WHAT DOES THE WORLD REALLY
WANT FROM THE NEXT GLOBAL
DEVELOPMENT GOALS?
Ensuring that the world’s poor
define the post-2015 framework.
Ben Leo with Khai Hoan Tram1
1
Ben Leo is Global Policy Director at the ONE Campaign. Khai Hoan Tram is a Research Assistant on the
Global Policy team. We wish to thank Andy Sumner, Charles Kenny, Owen Barder, Michael Clemens, Nancy
Birdsall, and several anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions and comments on earlier
drafts of this paper. The author is solely responsible for any errors in fact or judgment.
Introduction
Over three years before they are due to take effect, the
quest to establish the next round of global development
goals has begun. It will have a profound effect on the lives of
the world’s poorest people. At a UN Heads of State Summit
in September 2013, the direction of and process for
finalizing the new goals will be agreed. Between now and
then, a group of international policymakers, politicians, and
technocrats have been effectively deputized to take this
monumental effort forward. Against this backdrop, there is
a growing list of recommendations, with different groups
arguing that the focus of a new development agenda should
be on jobs and growth, or governance, or environmental
sustainability, or the maintenance of the existing goals. In
many ways, the debate is driven by fundamentally different
views about the value and role of global goals. For some, the
post-2015 framework should focus solely on development
priorities that span national, regional, and global lines. An
alternative view is that the framework should focus on
global goods and challenges, such as climate change,
pandemics, and other issues.
While discussions about these varying visions take place,
all relevant parties must remain focused on continuing to
drive progress against the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs). The existing global development framework has
mobilized and channeled unparalleled actions from a broad
range of actors, including developing and developed country
governments, non-governmental actors, and the private
sector. Many developing countries have achieved
unparalleled rates of improvement on the existing MDGs:
reducing child mortality, combatting HIV/AIDS, malaria, and
other infectious diseases, and increasing school enrolment.
These robust results illustrate both the power of
2
aspirational global goals and the necessity of continuing
to accelerate progress over the next three years.
With respect to the post-2015 exercise, a central question
remains whether the formal and informal UN-led processes
will truly capture what the global development goals’ target
audience actually wants – that is to say, the priorities and
concerns of the world’s poorest people. There is a risk that
the next generation of global goals will be dominated by
specific interest group agendas. Undoubtedly, the existing
UN consultation process marks a significant improvement
from previous exercises. It will bring together a broader
range of stakeholder views and perspectives than before,
particularly from businesses and civil society. However, the
emerging process may have a critical gap: it is not clear that
it will directly solicit views from the post-2015 framework’s
intended beneficiaries – the world’s poorest citizens – in a
quantitative, representative way. This raises significant
concerns about the comprehensiveness and credibility of
the UN-led process, its adherence to the principals that are
supposed to underpin it, and ultimately the relevance of the
post-2015 framework.
This paper examines these issues in detail and is organized
as follows. Section II provides a summary of the existing
UN-led consultation process. Sections III and IV focus on
the appropriate consultative role for the world’s poor and
utilizes existing survey data to gauge household concerns
and priorities in three specific regions – Sub-Saharan
Africa, East Asia, and Latin America. Lastly, section V
outlines a number of specific recommendations for how
the UN and other key stakeholders could improve the
post-2015 development framework process.
MDGs 2.0 Process & Stakeholder Consultations
The UN has launched a broad-based process to solicit input
from a variety of stakeholders about the post-2015
framework. Its objective is to: (1) establish a strategic
coalition of partners; (2) ensure that the post-2015 agenda
addresses emerging development priorities and challenges;
and (3) builds on the momentum of and lessons learned
from the existing MDGs. Currently, the UN-led consultation
process is envisaged to run through September 2013.
Invariably, additional consultative mechanisms and
activities will take place between September 2013 and
end-2015. However, the structure and breadth of these
activities has not been fully developed or agreed.
Country Consultations
Between now and March 2013, the UN Development Group
(UNDG) will be conducting national consultations in at least
50, and potentially up to 100, developing countries.2 The
targeted participants include: NGOs, community-based
organizations, universities and research institutions,
private sector entities, interest groups (trade unions,
employers’ organizations, advocacy groups), semigovernmental actors (national human rights institutions or
ombudsmen), and political decision makers.3 The process
will be highly decentralized and driven by country-level
UNDG teams. Despite quality control efforts, such as
circulation of consultation guidelines, the robustness and
effectiveness of country-level mechanisms will likely be
varied. The UNDG teams will submit formal country-level
3
reports by end-March 2013, which outline key themes
and findings from the stakeholder consultations.
2
The announced country consultations
include: Algeria, Angola, Armenia,
Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Central
African Republic, China, Colombia, Costa
Rica, Democratic Republic of Congo,
Djibouti, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana,
Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia,
Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Laos, Mali,
Malawi, Mauritius, Moldova, Morocco,
Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan,
Papua New Guinea, Peru, Saint Lucia,
Senegal, Solomon Islands, South Africa,
Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste,
Togo, Turkey, Uganda, Vietnam, and Zambia.
The UNDG-led consultation process
reportedly may be expanded to include up to
100 developing countries.
3
UNDG (2012), Post-2015 Development
Agenda: Guidelines for Country Dialogues,
page 21
4
The HLP is co-chaired by David Cameron
(UK Prime Minister), Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono (President of Indonesia), Ellen
Johnson Sirleaf (President of Liberia).
Members include: Fulbert Gero Amoussouga
(Benin), Vanessa Petrelli Corrêa (Brazil),
Yingfan Wang (China), Maria Angela Holguin
(Colombia), Gisela Alonso (Cuba),
Jean-Michel Severino (France), Horst Kohler
(Germany), Naoto Kan (Japan), H.M. Queen
Rania of Jordan (Jordan), Betty Maina
(Kenya), Abhijit Banerjee (India), Andris
Piebalgs (Latvia), Patricia Espinosa (Mexico),
Paul Polman (Netherlands), Ngozi
Okonjo-Iweala (Nigeria), Elvira Nabiullina
(Russian Federation), Graça Machel (South
Africa), Sung-Hwan Kim (Republic of Korea),
Gunilla Carlsson (Sweden), Emilia Pires
(Timor-Leste), Kadir Topbaş (Turkey), John
Podesta (United States), Tawakel Karman
(Yemen), and Amina J. Mohammed (ex
officio). For additional details, see
www.un.org/millenniumgoals/Press%20
release_post-2015panel.pdf.
Thematic Consultations
Between now and June 2013, nine thematic consultations
will take place with academics, media, businesses, trade
unions, and civil society. The individual processes will be
coordinated by UN specialized agencies with an official
purview over the respective issues and co-chaired by two
UN Member States (one developed country and one
developing country). The nine topics include: (1) inequality
(across all dimensions, including gender); (2) health; (child
and maternal mortality, plus communicable and noncommunicable diseases); (3) education (primary,
secondary, tertiary and vocational); (4) growth and
employment; (5) environmental sustainability (access to
energy, biodiversity, and climate change); (6) food security
and nutrition; (7) governance; (8) conflict and fragility; and
(9) population dynamics.
High-Level Panel
In August 2012, the UN Secretary General appointed a
High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons (HLP) to provide
advice and recommendations on the post-2015 global
development agenda.4 The Panel will deliver its findings to
UN Member States in the first half of 2013. According to the
HLP’s terms of reference, it will provide:
1
2
3
4
ecommendations about the vision and shape of a
R
post-2015 development agenda, which will respond
to 21st century global challenges and build upon
the existing MDGs, particularly their focus on
ending poverty;
Principles for reshaping the global development
partnership and strengthening accountability
mechanisms; and
Recommendations for building and sustaining political
consensus around an ambitious, achievable agenda
that addresses issues of economic growth, social
equality, and environmental sustainability.
Consultative Web Platform
In July 2012, the UN and civil society committed to launch a
web platform (www.worldwewant2015.org) to stimulate and
channel global conversations about the post-2015
framework. While these conversations are designed to feed
into the various UN-led processes (e.g., HLP report, and
country and thematic consultations), the specific modalities
are still under development.
