with them. In a Type A ordering of different constraints, it is essential that a unique value be assigned to each constraint. In a Type B ranking of constraints, it is important to have a reasonable dispersion of responses. If a firm ranks every constraint a 5, it conveys no useful information about the relative importance of the constraints. In that case, it may help to ask about which constraints really deserve a "6" and work backwards from there.

Questionnaires are usually divided into sections, beginning with simple (and safe) background information, and moving to a series of substantive areas of the designer's choosing, such as "regulation", "finance", and "infrastructure". A typical sequence of questions would move from the general to the specific to the comparative. For example, a section of a questionnaire on regulation, often begins with an open-ended question, such as: _What areyour three worstproblems with regulation and regulatory agencies? This_ allows an unbiased overi.ew of what is bothering firms, before you bias that view by suggesting specific issues of concern. Next, detaileci questions, combining short answer questions and multiple choice, cover the specifics of your agenda. Finally, either at the end of each section or at the end of the entire survey, a ranking question can elicit the relative importance of the constraints you have just discussed. The Kenya survey employed a nested approach. Each section of the questionnaire ended with a question like the one regulation shown in the final box of Table II. Then, at the end, each category of constraints was compared in a final ranking question, that also added general constraints not covered in the detailed sections of the survey preceding: _KENYA SUMMARY QUESTION: Which of the following are the most important obstacles to your future operation or expansion?'_

|||_No Obstacle_<br>_Moderate_|_Very severe_<br>_Obstacle_|
|---|---|---|---|
|_1._|_Problens related to procurement and sales_|_1_<br>_2_<br>_3_|_4_<br>_5_|
|_2._|_Problems related to technology and production_|_1_<br>_2_<br>_3_|_4_<br>_5_|
|_3._|_Financing problems_|_1_<br>_2_<br>_3_|_4_<br>_5_|
|_4._|_Problems stemming from regulations_|_1_<br>_2_<br>_3_|_4_<br>_5_|
|_5._|_Insufficient business services_|_1_<br>_2_<br>_3_|_4_<br>_5_|
|_6._|_Infrastructure problems (lan4 power, water, etc.)_|<br>_1_<br>_2_<br>_3_|_4_<br>_5_|
|_7._|_Political and policy uncertainty_|_1_<br>_2_<br>_3_|_4_<br>_5_|
|_8._|_Inflation or prce uistability_|_1_<br>_2_<br>_3_|_4_<br>_5_|
|_9._|_Access to foreign exchange_|_1_<br>_2_<br>_3_|_4_<br>_5_|

Nesting allows you to cover greater detail within each category. If your goal is to having something of policy relevance to say about every topic, nesting may be of advantage.

By contrast, the Brazil-Chile questionnaire used a single summary question at the end to elicit the relative importance of a range of 20 constraints. One advantage of a longer list at the end is the ability to compare particular aspects of one problem with particular aspects of another.' something the nesting structure obscures. A second advantage is that most of the other country studies to date utilized a long final list. It may be helpful to know how constraint patterns compare to other countries in the region or the world. (It would certainly contribute to research efforts seeking to compare these studies.) Table III presents an example of one of these longer lists.

4 On the actual survey, there must be much more spacing between each constraint, so that if the surveyor is a bit sloppy, there is no ambiguity about which score goes with which constraint.

**S** For example, in Table HI, you can compare the importance of scarcity of competent workers, a labor market issue, with tax bureaucracy, a regulatory issue.