The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (2024)

×

Log in Upload File

  • Most Popular
  • Study
  • Business
  • Design
  • Technology
  • Travel
  • Explore all categories
  • Home
  • Documents
  • The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots

38

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 2011 12 1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs 1, 2 Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo 3 Abstract This paper constructs and estimates a new results-based instrument called the Grassroots Focus Index (GFI), which measures grassroots perception of the impact of development programs. It demonstrates the extent to which African govern- ments and their development partners prioritize the grassroots in policy-making, policy implementation, and performance monitoring. The GFI was constructed using a combination of both primary and secondary data. The primary data derived from rapid appraisal surveys conducted in six communities in three pilot countries, namely Cameroon, Nigeria, and South Africa. The secondary data were obtained from government official publications. The results of the GFI show that on the whole, Nigeria appears to perform better than the other two pilot countries, with an overall index of 53.4 compared with 48.1 and 48.5 for Cameroon and the Republic of South Africa respectively. This ranking 1 This paper is based on a pilot project titled “Developing a Grassroots Focus Index for Africa,” executed under a tripartite institutional arrangement involving the African Moni- tor [AM] Cape Town, as the funding and coordinating institution, the Department of Economics and Centre for Health Systems Research and Development, University of the Free State, [UFS] Bloemfontein, Republic of South Africa; and the Centre for Econometric and Allied Research [CEAR], University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria as the Consulting / Executing institutions. 2 We acknowledge the role of African Monitor, Cape Town, South Africa in conceptual- izing the GFI as well as technically and financially supporting it. We also acknowledge the technical contribution of Warren Nyamugasira, Namhla Mniki, Augustine Mwiza Mkandawire and Masiiwa Rusare of the African Monitor (AM); Professor F. le R, Booysen, Jan Cloete and Lejone Ntema at University of Free State, South Africa, Mr. Pierre De- Joubert Nuguetse and Mr. O Oluwasanmi of University of Ado Ekiti. We acknowledge the inputs and guidance of the Technical Advisory Group constituted by African Monitor and composed of Dr. Kasirim Nwuke (ECA), Professor Olusanya Ajaikeye (AERC), Dr. Dimitri Sanga (ECA), Professor Julian May (University of KwaZulu Natal), Mr. Maurice Mubila (African Development Bank), Dr. Sam Nyambi (African Monitor Board member), and Dr. Alione Sall (African Monitor Board member). However, we are solely responsible for any errors in the paper. 3 Sam O. Olofin, Professor of Economics and Director, Centre for Econometric and Allied Research (CEAR), Department of Economics, Faculty of the Social Sciences, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. Tel: +234 802 346 3272, Email: so.olofi[emailprotected]; soolofin@ hotmail.com.; Dr. Olanrewaju Olaniyan, Senior Lecturer, Department of Economics, Faculty of the Social Sciences, University of Ibadan and Senior Research Fellow, CEAR. Tel: +234 802 325 5741, Email: [emailprotected]; [emailprotected]; Dr. Abiodun O. Folawewo, Lecturer, Department of Economics, Faculty of the Social Sci- ences, University of Ibadan and Senior Research Fellow, CEAR. Tel: +234 803 442 1791, Email: [emailprotected]; [emailprotected].

Upload: dodan

Post on 18-Dec-2016

238 views

Category:

Documents


5 download

Report

  • Download
Facebook Twitter E-Mail LinkedIn Pinterest

TRANSCRIPT

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (3)

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 201112

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs1, 2

Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo3

AbstractThis paper constructs and estimates a new results-based instrument called the Grassroots Focus Index (GFI), which measures grassroots perception of the impact of development programs. It demonstrates the extent to which African govern-ments and their development partners prioritize the grassroots in policy-making, policy implementation, and performance monitoring. The GFI was constructed using a combination of both primary and secondary data. The primary data derived from rapid appraisal surveys conducted in six communities in three pilot countries, namely Cameroon, Nigeria, and South Africa. The secondary data were obtained from government official publications. The results of the GFI show that on the whole, Nigeria appears to perform better than the other two pilot countries, with an overall index of 53.4 compared with 48.1 and 48.5 for Cameroon and the Republic of South Africa respectively. This ranking

1 This paper is based on a pilot project titled “Developing a Grassroots Focus Index for Africa,” executed under a tripartite institutional arrangement involving the African Moni-tor [AM] Cape Town, as the funding and coordinating institution, the Department of Economics and Centre for Health Systems Research and Development, University of the Free State, [UFS] Bloemfontein, Republic of South Africa; and the Centre for Econometric and Allied Research [CEAR], University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria as the Consulting /Executing institutions.2 We acknowledge the role of African Monitor, Cape Town, South Africa in conceptual-izing the GFI as well as technically and financially supporting it. We also acknowledge the technical contribution of Warren Nyamugasira, Namhla Mniki, Augustine Mwiza Mkandawire and Masiiwa Rusare of the African Monitor (AM); Professor F. le R, Booysen, Jan Cloete and Lejone Ntema at University of Free State, South Africa, Mr. Pierre De-Joubert Nuguetse and Mr. O Oluwasanmi of University of Ado Ekiti. We acknowledge the inputs and guidance of the Technical Advisory Group constituted by African Monitor and composed of Dr. Kasirim Nwuke (ECA), Professor Olusanya Ajaikeye (AERC), Dr. Dimitri Sanga (ECA), Professor Julian May (University of KwaZulu Natal), Mr. Maurice Mubila (African Development Bank), Dr. Sam Nyambi (African Monitor Board member), and Dr. Alione Sall (African Monitor Board member). However, we are solely responsible for any errors in the paper.3 Sam O. Olofin, Professor of Economics and Director, Centre for Econometric and Allied Research (CEAR), Department of Economics, Faculty of the Social Sciences, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. Tel: +234 802 346 3272, Email: [emailprotected]; [emailprotected].; Dr. Olanrewaju Olaniyan, Senior Lecturer, Department of Economics, Faculty of the Social Sciences, University of Ibadan and Senior Research Fellow, CEAR. Tel: +234 802 325 5741, Email: [emailprotected]; [emailprotected]; Dr. Abiodun O. Folawewo, Lecturer, Department of Economics, Faculty of the Social Sci-ences, University of Ibadan and Senior Research Fellow, CEAR. Tel: +234 803 442 1791, Email: [emailprotected]; [emailprotected].

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (4)

The African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 13

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs

differs from a priori expectations of what might have been expected – in fact, it evidences a reverse order from a number of other indices.

Key words: Africa, concept mapping, rapid appraisal, governance, indicators, indices

Résumé Le présent article conceptualise et évalue un nouvel instrument axé sur les résultats, dénommé « Indice de perception des communautés », qui mesure la perception qu’ont les communautés de l’impact des programmes de développement. Il révèle dans quelle mesure les gouvernements africains et leurs partenaires au développement accordent la priorité aux communautés dans l’élaboration et la mise en œuvre des politiques, et dans le suivi des résultats obtenus. L’Indice a été mis au point à partir de données primaires et secondaires. Les données primaires proviennent d’études d’évaluation rapide, faites dans six communautés de trois pays pilotes, à savoir l’Afrique du Sud, le Cameroun et le Nigéria. Quant aux données secondaires, elles ont été extraites des publications officielles des États. Selon les résultats obtenus suite à l’application de l’Indice, le Nigéria semble obtenir de meilleurs résultats que les deux autres pays pilotes, avec un indice global de 53,4 contre respectivement 48,1 et 48,5 pour le Cameroun et l’Afrique du Sud. Ce classem*nt diffère de ce à quoi l’on pouvait s’attendre à priori – en fait, il est l’inverse de l’ordre que l’on obtient avec d’autres indices.

Mots clefs : Afrique, schématisation conceptuelle, évaluation rapide, gouver-nance, indicateurs, indices

1. INTRODUCTION

It has been argued that the development process in Africa could be acceler-ated if development policies, program, and activities were to focus more on the grassroots majority who are poor, to enable them to lift themselves out of poverty. Although a number of countries have shown a willingness to improve the well-being of the poor and reduce the number of people living in absolute poverty, the indications are that several countries still have a long way to go (UNESC 2008).

Recent developments have shown that the construction and use of de-velopment indices help to deepen our understanding of the development process and the status of countries along the development path. Develop-ment indices can also provide a basis for shaping the policies and actions of governments and their development partners. Development indicators

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (5)

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 201114

Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo

are thus becoming more acceptable as a way of tracking the performances of different economies over the years. However, there exist disparate indices covering different areas of country performance; further, the objectives tend to be driven by the organization that is sponsoring the index rather than the needs of the country. By 2005, there were more than 130 such indices with over 80% of them created between 1991 and 2005 (Bandura 2005). Despite their proliferation, most of these indices have focused on govern-ance and development, but looking at these issues from the viewpoint of the development actors and not necessarily from that of the grassroots, who are the ones most affected.

The key methodological contribution of this paper is in the construction and estimation of a development index from the perspective of the grass-roots. Indices are generally constructed on the assumption that they are composite indicators that measure multidimensional concepts, and hence cannot be captured by a single indicator. Ideally, a composite indicator should be based on three key pillars which are: a solid theoretical frame-work, a sound process of construction, and good-quality underlying data (Nardo et al. 2005). The value of such a composite index can be assessed by how well it fulfills a number of criteria. First, it needs to exhibit robust-ness to uncertainties in data and to alternative weightings. Second, it needs to retain its relevance over time. Third, it needs to be highly defensible in dialogue with stakeholders. Finally, it needs to facilitate negotiation rather than create disagreements. These are some of the criteria that have guided the preparation of the Grassroots Focus Index (GFI).