Sustainable Development Goals
At the Rio+20 Summit in June 2012, participants established
the Intergovernmental Working Group (IWG) to develop
options and recommendations for a new set of sustainable
development goals. The IWG will consist of 30 country
representatives, which will be nominated by different
regions and announced in September 2012. It will submit a
report to the UN General Assembly for consideration during
its 65th session (September 2013-September 2014). It
remains somewhat unclear how this process will be directly
or indirectly linked to the post-2015 global development
framework process in practice – particularly given the
existence of several environment-related UN processes and
bodies (e.g., UNFCCC).
The Missing Voices – The World’s Poorest Citizens
Notwithstanding this impressive program of consultation, there is a real risk
that the most critical voices will be largely missing – the world’s poorest
citizens. The UN and other stakeholders, including the High-Level Panel,
should seek to ensure that their views, priorities, and aspirations will be
directly consulted and strongly considered. This will advance both
substantive and procedural processes. Several groups, such as the Institute
of Development Studies (IDS), are developing some promising qualitativebased approaches to consult the world’s poor. These efforts should be
commended, further scaled, and complemented with rigorous quantitative
initiatives. The credibility of the UN-led consultation process and the
post-2015 framework depends on ensuring that the world’s poorest citizens,
including marginalized groups, had a direct role in helping to shape them.
Simply put, a global development agenda for the world’s poorest citizens
that does not actually reflect their priorities would represent a failure to
empower the world’s poor to speak up for themselves, determine their own
futures, and set their own agenda. All of these considerations must be
recognized and supported through any post-2015 development framework.
Ultimately, the respective decision makers will not be able to make fully
informed choices on the post-2015 framework unless the world’s poorest
citizens are consulted directly. Relatedly, the potential for a global
development agenda to maximize the positive impact on the lives of the
world’s poorest citizens will be significantly enhanced if the new global
development goals are aligned with the most pressing concerns as
expressed by the world’s poor.
Moreover, the collection of methodologically-robust household survey data
will help to narrow deliberative discussions and contentious, diverse
positions amongst the variety of stakeholders (e.g., governments,
businesses, civil society, and development experts). In this manner, the
starting point for discussions could reflect and build upon the world’s
poorest citizens’ stated priorities. Absent this information, stakeholder
groups likely will vociferously assert their own well-intentioned priorities.
In this manner, global household survey data will establish an informational
foundation and force parties to take into account the concerns and
priorities of the world’s poor while constructing a post-2015 framework.
5
BOX 1: What the World Wants Poll
Coverage and Scale
The What the World Wants poll would be global and cover both developed and developing countries.
Questionnaire Scope
A standardized set of questions would be answered in all countries. Additional customized questions
could be posed in certain country groupings.5 A group of external technical advisors should be
included both in developing and vetting the questionnaire to ensure quality control, focus, and proper
targeting of post-2015 issues and framing. The broad survey categories could include:
• W hat the World Wants: What are your most pressing priorities?
What would have the greatest impact on your life and future prospects over the next 15 years?
What concerns remain unaddressed?
• Existing MDGs Impact: How has life changed over the last decade? What has improved?
Required Timeframe and Cost
Based upon consultations with several international polling organizations, the proposed
global survey would take roughly two months to prepare and another 8-10 months to execute.
The execution phase would include both field-based collection of individual and household responses
and data aggregation and packaging. At the same time, country-level results would become available
on a rolling basis over the next six to twelve months – thereby enabling an opportunity to communicate
preliminary findings and trends. The cost for a global survey would be in the range of a few million
US dollars.
Survey Methodology
The international polling organization would deploy a combination of telephone and in-person
interviews to solicit and record survey responses. This approach must ensure a representative sample
across multiple demographic groups (rural/urban, income, education level, gender, etc.)
and include marginalized populations. Industry examples, such as the regional barometer surveys
(e.g., Afrobarometer, East Asian Barometer, and Latin Barometer) and Gallup’s World Poll, demonstrate
a proven and internationally-recognized track record in this context.
What Do Existing Surveys Say?
Going forward, the implementation of a methodologicallyrobust, representative global survey would be the most
effective approach for soliciting and aggregating the poor’s
concerns and priorities. However, the proposed global
survey likely will take up to one year to complete. For
reasons stated above, this time requirement and
complications with existing UN-led consultation processes
do not obviate the need for a global survey or reduce the
benefit of such an exercise. Nonetheless, it does mean that
some of the envisioned UN country and thematic
consultations would take place without the benefit of
findings from new standardized household surveys.6
In this context, it is vitally important to examine and
thoroughly understand such survey information about
household concerns and priorities in developing countries
that already exists.
There are a variety of publicly-available sources of
household-level views, including the regional
barometers (Afrobarometer, East Asian Barometer,
and Latin Barometer), Gallup World Poll , and other regular or
periodic surveys. Despite some methodological limitations
and challenges (see details below), the regional barometer
surveys are a particularly valuable resource for the
post-2015 framework exercise. Each organization has
included a series of open-ended survey questions over the
last decade that provides insights into country- and
regional-level concerns and priorities. Moreover, some
organizations also gather information on household
perceptions of government performance at addressing
specific issues, such as social service delivery (e.g.,
healthcare, education, HIV/AIDS), infrastructure
requirements (e.g., water and sanitation), job creation, and
addressing living standards of the poor. Taken together,
6
this information can provide an insight into what
individuals may prioritize and seek within the post-2015
development framework.
5
Developed country respondents could
be asked about the importance of
supporting the aspirations and needs of
the world’s poorest citizens. In contrast,
developing country respondents could be
asked about the most appropriate role for
developed countries.
6
However, unrelated (yet highly relevant)
survey data collection will become available
on rolling basis over the coming months.
This information should directly feed into the
formal UN-led country consultations.
7
Afrobarometer includes 41 individual survey
response options; Latin Barometer includes
31; and the East Asian Barometer
includes 73.
8
Only two survey response options proved
somewhat challenging to categorize. First,
while we included “science and technology”
as an education-related concern; a case
could be made that it could be classified as
infrastructure (part of information,
communication, and technology). Second,
we included “political instability/ethnic
tensions” as a governance-related concern.
However, it could be considered as a
security- or demographic-related concern.
However, neither of these issues have a
material impact on broader findings and
trends. Since all survey response data is
publicly-available, researchers and
stakeholders can further aggregate,
disaggregate, or modify the categories
contained in this analysis.
Methodological Overview and Limitations
The regional barometers cover a total of 47 developing
countries and the near majority of the UNDG consultation
countries (23 out of 50). This includes 20 countries in
Sub-Saharan Africa, 9 countries in East Asia, and 18
Latin American countries (see appendix I for details).
The aggregated sample size totals nearly 56,000
respondents – with country-level samples ranging
between 887 in Cambodia to 2,717 in China. Nearly every
African country has a survey sample size of 1,200. All
regional barometer questionnaire interviews are conducted
on a face-to-face basis. Afrobarometer and the East Asian
Barometer solicit households’ top three responses about
their most pressing concerns. In contrast, Latin Barometer
only registers respondents’ first response.
Our analysis focuses exclusively on the survey questions
gauging household views about their most pressing
concerns and about their perception of their government’s
effectiveness at addressing a range of issues. For the
most pressing concern question, we have aggregated survey
responses into general issue categories (e.g., incomes/
poverty, infrastructure, and governance).7 Appendix II
contains a full list of the general issues and our
categorization of the survey responses. In nearly every
case, the categorization was straightforward.8 The issue
coverage across the different regional barometer
questionnaires is largely comparable and comprehensive.
The only major exception is that Latin Barometer does not
include a specific response category for agriculture or food
security-related issues.
For this exercise, there are two important
limitations with the barometer survey data:
• L ack of Arab, South Asian, and Central Asian
Survey Data: While an Arab Barometer exists, the
survey does not include a question concerning
household views about their most pressing concerns.
Overall, the 47 countries with regional barometer data
account for approximately 50 percent of the total
number of people living in developing countries (2.94
billion out of 5.84 billion).9 The largest excluded
countries are: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia,
Egypt, Iran, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
These seven countries account for nearly two-thirds
of the developing country population without existing
barometer survey coverage. Moreover, they are home
to very large numbers of people living in extreme
poverty – thereby creating significant gaps for the
post-2015 framework process.
