metadata: authors: 0: author: Grosvenor-Alsop,Ruth Janice
1: author: Heinsohn,Nina
count: World
docna: 0: docna: Measuring empowerment in practice:
            structuring analysis and framing indicators
docty: Policy Research Working Paper
subtopic: Judicial System Reform,Sanitation and Sewerage,Engineering,Educational Sciences,Social Development & Poverty,Water and Human Health,Water Supply and Sanitation Economics,Sanitary Environmental Engineering,Small Private Water Supply Providers,Environmental Engineering,Health and Sanitation,Inequality,Town Water Supply and Sanitation
teratopic: Gender
abstracts: cdata!: This paper presents an analytic
            framework that can be used to measure and monitor
            empowerment processes and outcomes. The measuring
            empowerment (ME) framework, rooted in both conceptual
            discourse and measurement practice, illustrates how to
            gather data on empowerment and structure its analysis. The
            framework can be used to measure empowerment at both the
            intervention level and the country level, as a part of
            poverty or governance monitoring. The paper first provides a
            definition of empowerment and then explains how the concept
            can be reduced to measurable components. Empowerment is
            defined as a person's capacity to make effective
            choices; that is, as the capacity to transform choices into
            desired actions and outcomes. The extent or degree to which
            a person is empowered is influenced by personal agency (the
            capacity to make purposive choice) and opportunity structure
            (the institutional context in which choice is made). Asset
            endowments are used as indicators of agency. These assets
            may be psychological, informational, organizational,
            material, social, financial, or human. Opportunity structure
            is measured by the presence and operation of formal and
            informal institutions, including the laws, regulatory
            frameworks, and norms governing behavior. Degrees of
            empowerment are measured by the existence of choice, the use
            of choice, and the achievement of choice. Following the
            conceptual discussion and the presentation of the analytic
            framework, this paper illustrates how the ME framework can
            be applied, using examples from four development
            interventions. Each example discusses how the framework
            guided analysis and development of empowerment indicators.
            The paper also presents a draft module for measuring
            empowerment at the country level. The module can be used
            alone or be integrated into country-level poverty or
            governance monitoring systems that seek to add an
            empowerment dimension to their analysis.
repnme: repnme: Measuring empowerment in practice:
            structuring analysis and framing indicators
display_title: Measuring empowerment in practice:
            structuring analysis and framing indicators
listing_relative_url: /research/2005/02/5642253/measuring-empowerment-practice-structuring-analysis-framing-indicators
topicv3: Social Inclusion m1326031 421,Justice m1326106 840,Sanitation m1326453 2000,Poverty m1326687 695,Education m1327048 470
publishtoextweb_dt: 2010-07-01T00:00:00Z
historic_topic: Gender
no_of_pages: 123
author_keys: 0: author_key: 428278
1: author_key: 663514
model_extractions: # **Measuring Empowerment in Practice:**

**Structuring Analysis and Framing Indicators**

Ruth Alsop Nina Heinsohn

## World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3510, February 2005

_The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the view of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent. Policy Research Working Papers are available online at http://econ.worldbank.org._ 1
# **Contents**

|1.<br>A Framework for Understanding and Measuring Empowerment..................... 6|
|---|
|1.1<br>Agency.............................................................................................................. 8|
|1.2<br>Opportunity Structure ....................................................................................... 9|
|1.3<br>Degrees of Empowerment............................................................................... 10|
|1.4<br>Where Empowerment Takes Place—Domains and Levels ............................ 11|
|1.4.1<br>Domains.................................................................................................... 12|
|1.4.2<br>Levels........................................................................................................ 13|
|1.5<br>The Framework Summarized.......................................................................... 14|
|2.<br>Using the Framework...................................................................................... 15|
|2.1<br>Applications.................................................................................................... 15|
|2.2<br>Examples of Application in Interventions ...................................................... 16|
|2.2.1<br>Applying the Framework in Ethiopia: The Women’s Development|
|Initiatives Project (WDIP) ........................................................................................ 17|
|The Project............................................................................................................ 17|
|Measuring Empowerment in WDIP...................................................................... 18|
|2.2.2<br>Applying the Framework in Nepal: The Measuring Empowerment and|
|Social Inclusion (MESI) Study................................................................................. 19|
|The Project............................................................................................................ 19|
|Measuring Empowerment in RWSS..................................................................... 20|
|2.2.3<br>Applying the Framework in Honduras: The Community-Based Education|
|Project (Proyecto Hondureño de Educación Comunitaria, PROHECO).................. 21|
|The Project............................................................................................................ 21|
|Measuring Empowerment in PROHECO............................................................. 22|
|2.2.4<br>Applying the ME Framework in Mexico.................................................. 24|
|The Project............................................................................................................ 24|
|Applying the Framework in the Lifelong Learning Project.................................. 24|
|2.3<br>Applying the Framework within a National Survey....................................... 26|
|2.3.1<br>Agency and Opportunity Structure........................................................... 27|
|2.3.2<br>Degrees of Empowerment......................................................................... 28|
|<br>2.3.3<br>Application at the National Level............................................................. 28|
|3.<br>Summary......................................................................................................... 29|
|Reference List................................................................................................................... 32|