The grassroots are those most directly affected by development activities; indeed they are the principal target of most development policies. All too often, however, they are excluded from the process, and so have come to be identified by some commentators as the “neglected majority.” Conse-quently, they need to be given a voice in reporting back on how well they judge the policies and projects to be performing on the ground. This paper aims to contribute to the debate by creating an index that focuses on the perceptions held by the grassroots themselves as to the performance of de-velopment activities in terms of intended outcomes. The aim is to measure whether the grassroots perceive that their priorities and aspirations have been taken into account. The long-term neglect of this critical dimension of the development effort and process may largely account for the relative ineffectiveness of the various development strategies pursued over the last six to seven decades of post-independence experience in the three pilot countries (Cameroon, Nigeria, and South Africa). It is also possible that correcting for this by bringing the grassroots into the mainstream of the development

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (6)

The African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 15

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs

effort may scale up the tempo of progress towards self-sustaining growth and development. The GFI takes this as its overarching premise and seeks to explore and answer three key questions, namely:

• To what extent have African governments and donors been able to prioritize the grassroots in development policy priorities and strategies?

• To what extent (where such prioritization has occurred) has prioritization led to an effective channeling of resources to grassroots development by African governments and donors?

• To what extent is the grassroots able to meaningfully influence government and donor policies and programs, including resource commitments and flows?

It is against this background that the GFI measures the extent to which African governments and their development partners prioritize the grassroots in policy-making, policy implementation, and performance monitoring. The index measures the extent of grassroots participation in the planning of development programs and budget allocations; in the channeling of re-sources; and in consultation and decisionmaking to inform and influence policy in practice. It is anticipated that the GFI will be used as a core tool for monitoring African governments’ delivery of development, through promotion of local-level analysis and actions, and by taking into considera-tion the priorities and development aspirations of grassroots communities.

The rest of the paper is divided into five sections. Following this introduc-tion, section 2 provides a literature review and conceptual framework for the GFI. Section 3 furnishes background information on the pilot countries and communities used in the exercise. Section 4 focuses on methodology used and data obtained, while section 5 presents and analyzes the results. Finally, section 6 concludes the paper with some caveats.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Literature review

The various development indices that are being used by development actors each have their own specific focus and emphasis. Comparing one index against another may therefore prove to be less meaningful than compar-ing countries against each other in reference to a particular index. Some commentators may question the justification for yet another index when there are already several currently available. If we analyze the indices cur-

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (7)

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 201116

Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo

rently available, however, a number of constraints and drawbacks become evident. For example, Bandura (2005) pointed out that almost all indices of development are concentrated in the two categories of economic openness and competitiveness, as well as development and security.4 Within these two areas, the indices address various issues ranging from children’s health to business environment, security and corruption. Many of the indices are also prepared in such a way as to render them the flagship of the particular organization that constructed them.

Just as the indices vary, so too do the methodologies employed in construct-ing them (Booysen 2002). While some indices are created using a single indicator, others are constructed around several indicators and sub-indicators (Nardo et al. 2008; Morse 2004). The literature reveals that most of the indices are computed with the objective of ranking countries. There is, however, no standard number of indicators to be used for an index that ranks countries. For example, the UNDP’s Human Development Index (HDI) is based on a subset of indicators, while other organizations such as UNICEF use only one indicator (e.g. the under-five mortality rate). There are also other forms of indicators such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) progress assessment, which is based on a combination of many indicators.

Irrespective of the method of construction, indices are used to capture the level of country performance with respect to a given phenomenon. Another factor of variation is the frequency of an index. Some are computed only once, while others – such as the MO Ibrahim Governance Index – are constructed at regular intervals.

The literature is replete with criticism of development indices. Sy (2003) and Morse (2004) maintain that indices often oversimplify and mask what is generally a very complex reality, and that any attempt to capture that reality through a single number may prove ineffective. Other commenta-tors, including Reinhart (2002) and Bandura (2005), reveal that some of the methodologies used to construct the indices lack transparency. Some indices, however, have tried to address the second problem by stating ex-plicitly the procedures and techniques of their construction (e.g. the MO Ibrahim Index).

4 Romina Bandura (2005) provides a comprehensive survey of existing indices in terms of organizations that developed them, types of data used, and methodologies for their construction.

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (8)

The African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 17

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs

There are also issues with the type of data used in constructing indices. Most use a combination of quantitative and qualitative information. While some indices rely exclusively on qualitative information derived from carefully planned surveys at the household or company level, others utilize information drawn from those regarded as experts in their field. There is still controversy as to which type of data source provides the most accurate index. Booysen (2002) maintains that the construction of an index can only be realistic if the conceptual framework is adequately addressed and the indicators are well conceived. This is important, according to Booysen, as the results may become skewed if outcome indicators are used in creating the index.

The GFI attempts to bridge the gaps identified in the literature by address-ing a long-neglected component/dimension of the development process, namely the perception and involvement of the grassroots, which constitutes the majority of the populace. The index differs in its focus and methodol-ogy by challenging traditional development strategies, which often take the grassroots for granted in a “father-knows-best,” top-down approach. Several other studies in the literature (e.g., Dictz and Pfund 1988; Finsterbusch and Van Wicklin 1988; Escobar 1994; Islam et al. 1995) also suggest the need for a paradigm shift on the part of governments, bilateral and multilateral development partners, and other actors in the development process. They suggest the need for a bottom-up as opposed to a top-down approach to development.

2.2 Conceptualizing the Grassroots Focus Index

The starting point for our construction was to identify a broad set of (pos-sibly conflicting) viewpoints of what constitutes a grassroots focus, and to reduce the complexity of the various indicators into a measurable form.5 In order to obtain acceptance, the indicators were identified through a carefully planned concept-mapping exercise in different locations within the pilot countries. The premise underlying this approach was to identify a community of peers (individuals, regions, countries) willing to accept the theoretical framework.

The GFI measures the extent to which the grassroots are considered in the formulation and implementation of development policies, programs, and activities. It is organized around three main dimensions which are:

5 In developing the theoretical framework, a clear understanding and definition of the multidimensional phenomenon to be measured by the GFI is provided in the road map document of African Monitor.

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (9)

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 201118

Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo

A. Government/donor responsibilities; B. Resource mobilization, management and utilization; and C. Grassroots influence.

The indicators in each dimension are taken as proxies for the relevance and importance of the grassroots in the development programs of each coun-try. In order to measure this, 21 indicators were identified for inclusion in the computation of the overall GFI. Table 1 presents the structure of the components and the number of indicators.6

The broad themes are based on the building blocks in the roadmap for the GFI, namely the poverty component, government responsiveness, partnership responsiveness, and political or democratic governance. These were aligned with the three key questions that the GFI seeks to answer. The description of the index components provides the rationale underlying the linkage among the different dimensions, subthemes, and indicators.

The first key question that the GFI seeks to measure is: To what extent have African governments and donors been able to prioritize the grassroots in their development policy priorities and strategies? The broad theme that aptly captures this question is government/donor responsibilities. This is because for the government/donor to prioritize grassroots in development policy priorities and strategies, they must be responsive toward them. The dimension comprises three main themes of responsiveness, empowerment, and political governance (see Table 2). The aim of this dimension is to examine whether a government has been performing its roles responsibly to the grassroots or not.

In terms of the subthemes, responsiveness indicates that government can only be responsible to the grassroots when it takes account of the latter’s priorities in development programs and priorities. This is achieved through adequate consultation with the grassroots to determine their needs. Similarly, responsibility implies a readiness to empower the grassroots through timely and regular provision of information, communicating plans and policies, as well as fostering participation in the development process. The third subtheme, political governance, indicates that the grassroots can only be prioritized in development agenda setting if they are given adequate space in the governance process. This is achieved by ensuring that the grassroots have access to policymakers through a partnership for development. In the same way, policymakers should be as open (transparent) as possible by sharing accurate information.

6 All tables are located at the end of this article.

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (10)

The African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 19

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs

The second key question that the GFI measures is: To what extent has prioritization (where it has occurred) led to an effective channeling of resources to grassroots development by African governments and by donors? This is captured by the broad concepts of resource mobilization, management, and utilization. In Table 3 a description of the indicators for measuring resource utilization is provided. This dimension focuses on the issues of resources and how they affect the development of the grassroots as well as the ability of the latter to participate in the development process.

One way of measuring an effective channeling of resources to the grassroots is through equitable resource allocation to those development projects that should have a direct and major impact on the lives of the poor. Equity in the distribution of resources is measured by the extent to which the poor have access to those public resources such as health, education, water and sanita-tion, which are often beyond their reach when based on market outcomes. The proportion of government/public resources channeled toward providing the poor with economic opportunities and social services is also an equity issue in terms of resource mobilization, management, and utilization. The same logic applies to the inclusion of the subthemes of resource commit-ment and flows with its two indicators. In addition, the grassroots need to be given the opportunity for participation in the budgeting process, to ensure that resources are allocated and disbursed with their needs firmly in mind.

The third key question of the GFI is: To what extent are the grassroots able to meaningfully influence government and donor policies and pro-grams, including resource commitments and flows? In this third dimen-sion, the focus is on the perception by the grassroots of their influence and involvement in development program planning and implementation. The main source for this information is the rapid appraisal (RA) instruments, which are based on the results of the concept-mapping exercise conducted earlier. The subthemes under this dimension include the grassroots capacity to influence, as well as their capacity to control the development process.

Grassroots capacity to influence development policies and programs is re-flected by the extent to which they can voice their opinions, as well as their competency in doing so (see Table 4). Also, for the grassroots to be able to influence the development process, they should exercise freedom of choice and be given the opportunity to resolve development problems in collaboration with government. Finally, the ability of the grassroots to influence development process depends on the extent to which they are conscious of and alive to their responsibilities as citizens. This third subtheme of grassroots responsibility can be captured by three indicators: (i) their ability to seek information on

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (11)

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 201120

Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo

development programs; (ii) their engagement in group advocacy; and (iii) their ability to press for their demands through lawful means.

The above reasoning informed the choice of subthemes and indicators that make up the GFI methodology template. In all, the GFI is a composite index consisting of 3 x 9 x 21 dimensions. That is, three (3) main dimensions/themes; nine (9) subthemes or categories; and twenty-one (21) indicators. A comprehensive description of all the components of the index is shown in Appendix Table A1.

3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE PILOT COUNTRIES AND COMMUNITIES

3.1 Selection criteria for pilot countries

The paper is based on a pilot study conducted for the development of the GFI. The pilot study covered three countries and six communities, with two communities chosen in each country. The pilot countries were Cam-eroon, Nigeria, and the Republic of South Africa (RSA). The selection of the three countries was based on certain criteria: the representativeness of their economies (both regionally and subregionally); their demographic characteristics; and their sociological/multicultural diversity.