7
• Inconsistent Timeframe Coverage Across Regions:
This is most problematic for East Asia, which only has
publicly-available household survey data between
2005 and 2008.10 For Sub-Saharan Africa, the most
recent available survey data is from 2008/2009.11
Latin America has the most recent household
response data (2010). Given this, our analysis has a
built-in inter-temporal bias across the regions.
By illustration, African households may have been
significantly less worried about food security-related
issues, when compared to East Asian nations, in 2006
than they were in 2008 and 2009. The global food
price crisis probably accounted for the difference.
Given the apples-to-oranges comparison, appropriate
caution should be given when interpreting generalized
and regionally-focused trends.
9
Source: World Bank, World
Development Indicators database
and author’s calculations.
10
East Asian Barometer survey data is
available between 2001 and 2003;
however, it does not include questions
about households’ most pressing
concerns until later years.
11
Although, Afrobarometer teams are
currently in the process of completing
their round five questionnaire. This
updated information will become available
for individual African countries on a rolling
basis over the coming months.
Global & Regional Trends
Despite these methodological challenges, several clear global trends emerge from the regional barometer survey results:
•H
ousehold Incomes Are Key: Households across
Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and East Asia
overwhelmingly prioritize income-related issues
(e.g., unemployment, wage levels, destitution, and
youth employment). Roughly one-in-three
respondents cite these issues as their most pressing
concern.12 In 45 out of the 47 examined countries,
income-related issues registered as the first, second,
or third most frequent response to households’ top
concern.13 This should not be particularly surprising;
one could convincingly argue that families could best
and sustainably address their needs and aspirational
goals through steady, adequate income generation.
• A griculture & Food Security Feature Large:
Agriculture and food security issues ranked relatively
high as household priorities in both Sub-Saharan
Africa and East Asia.14 Roughly one-in-seven
respondents cite this as their top priority. Moreover,
there is a wide variation across countries, which may
be driven by agriculture-dependent economies and/or
countries that are vulnerable to dramatic climatic
events (e.g., droughts and floods). By illustration,
two-thirds of Cambodians and more than half of
Malawians cite agriculture and food security as
their number one priority.
8
• Social Service Delivery Advances May Be Driving
Lower Priority Levels: Issues of social service delivery
consistently ranked lower as a top concern across the
examined regions, although they tend to appear
more frequently as second or third priorities.15
Health-related issues polled high, or even relatively
high, in only three middle-income countries
(Botswana, Brazil, and Chile). Education was not a
high, or even relatively high, response in any African,
Latin American, or East Asian country. These results
largely hold across different demographic groupings
(income level, urban/rural, gender, age, and education
level). Importantly, this does not suggest that
households are not worried about healthcare or
education. To some extent, the results likely also
reflect increasing satisfaction with government
delivery of such services over the last decade (see
figure 4 for additional details).
• Environmental Concerns Fail to Register as a
High Priority: Households raised environmentand global warming-based concerns at strikingly
low levels. For East Asian and Latin American
respondents, these concerns appear as rounding
errors compared to other issues (roughly 0.8
percent of household responses). Based on available
data, it appears that African survey respondents
did not raise environment-related concerns in any
statistically-significant way.16
12
Regional response rates include:
Sub-Saharan Africa (36 percent);
Latin America (31 percent); and East Asia
(30 percent).
13
The only exceptions are China and Taiwan.
As noted previously, the Latin Barometer
questionnaire methodology only solicits
households’ first response – while
Afrobarometer and the East Asian Barometer
record three responses.
14
As noted, the Latin Barometer questionnaire
does not include these issues as a possible
response category.
15
It is worth nothing that the regional
barometer surveys only included adults or
individuals above a certain age. This may
lead to a dynamic where parents could
identify economic opportunity concerns for
their own lives, but prioritize health and
education for their children. The proposed
What the World Wants Poll should be
designed to systematically address this
potential dynamic.
16
Afrobarometer data does not register
environment- or global warming-based
concerns at all. As noted earlier, this reflects
open-ended survey questions about
households’ most pressing concerns.
Global & Regional Trends: Most Pressing Concerns
CHILE
KEY:
Incomes/Poverty
9
Economy
Infrastructure
Security
Governance
Agriculture
Health
Education
Figure 1: Most Pressing Concerns: Africa, East Asia, and Latin America
40%
35%
36%
34%
% of Survey Respondents
30
%
31%
30
%
25%
26%
20%
19%
15%
10
15%
15%
13%
12%
%
13%
8%
5
%
5%
2%
0
%
Incomes/
Poverty
Econ.
Management
3%
2%
Agr.
Food Security
Security
Governance
KEY:
Africa
East Asia
Latin America
Source: Afrobarometer (2008-2009), East Asian Barometer (2005-2008), Latin Barometer (2010)
10
4%
3%
1%
Infrastructure
5%
5%
Health
3%
4%
4%
0%
Education
General
Gov’t
1%
2%
0%
2%
0%
Demographics
2%
0%
Other
Don’t Know
Beyond these clear global trends, there are several
region-specific priorities. Each examined region has at least
one or two issues that appear particularly important, but
relatively less important for other regions.
• I n Africa, Infrastructure is a Critical Issue:
Roughly one-in-six respondents in Sub-Saharan
Africa cite infrastructure (e.g., electricity, roads,
water supply) as their top priority.17 The survey data
suggests that infrastructure is especially important
for rural inhabitants and individuals with low
education levels. This is consistent with the
argument that infrastructure provides essential
access to services and economic opportunities. Not
surprisingly, regional institutions, such as the African
Union and African Development Bank, are focused
heavily on addressing infrastructure deficits through
regional initiatives, financing, and regulatory policy
assistance. In contrast, infrastructure appears to be a
relatively low priority in Latin America and East Asia.
• L atin American Security & Crime Concerns are
Ominously High: Security-related concerns are the
most frequently cited response in nearly half of the
examined Latin American countries (8 out of 18).
In fact, an absolute majority cited security as their
most pressing concern in four countries (El Salvador,
Guatemala, Panama, and Venezuela). Overall, roughly
one-in-three Latin American respondents cite this as
their number one priority. By comparison, only
one-in-twenty households cited security-related
issues as their most pressing concern in 2000
(see appendix IV). Along with household incomes,
security and crime are clearly at the top of the
current list of regional priorities.
11
• East Asian Economic Management & Governance:
Two additional issues appear to be of particular
concern in East Asian countries – economic
management (e.g., credit availability, inflation,
budget deficits, and general economic policies)
and governance (e.g., institutional capacity,
corruption, political freedoms, and political
interference). Roughly one-in-four respondents
cite economic management as their most pressing
concern; and approximately one-in-eight cite
governance-related issues.18
Demographic Sensitivity Analysis
Overall, there is a high degree of consistency in
household concerns when cross-tabulated with a range
of demographic variables (income level, gender, education,
urban/rural, and age). Appendix V contains a series of
sensitivity analysis tables. However, several of the
interesting disparities across different demographic
groupings include:
• African Youth Unemployment Bulge: African youth
(aged 18 to 29) are significantly more concerned with
income- and employment-related issues than other
age groups. There is also an urban/rural dynamic at
play; with nearly half of urban African youth citing
income- and employment-related issues as their most
pressing concern (compared to roughly one-in-three
rural youth). Interestingly, youth populations in East
Asia and Latin America exhibit roughly comparable
concerns about income-related issues as
older demographic groups.
• L atin American Poorest Focused on Incomes:
Nearly one-in-two Latin Americans with a
“very bad” socioeconomic status cite incomeor employment-related issues as their most
pressing concern (43.6 percent).
• East Asian Poor & Economic Management:
East Asians in the bottom income quintile appear
significantly more concerned about economic
management-related issues.19 On the other hand,
they are slightly less worried about agricultureor food security-related issues. Interestingly, the
poorest East Asians exhibit a roughly equivalent
level of concern about income and poverty-related
issues as the wealthiest cohort (34.7 percent
versus 33.4 percent).
