Indicators in
USAID
Conference on “Measuring Democracy:
A Multidimensional, Historical
Approach”
Margaret Sarles, USAID/Democracy and Governance
[email protected]
Boston, May 24, 2009
Why we need better democracy
and governance (DG) indicators
• Major assistance area for donors
– Inclusive assistance in rule of law, corruption,
parties, human rights, unions and civil society,
institution-building, sub-national governments, etc.
– Major budget area
• But we have little knowledge of impact
– National Academy of Sciences report (NAS)
– We need to test causal hypotheses around
• (1) democratic change processes and
• (2) intervention/impact
• Diagnostic tool:
– Under-rated: basis of deciding where and how to
work in DG
Current Work on “indicator gap analysis”
with Management Systems International
• Background: The need for both program-specific and
comparative indicators of change (10 yrs)
– 1998: “Handbook of Democracy and Governance Progam
Indicators” (www.usaid.gov/our_work/
democracy_and_governance/publications/pdfs/pnacc390.pdf)
• Our current efforts are based on:
– The need to develop and test causal hypotheses of democratic
development
– Clear definitions, as finely grained as possible, of DVs
– So far, our 20 years experience outruns the theoretical literature in
measuring democratic change
• The process of determining what measurement development to
support:
– We are developing “results framework” of causality-- what we do
and how it relates to different levels of democratic change
– We will analyze and “grade” the quality of indicators around what
we do
– We will establish a priority research agenda, based on the
importance of the area of DG and the quality of the indicator
Illustrative Example of Results
Framework in civil society
Increased and more inclusive participation of
citiziens in social, political and economic life
1. Enabling env.
supports CSO
formation &op.
&civic activism
2. Improved
organizational
capacity in
CSOs
3 Increased
access to
diverse
sources of info.
Better research
investigative &
policy analysis
skills of CSOs
5 Strengthened
provision of G&
S by service
delivery CSOs
6 Strengthened
citizen knowledge
of rights & respons
& how govt works
Results Framework in Elections
(Draft examples of causality; programs and activities
are attached to sub-Intermediate Results)
Consolidated Democracy
Elections are Free, fair,
competitive and inclusive
IR 1
Impartial
Legal Framework
IR2
Credible
Election Administration
IR3
Well Informed &
Active
Citizenry
IR4
Effective Oversight of Elecoral
Process
Legitimate LF
in compliance
w intern'l
standards
Effective electoral
process monitoring
by CSOs, pp,
intern'l observers
LF provides
for nondiscrimination
Media fulfills
role as
watchdog in
electoral process
Campaign
regs. fair &
equitable to
all pp & cands
ConsensusBuilding on
agreement of
democratic rules
Conceptual Issues
• The relationship of what we call “democracy”
to what we call “governance:” a bleeding line
– E.g., accountability, responsiveness Congress,
focus on selectorate control in public sector
– Trend in donors is towards expansiveness
• Sequencing & synergies among elements of
democratic change
– E.g., ROL relationship to sustainable f&f elections
– Access to information: “canary in the coalmine?”
– Policy level: political inclusion v. lack of checks
and balances
Measurement Concerns
• Poor baseline work on expected length of time or
variability in an area of democratic development,
especially in poor quality/ emerging democracies
– Consequence: quick to call failure/failed state
• Balance of available measures may skew towards
institutions rather than “majority ownership” concepts
• Support of surveys relative to other data collection
methods (costs, diverse uses, limitations)
• Our changing understanding of democracy over time:
using 2009 as a standard in history
• If we have better variables now than before 1980,
should we abandon them for measures that can be
used over a long historical trajectory? What are the