Taking the first criterion, viz. the representativeness of their various economies relative to the regional economy as a whole, it is noteworthy that Nigeria and the Republic of South Africa between them control more than 50% of Africa’s gross domestic product (GDP). Selection of these two countries is therefore indicative of the entire region. Cameroon, Nigeria, and RSA are well-endowed in terms of resources that support the region’s economic growth. Looking further, at these countries’ representativeness of their re-spective subregions, Nigeria’s economic diversity is sufficiently indicative of the West African subregional economy, Cameroon of the Central African subregion; and RSA of the Southern African subregion.

In terms of the three pilot countries’ demographic characteristics, Nigeria and Cameroon represent two of the largest countries in the African region in terms of population size. With respect to the sociological, cultural and ethnic diversity, the selection of the communities within the three countries sufficiently captures the multicultural and multi-ethnic nature of the region’s population. Moreover, Cameroon represents a Francophone country, while the other two countries are Anglophone.

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (12)

The African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 21

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs

3.2 Selection criteria for communities

CameroonAs noted above, two communities were chosen in each of the pilot countries for the case studies. Since GFI focuses on the well-being of ordinary citizens and in particular the vulnerable and the poor, the selection of respondents and communities was effected by the local researchers, who were most familiar with the local specificities. There were, however, two challenges that had to be confronted in the selection exercise. The first was to reduce selection bias to the minimum, while the second was to acknowledge the prevalence of heterogeneity in many African communities. Africa comprises 53 countries enriched by multifarious cultures, histories, and peoples. This demanded a selection process that would take account of these diversities in each of the three pilot countries.

In Cameroon, two communities were chosen across two different regions and divisions, namely Akonolinga and Fundong. These communities were adjudged according to official statistics to be the poorest in their respective regions and this was the basis for their selection. Akonolinga is the head-quarters of the Nyong-et Mfoumou division and has both modern and traditional political systems of government. In spite of its proximity to the capital Yaoundé, it is among the 14 poorest divisions in Cameroon, out of a total of 58. The poverty headcount is estimated at 62.3% (INS 2008), which is very high compared to the national poverty rate (40%), and that of Yaoundé (6%). Further, the selection took into consideration the rural location of the community and the fact that it is relatively accessible com-pared to other similar communities.

The other selected community, Fundong, is in the Northwest province of Cameroon. It is about 400 km from Yaoundé and has a population of about 45,000. The language of the local people is Kom (Macro Bantu). The community is bordered by Babanki, Bafum, and Wum. The geography of Fundong (Kom) and the Northwest province is extremely mountainous, which makes the area an enclave that is difficult to access. It comprises mostly grassland, farmland, and grazing land, with a declining amount of forest. Crater lakes, cliffs, and waterfalls are quite common features of the region. Nevertheless, one of the largest mountainous rainforest in West Africa can be found in Kom, which is home to many endangered species. The Boyo division, which has Fundong as its headquarters, is one of the five poorest divisions in Cameroon. The poverty headcount in Boyo is estimated at 75.9% (INS 2008).

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (13)

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 201122

Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo

NigeriaFor Nigeria, the geopolitical structure of the country informed the selection process. The country can be divided broadly into Northern and Southern areas. For political convenience, Nigeria can also be divided into six geo-political zones. The choice was made to include the poorest state in the North (Jigawa State) and the poorest state in the South (Ekiti State). This was based on the official statistics from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) in the capital, Abuja.

Jigawa State is one of the seven states in the Northwestern geopolitical zone of Nigeria. It has a landmass of 22,000 sq km and is made up of five emirates – Gumel, Hadejia, Kazaure, Ringim, and Dutse. As in all other states in the country, Jigawa is divided into three senatorial districts. There are 27 local government areas in the state. The sociocultural situation in Jigawa State may be described as hom*ogeneous, with Hausa-Fulani found in all parts of the state. Kanuris are largely found in Hadeija emirate, with some traces of Badawa mainly in its northeastern part. Even though each of the three dominant ethnic groups have continued to maintain their separate identities, Islam and a long history of intermarriage continue to bind them together.

Ekiti State is one of the states in the Southwest geopolitical zone of the country. Like other states of the federation, it is divided into three senato-rial districts and is mainly occupied by the Yoruba tribe, who speak Ekiti dialect. The state is one of the most literate in the country, but the land terrain of the area and its distance from the capital cities explain its high poverty rates compared to neighboring states.

The two sites (communities) were chosen from the selected states. The two communities selected were Ijesamodu-Ekiti in Ekiti State and Sakwaya in Jigawa State. Sakwaya community of Jigawa State has a population of 7,700. It is located to the North of Dutse, the capital of the state. The people of Sakwaya are mainly engaged in crop farming and animal rearing, although there are a few civil servants, who constitute the educated few. The incomes of the people are meager, indeed most of the community members live below the poverty level. The community is governed by the local govern-ment, which is one of the three tiers of government in the country. The criteria for choosing this study community were that Sakwaya community is rural and the people live below the poverty line. Thus, the community inhabitants are representative of the voice of the very poor across the state and the country.

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (14)

The African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 23

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs

South AfricaThe community selection in RSA focused on Motshabi informal settlement in Mangaung Local Municipality and Ganyesa village in Kagisano Local Municipality. The main selection criterion was to ensure that the com-munities chosen were relatively poor and represented the geographically and socially marginalized. Furthermore, one area was chosen as an urban, informal settlement (Motshabi), while the other was a rural village (Gan-yesa). A description of each of these areas is presented below.

Ganyesa is a rural area in the Northwest Province in the Kagisano Local Municipality under the Bophirima District Municipality. The community has some socioeconomic infrastructure such as clinics, schools, and crèches. Regarding access to basic services, the majority of households have access to a pre-paid electricity system, are located within walking distance of a water source, and are provided with ventilated pit latrines for sanitation purposes.7 Although the village is linked via a tarred road to Vryburg, most internal roads are poorly maintained, dirt roads.

Motshabi is one of several informal settlements in and around Mangaung Local Municipality, which comes under Motheo District Municipality in the Free State Province. The settlement is near Mangaung Township in Bloemfontein. Like most informal areas, no official documentation exists regarding the origin and history of Motshabi. Currently, the municipality estimates the number of existing structures to be about 3,500, although ward committee leaders estimate the number to be around 6,500. From the viewpoint of infrastructure and basic services, much remains to be done. In terms of housing, although shacks predominate, some structures are built with corrugated iron, while others are constructed of bricks and mud. There are no proper roads and streets, making access to the area difficult. For access to water resources, the community depends on communal taps or their neighboring residents from one of the RDP houses. For access to sanitation, the community uses pit latrines without ventilation, as well as bucket latrines. For lighting and cooking, the community depends on fuel sources such as paraffin and candles, since there is no electricity supply in the area.

Commonalities of selected communitiesAlthough the six communities selected for the study across the three pilot countries differ in terms of their level of development, they are comparable and demonstrate some commonalities. Being semi-urban and rural com-munities, development in these areas is viewed in terms of the provision

7 Statistics South Africa, 2007: Community Household Survey 2007. Pretoria: StatsSA.

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (15)

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 201124

Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo

of basic socioeconomic infrastructure, as reflected in the interactions with the communities. Moreover, there is a prevalence of poverty in all six com-munities.

4. METHODOLOGY AND DATA

In order to compute the Grassroots Focus Index, the extent of grassroots focus needed to be measured for each of the three dimensions (see section 2.2). In order to facilitate aggregation, the first task was to determine the range of the index. For the purpose of this study, we opted for the range of the indicators and dimensions to be from 0 to 100. Since our sub-indicators had different ranges, it was important to bring them to the same range before aggregation. Our data came from secondary and primary sources, as described in the data section.

We started the creation of the index by determining the values for the sub-indicators. The values of the relevant corresponding indicators were calculated by finding the simple average of the various sub-indicators. After this, we found the arithmetic mean to derive the corresponding dimension index. This was done separately for each of the three dimensions. Thereafter, we computed the GFI using the following formula:

GFI = 1/3 (government/donor responsibility index) + 1/3 (resource mobiliza-tion, management and utilization index) + 1/3 (grassroots influence index)

The indicators in each category were taken as proxies for the relevance and importance of the grassroots in the development programs of each country. A low index value indicates that the grassroots have less influence and prioritization in development activities and efforts. By contrast, the higher the value of the index, the greater the focus of policies, actions, and programs on the grassroots.

Starting with the government/donor responsibility index (dimension A), we proceeded to determine the indexes of the three main themes of responsiveness, empowerment, and political governance. Thereafter, the values for the two indicators of responsiveness – namely, alignment and consultation – were determined separately. Alignment was measured using both secondary and primary data. In the case of primary data, the analysis centered on responses to questions regarding the extent to which govern-ments’ and donors’ development programs and activities were judged to align to grassroots requirements. The responses from both the grassroots and

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (16)

The African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 25

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs

the local development partners were utilized for this. Information pertinent to the consultation indicator was derived from questioning respondents on the extent to which the rural poor were able to enter into dialogue with the government, or to lobby government representatives to express their concern and priorities. The values of the two sub-indicators then weighted equally to determine the value for responsiveness. The values for empowerment and political governance were determined in the same manner. The definition of the variables that contributed to the estimation of the values for each indicator are explained in Tables 2 to 4.

The index for Dimension A is computed as follows:

Government responsibility index = 1/3 (responsiveness index) + 1/3 (em-powerment index) + 1/3 (political governance index)

• Responsiveness index = ½ (Alignment) + ½ (Consultation)• Empowerment index = 1/3 (Information) + 1/3 (Communication) + 1/3

(Participation)• Political Governance index = ¼ (Accountability) + ¼ (Accessibility) + ¼

(Partnership) + ¼ (Transparency)

Once the values for the three indicators for Dimension A were obtained, we determined in a similar manner the index for the two other dimensions. Thereafter, the overall index scores were obtained by summing the aver-age means of the dimensions (Government/donor responsibility; Resource mobilization, management and utilization; and Grassroots influence) as described above. The GFI then assigns each component a score based on the average of the responses to the various indicators of the component.