• Rural Infrastructure and Food Security:
When compared to urban households, rural African
and East Asian respondents appear to be roughly
twice as concerned about agriculture/food security
and infrastructure issues.
17
African businesses also cite infrastructure as
“major constraints” to their operations and
expansion potential. For example, 68
percent of surveyed African businesses cite
access to reliable electricity as a “major
constraint”. Nearly 40 percent cite transport
infrastructure. See appendix VI for details.
18
Household respondents cite economic
management as of particular concern in
Taiwan (46.1 percent), Philippines (43.3
percent), Thailand (35.8 percent), and China
(27.6 percent). Governance-related concerns
are raised most frequently in Mongolia (21.9
percent), Vietnam (17.6 percent), China (15.4
percent), Taiwan (14.1 percent), and
Philippines (13.2 percent).
19
Specifically, 31.5 percent of respondents cite
this as their most pressing concerns
compared to 20.8 percent of top income
quartile respondents.
Country Income Category
& Fragility Analysis
The key global trends also largely hold when
household survey responses are categorized
by country income levels – low-income
countries (LICs), lower middle-income
countries (LMICs), and upper middle-income
countries (UMICs) – as well as fragility
levels. However, several sub-themes
emerge, such as:
• L ICs’ Concerns Equally Dispersed
Between Incomes & Agriculture:
Households in the poorest countries
tend to prioritize household incomerelated and agriculture and food
security-related issues at a
commensurate level. Put differently,
agriculture and food security registers
as a significantly higher concern in
low-income countries – which may be
intertwined with broader incomerelated concerns.20
• F ragile Countries’ Focus on Economic
Priorities: Fragile states are
overwhelmingly focused on concerns
that directly or indirectly impact
income-related issues (e.g.,
employment/poverty, economic
management, infrastructure, and
agriculture/food security).21
Collectively, these issues account for
approximately 84 percent of
households’ responses about their most
pressing concerns. Counter-intuitively,
security-related concerns appear to
be lower first-order priorities in
fragile states.
12
Figure 2: Most Pressing Concerns: By Country Income Category & Fragility 22
40%
39 %
35%
33 %
30%
25%
30 %
27 %
26 %
26 %
20%
20 %
15%
16 %
13
10%
%
18
15
%
%
16 %
16 %
15 %
13 %
8%
6%
5%
3
3%
4
%
2%
0%
Incomes/
Poverty
Econ.
Management
Infrastructure
Security
LMICs
UMICs
Fragile
%
10 %
7%
Governance
6%
5%
4%
3%
Agriculture
Health
5%
4% 3 % 3 % 4%
Education
KEY:
LICs
Source: Afrobarometer (2008-2009), East Asian Barometer (2005-2008), Latin Barometer (2010)
20
Agriculture accounts for roughly 70
percent of Africans’ livelihoods and the
majority of the examined low-income
countries reside in Africa (11 out of 12).
Therefore, it is not surprising to find that
the respective, surveyed households may
raise agriculture and income-related
concerns in equal measures.
21
Of the 47 countries, seven are defined by
the OECD as “fragile” (Burkina Faso, Kenya,
Liberia, Malawi, Nigeria, Uganda, and
Zimbabwe). This represents a relatively
small sample of all “fragile” countries.
Therefore, appropriate caution should be
applied when considering these findings.
22
All household response rates represent
a simple average across countries in the
respective income categories. Weighted
averages were considered as well, but did
not generate material differences.
Time-Trend Analysis
While the most recent survey data provides an
instructive insight into widely-held concerns and priorities
in developing countries, it is also helpful to examine how
responses may have changed over time. While time-trend
analysis is susceptible to year-to-year fluctuations, it can
provide a constructive (partial) view into how household
concerns may have been reduced over the intervening years,
or in some instances, have grown significantly (e.g.,
security in Latin America). Due to the lack of extensive East
Asia time series survey data, only trends for Sub-Saharan
Africa and Latin America are examined. Several generalized
and regional-based trends are worth noting:
•H
ealth and Education Progress: Several existing
MDG-related issues have shown significant
improvement over time. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the
percentage of households citing health or education
as their most pressing concern was cut by at least half
between 1999/2001 and 2008/9 (health dropped from
10 percent to 5 percent and education declined from
8 percent to 4 percent) in comparable countries.23
The same generalized trend occurred in Latin America
between 2000 and 2010.24
• A frican Income and Poverty Concerns Are on the Rise:
While African households have become less worried
about health, education, and several other issues
(e.g., security and governance), they have become
more concerned with income-related matters (see
figure 3). Between 1999/2001 and 2008/9, the
percentage of survey respondents citing these issues
as their number one concern increased from roughly
30 percent to approximately 37 percent.25
13
• L atin American Income Concerns Are Declining, But
Still High: In contrast to Sub-Saharan Africa, the
percentage of Latin American households citing this
as their primary concerns has fallen substantially
over time (from 54 percent of respondents in 2000 to
roughly 31 percent in 2010). While this decline may
represent significant progress, the remaining high
levels suggest that the region continues to prioritize
income-related issues.
• E xploding Latin American Security & Crime Worries:
As noted previously, Latin American households are
particularly concerned about security-related
matters. This picture becomes even more striking
when compared to previous periods. In 2000, only 5
percent of survey respondents cited this as their
most pressing concern.26
• African Agriculture & Food Security Concerns Are
Increasing: African households have become more
concerned about food security related issues over
time. Between 1999/2001 and 2008/2009, the
increase totaled roughly 8 percentage points.
However, it is difficult to discern the extent to
which this was driven by the 2008 food crisis or
whether household concerns have remained at a
consistently high level over the last several years.
More recent survey data is required to shed
additional light on this trend.
• African Infrastructure Concerns Are Growing:
As noted previously, infrastructure-related issues
are a top priority of African households. Strikingly,
these concerns have increased over time – rising from
10 percent of survey respondents in 1999/2001 to
approximately 15 percent in 2008/2009.
23
The response rate for health-related issues
was even lower in 2008/2009 when
compared to the full set of Afrobarometer
observations. This comparison includes
eight additional countries that were not
included in earlier Afrobarometer surveys
(Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Kenya,
Liberia, Madagascar, Mozambique, and
Senegal). The response rate for educationrelated concerns remained largely
unchanged when the additional countries
are included in the comparative analysis.
24
See figure 3 for Sub-Saharan Africa
trends and appendix IV for Latin
American information.
25
These observed changes appear to hold
even when compared to the full sample of
surveyed countries in 2008/2009. The
response rate for the “comparable sample”
was 37 percent while the “full sample” of
countries was modestly lower at 36 percent.
26
Country selection bias does not appear to
explain this dramatic shift. Only one country
was added to Latin Barometer between 2000
and 2010 (Dominican Republic).
27
*NEXT PAGE – The “comparable sample” in
2008/2009 includes the same set of
countries from 1999/2001. In contrast, the
“full sample” in 2008/2009 contains eight
additional countries, including: Benin,
Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Kenya, Liberia,
Madagascar, Mozambique, and Senegal.
*Figure 3 – African Households: Primary Concerns (1st Response)27
40%
35
37%
%
30%
36%
30%
25%
20%
20%
19%
15%
14%
10%
11%
12%
10
15%
12%
%
10%
10%
9%
8%
5%
3%
0
6%
5%
%
3%
5%
4%
3%
2%
4%
2%
0%
Incomes/
Poverty
Econ.
Management
Agr.
Food Security
Infrastructure
Security
Health
KEY:
1999-2001
2008-2009 (Comparable Sample)
Source: Afrobarometer and author’s calculations
14
4%
2008-2009 (Full Sample)
Education
General
Gov’t
Governance
1%
2%
0% 0%
Demographics
1%
0%
Other
Don’t Know
African Perceptions of Government
Performance
Figure 4 – African Households: Positive Perceptions of Government Performance
Household views about national government
effectiveness at addressing a range of issues can
provide an additional insight into the post-2015
framework process. Importantly, global parties may
wish to focus on those issues that are perceived to
be unaddressed, or inadequately addressed, by
national governments – particularly if these
perceptions map closely to households’ most
pressing concerns. At the same time, appropriate
caution should be applied to these survey results.