2
# **List of Boxes**

|Box 1. The Effect of Education on Other Assets............................................................... 8|
|---|
|Box 2. Relationship Between Formal and Informal Institutions ....................................... 9|
|Box 3. The Importance of Assets and Opportunity Structure to Effective Political Choice|
|in India .............................................................................................................................. 11|
|Box 4. School Council Empowerment—Variables ......................................................... 23|
|Box 5. Household and Community Empowerment—Variables...................................... 23|
|**List of Annexes**|
|Annex 1. Approaches to Measuring Empowerment........................................................ 35|
|Annex 2. Intervention-Level Indicators of Empowerment.............................................. 43|
|Table 1. Empowerment Indicators, Ethiopia Women’s Development Initiatives<br>Project ............................................................................................................ 43|
|Table 2. Empowerment Indicators, Nepal Rural Water and Sanitation Project .......... 49|
|Table 3. Empowerment Indicators, Honduras Community Based Education Project. 55|
|Table 4. Empowerment Indicators, Mexico Lifelong Learning Project ...................... 59|
|Annex 3. Empowerment Themes and Strategies in Selected PRSPs............................... 59|
|Annex 4. National-Level Indicators of Empowerment.................................................... 62|
|Table 1. Intermediate Indicators of Empowerment: Agency....................................... 63|
|Table 2. Intermediate Indicators of Empowerment: State Domain ............................. 65|
|Table 3. Intermediate Indicators of Empowerment: Market Domain.......................... 73|
|Table 4. Intermediate Indicators of Empowerment: Society Domain ......................... 75|
|Table 5. Direct Indicators of Degrees of Empowerment............................................. 77|
|Annex 5. Draft National Survey Empowerment Module ................................................ 83|
|Table 1. Summary of Survey Module and Institutional Mapping Themes and Tools. 86|

3
# **ABSTRACT**

This paper presents an analytic framework that can be used to measure and monitor empowerment processes and outcomes. The measuring empowerment (ME) framework, rooted in both conceptual discourse and measurement practice, illustrates how to gather data on empowerment and structure its analysis. The framework can be used to measure empowerment at both the intervention level and the country level, as a part of poverty or governance monitoring.

The paper first provides a definition of empowerment and then explains how the concept can be reduced to measurable components. Empowerment is defined as a person’s capacity to make effective choices; that is, as the capacity to transform choices into desired actions and outcomes. The extent or degree to which a person is empowered is influenced by personal agency (the capacity to make purposive choice) and opportunity structure (the institutional context in which choice is made). Asset endowments are used as indicators of agency. These assets may be psychological, informational, organizational, material, social, financial, or human. Opportunity structure is measured by the presence and operation of formal and informal institutions, including the laws, regulatory frameworks, and norms governing behavior. Degrees of empowerment are measured by the existence of choice, the use of choice, and the achievement of choice.

Following the conceptual discussion and the presentation of the analytic framework, this paper illustrates how the ME framework can be applied, using examples from four development interventions. Each example discusses how the framework guided analysis and development of empowerment indicators. The paper also presents a draft module for measuring empowerment at the country level. The module can be used alone or be integrated into country-level poverty or governance monitoring systems that seek to add an empowerment dimension to their analysis.