DataThe data for the construction of the index derived from two main sources. The first source was the rapid appraisal (RA) surveys conducted in two communities in each of the three pilot countries. The RA survey was based on the outcome of Concept Mapping (CM) exercise conducted in the six communities used for the study. Both the CM and RA were conducted for the pilot GFI exercise. The GFI project was executed under a tripartite institutional arrangement involving the African Monitor [AM], Cape Town, as the funding and coordinating institution, the Department of Econom-ics and Centre for Health Systems Research and Development, University of the Free State, [UFS] Bloemfontein, Republic of South Africa; and the Centre for Econometric and Allied Research, [CEAR], University of Ibadan,

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (17)

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 201126

Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo

Nigeria as the consulting/executing institutions. The RA survey was con-ducted simultaneously across the three countries in June 2010.

The CM was used in the analysis of opinions and ideas derived from par-ticipants in Focus Group Discussion (FGD). The FGD, which serves as a qualitative method for gathering information in a community, is primarily used in concept mapping. The conduct of the FGD therefore involves specific steps which must be carefully followed in order for the information gener-ated from the exercise to be useful for CM. The steps involved in the CM process are as follows: preparation through group selection and formulation of focus statement(s); generation of ideas and issues; structuring (ranking and grouping) of issues; representation of ideas and issues; cluster analysis and mapping; interpretation of results; and utilization of ideas and outputs.

The Concept Mapping Focus Group Discussion (CM–FGD) involved 251 grassroots community members and 140 local development actors (state and non-state) across the three countries. Participants in the CM were grouped by sex into different age cohorts (viz., 18–29, 30–49, and 50+). The aim was to facilitate the free and fair expression of opinions from the participants. The ideas generated from the CM were then used to design the RA instruments administered to community people (the grassroots), as well as to local development actors. The RA is a questionnaire-based system generated from the CM exercise. As the name suggests, the RA is designed to be a short and precise instrument for quick validation of ideas gener-ated from the CM. Consequently, the RA instrument was administered in the six communities used for the CM-FGD. In a manner similar to that of the CM, the RA instrument was split into two categories – one for the grassroots people and the other for development actors.

The selection of respondents for the RA was based on purposive sampling. They included two broad types of respondents: (i) individuals within the communities aged 18 years and above, and (ii) local development actors. The local development actors included local counselors, municipal/local government officials, and non-state actors, including community leaders and representatives from NGOs. The individuals within the communities were chosen randomly, amounting to 400 per community with a target ratio of 50:50 male/female. Just as in the case of the CM, the instruments were translated into the local languages of the communities. The data collected from the RA exercises were coded and then used in the construction of the GFI. In total, 2,905 questionnaires were retrieved from the three pilot countries. The respondents comprised 471 local development actors and 2,434 grassroots respondents (Table 5).

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (18)

The African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 27

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs

The secondary data derived from the official records in the different countries, provided by statistical agencies or relevant government ministries, depart-ments and agencies (MDAs). In the case of government data, information was collected from publicly available sources.

Normalization of the dataSince the bulk of data used in the computation of the GFI came from the rapid appraisal survey, there was a need to normalize the responses into a utilizable format. This was achieved by rescaling the raw data to produce an overall score for each country. There are several ways of approaching the problem of data aggregation. The first decision to be taken is the scale that the indicator should take. In regard to the pilot survey, most of the responses were in categorical scales and had to be rescaled to the dimension of the GFI, which is 1–100 for every indicator and for all the communities in the three countries covered in the pilot study.

Most of the data that were used in the computation of the indicators were of the four-scale Likert type. For the purpose of aggregating the scores from the Likert scale as collected from the RA survey, we had to redefine the range. For example for the four-scale data, we defined as follows: 1 = 0, 2 = 33.3, 3 = 66.7 and 4 = 100. In the case of the five-scale data, we rescaled as fol-lows: 1 = 0, 2 =25, 3 =50, 4 = 75 and 5 =100. For the secondary data, most of them already came as percentage values, so we did not need to redefine the range. The index for the various indicators was thereafter constructed on the scale of 0-100 points, where 0 means “have no grassroots focus” and 100 means “have maximum grassroots focus”. It should be noted that responses that were returned as “not applicable” were not included in the aggregated category.

In the computation of the various indicators, we utilized the responses from the RA questionnaire. Since the same questionnaire was administered in all the communities and countries covered, it was possible to make cross-country comparisons. Some of the indicators, especially for the first and second dimensions, were estimated using secondary data. For all practical purposes, we found that much of the official information that we could have utilized to obtain some macroeconomic data, was not available in a form that would adequately reflect grassroots focus. In some cases though, we were able to employ reasonable proxies in the computations. For exam-ple, in order to measure the extent of alignment of grassroots programs in annual government budgets, the proxy used was “the proportion of budget devoted to the provision of social services.” Table A2 in the appendix de-scribes some the secondary data used for computation of the GFI. Because

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (19)

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 201128

Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo

of the possibility of measurement errors, it was necessary to compute the standard errors and confidence intervals in respect of the computed indices, to capture the extent of unreliability or reliability associated with each of the scaled responses (appendix Table A3 provides the standard error and confidence interval estimates for the primary data components of the GFI).

ValidityTo ensure content validity, the indicators were aligned to the specific key questions of the “Road Map.” Furthermore, indicators were designed for each of the questions in the RA exercise in such a way that legitimate infer-ences could be drawn from the responses.

ReliabilitySince most of the data that derived from the RA questionnaire were measur-able on a Likert-type scale, we conducted reliability tests using the Cron-bach’s Alpha reliability coefficient. In all the cases, the reliability indicator was higher than 0.7%, which is generally considered as the threshold for aggregability.

WeightingThe issue of weights required careful consideration of the indicators that contribute most to the grassroots perception of development. Two types of aggregation and weighting can be considered. First is the aggregation of the various indicators to find the subthemes and the aggregation of the subthemes to be used in the main dimensions, before obtaining the aggregate GFI. Since we did not have any empirical basis to work out the relative importance of indicators used for the GFI, equal weights were as-signed to all the indicators. This decision was based on the belief that the Law of Large Numbers (LLN) would tend to minimize the bias implicit in the methodology, over a large number of such applications.

The second aggregation and weighting issue considered the two types of respondents that the questionnaires were administered to – namely, grass-roots and local development actors. Dimension A was based solely on the responses from the local development actors, Dimension C was based solely on the responses obtained from the grassroots themselves, whilst Dimen-sion B was based on the responses from both the grassroots and the local development actors, with each having equal weighting.

Robustness and sensitivityWe also took steps to examine the robustness and sensitivity of the results. For the various indicators, we estimated the confidence interval in order

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (20)

The African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 29

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs

to be sure that our estimates fell within an acceptable range. We also per-formed a sensitivity analysis by giving different weights to the indicators and examining the perturbations in the resulting indices. In doing this, we provided four different estimates of the GFI, using different weighting and aggregation procedures. We found that the results of the computation were stable, especially in relation to the ranking of the countries. The different estimates are presented in Table 7.

5. RESULTS AND FINDINGS

The scores for the different countries are presented for each of the three main dimensions of the index. The first dimension (Dimension A) is Govern-ment/Donor Responsibility, which has three subthemes and ten indicators.

5.1 Dimension A: Government/donor responsibility

The scores for the different indicators under Dimension A are presented in Table 6. Nigeria had the highest score for government responsibility, followed by South Africa and Cameroon. However, there were differences in the country rankings for the underlying indicators. While Nigeria out-performed the other two countries in the three subthemes, South Africa outperformed Cameroon in the Responsiveness and Empowerment indices, while Cameroon outperformed South Africa in the Political Governance index. It should, however, be noted that South Africa had indices of 94.3 and 86.7 for Budget Alignment and Information Dissemination by Govern-ment respectively. Generally, performance was better for Empowerment, with an average index of 70.2 out of 100 for all three countries. The worst performance was for Political Governance, with an average index of 55.5 for all three countries.

5.2 Dimension B: Resource mobilization, management, and utilization

The second dimension of the GFI is Resource Mobilization, Management, and Utilization index. Generally, Nigeria performed better than the other two countries with an index of 38.8, compared to 37.3 and 36.3 for Cameroon and South Africa respectively. It is noteworthy however, that in two of the three subthemes for this dimension, South Africa outperformed Nigeria and Cameroon. The three subthemes were (i) Equity, (ii) Resource Com-mitments and Flows, and (iii) Participatory Budgeting. The scores reveal that the provision of development activities appears to be more equitable

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (21)

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 201130

Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo

in South Africa than in the other two countries. In the same vein, resource commitment and flows are higher in South Africa than in Nigeria or Cam-eroon. This does not necessarily mean that the performance of South Africa is above average. In fact, the index computation reveals that South Africa scored only 18.1 out of 100 for Resource Commitment and Flows, which was the highest of all the pilot countries. Generally, the average index for Resource Mobilization, Management, and Utilization was the lowest of all three dimensions, with an average index of 37.9 for all three countries. Among the three subthemes of this dimension, the three countries performed generally best in terms of the Equity index, and worst in terms of Resource Commitment and Flows.

5.3 Dimension C: Grassroots influence

As with the first two dimensions of the GFI, the third dimension, Grassroots Influence, also has three main subthemes. However, unlike the first two dimensions, where Nigeria outperformed the other two countries, Cam-eroon scores the highest for this index, at 53.1. This makes Cameroon the country where the grassroots wields the greatest influence on development activities, followed by South Africa (52.1), and Nigeria (51.5). Further, all three countries perform better in the subthemes that comprise this dimension than they do for the subthemes in the other two dimensions. Generally, among the three subthemes, the grassroots performed best in relation to the Capacity to Influence, but worst vis-à-vis the Control of the Development Process.

5.4 Composite GFI: Country rankings

In terms of the overall composite GFI, we found that the performance of all the countries was highest for Dimension A, Government/Donor Responsibility. However, Resource Mobilization, Management and Utiliza-tion remains a challenge in all the countries, with the score for each of the countries being lower than the overall average.