By illustration, it may be difficult to isolate whether
domestic governments are truly addressing
household priorities on their own. Or, whether
external assistance, driven by the existing MDG
priorities, is partly responsible for the government’s
perceived performance. This is especially relevant in
low-income countries that receive sizable aid flows.
90%
With respect to Sub-Saharan Africa, both a
positive and negative picture emerges from
the Afrobarometer survey data
(see appendix VII and VIII for details):
• P oor Performance Addressing Poverty:
Between six- and seven-in-ten survey
respondents stated that their government was
performing either “very badly” or “fairly badly”
at addressing job creation, living standards of
the poor, and hunger.28
• S tronger Social Service Delivery: African
governments seemingly perform much better
at social service delivery, particularly at
addressing HIV/AIDS and education needs. In
fact, over three-in-four household
respondents ranked their government as doing
either “very well” or “fairly well” at addressing
HIV/AIDS – up from nearly two-in-three
households in 2002/2003 (see figure 4).
15
80%
+12.0%
70%
60
-2.4%
-0.5%
%
50%
40%
+1.7%
-0.1%
+3.2%
+9.6%
-4.3%
30%
-1.2%
20%
10%
0%
Living Standards
of Poor
Job Creation
Hunger
Corruption
(Fighting)
Water &
Sanitation
Services
Crime
Health Service
Quality
HIV/AIDS
Educational
Needs
KEY:
2002/3
2008/9 (Comparable Sample)
2008/09 (Full Sample)
Source: Afrobarometer and author’s calculations
28
However, positive perceptions of the
government’s role (“very well” or “fairly well”)
in addressing the poor’s living standards
increased by nearly 10 percentage points
during the observed time period.
Nonetheless, nearly two-thirds of
households still rate their government’s
performance as “very bad” or “fairly bad”.
Key Takeaways
Taken together, the available survey data illustrate
that African, Latin American, and East Asian households
are likely most concerned with income- and povertyrelated issues.
•D
irect Income-Focused Measures: Roughly one-third
of households cited income- and employment-related
issues as their primary concern. This response rate
spikes for specific sub-groups, such as African urban
youth, which have response rates of up to nearly
one-in-two citing this as their most pressing concern.
• I ndirect Issues Affecting Households’ Economic
Prospects: The examined regions also highlight a
number of contextually-relevant indirect issues that
impact economic prospects – such as economic
management, infrastructure deficiencies, and
agriculture & food security.29
Collectively, these direct and indirect issues account for
between roughly 50 percent and 80 percent of household
responses about their most pressing concerns.30 The two wild
cards appear to be Latin American security and East Asian
governance issues. In particular, the East Asian trends pose
some intriguing trends and questions, which should be
examined in greater detail.
16
29
These issues clearly also have noneconomic related implications as well.
For example, African infrastructure
deficiencies also limit households’ access
to social goods, such as health and
education services.
30
When aggregated, these four issues account
for: 82 percent of Sub-Saharan African
households’ primary concerns; 71 percent of
East Asian concerns; and 47 percent of Latin
American households’ concerns.
How Could the UN-Led Process Be Improved?
Consultative Process Principles
The UN and relevant stakeholders, such as the HLP, should
give due consideration to several additional approaches that
will enhance the existing consultative processes and the
popular buy-in for, and relevance of, the post-2015
development framework. This will require significantly
enhanced direct input from ordinary citizens, particularly
from the world’s poorest citizens, as well as from
marginalized populations. At present, there is a real risk that
the consultative mechanisms now being contemplated will
fall short of this standard and run the risk of being captured
and dominated by the range of interest groups pursuing
specific, narrow agendas. This would be a disservice to the
world’s poorest citizens themselves, who risk once again
being excluded from a critical conversation, with little or no
say in efforts that will profoundly impact their own future.
While a number of approaches would help to reduce this
possibility, several should receive due consideration:
1
17
hat the World Wants Poll: As a first priority,
W
the UN and relevant stakeholders should support
the implementation of a global quantitative survey of
what households currently view as their most pressing
near- and long-term concerns and priorities.
This could have the added benefit of potentially
shedding light on the existing debate between
development and environmental priorities.
Subject to the availability of financing, this poll
could be repeated at regular intervals throughout
the post-2015 development framework period.
2
E xisting Survey Response Data: While the global
poll is being prepared and implemented, the UN-led
consultative process should draw upon existing survey
data to the greatest extent possible. This information
should be analyzed and presented by a disinterested
independent body and in a consistent way across
countries.31 Moreover, every effort should be made to
expedite the delivery of unrelated (yet still highly
relevant) existing survey collection efforts.
A relevant example is the Afrobarometer ‘round five’
surveys that will provide publicly-available findings
over the next year.
3
I ndependent Selection of UN Consultation
Representatives: Currently, the decentralized UN-led
country consultation process provides wide latitude
for local UN officials to influence the selection of
stakeholder representatives. As noted previously, this
may prove an effective approach in certain countries,
but likely will produce suboptimal outcomes on an
aggregated basis. Therefore, a quality-control process
should be put in place to ensure that the perspectives
of ordinary citizens (versus interest or issue groups)
are truly represented in national-level processes.
Moreover, national consultation process reports
should include a specific and clear presentation of
existing survey data about broader population
concerns and priorities.
4
lobal Validation of Post-2015 Framework
G
Recommendations: While the UN-led consultation
process works towards delivering a series of post-2015
framework recommendations, efforts should be made
now to establish globalized mechanisms to provide
targeted input and feedback. This could take several
forms.32 For example, the UN and relevant stakeholders
could establish a global referendum on the post-2015
framework.33 This would provide a definitive and global
seal of approval. Moreover, this would be especially
relevant if the What the World Wants Poll is not pursued
over the next 12-18 months.
31
This would include the development of a
standardized template for presenting
existing survey data.
32
One potential approach is a crowdsourcebased model of soliciting input and
validation from broad-based segments of
society across the developed and
developing world. For additional details, see
Jamie Drummond’s TED talk
www.ted.com/talks/jamie_drummond_
how_to_set_goals_for_the_world.html
33
This would not require that UN Member
States implement conventional referendums
on the proposed post-2015 development
framework. This would be impractical for
logistical and financial reasons. However,
the same type of methodologically-robust
polling would prove both sufficient and
credible to gauge public receptivity
and buy-in.
Conclusion
Over the next few years, the global community will grapple
with profound issues that will have a massive impact on
development-related investments from domestic,
external, and private sources during the next decade or
two. The stakes are very high for negotiating a new global
development framework that addresses the poor’s most
pressing priorities and concerns. While the existing
UN-led process has made noteworthy efforts to ensure
that all relevant stakeholders are consulted, there is a real
risk that the most important constituency (e.g., the
18
world’s poorest citizens) will not have as strong a voice in
the debate as they deserve. The UN and relevant
stakeholders should take expeditious steps now to ensure
that these voices are solicited directly, internalized, and
considered seriously. It is not only the credibility of the
UN-led process and the relevance of the post-2015
framework that is on the line. Also at stake is a world
where all people, especially the poorest among us, can
truly own and chart their own course for the future.
Appendix I
Household Survey Responses in Africa, East Asia, & Latin America: Most Pressing Concerns
Country
Benin
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Cape Verde
Ghana
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mozambique
Namibia
Nigeria
Senegal
South Africa
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Cambodia
China
Indonesia
Mongolia
Philippines
Singapore
Taiwan
Thailand
Vietnam
Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Uruguay
Venezuela
19
Survey Year
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2009
2009
2008
2008
2006
2006
2005
2006
2006
2006
2005
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
#Survey Resp.
