Indices of Social Development

Ellen Webbink

webbink@iss.nl 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 PDRLatvia

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.