Overall, the differences in the performance of the countries across the three main dimensions of the index indicate the strengths and weaknesses of each country. For example, even though there are variations in the performance of each country across the different subthemes and indicators of Government/Donor Responsibility, on average, the Nigerian government’s developmental programs are more grassroots-focused than those of Cameroon and South Africa. Similarly, the results also indicate that South Africa is the most ef-ficient and grassroots-focused in terms of resource mobilization, manage-

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (22)

The African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 31

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs

ment and utilization. Finally, in Cameroon, the grassroots are better able to influence development programs than in either of the other two countries.

5.5 Sensitivity Analysis

For the computation of the index, four alternative weighting scenarios were used, namely: (i) grassroots responses alone; (ii) responses of local actors alone; (iii) responses from both grassroots and local development actors equally; and (iv) 100% weighting for responses of local actors only for Dimension A; 100% weighting for responses of grassroots only for Di-mension C; and 50% weighting for both grassroots and local development actors for Dimension B.

The alternative weightings are used to check the sensitivity of the index. It should be noted that equal weights were allotted to the three main dimen-sions of the index. The results of the overall composite GFI from the four options are presented in Table 7.

6. CONCLUSION

This study has provided information on the construction of a Grassroots Focus Index, based on the results from three pilot countries that were carefully selected as reasonably representative of the continent. The usefulness of the GFI, however, depends firstly, on how quickly its scope can be expanded to cover all the 53 African countries and, secondly, how soon the mechanism can be put in place to ensure its sustainability and regularity.

It is hoped that when the GFI is fully operational, it will assist African governments, their development partners, and other development actors on the need to improve on the grassroots focus of development activities. The GFI has been computed through a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures, using both primary and secondary data. In order to capture as many aspects of grassroots focus as possible, the computed GFI identifies three main dimensions relevant to the grassroots focus in develop-ment activities. In this way, GFI is constructed to include issues that have been neglected by other internationally comparable indices.

Viewed from a methodological viewpoint, the GFI derives its indicators from a Concept Mapping (CM) exercise that has been validated by experts and Local Implementing Partners (LIPs). The LIPs include local develop-ment actors who are most familiar with the terrain, needs, and aspirations

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (23)

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 201132

Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo

of the grassroots. This aspect stands in sharp contrast to other indices, which are computed using quantitative indicators only. Although a quantitative approach renders such indices readily verifiable, they rely completely on the quantifiability of their underlying indicators. In situations where there are missing or unreliable data, the validity of the resulting index is easily distorted. In the case of the GFI, on the other hand, the limitations posed by missing data are minimized or rendered non-existent. This is due to the fact that the data for all the indicators are sourced from the rapid appraisal (RA) survey, with a common instrument that makes for easy and meaning-ful comparability across countries.

The indicators employed in computing the GFI are determined by the grassroots themselves and not based on outside “expert” opinions. As a result, the GFI effectively measures what is important to the grassroots themselves. Other indices such as the Bertelsmann Transformation Index8 or the Open Budget index9 resort to expert opinion. It has been amply demonstrated that expert opinion in many cases fails to incorporate the perceptions of the grassroots themselves. In fact, some indices such as the Open Budget Index rely on a single questionnaire completed by one expert per country. GFI is unique in that the grassroots themselves provide the data for the construction of the index. This brings to the table the voice of the silent majority, who represent the prime beneficiaries of the development effort from which they are often excluded. For this reason, it is crucial to have a means to gauge the extent to which the development effort is (or is not) focusing on their needs, aspirations, and priorities.

The sources of data for the index are based on surveys designed and un-dertaken specifically for the purpose of the GFI. This is in sharp contrast to some other indices such as the World Bank’s Governance Index and the Mo Ibrahim Governance Index,10 or the Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index.11 Such indices are based on secondary data originally intended for other purposes and often obtained from disparate sources. Although indices that derive from disparate data sources may utilize statistical methods geared toward reducing measurement errors, they risk a loss of conceptual precision. This problem may compromise the content and validity provisions of the concept they are trying to measure. Accord-

8 For more on the Bertelsmann Transformation Index, see: <http://www.bertelsmanntransformationindex.de/11.0.html?&L=1>9 For more on the Open Budget Index, see: <www.openbudgetindex.org>10 For the Ibrahim Index, see: <http://www.moibrahimfoundation.org/en/section/the-ibrahim-index>11 For the Corruption Perceptions Index, see: <www.transparency.org/cpi>

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (24)

The African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 33

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs

ing to Ravallion (2010), while the paradigmatic simplicity of such indices may be appealing, yet the meaning, interpretation, and robustness of such measuring instruments may be questionable.

The data for the GFI emanate from the grassroots themselves, and those who are directly working with the grassroots (local development partners). However, a divide may exist between the perceptions of the grassroots and those of the local development partners vis-à-vis development activities, suggesting the need for dialogue and consultation to help bridge the gap. Based on the results of the study, suggestions can be offered to governments and their development partners on ways and means of improving the focus of development activities to meet the needs and aspirations of the grassroots communities. The study can also serve as a basis for identifying areas where governments need to focus greater attention toward resource allocation and distribution.

On the whole, Nigeria appears to have performed better in the study than the other two pilot countries, with an overall index of 53.4 compared with 48.1 and 48.5 for Cameroon and the Republic of South Africa respectively. This ranking differs from a priori expectations of what the ranking should be; in fact, it is the reverse of what most other development indices would suggest. This serves as a strong indicator that the GFI may have succeeded in capturing some important elements of the development process that have been neglected hitherto in top-down development efforts and strategies. Indeed, if greater account were to be taken of these elements, it might alter the present dismal picture of development performance in most, if not in all, developing African economies.

Caveats and limitations of the study

The pilot study did not consider the temporal comparability of the indices, instead it focused on cross-country comparability. The temporal effects will be considered as further rounds of GFI computation are undertaken. Also, the merging of the secondary and primary data remains an issue open to further debate. While the primary data refer to selected communities, the data for secondary data are national in nature. Similarly, since the primary data were collected in selected specific communities and not randomly, the basis for general extrapolation remains tenuous. The cost of ensuring a sufficiently representative coverage to validate further generalization needs to be addressed.

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (25)

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 201134

Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo

In the long term, there should be a concerted effort toward extending the computation of the GFI to all 53 African countries. In the short run, where it is difficult to cover all the countries, it is proposed that the computation be extended to about five countries per geographical subregion of the con-tinent. The importance of the index will be more pronounced as further rounds of indices for different years become available. To this end, it will be important to compute and publish the results of new GFI regularly, possibly every three years. In order to reduce costs, spread the overheads, and promote the participation of as many African governments as possible, African Monitor should explore avenues for working with different statistical agencies in each country. The focus should be to encourage them to include grassroots focus questions in their routine surveys.

REFERENCES

African Child Policy Forum (2008). The African Report on Child Wellbeing: How Child-friendly Are African Governments? Addis Ababa: African Child Policy Forum.

Alkire, S. and J. Foster (2008). “Counting and Multidimensional Poverty.” OPHI Working Paper no. 7. Oxford: Oxford Poverty and Human Develop-ment Initiative. Available online at: <http://www.ophi.org.uk/pubs/OPHI_WP7.pdf>

Aralica, Z. and B. Jelena (2004). “Institutional Development and Good Governance Assessments in Croatia: An Extended Focus on Corruption,” Zagreb International Review of Economics and Business, vol. 7 (Special Con-ference Issue), pp. 17–34.

Bandura, R. (2005). “Measuring Country Performance and State Behavior: A Survey of Composite Indices”, in The New Public Finance – Responding to Global Challenges. New York: United Nations Development Program.

Booysen, Frederik, le R. (2002). “An Overview and Evaluation of Com-posite Indices of Development,” Social Indicators Research, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 115–151.

Brinkerhoff, D. B. (2004). “The Enabling Environment for Implement-ing the Millennium Development Goals: Government Actions to Support NGOs.” Paper presented at the George Washington University Conference, Washington, DC, May 12–13.

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (26)

The African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 35

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs

Chambers, R. (1995). “Poverty and Livelihoods: Whose Realities Count?,” Environment and Urbanization, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 173–204.

Dictz, T. and A. Pfund (1988). “An Impact Identification Method for Development Program Evaluation,” Review of Policy Research, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 137–145.

Economic Commission of Africa (ECA) (2004). The African Gender and Development Index. Addis Ababa: ECA.

Escobar, A. (1994). Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Finsterbusch, K. and W. A. Van Wicklin (1988). “Unanticipated Conse-quences of AID Projects: Lesson from Impact Assessment for Project Plan-ning,” Review of Policy Research, vol. 8, no.1, pp. 126–136.

Ganegodage, K. R., A. N. Rambaldi, D. S. Prasada, and K. Tang (2007). “Analysis of Development Performance Using a Development Index Based on Factor Analysis,” Centre for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis Working Paper Series no. WP05/2006. St. Lucia, Australia: University of Queensland.

Haralambos, M. and M. Holborn (2000). Sociology: Themes and Perspectives, Hammersmith, UK: Harper Collins Publishers.

Heimans, J. (2002). “Strengthening Participation in Public Expenditure Management: Policy Recommendations for Key Stakeholders,” OECD Development Centre Policy Brief No. 22. Paris: OECD.

INS (Institut national de la statistique, Cameroon) (2008) Data available on website: <http://www.statistics-cameroon.org>.

Islam, J., D. Narayan, and L. Pritchett (1995). “Does Participation Improve Performance? Establishing Causality with Subjective Data,” World Bank Economic Review, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 175–200.

Kaufmann, D., A. Kraay, and M. Mastruzzi (2009). “Governance Matters: VIII Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators 1996–2008”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper no. 497. Washington, DC: World Bank.

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (27)

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 201136

Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo

Kaufmann, D., A. Kraay, and M. Mastruzzi (2010). “Response to: What Do the Worldwide Governance Indicators Measure?” European Journal of Development Research, vol. 22, no.1, pp. 55–58.

Klasen, S. (2006). “UNDP’s Gender-related Measures: Some Conceptual Problems and Possible Solutions,” Journal of Human Development Alterna-tive Economics in Action, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 243–274.