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1201
1199
1199
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
887
2717
1569
1147
1143
994
1382
1444
1087
1188
1106
1171
1177
1179
976
974
1167
976
970
947
1167
940
963
1177
1119
1047
1182
Incomes/Poverty
28.20%
60.00%
20.40%
72.70%
40.30%
25.60%
41.60%
39.00%
40.70%
12.50%
18.80%
36.30%
55.00%
43.70%
17.60%
53.80%
15.00%
44.30%
34.20%
25.30%
8.20%
15.00%
41.50%
55.40%
30.80%
42.60%
9.20%
39.50%
37.40%
28.80%
33.60%
23.60%
39.50%
39.10%
18.40%
24.80%
38.30%
23.70%
21.60%
36.50%
24.90%
47.60%
18.20%
48.50%
39.40%
35.40%
14.80%
Agriculture
16.10%
10.70%
19.80%
2.70%
5.50%
13.70%
23.90%
16.30%
21.00%
52.80%
48.10%
12.70%
10.40%
14.70%
45.90%
3.30%
16.10%
10.70%
26.80%
14.80%
66.00%
21.70%
14.40%
2.90%
3.30%
1.00%
0.70%
2.80%
5.90%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Economy
17.90%
4.60%
6.60%
3.20%
14.20%
28.70%
4.40%
28.00%
8.10%
6.70%
0.30%
5.10%
6.80%
12.10%
16.20%
13.90%
10.40%
13.80%
7.10%
27.90%
0.50%
27.60%
19.90%
6.10%
43.30%
22.10%
46.10%
35.80%
23.70%
13.80%
25.00%
1.20%
4.40%
4.80%
18.60%
24.30%
23.40%
12.60%
15.80%
12.50%
15.70%
36.80%
16.70%
7.60%
19.30%
12.70%
6.30%
Infrastructure
24.60%
5.90%
28.60%
9.00%
22.90%
14.50%
16.60%
13.20%
10.70%
15.90%
15.50%
17.10%
8.50%
15.00%
9.90%
7.80%
30.00%
14.70%
11.70%
9.00%
2.60%
2.20%
4.30%
1.60%
0.90%
2.90%
1.70%
1.70%
4.50%
0.40%
1.50%
0.80%
0.20%
0.10%
1.10%
13.20%
0.30%
0.40%
0.70%
0.80%
0.30%
1.00%
2.60%
0.90%
0.90%
1.30%
0.40%
Security
1.60%
6.20%
1.90%
5.20%
2.30%
6.40%
5.20%
0.10%
9.10%
1.80%
2.40%
3.80%
3.40%
1.40%
0.70%
9.60%
2.30%
3.10%
0.60%
0.50%
7.40%
4.90%
4.70%
0.60%
4.80%
2.90%
10.90%
8.30%
1.60%
37.40%
7.10%
21.60%
19.30%
41.20%
44.80%
22.50%
26.70%
60.00%
52.60%
29.90%
41.80%
2.40%
56.40%
22.90%
20.70%
34.00%
66.40%
Governance
2.40%
1.70%
2.80%
0.40%
2.40%
5.30%
3.00%
0.00%
2.70%
4.40%
4.10%
3.30%
4.20%
6.40%
1.30%
2.80%
7.40%
4.40%
3.40%
3.80%
11.90%
15.40%
6.40%
21.90%
13.20%
3.30%
14.10%
8.80%
17.60%
7.50%
25.00%
4.70%
7.30%
6.10%
8.00%
8.00%
7.20%
2.30%
3.20%
12.20%
8.40%
7.20%
2.90%
8.60%
12.10%
3.60%
4.10%
Health
4.60%
6.30%
12.00%
2.20%
3.10%
1.90%
2.00%
0.30%
1.20%
3.30%
5.10%
7.70%
4.50%
2.50%
5.20%
6.00%
11.00%
6.30%
7.20%
6.30%
1.40%
1.40%
1.90%
2.60%
0.50%
7.70%
0.60%
0.70%
1.60%
1.90%
1.00%
34.30%
14.00%
3.40%
5.50%
2.10%
1.10%
0.20%
1.60%
1.30%
3.60%
1.40%
1.00%
6.50%
1.90%
6.20%
1.80%
Shading applies to only top three responses. Darker shading indicates a higher percentage of household survey respondents citing the issue as their most pressing concern.
Education
3.80%
0.90%
3.90%
1.50%
6.10%
2.10%
0.20%
3.30%
2.90%
1.20%
4.80%
4.40%
6.20%
4.20%
2.20%
2.40%
5.00%
2.10%
7.60%
11.60%
0.40%
2.40%
4.90%
2.60%
1.20%
3.70%
2.30%
1.50%
4.90%
5.60%
2.10%
11.90%
5.90%
3.90%
1.40%
1.60%
2.10%
0.20%
2.50%
5.90%
3.50%
1.10%
1.60%
4.10%
4.50%
3.40%
0.20%
Appendix II
Household Concerns: Thematic Aggregation Categories by Region
20
Category
Afrobarometer
Incomes/Poverty
Wages, Incomes, and Salaries.
Unemployment.
Poverty / Destitution.
Economic
Management
Management of Economy.
Rates & Taxes.
Loans / Credit.
Agriculture &
Food Security
Farming / Agriculture.
Food Shortage / Famine.
Drought.
Land.
Infrastructure
Latin Barometer
Housing.
Orphans / Street Children / Homeless.
Wages, Income & Salaries (or income
gap), Pension.
Unemployment.
Poverty and Destitution.
Housing.
Orphans / Street Children /
Homeless Children.
Social Security, Social Welfare.
Inflation / Prices Rises.
Economy / Economical Problems / Financial.
Economics.
Management of the Economy, Economic.
Development.
Rates & Taxes.
Loans, Credit, Debit.
Inflation.
International Trade, Globalization.
Budget Deficit.
Agricultural Marketing.
Farm Imputes.
Barrage.
Moulin.
Not Applicable.
Land Privatization.
Food / Agriculture / Environment.
Basic Necessities (Price of Rice, Fuel,
Spicy, etc).
Farming/ Agriculture / Fishing / Animal.
Husbandry.
Food Shortage / Famine.
Land.
Transportation.
Communications.
Infrastructure / Roads.
Electricity.
Water Supply.
Transport.
Deficient Basic Services (Water, Electricity, etc).
Infrastructure.
Transportation.
Communications.
Infrastructure / Roads.
Electricity.
Water Supply.
Security
Crime & Security.
Political Violence.
War (International).
Civil War.
Terrorism / Guerilla.
Crime / Public Security.
Border Conflicts.
Crime & Security.
Political Violence.
War International.
Civil War.
Terrorism.
National Defence.
Health
Health.
AIDS.
Sickness / Disease.
Health Problems
Drugs Consumption
Health
Health (Medical Care)
AIDS (& other Transmittable Diseases
Sickness / Disease
Public Health Hygiene
Food & Drug Safety
Education
Education.
Education Problems
Education, Educational Fee
Science & Technology
General
Government
Corruption.
Political Instability.
Discrimination / Inequality.
Governance
Corruption.
Political Instability / Ethnic Tensions.
Discrimination / Inequality.
Gender Issues / Women’s Rights.
Democracy / Political Rights.
Demographics
Other/Don’t Know
Gender Issues / Women’s Rights.
Democracy / Political Rights.
Low Salaries.
Instability in Employment.
Unemployment.
Lack of Opportunities for Youth.
East Asian Barometer
Environmental Problems, Pollution.
Energy Problems.
Housing Problems.
Poverty.
Distribution of Income, Social Justice.
Gas, Fuel.
Violence, Bands.
Drug Trafficking.
Problems with Neighboring Countries.
Global Warming.
Environment.
Government Services.
Natural Disaster (Drought, Flood,
Earthquake, Hurricane, etc).
Services (Other).
External Relations (Foreign Relations).
Country-Specific Problems.
Violation of Human Rights.
Corruption.
Racial Discrimination.
Political Problems, Situation.
Governance.
Corruption.
Political Instability / Political Divisions /
Ethnic Tensions.
Discrimination / Inequality.
Gender Issues / Women’s Rights /
Children’s Rights.
Democracy / Political Rights /
Protection of Rights.
Malfunction of Political Institutions.
Government Efficiency.
Constitution.
Judiciary.
Administrative Procedure.
Public Service Independence from Politics.
Irresponsible Leader / Government.
General Social & Political Conditions.
Natural Resources.
Emigration
Social Problems.