4
# **Measuring Empowerment in Practice:**

# **Structuring Analysis and Framing Indicators**

Empowerment—that is, enhancing an individual’s or group’s capacity to make choices and transform those choices into desired actions and outcomes—is an increasingly familiar term within the World Bank and many other development agencies.<sup>1</sup> Targeting practitioners engaged in the analysis of projects and policies that have empowerment components, this paper provides guidance on how to unpack the concept in order to measure related processes and outcomes.<sup>2</sup> First recognized by the Bank in its _World Development Report 2000/2001_ (World Bank 2000b) as one of the three pillars of poverty reduction, empowerment is now found in the documentation of over 1,800 World Bank-aided projects, and it is the subject of debate and analytic work within the development community (see annex 1 for a summary of efforts to measure empowerment).<sup>3</sup> Despite growing interest and increased investments in empowerment, the development of instruments and indicators with which to monitor and evaluate empowerment processes and outcomes is still at an early stage. Project teams and governments still lack the tools necessary for determining whether and how projects and policies aimed at empowering stakeholders reach their intended goals. This paper presents such an analytic framework. Rooted in both the theory and the practice of measuring empowerment, the framework demonstrates how practitioners can structure their approach to gathering and analyzing empowerment data. This paper also provides examples of indicators useful for tracking empowerment at both the project level and the country level.

The first section of this paper presents and explains components of the measuring empowerment (ME) framework. Section 2 illustrates how this framework has been interpreted and applied to projects in four countries. Corresponding empowerment indicators are presented in annex 2. The section also discusses using the framework to

> 1 The term empowerment is commonly used to indicate both a process (of empowering groups or individuals) and an outcome (a person or group is empowered).

2 This paper is an interim product of PRMPRs work on measuring empowerment. It supports and draws on evidence from a five-country study currently underway and managed by PRMPR. Country cases are managed by Lynn Bennett (Nepal), Arianna Legovini (Ethiopia), Mike Walton (Brazil), Mike Woolcock (Indonesia), and Emanuela di Gropello/Nina Heinsohn (Honduras). These task managers are working in collaboration with the following international and local consultants: Kishor Gajural, Kim Armstrong and Sandra Houser (Nepal), the Ethiopian Economic Association (Ethiopia), Gianpaolo Baiocchi, Shubham Chaudhuri, Patrick Heller and the Centro de Assessoria e Estudios Urbanos (Brazil), Patrick Barron, Leni Dharmawan, Claire Smith, Rachael Diprose, Lutfi Ashari, Adam Satu, and Saifullah Barwani (Indonesia), and ESA Consultores (Honduras). For additional information please visit: www.worldbank.org/empowerment/.

> 3 Following the publication of the _World Development Report 2000-2001_ , the World Bank launched _Empowerment and Poverty Reduction: A Sourcebook_ (Narayan 2002), an initial attempt to define and explain the concept of empowerment. The work presented in this paper compliments the _Sourcebook_ by providing a tool for analyzing and measuring empowerment. It also compliments the Bank’s work on measuring social capital.

5
enhance national sample surveys. Annex 3 shows empowerment themes and strategies in selected Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, and national-level empowerment indicators are presented in annex 4. A preliminary survey module comprises annex 5.

# 1. A Framework for Understanding and Measuring Empowerment

If a person or group is empowered, they possess the capacity to make _effective_ choices; that is, to translate their choices into desired actions and outcomes. In a five-country study on measuring empowerment currently overseen by the World Bank’s empowerment team, it is assumed that degrees of empowerment can be measured. As figure 1 illustrates, this capacity to make an effective choice is primarily influenced by two sets of factors: agency and opportunity structure.<sup>4</sup> Agency is defined as an actor’s ability to make meaningful choices; that is, the actor is able to envisage options and make a choice.<sup>5</sup> Opportunity structure is defined as the formal and informal contexts within which actors operate. Working together, these factors give rise to different degrees of empowerment. For example, a farmer in India chose to take out a Bank loan to finance a lift irrigation system, but the process for obtaining the loan required that he—an illiterate person—complete 20 forms, offer all his land as collateral, and obtain a lawyer to verify that he owned title to the land. The farmer’s choice was well informed and economically viable, but the opportunity structure—in this case the regulations concerning procurement—was an obstacle in his ability to make his choice effective.<sup>6</sup> Figure 1. The Relationship between Outcomes and Correlates of Empowerment <!-- Start of picture text --> A g e n c y<br>D e g re e o f D e v e lo p m e n t<br>E m p o w e rm e n t O u tc o m e s<br>O p p o rtu n ity<br>S tru c tu re<br><!-- End of picture text --> 4 Among other authors, this framework and its subsequent development owe much to the work of Bennett (2003); Kabeer (1999); Krishna (2003); Malhotra et al. (2002); Sen (1985) and (1992); and Smulovitz, Walton, and Petesch (2003). Readers are referred in particular to the Bennett and Smulovitz papers for a discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of this framework.