Knack, S. and L. Langbein (2010). “The Worldwide Governance Indica-tors: Six, One, or None?,” Journal of Development Studies, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 350–370.

Kundu, A. and N. Sarangi (2004). “ICT and Human Development: Towards Building a Composite Index for Asia,” Realizing the Millennium Develop-ment Goals. Published for the United Nations Development Program, New Delhi: Elsevier.

Mitlin D. and B. Anthony (2006). Social Movements and Chronic Poverty across the Urban–Rural Divide: Concepts and Experience, CPRC Working Paper no. 65. Manchester: Chronic Poverty Research Centre (CPRC).

Morse, S. (2004). Indices and Indicators in Development: An Unhealthy Ob-session with Numbers? London and Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

Nardo, M., M. Saisana, A. Saltelli, S. Tarantola, A. Hoffman, and E. Gio-vannini (2008). “Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Meth-odology and User Guide”, OECD Statistics Working Paper , JT00188147, STD/DOC 3. Paris: OECD.

Olofin, S. O., O. Olaniyan, and A. O. Folawewo (2010). “Criteria for Country and Community Selection for the Construction of Grassroots Focus Index for Africa.” Mimeo. Ibadan: Centre for Econometric and Al-lied Research [CEAR], University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

Ravallion, M. (2010). “Mashup Indices of Development”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper no. 5432. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Reinhart, C. (2002). “Sovereign Credit Ratings before and after Financial Crises,” MPRA Paper no. 7410. Munich: University of Munich Press.

Statistics South Africa (SSA) (2007). Community Survey 2007. Pretoria: StatsSA.

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (28)

The African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 37

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs

Sy, Amadou N. R. (2003). “Rating the Ratings Agencies: Anticipating Cur-rency Crises or Debt Crises?” IMF Working Paper no. 122. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

Tarantola, S. (2008). “Ten Steps to Build Composite Indicators.” Paper presented during the Training Course on “Composite Indicators Develop-ment,” held in Bratislava, October 20–21, 2008.

Teijlingen, E. R., and V. Hundley (2001). “The Importance of Pilot Stud-ies,” Social Research Update , issue 35. Guildford (UK): University of Surrey. Available online at: <http:sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU35.html>

United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (1997). Human Development Report 1977: Human Development to Eradicate Poverty. New York: UNDP.

United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2000). Human Develop-ment Report 2000: Overcoming Human Poverty. New York: UNDP.

United Nations Economic and Social Council (UNESC) (2008). “Millen-nium Development Goals Monitoring: Challenges and Opportunities for African Countries.” Paper presented at the First Meeting of the Statistical Commission for Africa (StatCom-Africa I), Addis Ababa, January 21–24, 2008.

World Bank (2004). Global Development Report: Making Services Work for the Poor. Washington, DC: World Bank.

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (29)

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 201138

Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo

TABLES

Table 1: Main dimensions of the Grassroots Focus Index (GFI)KEY qUESTION DIMEN-

SIONS/MAIN THEMES

NUMBER OF SUBTHEMES

NUMBER OF INDICA-TORS TO BE MEASURED

To what extent have African governments and donors been able to prioritize the grassroots in their development policy priorities and strategies?

1. Govern-ment’s /donors’ responsibilities

3 9

To what extent (where such prioritization occurred) has it led to an effective channeling of resources to grassroots develop-ment by African governments and donors?

2. Resource mobilization, management, and utilization

3 5

To what extent are the grassroots able to meaningfully influence government and donor policies and programs, including re-source commitments and flows?

3.Grassroots influence

3 7

Total Number 3 9 21

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (30)

The African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 39

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs

Tabl

e 2:

Gov

ernm

ent/

dono

r re

spon

sibi

liti

es: i

ndic

ator

s an

d m

easu

rem

ent

SUB

TH

EM

ES

(SU

B- C

ATE

GO

RY

)IN

DIC

ATO

RD

EFI

NIT

ION

AN

D M

EA

SUR

EM

EN

T

A1:

Res

pons

iven

ess

1. A

lignm

ent

Ava

ilabi

lity

of g

rass

root

s pr

ogra

ms

in n

atio

nal d

evel

opm

ent p

lans

Ext

ent o

f alig

nmen

t of g

rass

root

s pr

ogra

ms

in a

nnua

l gov

ernm

ent b

udge

t to

the

3-ye

ar/5

-yea

r de

velo

pmen

t pla

ns

Perc

enta

ge a

lloca

ted

to lo

cal g

over

nmen

t in

the

tota

l gov

ernm

ent b

udge

t

Alig

nmen

t of k

ey d

onor

act

ivit

ies

to th

e go

vern

men

t’s g

rass

root

s pr

ogra

ms

Ext

ent t

o w

hich

gov

ernm

ent’s

dev

elop

men

t pro

gram

s an

d ac

tivi

ties

are

con

sona

nt w

ith

the

prio

riti

es a

nd n

eeds

of t

he g

rass

root

s

2. C

onsu

ltati

onE

xten

t to

whi

ch th

e ru

ral p

oor

can

ente

r in

to d

ialo

gue

wit

h th

e go

vern

men

t or

lobb

y go

vern

-m

ent r

epre

sent

ativ

es to

exp

ress

thei

r co

ncer

ns a

nd p

rior

itie

s on

issu

es c

ruci

al to

thei

r liv

elih

ood

A2:

Em

pow

erm

ent

1. I

nfor

mat

ion

Ext

ent o

f tim

ely

acce

ss to

info

rmat

ion

on g

over

nmen

t act

ivit

ies

by th

e gr

assr

oots

2. C

omm

unic

atio

nE

xten

t to

whi

ch th

e go

vern

men

t com

mun

icat

es to

the

gras

sroo

ts o

n de

velo

pmen

t eff

orts

and

pr

ogra

ms

Ext

ent o

f acc

urac

y of

gov

ernm

ent c

omm

unic

atio

n on

dev

elop

men

t pro

gram

s

3. P

arti

cipa

tion

Ext

ent o

f gra

ssro

ots

part

icip

atio

n in

the

deve

lopm

ent p

roce

ss a

nd g

over

nanc

e

A3:

Pol

itic

al

gove

rnan

ce1.

Acc

ount

abili

tyE

xten

t to

whi

ch g

over

nmen

t is

able

to u

phol

d it

s pr

omis

es to

the

peop

le

Ext

ent t

o w

hich

pol

itic

al le

ader

s/go

vern

men

t are

con

scio

us o

f the

ir d

evel

opm

enta

l obl

igat

ions

to

the

peop

le

2. A

cces

sibi

lity

Ext

ent t

o w

hich

pol

itic

al o

ffice

hol

ders

are

rea

dily

acc

essi

ble

to g

rass

root

s fo

r di

alog

ue o

n de

velo

pmen

t iss

ues

3. P

artn

ersh

ipE

xten

t of c

oope

rati

on a

mon

g de

velo

pmen

t pla

nner

s, a

nd o

ther

sta

keho

lder

s in

fost

erin

g de

vel-

opm

ent a

t the

gra

ssro

ots

4. T

rans

pare

ncy

Ext

ent t

o w

hich

the

gove

rnm

ent i

s ab

le to

sha

re in

form

atio

n w

ith

the

popu

lace

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (31)

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 201140

Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo

The African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 41

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs

Tabl

e 3:

Res

ourc

e m

obil

izat

ion,

man

agem

ent,

and

uti

liza

tion

: ind

icat

ors

and

mea

sure

men

tSU

BT

HE

ME

(S

UB

-CAT

EG

OR

Y)

IND

ICAT

OR

DE

FIN

ITIO

N A

ND

ME

ASU

RE

ME

NT

B1:

Equ

ity

1. A

cces

s to

pub

lic r

esou

rces

an

d m

arke

t bas

ed b

enefi

tsSh

are

of g

over

nmen

t bud

get a

lloca

ted

to e

cono

mic

infr

astr

uctu

re

2. E

cono

mic

opp

ortu

niti

es

and

soci

al s

ervi

ces

Prop

orti

on o

f gov

ernm

ent s

pend

ing

on h

ealth

and

edu

cati

on

B2:

Res

ourc

e C

omm

itm

ent

and

Flow

s

1. M

echa

nism

for

reso

urce

flo

w to

the

gras

sroo

tsSh

are

of n

atio

nal b

udge

t goi

ng to

loca

l gov

ernm

ent

Shar

e of

OD

A g

oing

to s

ubna

tion

al g

over

nmen

ts

2. F

orm

s of

res

ourc

e flo

ws

Shar

e of

res

ourc

es (

budg

et o

r G

DP)

allo

cate

d to

soc

ial s

ervi

ces

Shar

e of

exp

endi

ture

allo

cate

d to

soc

ial s

ervi

ces

Tota

l sha

re o

f OD

A to

soc

ial s

ecto

rs

B3:

Par

tici

pato

ry

Bud

geti

ng1.

Inv

olve

men

t in

budg

et

allo

cati

onE

xten

t to

whi

ch c

omm

unit

y m

embe

rs a

re in

volv

ed in

bud

get a

lloca

tion

and

the

exte

nt to

whi

ch th

eir

view

s co

unt

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (32)

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 201140

Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo

The African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 41

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs

Tabl

e 4:

Gra

ssro

ots

influ

ence

on

gove

rnm

ent

and

dono

r pr

ogra

ms:

indi

cato

rs a

nd m

easu

rem

ent

SUB

TH

EM

E

(SU

B-C

ATE

GO

RY

)IN

DIC

ATO

RD

EFI

NIT

ION

AN

D M

EA

SUR

EM

EN

T

C1:

Cap

acit

y

to in

flue

nce

1. V

oice

Ext

ent t

o w

hich

eth

nic,

rel

igio

us a

nd o

ther

min

orit

ies

have

a r

easo

nabl

e de

gree

of a

uton

omy

and

voic

e in

the

polit

ical

pro

cess

2. C

ompe

tenc

yE

xten

t of c

ompe

tenc

y of

gra

ssro

ots

to p

arti

cipa

te in

the

deci

sion

mak

ing

proc

ess

C2:

Con

trol

of

deve

lopm

ent

proc

ess

1. F

reed

om o

f ch

oice

Ext

ent t

o w

hich

gra

ssro

ots

com

mun

ity

mem

bers

are

abl

e to

exe

rcis

e th

eir

free

dom

of c

hoic

e in

de

velo

pmen

tal p

lann

ing

and

prog

ram

s

2. A

bilit

y to

res

olve

de

velo

pmen

t pro

b-le

ms

Ext

ent t

o w

hich

gra

ssro

ots

com

mun

ity

mem

bers

are

abl

e to

res

olve

dev

elop

men

t pro

blem

s w

ith

gove

rnm

ent

C3:

Gra

ssro

ots

resp

onsi

bilit

y1.