Social Anomaly (Suicide, Divorce, Moral Growth of Population
Breakdown)
Cultural Problems Under Social Change
Immigration
Religion Problem
Aging Population
Missing
No Problems at All
Other
Don’t Know
No Further Reply
Don’t Know.
No Problem.
Not Asked.
Nothing / No Problems.
No Further Reply.
Other Issues.
Unclassifiable, Inconceivable.
Can’t Choose.
Declined to Answer.
Appendix III
African Households: Primary Concerns (2nd Response)
30%
25%
23%
24%
21%
20%
18%
15%
14%
13%
10%
10%
10%
10%
8%
10%
8%
6%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
2%
0%
0.5%
Incomes/
Poverty
Econ.
Management
Agr.
Food Security
Infrastructure
KEY:
1999-2001
2008-2009
Source: Afrobarometer and author’s calculations
21
1%
Security
Health
Education
General
Gov’t
0%
Governance
Demographics
Other
Don’t Know
Appendix IV
Latin American Households: Primary Concerns (1st Response)
60%
54%
50%
40%
34% 34%
30%
31% 31%
20%
%
14% 15
10%
9%
0%
1%
Incomes/
Poverty
6
5%
5%
4%
4%
9%
8%
5
5%
%
Infrastructure
5%
1%
1%
Security
Education
2010 (Comparable Sample)
Source: Latin Barometer and author’s calculations
22
8%
%
Econ.
Management
KEY:
2000
8%
2010 (Full Sample)
Governance
Health
General
Gov’t
1%
0%
0%
2% 2%
0%
Demographics
0%
Other / Don’t
Know
Appendix V
Sensitivity Analysis: Sub-Saharan Africa
Age of Respondent
Most Pressing Problems
Gender
18-29
30-49
50-64
65+
Male
Female
Incomes/Poverty
39.40%
35.50%
32.20%
32.10%
36.00%
36.50%
Econ. Management
12.20%
12.40%
10.80%
8.30%
11.90%
11.70%
Agr./Food Security
16.20%
19.70%
22.60%
27.30%
18.70%
19.60%
Infrastructure
14.20%
15.30%
16.00%
16.10%
15.40%
14.70%
Security
3.30%
3.30%
3.80%
3.80%
3.70%
3.10%
Health
4.50%
5.10%
5.60%
4.60%
4.80%
5.20%
Education
4.00%
3.90%
3.60%
2.40%
3.90%
3.70%
General Gov't
0.20%
0.20%
0.20%
0.40%
0.20%
0.20%
Governance
3.50%
3.20%
3.00%
2.10%
3.80%
2.70%
Demographics
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Other/Don't Know
2.20%
1.30%
2.00%
3.10%
1.40%
2.50%
Employment Status
Most Pressing Problems
No
(not looking)
No (looking)
Yes, part time
(not looking)
Yes, part time
(looking)
Yes, full time
(not looking)
Yes, full time
(looking)
Urban
Rural
Incomes/Poverty
28.60%
40.50%
35.10%
41.50%
37.80%
42.30%
44.30%
31.80%
Econ. Management
10.50%
11.50%
12.50%
13.30%
13.20%
14.70%
14.30%
10.40%
Agr./Food Security
27.10%
16.50%
18.90%
14.80%
12.90%
12.50%
13.20%
22.80%
Infrastructure
16.30%
14.90%
14.50%
14.80%
13.80%
12.70%
9.10%
18.40%
Security
3.00%
3.10%
3.80%
3.10%
5.40%
3.50%
4.10%
2.90%
Health
5.40%
4.60%
7.10%
3.50%
5.20%
4.20%
4.70%
5.00%
Education
4.00%
3.60%
3.60%
3.60%
4.50%
4.00%
3.60%
3.90%
General Gov't
0.30%
0.20%
0.20%
0.20%
0.20%
0.40%
0.30%
0.20%
Governance
2.80%
3.00%
2.50%
3.50%
5.40%
4.30%
4.30%
2.80%
Demographics
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Other/Don't Know
2.20%
2.10%
1.80%
1.50%
1.60%
1.30%
2.10%
1.80%
Source: Afrobarometer (2008-2009) and author’s calculations
23
Residence
Appendix V
Sensitivity Analysis: East Asia
Age of Respondent
Most Pressing Problems
Gender
17-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
Male
Female
Incomes/Poverty
34.10%
30.70%
29.40%
27.80%
25.40%
29.40%
27.70%
31.40%
Econ. Management
22.60%
27.70%
27.30%
27.50%
25.50%
24.30%
26.40%
26.40%
Agr./Food Security
11.40%
12.30%
14.10%
12.90%
15.00%
10.30%
13.00%
12.70%
Governance
12.00%
12.80%
11.30%
13.00%
14.40%
13.50%
14.40%
10.70%
Security
5.50%
4.30%
5.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.30%
5.20%
5.30%
General Gov't
4.40%
3.00%
3.90%
4.20%
4.20%
5.50%
4.80%
3.10%
Education
3.70%
2.80%
2.70%
2.80%
2.00%
1.90%
2.10%
3.40%
Infrastructure
2.10%
2.50%
2.30%
3.00%
2.60%
2.60%
2.50%
2.40%
Demographics
2.30%
1.70%
2.10%
1.80%
2.10%
2.80%
1.80%
2.10%
Health
1.60%
1.80%
1.60%
1.70%
2.30%
2.10%
1.80%
1.70%
Other/Don't know
0.40%
0.10%
0.30%
0.40%
0.50%
0.70%
0.40%
0.30%
Income Level
Most Pressing Problems
Lowest
Quintile
2nd Quintile
3rd Quintile
4th Quintile
Top Quintile
Urban
Rural
Incomes/Poverty
34.70%
32.40%
32.70%
32.10%
33.40%
30.00%
29.00%
Econ. Management
31.50%
26.50%
23.00%
24.00%
20.80%
28.20%
24.70%
Agr./Food Security
8.00%
12.50%
14.10%
11.80%
10.70%
8.30%
17.00%
Governance
10.30%
10.70%
12.30%
14.40%
14.90%
12.60%
12.60%
Security
5.60%
5.60%
5.40%
5.20%
3.80%
5.00%
5.40%
General Gov't
2.40%
3.50%
3.10%
2.60%
4.30%
5.00%
3.20%
Education
2.10%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
4.70%
3.40%
2.10%
Infrastructure
2.20%
2.60%
2.20%
2.40%
3.10%
1.50%
3.20%
Demographics
1.40%
2.00%
2.80%
2.20%
2.40%
3.40%
0.80%
Health
1.60%
2.20%
2.20%
2.40%
1.70%
2.30%
1.30%
Other/Don't know
0.20%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.10%
0.20%
0.40%
Source: East Asian Barometer (2005-2008) and author’s calculations
24
Residence
Appendix V
Sensitivity Analysis: Latin America
Age of Respondent
Most Pressing Problems
Gender
15-25
26-40
41-60
61+
Male
Female
Incomes/Poverty
31.90%
31.80%
31.10%
28.00%
31.80%
30.20%
Infrastructure
1.50%
1.50%
1.20%
1.70%
1.50%
1.30%
Security
33.00%
33.10%
32.90%
37.40%
32.30%
34.70%
Education
4.30%
3.90%
2.80%
2.50%
3.80%
3.30%
Econ. Management
14.30%
15.40%
14.90%
13.00%
13.40%
15.90%
Governance
7.90%
7.80%
7.50%
8.00%
9.60%
6.00%
Health
4.00%
4.30%
6.70%
6.40%
4.60%
5.80%
General Gov't
1.50%
0.80%
0.80%
0.60%
0.80%
1.00%
Demographics
0.10%
0.10%
0.20%
0.30%
0.10%
0.20%
Other/Don't Know
1.40%
1.40%
1.90%
2.60%
1.90%
1.50%
Education Level
Most Pressing Problems
Incomes/Poverty
Infrastructure
Low
Middle
