Life in Transition Survey in the ECA Region. Key Features of the Survey Instrument & Selected Findings

Transcription

1 Life in Transition Survey in the ECA Region Key Features of the Survey Instrument & Selected Findings Mame Fatou Diagne (ECSPE) Washington DC, April 21st, 2011

2 Overview of the Presentation 1. Introduction: the survey instrument 2. What can you do with the LiTS? 3. Objective vs. subjective data: examples from the forthcoming LiTS report Governance and public service delivery Impact of the crisis Q &A

3 1. Introduction Main Objective of the Survey To assess the impact of transition on people in ECA countries Measures of satisfaction Attitudes towards economic reforms & political system (e.g. support for redistribution, democracy,...) Determinants of opportunity sets (family background, economic situation before, during, after reforms, ) plus various controls (e.g. household income, socio-demographic background, )

4 1. Introduction Country Coverage New EU member states (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia) South-Eastern Europe (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia) Commonwealth of Independent States low-income (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan) and middle-income (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine) + Turkey, Mongolia + in 2010: 5 western European comparators: France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, the UK altogether 34 countries covered in the survey

5 1. Introduction Surveys EBRD and World Bank 2 Repeated cross sections : : repeats new modules: Climate change Governance (augmenting 2006 Service Delivery) Impact of the crisis

6 Coverage 1. Introduction Labor, history of past employment Current economic activities Education, parental background Satisfaction with Public Service Delivery, informal payments, government performance Household Roster SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Impact of the crisis (2010) Housing and Expenses Attitudes and values: trust, political values, satisfaction with life, transition experience Priorities for Public Spending Climate change (2010)

7 Sample and Respondent Selection Nationally representative sample of 1,000-1,500 households / individuals within each country covered in the LITS 2006: Two-stage sampling procedure followed: (a) 50 primary sampling units (universe comprises all census enumeration areas in the country) (b) 20 households randomly selected from within each selected primary sampling unit (PSU) One respondent aged 18 years or older randomly selected in each household for the main interview 1. Introduction 2010:Same, with larger sample in some countries approximately 29,000 interviews in 2006 and 39,000 in 2010

8 Summary: key features of LiTS Regional coverage and cross-country comparability (even if responses are subjective and liable to be influenced by local context, etc.) Relatively low cost and quick-turnaround (cf. crisis impact) Adaptability to cover topical issues of interest (e.g. crisis impact, climate change, attitudes to immigration, minorities, etc.) 1. Introduction

9 What can you do with LiTS? 2. What can you do with LiTS? Useful complement to other quantitative / national surveys: focus on social and political attitudes and values, perceptions of crisis impact, satisfaction with service delivery and government performance Not a substitute: e.g. cannot use LiTS to analyze: changes in consumption Intra-household dynamics

10 2. What can you do with LiTS? How is LiTS different and innovative? World Values Surveys ( a global study of what people value in life ) have stronger coverage of attitudes and values questions (about 100 vs. 30) but LiTS has various measures of welfare (consumption, relative income) vs. one income question in WVS; preferences for government spending, labor and entrepreneurial activity, experience and satisfaction with public services, experience during transition (life calendar) stronger on economics

11 What can you do with LiTS (continued)? Of interest to a wide audience Bank staff: context for undertaking reforms Researchers 2. What can you do with LiTS? Civil society and governments interested in citizen feedback

12 3. Objective vs. subjective data: examples from the forthcoming LiTS report EBRD report with: The LiTS II (2010) report Summary country pages 5 chapters: Impact of the crisis (World Bank) Attitudes and values Governance and Service delivery (World Bank) Corruption and Trust Gender

13 3. Objective vs. subjective data: examples from the forthcoming LiTS report Governance and public service delivery Main dimensions of service delivery in LiTS II (2010): Overall satisfaction with government performance Interactions with traffic police and courts and utilization of public services: education, health, unemployment and SS benefits Satisfaction with service delivery Perceptions of service quality Unofficial payment and reasons for making them Grievance redress mechanisms

14 3. Objective vs. subjective data: examples from the forthcoming LiTS report Governance and public service delivery Uses of governance and satisfaction with service delivery data: Diagnostic function: links between quality, perceptions and outcomes Call to action for governments citizen feedback and accountability tool Complement to more objective measures of service delivery (e.g.: facilities surveys) Benchmarking successful reforms that raised satisfaction with public services over time (e.g.: in public health: Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkey) Caveats: Externalities (social benefits of public services beyond individual satisfaction) Cross-country: reported satisfaction may be disconnected from actual quality of services if people do not have a basis for comparison or information about what they can expect. (e.g.: Kyrgyz Republic: LiTS II 58% satisfaction rate vs. PISA:83% of 15-year olds functionally illiterate.)