See

k in

form

atio

n on

loca

l dev

elop

-m

ent

Ext

ent t

o w

hich

gra

ssro

ots

com

mun

ity

mem

bers

see

k to

obt

ain

info

rmat

ion

on lo

cal d

evel

op-

men

t iss

ues

2. G

roup

adv

ocac

y an

d en

gage

men

tE

xten

t to

whi

ch g

rass

root

s co

mm

unit

y m

embe

rs e

ngag

e in

dis

cuss

ion

on lo

cal d

evel

opm

ent

wit

h on

e an

othe

r.

Ext

ent t

o w

hich

com

mun

ity

mem

bers

att

end

mee

ting

/for

a at

whi

ch d

evel

opm

ent i

ssue

s ar

e di

scus

sed.

Ext

ent t

o w

hich

com

mun

ity

mem

bers

par

tici

pate

or

belo

ng to

ass

ocia

tion

s an

d gr

oups

that

are

in

volv

ed in

com

mun

ity

deve

lopm

ent

3. L

awfu

l dem

on-

stra

tion

sPr

epar

edne

ss a

nd w

illin

gnes

s of

the

popu

lati

on to

take

par

t in

law

ful d

emon

stra

tion

s

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (33)

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 201142

Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo

Table 5: Description of the respondents to the Rapid Appraisal SurveyCOMMUNITY LOCAL

DEVELOPMENT ACTORS

GRASSROOTS TOTAL

Akonolinga 85 398 483

Fundong 60 407 467

Ijesamodu Ekiti 100 400 500

Sakwaya 90 410 500

Motshabi 58 463 521

Ghanyisa 78 356 434

Total 471 2,434 2,905

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (34)

The African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 43

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs

Tabl

e 6:

Com

posi

te G

rass

root

s Fo

cus

Inde

x fo

r th

e pi

lot

coun

trie

sA

LL

CO

UN

TR

IES

CA

ME

RO

ON

NIG

ER

IASO

UT

H A

FRIC

A

CO

MP

OSI

TE

GFI

50.3

48.1

53.4

48.5

A. G

OV

ER

NM

EN

T/D

ON

OR

R

ESP

ON

SIB

ILIT

Y61

.153

.869

.957

.2

A1:

Res

pons

iven

ess

57.7

46.9

67.7

55.1

1a. B

udge

t Alig

nmen

t76

.066

.867

.094

.3

1b. P

rogr

am A

lignm

ent

54.8

45.5

68.5

47.3

2. C

onsu

ltati

on42

.328

.567

.823

.6

A2:

Em

pow

erm

ent

70.2

61.2

75.6

71.8

1. I

nfor

mat

ion

72.9

56.6

75.7

86.7

2 C

omm

unic

atio

n64

.860

.074

.456

.6

3.Pa

rtic

ipat

ion

72.8

68.3

76.3

72.8

A3:

Pol

itic

al g

over

nanc

e55

.553

.066

.644

.6

1. A

ccou

ntab

ility

51.0

50.9

64.1

35.4

2 A

cces

sibi

lity

55.5

49.5

69.0

45.8

3. P

artn

ersh

ip60

.956

.669

.954

.1

4. T

rans

pare

ncy

54.6

54.8

63.4

43.1

B. R

ESO

UR

CE

MO

BIL

IZAT

ION

, M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T A

ND

UT

ILIZ

ATIO

N37

.937

.338

.936

.3

B1:

Equ

ity

63.0

60.1

61.5

67.4

1. A

cces

s to

pub

lic r

esou

rces

and

m

arke

t bas

ed b

enefi

ts53

.760

.141

.060

.0

2. E

cono

mic

opp

ortu

niti

es a

nd

soci

al s

ervi

ces

72.2

60.0

81.9

74.7

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (35)

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 201144

Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo

The African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 45

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs

AL

L C

OU

NT

RIE

SC

AM

ER

OO

NN

IGE

RIA

SOU

TH

AFR

ICA

B2:

Res

ourc

e C

omm

itm

ent

and

Flow

s16

.316

.814

.118

.1

1. M

echa

nism

for

reso

urce

flow

to

the

gras

sroo

ts9.

97.

915

.06.

7

2. F

orm

s of

res

ourc

e flo

ws

22.7

25.6

13.1

29.5

B3:

Par

tici

pato

ry B

udge

ting

34.4

35.2

41.2

23.3

1. I

nvol

vem

ent i

n bu

dget

allo

ca-

tion

34.4

35.2

41.2

23.3

C. G

RA

SSR

OO

TS

INFL

UE

NC

E51

.953

.151

.552

.1

C1:

Cap

acit

y to

infl

uenc

e62

.265

.556

.464

.6

1. V

oice

64.6

67.0

53.6

72.9

2. C

ompe

tenc

y59

.763

.959

.156

.2

C2:

Con

trol

of

deve

lopm

ent

proc

ess

41.3

43.8

44.0

34.5

1. F

reed

om o

f cho

ice

52.1

52.0

57.1

47.4

2. A

bilit

y to

res

olve

dev

elop

men

t pr

oble

ms.

30.4

35.5

30.9

21.6

C3:

Gra

ssro

ots

resp

onsi

bilit

y52

.350

.049

.557

.3

1. S

eek

info

rmat

ion

on lo

cal d

evel

-op

men

t75

.571

.672

.382

.1

2. G

roup

adv

ocac

y an

d en

gage

-m

ent

41.6

52.3

35.3

37.1

3. L

awfu

l dem

onst

rati

on22

.813

.921

.132

.6

4. V

oter

turn

out

69.5

62.0

69.1

77.3

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (36)

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 201144

Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo

The African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 45

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs

Tabl

e 7:

Alt

erna

tive

est

imat

es o

f the

GFI

usi

ng d

iffe

rent

wei

ghts

TY

PE

OF

WE

IGH

T U

SED

AL

L C

OU

NT

RIE

SC

AM

ER

OO

NN

IGE

RIA

SOU

TH

AFR

ICA

A. U

sing

gra

ssro

ots

resp

onse

s al

one

for

the

com

puta

tion

40.9

43.0

39.7

38.5

B. U

sing

res

pons

es o

f loc

al a

ctor

s al

one

for

the

com

puta

tion

54.1

50.2

59.1

51.7

C. U

sing

res

pons

es fr

om b

oth

gras

sroo

ts

and

loca

l dev

elop

men

t act

ors

equa

lly47

.546

.649

.445

.1

D. U

sing

100

% w

eigh

t for

res

pons

es o

f lo

cal a

ctor

s on

ly fo

r D

imen

sion

A; 1

00%

w

eigh

t for

res

pons

es o

f gra

ssro

ots

only

fo

r D

imen

sion

C; a

nd u

sing

wei

ghti

ngs

equa

lly fo

r D

imen

sion

B (

i.e. 5

0% e

ach

for

both

the

gras

sroo

ts a

nd lo

cal d

evel

op-

men

t act

ors.

50.3

48.1

53.4

48.5

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (37)

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 201146

Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo

The African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 47

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs

AP

PE

ND

ICE

S

Tabl

e A

1: I

ndic

ator

s, c

ompo

nent

s, a

nd d

imen

sion

s of

the

GFI

GR

ASS

RO

OT

S FO

CU

S IN

DE

X (

GFI

)D

IME

NSI

ON

IN

DE

XC

OM

PO

NE

NT

S

(UB

-DIM

EN

SIO

N)

IND

ICAT

OR

GR

ASS

RO

OT

S

FOC

US

IND

EX

A. G

over

nmen

t/

Don

or R

espo

nsib

ility

A1:

Res

pons

iven

ess

1. A

lignm

ent

2. C

onsu

ltati

on

A2:

Em

pow

erm

ent

1. I

nfor

mat

ion

2. C

omm

unic

atio

n

3. P

arti

cipa

tion

A3:

Pol

itic

al g

over

nanc

e1.

Acc

ount

abili

ty

2. A

cces

sibi

lity

3. P

artn

ersh

ip

4. T

rans

pare

ncy

B. R

esou

rce

Mob

iliza

tion

, M

anag

emen

t,

and

Uti

lizat

ion

B1:

Equ

ity

1. A

cces

s to

pub

lic r

esou

rces

and

mar

ket-

base

d be

nefit

s

2. E

cono

mic

opp

ortu

niti

es a

nd s

ocia

l ser

vice

s

B2:

Res

ourc

e co

mm

itm

ent

and

flow

s1.

Mec

hani

sm fo

r re

sour

ce fl

ow to

the

gras

sroo

ts

2. F

orm

s of

res

ourc

e flo

ws

B3:

Par

tici

pato

ry b

udge

ting

1. I

nvol

vem

ent i

n bu

dget

allo

cati

on

C. G

rass

root

s In

flue

nce

C1:

Cap

acit

y to

influ

ence

1. V

oice

2. C

ompe

tenc

y

C2:

Con

trol

of d

evel

opm

ent

proc

ess

1. F

reed

om o

f cho

ice

2. A

bilit

y to

res

olve

dev

elop

men

t pro

blem

s.

C3:

Gra

ssro

ots

resp

onsi

bilit

y1.