High
Very Good
Good
Not Bad
Bad
Very Bad
33.80%
29.40%
26.70%
20.80%
27.50%
32.40%
39.20%
43.60%
1.70%
1.20%
1.00%
1.50%
1.30%
1.40%
1.80%
0.60%
Security
32.00%
36.00%
33.50%
42.20%
36.00%
32.80%
27.20%
25.80%
Education
2.20%
3.40%
7.40%
7.20%
4.70%
2.50%
2.00%
1.90%
Econ. Management
15.60%
14.30%
13.10%
11.00%
13.70%
15.90%
15.20%
15.30%
Governance
6.30%
7.40%
12.40%
10.20%
8.70%
7.40%
5.70%
5.70%
Health
6.20%
4.90%
2.80%
4.40%
5.50%
4.80%
6.20%
5.60%
General Gov't
1.10%
0.90%
0.80%
0.80%
0.70%
1.00%
1.30%
0.60%
Demographics
0.10%
0.20%
0.30%
0.30%
0.20%
0.10%
0.10%
0.00%
Other/Don't Know
1.20%
2.10%
2.20%
1.60%
1.70%
1.80%
1.40%
1.00%
Source: Latin Barometer (2010) and author’s calculations
25
Socioeconomic Status
Appendix V
Sensitivity Analysis: By Education Level
Sub-Saharan Africa
No formal
schooling
Informal
schooling only
Some primary
schooling
Primary
school
completed
Some
secondary
school
Secondary
school
completed
Postsecondary
(not univ)
Some
university
University
completed
Post-graduate
Incomes/Poverty
26.50%
24.90%
33.10%
34.00%
41.10%
44.40%
45.40%
47.40%
48.90%
42.30%
Econ. Management
8.60%
8.50%
9.20%
11.20%
13.20%
15.20%
17.20%
18.50%
15.40%
17.90%
Agr./Food Security
28.40%
35.80%
25.70%
17.80%
14.50%
10.10%
8.90%
9.30%
5.80%
8.40%
Infrastructure
20.70%
16.50%
15.70%
18.40%
13.40%
10.50%
9.30%
5.90%
8.60%
6.20%
Security
2.00%
2.00%
3.80%
3.20%
3.60%
3.90%
4.50%
3.90%
4.70%
6.80%
Health
5.30%
6.60%
4.50%
6.00%
4.80%
4.20%
3.70%
4.90%
3.60%
1.70%
Education
3.70%
2.10%
3.00%
3.40%
4.40%
4.80%
4.70%
3.70%
4.90%
3.20%
General Gov't
0.20%
0.20%
0.20%
0.30%
0.10%
0.40%
0.30%
0.50%
0.60%
0.00%
Governance
1.80%
2.10%
2.00%
3.50%
3.40%
5.20%
5.50%
5.40%
6.90%
12.70%
Demographics
0.10%
0.10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Other/Don't Know
2.80%
1.30%
2.60%
2.10%
1.50%
1.20%
0.40%
0.70%
0.70%
0.60%
Complete
secondary
(technical)
Some
secondary
Complete
secondary
Some
university
education
University
education
completed
Post-graduate
degree
21.20%
29.30%
27.70%
31.90%
27.40%
Most Pressing Problems
Asia
No formal
schooling
Some primary
Complete
primary
Some
secondary
(technical)
34.90%
24.20%
32.20%
29.40%
32.10%
Econ. Management
13.60%
16.20%
29.20%
31.80%
27.30%
19.60%
29.40%
33.10%
27.30%
31.00%
Agr./Food Security
25.90%
30.10%
11.30%
12.10%
10.90%
26.90%
6.50%
3.20%
4.30%
2.40%
Governance
7.00%
11.10%
10.50%
9.90%
12.60%
12.60%
14.40%
17.80%
16.90%
11.30%
Security
8.80%
4.90%
6.80%
4.40%
3.80%
5.20%
5.10%
6.10%
3.90%
6.40%
General Gov't
1.80%
2.80%
2.90%
3.60%
3.40%
3.60%
5.90%
4.60%
4.30%
9.40%
Education
0.50%
2.30%
1.40%
2.30%
2.40%
3.00%
3.90%
3.00%
4.40%
3.90%
Infrastructure
2.40%
3.50%
3.00%
2.40%
2.60%
3.40%
1.70%
1.90%
1.20%
0.70%
Demographics
2.40%
1.60%
0.90%
2.20%
2.40%
2.40%
2.10%
1.10%
3.60%
6.00%
Health
2.70%
2.60%
1.40%
1.60%
2.00%
2.60%
1.30%
1.40%
2.30%
1.70%
Other/Don't know
0.00%
0.70%
0.50%
0.60%
0.70%
0.00%
0.10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Most Pressing Problems
Incomes/Poverty
26
Appendix V
Sensitivity Analysis: By Education Level
Latin America
Illiterate
Some primary
Complete
primary
Some
secondary
(technical)
Complete
secondary
(technical)
Some high
Complete high
Incomes/Poverty
35.00%
34.80%
31.70%
30.00%
29.10%
26.90%
26.30%
Infrastructure
2.20%
1.70%
1.30%
1.60%
1.00%
1.50%
0.50%
Security
30.20%
29.50%
35.60%
37.00%
35.30%
34.20%
32.80%
2.10%
2.10%
2.30%
2.20%
4.20%
6.90%
7.90%
Econ. Management
17.10%
14.50%
15.80%
14.60%
14.00%
13.10%
13.00%
Governance
6.30%
6.30%
6.30%
6.40%
8.10%
11.60%
13.10%
Health
4.70%
8.30%
5.00%
4.60%
5.10%
2.60%
2.80%
General Gov't
1.10%
1.20%
0.80%
1.20%
0.80%
0.80%
0.80%
Demographics
0.00%
0.20%
0.10%
0.10%
0.20%
0.20%
0.40%
Other/Don't Know
1.10%
1.40%
1.00%
2.00%
2.20%
2.10%
2.30%
Most Pressing Problems
Education
Source: Latin Barometer (2010) and author’s calculations
27
Appendix VI
African Business Survey Responses: “Major Constraints”
70%
% of Survey Respondents
60
%
68%
56%
50%
40
56%
48%
%
40%
30
40%
%
20
38%
35%
33%
28%
%
27%
26%
23%
10%
10%
Source: World Bank Business Enterprise Surveys and author’s calculations
28
Labor Regulations
Licensing
Access to Land
Worker Skills
Customs
Tax Admin
Transport
Crime
Informals
Tax Rate
Corruption
Pol Stability
Access to Finance
Electricity
0%
Appendix VII
African Households (2002/3): Perceptions of Government Performance (By Issue)
100%
90
4%
6%
11%
%
32%
68%
40%
60%
48%
35%
%
34
43%
%
34%
40
21%
65%
38%
63%
70%
50
15%
52%
50%
30%
43%
26%
36%
22%
12%
12%
22%
30%
%
26%
80
4%
%
47%
25%
28%
24%
30%
20%
10
0%
32%
23%
31
25%
19%
Living Standards
of Poor
4%
4%
Job Creation
Hunger
Very Badly
Fairly Badly
11
Source: Afrobarometer and author’s calculations
29
22%
Corruption
(Fighting)
Fairly Well
12%
12%
%
4%
4%
Water & Sanitation
Services
Crime
KEY:
Missing
19%
22%
%
%
7%
15%
Very Well
2
%
Health Service
Quality
11%
8%
HIV/AIDS
3%
Educational
Needs
Appendix VIII
African Households (2008/9): Perceptions of Government Performance (By Issue)
100%
5%
6%
6%
40%
31%
44%
25%
26%
%
24%
21%
40%
38%
28%
14%
25%
24%
17%
15%
Health Service
Quality
Educational
Needs
%
Job Creation
Hunger
Living Standards
of Poor
Corruption
(Fighting)
KEY:
Very Badly
Fairly Badly
Fairly Well
Source: Afrobarometer and author’s calculations
30
19%
36%
10%
0
47%
29%
%
20%
76%
30
46%
66%
40
62%
37%
60%
31%
19%
52%
35%
48%
70%
50%
16%
32%
47%
29%
12%
35%
25
%
31%
24%
29%
80%
11%
12%
90%
Very Well
Water & Sanitation
Services
Crime
10%
HIV/AIDS