• Save
Hrci 18 july workshop final
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Hrci 18 july workshop final

on

  • 1,947 views

Presentation for the Hunger Reduction Commitment Index workshop held on 18th July 2011 at ActionAid in Farringdon. Dolf te Lintelo describes the draft HRC index developed by IDS and discusses some the ...

Presentation for the Hunger Reduction Commitment Index workshop held on 18th July 2011 at ActionAid in Farringdon. Dolf te Lintelo describes the draft HRC index developed by IDS and discusses some the intitial findings.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,947
Views on SlideShare
967
Embed Views
980

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

3 Embeds 980

http://hrcindex.org 881
http://hrcindex.wordpress.com 96
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • piloting
  • Attribution: multiple causality; time lags in effects
  • Our focus is on action, particularly as intention is often not manifest – p.c. not visible separate from some sort of actionVague... yet routinely used in a catch all manner (Thomas and Grindle 1990)
  • Highlight that we have conducted such an analysis for both developing and developed countries – this presentation focuses on developing countriesNext, to discuss methodology
  • Talk through the justification for some indicators, plus examples for questions
  • Discuss justifications for selection indicatorsOur selected set of legal frameworks; policies and programmes; expenditures reflect two things:These give answers to the question “Commitment to WHAT kind of action”Availability of dataFlexibly adjust over time
  • Two key points here:Across all 9 indicators: Zambia outperforms Bangladesh in the eyes of the experts (but no really large differences)breaking up components helps to understand where political commitment may be strong, and on what accounts it may be weaker; where it could be developed, supported, campaigned for etc. Scores out of 1-5, with 1 indicating strongest performance (1=very strongly; 2=strongly; 3=moderately; 4 = weakly; 5 = very weakly)
  • Recognise that political commitment needs to be seen in relation to context: esp. a) the status of the problem, and b) ability to do something about it (wealth/admin. capacity)
  • Administrative capacity = government effectiveness indicator of World Governance IndicatorsRed countries have the capacity, but low commitment. We also know they have low wealth. Others have a reasonable commitment, but low capacity. If low capacity prevents action being undertaken, this could be an area for support/campaigning.
  • Ethiopia the outlier, otherwise decent accountability seems to go quite well with political commitment to reduce hunger, except for Nepal

Hrci 18 july workshop final Hrci 18 july workshop final Presentation Transcript

  • A Hunger Reduction Commitment Index:
    Assessing political commitment
    to reduce hunger
    Supported by Irish Aid
  • Irish Hunger Task Force 2008
    “Addressing hunger...ultimately is a matter of political priorities..at a global level there is no independent body which audits the implementation of these commitments. Neither is there an independent authority with the power and willingness to name and shame those who have not lived up to their promises” page 23
  • Theory of change of HRCI
    Hunger is neglected, numbers of hungry are not decreasing, pressures likely to increase in future
    Outcome measures do not promote strong enough accountability
    Civil society needs something to hold governments to account – their commitment
    Governments need mechanisms to focus their cross-department efforts on hunger
    The building of commitment can be helped by measuring commitment and promoting uptake of measures
    Across countries for global advocacy (using secondary data)
    Within countries for national advocacy (using primary data)
  • Objectives of Phase I of HRCI
    This Phase
    Develop a credible and practical cross-country index of commitment to reduce hunger using secondary data
    Develop and pilot a credible and practical primary data collection methodology to
    triangulate the secondary data
    supplement secondary data
    develop a country specific process for collecting data on commitment that is credible and mobilising for operational partners
  • What is distinct about the HRCI?
    Decouples commitment from outcomes
    HungerFree Scorecard (ActionAid): outcomes + commitment
    Global Hunger Index (IFPRI/Concern/WHH): outcomes
    HRCI: commitment
    Uses primary + secondary data
    Secondary for cross-country comparisons
    Primary data
    To guide future choices of secondary data
    To mobilise within country for over time
  • Conceptualising and measuring political commitment
    Conceptually
    “Slipperiest concept in the policy lexicon” (Hammergren 1998)
    Political commitment ≈ a mix of intention and action
    • Practically
    • Functioning of government systems (Brinkerhoff 2000)
    Legal frameworks
    Public policies and programmes
    Public expenditures
  • Data collection
  • Primary data collection in the two pilot countries: expert perception surveys
    Experts from government, civil society, academia, donor community, media
    Selected by overseas partners
    Numbers
    Bangladesh, 42 people interviewed
    Zambia, 30 people interviewed
    • Structured interviews, up to 40 questions
    Likert scales for recording agreement
    1 = very strongly, 2 = strongly, 3 = moderately, 4 = weakly, 5 = very weakly
  • Primary data questions organised around these indicators
    Adaptation and learning (2 questions)
    Institutional coordination (2)
    Analytical rigour (2)
    Continuity of effort (2)
    Credible incentives (2)
    Locus of initiative (1)
    Mobilisation of stakeholders (2)
    Policy preferences revealed (2)
    Expenditures (4)
    Evaluation of intention and action (4)
    Adapted from Brinkerhoff (2000)
  • Selecting secondary data indicators
    Steps Indicators
    1. Identify potential (>50 in 3 categories of policy, legal, expenditure)
    2. Assess data availability (8 policy, 10 legal, 3 expenditures)
    3. Select (3 policy, 3 legal, 3 expenditures)
    Selection Criteria
    Theory driven - availability, access and right to food
    Practical- sufficient variation in scores across countries
  • Secondary data indicators used
  • Selected findings expert surveys
    1=very strong, 5 =very weak
  • HRCI Results using secondary data
    by theme and overall rankings
  • Points to note
    Zambia outperforms Bangladesh on both primary and secondary data for expenditure and policy indicators. However, on legal framework, Zambia scores 0, and Bangladesh 2.5
    Note the very different scores on the 3 secondary indicators
    Tanzania: 1 on expenditures, 21 on policy
    Brazil: 1 on policy, 17 on expenditure
    Bangladesh: 2 on legal framework, 29 on policy
    More work to be done on legal indicator—does not seem to differentiate countries terribly well
  • Green=more than halving of HF rank, Red= more than doubling of HF rank
    Mostly due to decoupling from hunger outcomes—those in green had worse outcomes, those in red had better outcomes
  • Commitment – with and without resources?
  • Commitment and administrative capacity?
  • Commitment and hunger status?
  • Commitment – accountability & voice?
  • Some discussion points
    Do the rankings correspond with our intuition?
    How to categorise commitment scores (low, medium, high)?
    Do cross-country comparisons need to be stratified by wealth, capacity, hunger levels?
    Is the HRCI helpful in terms of directing resources?
    Ethiopia: high hunger & high commitment to reduction: do we focus on capacity (medium), wealth (low), or voice (low)?
    How can the primary data be incorporated into the cross-country index?
    What kinds of sensitivity analyses would you like to see us do?
  • Potential next phase
    Refine secondary data use and indicator choice
    construct the index over time
    work with partners and others (e.g. FAO, Guardian) to publicise index
    Run the primary data collection activity in 20-30 key countries over a 3 year period
    Incorporate some subjective primary components into the cross-country index
    Use the primary data collection to fuel national campaigns for hunger reduction
    Assess whether the HRCI is adding value
  • For further information
    Please contact:
    Jen Leavy, index manager: j.leavy@ids.ac.uk
    Dolf te Lintelo, project manager: d.telintelo@ids.ac.uk
    Alan Stanley, knowledge service specialist: a.stanley@ids.ac.uk