See

k in

form

atio

n on

loca

l dev

elop

men

t

2. G

roup

adv

ocac

y an

d en

gage

men

t

3. L

awfu

l dem

onst

rati

on

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (38)

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 201146

Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo

The African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 47

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs

Tabl

e A

2: D

escr

ipti

on o

f sec

onda

ry d

ata

used

in t

he e

stim

atio

nD

imen

sion

Inde

xD

efini

tion

of

the

Seco

ndar

y da

ta c

olle

cted

A1:

Res

pons

iven

ess

1a. B

udge

t Alig

nmen

t Pr

opor

tion

of a

nnua

l gov

ernm

ent b

udge

t dev

oted

to th

e pr

ovi-

sion

of s

ocia

l ser

vice

s

B1:

Equ

ity

1. A

cces

s to

pub

lic r

esou

rces

and

mar

ket b

ased

be

nefit

sPe

r ca

pita

tota

l gov

ernm

ent b

udge

t for

soc

ial s

ervi

ces

2. E

cono

mic

opp

ortu

niti

es a

nd s

ocia

l ser

vice

sPr

opor

tion

of t

he e

mpl

oyed

B2:

Res

ourc

e co

mm

itm

ent

and

flow

s1.

Mec

hani

sm fo

r re

sour

ce fl

ow to

the

gras

sroo

tsSh

are

of n

atio

nal b

udge

t goi

ng to

loca

l gov

ernm

ent

2. F

orm

s of

res

ourc

e flo

ws

Prop

orti

on o

f gov

ernm

ent s

pend

ing

on h

ealth

and

edu

cati

on

C3:

Vot

er t

urno

ut1.

Vot

er tu

rnou

tTu

rnou

t of v

oter

s in

nat

iona

l ele

ctio

n

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (39)

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 201148

Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo

The African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 49

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs

Tabl

e A

3: S

tand

ard

erro

r an

d co

nfide

nce

inte

rval

est

imat

es fo

r D

imen

sion

A: g

over

nmen

t/do

nor

resp

onsi

bili

tyA

LL

CO

UN

TR

IES

CA

ME

RO

ON

NIG

ER

IASO

UT

H A

FRIC

A

Vari

able

Mea

nSt

d.

Err

.

95%

Con

f.

Inte

rval

Mea

nSt

d.

Err

.

95%

Con

f.

Inte

rval

Mea

nSt

d.

Err

.

95%

Con

f.

Inte

rval

Mea

nSt

d.

Err

.

95%

Con

f.

Inte

rval

Low

erU

pper

Low

erU

pper

Low

erU

pper

Low

erU

pper

A2:

Em

pow

er-

men

t70

.20

1.38

67.4

572

.88

61.2

01.

6457

.96

64.4

675

.50

1.53

72.5

978

.62

72.0

31.

9664

.26

72.0

1

Info

rmat

ion

72.9

01.

4370

.10

75.7

156

.60

2.38

51.8

461

.26

75.7

02.

1071

.55

79.8

186

.70

2.43

81.8

591

.48

Com

mun

ica-

tion

64.8

01.

3062

.25

67.3

560

.00

1.96

56.1

363

.88

74.4

01.

8770

.74

78.1

056

.60

2.75

51.2

062

.08

Part

icip

atio

n72

.80

1.41

70.0

275

.57

68.3

02.

5863

.19

73.3

876

.30

2.06

72.2

680

.40

72.8

02.

7967

.34

78.3

6

A3:

Pol

itic

al

Gov

erna

nce

55.5

01.

1753

.22

57.8

252

.93

1.36

50.2

455

.61

66.6

21.

8862

.91

70.3

445

.60

2.44

39.7

649

.44

Acc

ount

abili

ty51

.00

1.20

48.6

453

.41

50.9

21.

3348

.29

53.5

564

.12

1.99

60.1

768

.07

35.4

32.

4430

.59

40.2

8

Acc

essi

bilit

y55

.50

1.16

53.1

957

.74

49.4

61.

4546

.59

52.3

369

.00

1.68

65.6

872

.33

45.7

82.

4340

.96

50.6

2

Part

ners

hip

60.9

01.

2058

.63

63.3

456

.55

1.34

53.9

159

.19

69.9

42.

0565

.90

73.9

854

.12

2.44

49.3

058

.93

Tran

spar

ency

54.6

01.

1152

.43

56.7

854

.78

1.32

52.1

857

.38

63.4

21.

7959

.87

66.9

743

.06

2.46

38.1

847

.93

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (40)

Journal statistique africain, numéro 13, novembre 201148

Sam O. Olofin, Olanrewaju Olaniyan, and Abiodun O. Folawewo

The African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 49

1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots Perception of the Impact of Development Programs

Tabl

e A

4: S

tand

ard

erro

r an

d co

nfide

nce

inte

rval

est

imat

es fo

r co

mpo

nent

s of

gra

ssro

ots

influ

ence

AL

L C

OU

NT

RIE

SC

AM

ER

OO

NN

IGE

RIA

SOU

TH

AFR

ICA

Vari

able

Mea

nSt

d.

Err

.

95%

Con

f.

Inte

rval

Mea

nSt

d.

Err

.

95%

Con

f.

Inte

rval

Mea

nSt

d.

Err

.

95%

Con

f.

Inte

rval

Mea

nSt

d.

Err

.

95%

Con

f.

Inte

rval

Low

erU

pper

Low

erU

pper

Low

erU

pper

Low

erU

pper

C1:

Cap

acit

y to

Infl

uenc

e62

.17

0.75

60.7

063

.65

65.4

31.

1363

.21

67.6

556

.35

1.36

53.6

859

.02

64.2

71.

3561

.63

66.9

1

Voi

ce64

.61

0.70

63.2

465

.98

67.0

01.

0364

.98

69.0

353

.55

1.28

51.0

456

.06

72.2

91.

2169

.91

74.6

8

Com

pete

nce

59.7

40.

8058

.16

61.3

263

.85

1.23

61.4

366

.27

59.1

51.

4456

.32

61.9

856

.24

1.48

53.3

559

.14

C2:

Con

trol

of

Dev

elop

-m

ent

Pro

cess

41.2

20.

5440

.16

42.2

943

.77

0.67

42.4

645

.08

44.0

21.

1641

.75

46.3

034

.52

0.98

32.5

936

.46

Free

dom

52.0

70.

5950

.91

53.2

252

.01

0.73

50.5

853

.45

57.1

11.

2154

.74

59.4

947

.44

1.05

45.3

949

.49

Abi

lity

30.3

70.

5029

.40

31.3

535

.53

0.60

34.3

436

.71

30.9

41.

1128

.76

33.1

121

.61

0.92

19.7

923

.42

C3:

Gra

ss-

root

s R

espo

n-si

bilit

y41

.22

0.54

40.1

642

.29

43.7

70.

6742

.46

45.0

844

.02

1.16

41.7

546

.30

34.5

20.

9832

.59

36.4

6

Seek

info

75.4

90.

5774

.37

76.6

171

.61

0.92

69.8

173

.42

72.3

01.

0970

.17

74.4

382

.08

0.92

80.2

783

.89

Adv

ocat

e41

.64

0.42

40.8

242

.45

52.3

60.

7250

.95

53.7

835

.32

0.71

33.9

236

.71

37.1

10.

5835

.98

38.2

5

Dem

onst

rate

22.7

90.

6021

.60

23.9

713

.94

0.76

12.4

615

.43

21.1

30.

9519

.26

23.0

132

.64

1.22

30.2

535

.04


The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots ... · PDF fileThe African Statistical Journal, Volume 13, November 2011 13 1. The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring

GFI MailEssentials 10 Manual - gfihispana.com· 2 • Explicando GFI MailEssentials GFI MailEssentials 10 Manual Informes GFI MailEssentials incluye un módulo que le permite crear

GFI - SAP Quality

GFI - Oracle Exalytics

GFI - Servicios Extendidos

GFI MailSecurity for Exchange/SMTP 8 Manual· 2004-05-25· GFI MailSecurity es una marca registrada y GFI Software y el logotipo de GFI son marcas registradas de GFI Software Ltd

Gfi preescolar

GFI Workshop

GFI - ITIL-ÚTIL

Engaging and Mobilizing the Grassroots Community: How to Work … and...· Used effectively, grassroots-focused mobilization strategies are perfect to promote community-building

© 2009 - GFI Informatique GFI Informatique Présentation des Résultats Annuels 2008

GFI manuel.pdf

Gfi primaria

Resumo GFI

Gfi secundaria

GFI MailArchiver for Exchange· GFI MailArchiver for Exchange About GFI MailArchiver • 1 About GFI MailArchiver Introduction to GFI MailArchiver GFI MailArchiver is a powerful

Proiect Gfi

GFI - Folleto Corporativo

GFI - Omnicommerce

GFI - FIT4Green

Capacity Development Of Grassroots Networks To Become ...· a grassroots organizational network focused on organizations working on housing related concerns and WEDO, a global network

GFI MailArchiver for Exchange 3 Manuale - gfi-italia.com· 4 • Come funziona GFI MailArchiver? GFI MailArchiver for Exchange Come funziona GFI MailArchiver? GFI MailArchiver si

Aplicatii GFI

GFI Brazil 2012

KerioControl - GFI

A grassroots sustainable energy niche? Reflections on community …· 2016-03-04· Grassroots innovations Most niche analyses to date have focused on market contexts and business-led

GFI InformeAnual2013V

GFI - MutuaTerrassa

GFI Proiect.docx

Installing GFI FAXmaker - gfihispana.com· 12 • Installing GFI FAXmaker GFI FAXmaker 14.3 for Exchange/Lotus/SMTP • Disable anti-virus software from scanning the GFI FAXmaker

GFI MailArchiver for Exchange Outlook Connector Handbuch· GFI MailArchiver Outlook Connector Einleitung 1 Einleitung Informationen zu GFI MailArchiver GFI MailArchiver ist eine

The Grassroots Focused Index (GFI): Measuring Grassroots - [PDF Document] (2024)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Melvina Ondricka

Last Updated:

Views: 6132

Rating: 4.8 / 5 (68 voted)

Reviews: 91% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Melvina Ondricka

Birthday: 2000-12-23

Address: Suite 382 139 Shaniqua Locks, Paulaborough, UT 90498

Phone: +636383657021

Job: Dynamic Government Specialist

Hobby: Kite flying, Watching movies, Knitting, Model building, Reading, Wood carving, Paintball

Introduction: My name is Melvina Ondricka, I am a helpful, fancy, friendly, innocent, outstanding, courageous, thoughtful person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.