15 3. Objective vs. subjective data: examples from the forthcoming LiTS report Governance and public service delivery Main findings and policy implications: Satisfaction with public services rose in most countries in the region ( ) but survey suggests ways for improvement: Satisfaction inversely correlated with utilization rates: more work needed on efficiency and quality improvements + demand management practices to free public resources for quality improvements Prevalence of unofficial payments higher than in Western Europe and important factor in explaining dissatisfaction with public service delivery in the transition countries (especially in health) Grievance redress mechanisms should be strengthened to help provide citizen feedback

16 3. Objective vs. subjective data: examples from the forthcoming LiTS report Crisis impact module Subjective perceptions of crisis impact on household Crisis transmission channels: wage reductions, job losses, reduced remittances, etc. Coping strategies Rapid instrument for insights on crisis impact, which can be related to socio-economic outcomes: social mobility, life satisfaction, perceptions of government performance

17 3. Objective vs. subjective data: examples from the forthcoming LiTS report Comparing objective and subjective measures of crisis impact LiTS II confirms: Widespread impact of the crisis in ECA (about two-thirds of households say they have been affected, at varying degrees) Mostly through labor market, and more through wage reductions than job losses Middle and upper-income households are more likely to say their relative income position deteriorated, similar to the estimated distributional impact (using consumption data from 2009 HBS, Sulla, 2011)

18 3. Objective vs. subjective data: examples from the forthcoming LiTS report Comparing objective and subjective measures of crisis impact (continued) but: Country-level: subjective crisis impact and changes in life satisfaction only weakly correlated with GDP growth

19 3. Objective vs. subjective data: examples from the forthcoming LiTS report Comparing objective and subjective measures of crisis impact (continued) Economic growth and perceptions of crisis severity Subjective crisis severity index Latvia Lithuania Armenia Estonia Ukraine Bulgaria Serbia Hungary Bosnia-Herzegovina Romania Montenegro Macedonia France Croatia Italy Moldova Slovenia Turkey Georgia United Kindgom Czech Republic Russia Slovak Rep. Kyrgyz Rep. Sweden Germany Albania Mongolia Tajikistan Kazakhstan Poland Belarus Azerbaijan Uzbekistan Average GDP growth in (per cent)

20 3. Objective vs. subjective data: examples from the forthcoming LiTS report Comparing objective and subjective measures of crisis impact (continued) but: Country-level: subjective crisis impact and changes in life satisfaction only weakly correlated with GDP growth Poorer households more likely to report being affected by the crisis Why these differences? Different labor market responses to economic contraction across countries Psychological factors: intrinsic value of employment beyond monetary impact, increased uncertainty, etc. Systematic group-specific reporting biases? (Bertrand and Mullainathan, 2000)

21 Conclusion Conclusion LiTS II: both objective and subjective measures of welfare, attitudes and values, governance and service delivery Interest from country units, especially on service delivery and as a tool for citizen feedback and accountability Can be used for a wide-ranging analytical and research program!

22 Q & A 22

23 Distributional Analysis using the LiTS Questions on consumption in the LITS questionnaire During the past 30 days, approximately how much did your household spend on: Food, beverages, and tobacco Clothing and footwear Transport and communication (fixed line phone, mobile phone, internet) expenses Recreation, entertainment, meals outside the home, etc Local Currency USD During the past 12 months, approximately how much did your household spend on: Education (including tuition, books, kindergarten expenses) Health (including health insurance) Furnishings (sheets, towels, blankets, linen, etc.) Household durable goods (e.g. furniture, household appliances, TV, car, etc.) Other expenses (DO NOT PROMPT RECORD HERE ONLY ANY ADDITIONAL EXPENSES THAT THE RESPONDENT WOULD LIKE TO REPORT) Local Currency USD

24 Distributional Analysis High correlation between LITS welfare measure and consumption aggregates derived from more comprehensive household surveys LITS estimates Kyrgyz Armenia Moldova Georgia Tajikistan Uzbekistan Comparing estimates of per-capita consumption (US$, 2006) Ukraine Bulgaria Albania Kazakhstan Azerbaijan Russia Poland Belarus Lithuania Hungary Latvia Estonia ECA survey archive estimates

25 Distributional Analysis Survey-based estimates yield country welfare rankings that accord well with those based on the system of national accounts (2006) LITS consumption estimate Moldova Armenia Georgia Mongolia Kyrgyz Azerbaijan Tajikistan Uzbekistan Welfare Rankings: LITS vs. National Accounts estimates (per capita US$) Russia Ukraine Bosnia Romania Turkey Belarus Bulgaria Macedonia Albania Kazakhstan Latvia Poland Croatia Estonia Slovakia Lithuania Czech Hungary Slovenia Household final consumption expenditure

26 Distributional Analysis Illustration #1: ECA poverty rates: LiTS vs. ECAPOV estimates (2006) Headcount Rate (percent) Poverty Line = $PPP 2.15 LiTS 10.5 ECAPOV update 10.8 Poverty Line = $PPP4.30 LiTS 33.6 ECAPOV update 37.8

27 Distributional Analysis LITS welfare aggregate does quite well in helping to distinguish the poor from the rich (2006) % of individuals owning item Asset Ownership by Income Group Poor Middle Rich 0 Secondary Internet Computer Credit/debit Bank Car Mobile home access card account phone