Measuring inclusive participation and beyond: the contribution of the World Values Survey to the SDGs monitoringK S E N I YA K I Z I L O VA
H E A D O F S E C R E TA R I AT AT T H E W O R L D VA L U E S
S U RV E Y A S S O C I AT I ON
V I C E - D I R E C TOR O F T H E I N S T I T U T E F O R C O M PA R AT I V E
S U RV E Y R E S E A R C H
V I E N N A , A U S T R I A
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.
Introduction to the World Values Survey
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
World Values Survey geographic coverage (1981-2019): 115 countries
Some of the WVSA cooperation initiatives and partnerships (2014-2019)
Examples of global development reports that employ WVS data
SDG Target 16.5: Substantially reduce
corruption and bribery in all their forms
GERMANY
INDONESIA
AUSTRALIA JORDAN
THAILANDARGENTINAANDORRA
USA
BRAZILCHILE
SOUTH KOREA
RUSSIA
KAZAKHSTAN PUERTO RICO
GREECE
IRAQ
EGYPTMALAYSIA
LEBANONROMANIA
PAKISTANNIGERIA PERU
ECUADORSERBIA
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
Fre
qu
ency
ord
inar
y p
eop
le p
ay a
bri
be
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
on the total country adult population.
▪ 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
organizations (HEIs, IDAs, CSOs, NGOs etc.)
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
ARGENTINAPERU
PHILIPPINES
ALGERIAURUGUAY
ECUADORHAITI
COLOMBIAMALAYSIA
NIGERIAGREECE
ZIMBABWEBOLIVIA AUSTRALIANEW ZEALAND
MOROCCOKAZAKHSTAN
TUNISIAINDIAUSARWANDALEBANON
PAKISTANKYRGYZSTAN IRAQTHAILAND
KUWAITRUSSIA GHANA
UKRAINEHONG KONG
YEMENSPAIN
SERBIA BELARUSTURKEY
SOUTH KOREA
ARMENIA SWEDENROMANIA JORDANJAPAN
CYPRUS
INDONESIA
LIBYA
ESTONIABANGLADESH
POLAND
NETHERLANDSEGYPT
GERMANYCHINA TAIWANSINGAPORE
SLOVENIA
AZERBAIJANQATAR
UZBEKISTANANDORRA
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
FR
EQ
UE
NC
Y O
F R
OB
BE
RIE
S IN
TH
E N
EIG
HB
OU
RH
OO
D
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
FranceGeorgia Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Hungary
IcelandIndia
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
ItalyJapan
Kazakhstan
KuwaitKyrgyzstan
Lebanon
Libya
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Malaysia
Mali
Mexico
Moldova
Montenegro MoroccoNetherlands
New ZealandNigeria
NorwayPakistan
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
RussiaRwanda
Serbia
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South AfricaSouth Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Tanzania
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
UKUkraine
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
CO
NF
IDE
NC
E IN
CIV
IL S
ER
VIC
E
CONFIDENCE IN POLICE
Source: World Values Survey (2014-2019); www.worldvaluessurvey.org
Pilot of tier III indicator 16.7.2: Proportion
of population who believe
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, secondaryeducation
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 18-29years
30-49years
50 andolder
Primary,secondaryeducation
Tertiaryeducation
Lowincome
Mediumincome
Highincome
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, secondaryeducation
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 25.914.0
Voted in lastelections
Donated to a groupor campaign
Searchedinformation about
politics online
Encouraged othersto vote
Signed a petition Contacted agovernment official
Political system responsiveness:
Very much or a lot Some Little or no
13.5 11.5 11.3 8.6 6.3 6.010.6 14.2 9.0 6.8 3.8 6.014.7 14.4 11.2 10.1 3.7 7.0
Attended peacefuldemonstration
Signed an e-petition Encouraged othersto 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
Key methodological findings from the pilot
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.
Next steps: short-term and long-termContinue 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 organizations who can benefit from the newly collected data both at global, regional and 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.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
WEB: WWW.WORLDVALUESSURVEY.ORG
MAIL: [email protected]
FACEBOOK: WWW.FACEBOOK.COM/WORLDVALUESSURVEY
TWITTER: TWITTER.COM/VALUESSTUDIES
Kseniya Kizilova
Head of the WVSA Secretariat