5 This understanding of agency is similar to Appudarai’s (2001) concept of the “capacity to aspire,” defined as the ability to express preferences and make choices that are associated with leading a good life. Nussbaum (2001) argues that people’s preferences can be manipulated by tradition or intimidation. Sen (1992) also argues that the consciousness of the less powerful can be manipulated to the extent that they “accept the legitimacy of the unequal order.” 6 Srijan (1999).

6
Similarly, a woman in Benin chose to send her daughters to school, but she faced opposition from her husband, who saw this as a poor investment. She was also discouraged by the school staff, who adhered to the dominant social maxim that educating girls is a waste of time because their value lies in their roles as wives and mothers. This woman’s capacity to make an effective choice was not limited by any formal opportunity structure—no official laws or rules prohibited girls from enrolling in schools.<sup>7</sup> Instead, she confronted an informal—social—element of the opportunity structure.

Agency and opportunity structure are hypothesized to associate with the degree of empowerment a person or group experiences.<sup>8</sup> Degrees of empowerment (DOE) can be measured by assessing (1) whether a person has the opportunity to make a choice, (2) whether a person actually uses the opportunity to choose, and (3) once the choice is made, whether it brings the desired outcome. For example, if the woman in Benin wants to send her daughter to school, is there a school for the daughter to go to? If yes, does the women actually make the decision to send her daughter to school? If yes, does the daughter actually attend school?

Finally, figure 1 suggests a relationship between empowerment and development outcomes. While we currently have much anecdotal and case study evidence to suggest an instrumental purpose in empowering people, robust data demonstrating a clear association between empowerment and development outcomes are hard to find. There are plenty of data available on the association between intermediary indicators of empowerment—agency and opportunity structure—and development outcomes. However, because of a paucity of data on direct indicators of empowerment, the relationship between empowerment and development outcomes remains a hypothesis. In the case of the Indian farmer above, we have evidence that once obstacles in the opportunity structure and his inability to read were removed, he was able to take out a loan. In short, he was able make his choice effective; he became empowered. We also have evidence that his investment in the lift irrigation system increased his income and the well-being of his household. In other words, his empowerment had a direct impact on poverty or development outcomes. However, this and other examples remain isolated cases, and further empirical work is needed to establish the causal links and returns to investing in empowerment.

> 7 Khadija Alia Bah, personal communication with author, March 2004.

> 8 As figure 1 indicates, agency and opportunity structure, on the one hand, and degrees of empowerment, on the other, are assumed to be in a reciprocal relationship. The better a person’s assets and the more favorable their opportunity structure, the higher the framework expects their DOE to be. Similarly, enhancements in a person’s DOE are expected to enhance assets and opportunity structure. For example, the higher a woman’s assets and the more favorable her opportunity structure, the more likely she is to take effective action against an abusive husband. In taking effective action, the woman might increase her assets (her self-confidence, awareness of women’s rights) and also contribute to changes in the opportunity structure (the more women become empowered to act against abusive husbands, the less likely domestic abuse will remain an accepted practice).

7
The simple illustrations above demonstrate the relationship between key elements of the framework used in this paper to measure empowerment. In the following sections, we unpack these elements into measurable indicators.

# 1.1 Agency

How can agency—the capacity to make meaningful choice—be measured? In the fivecountry study, and increasingly in other project monitoring systems, _asset endowments_ are used as indicators of agency. These assets can be psychological, informational, organizational, material, social, financial, or human.

Some assets are easier to measure than others. For example, it is easier to quantify human assets (such as skills or literacy) than psychological assets (such as the capacity to envision) or social assets (such as social capital).<sup>9</sup> The indicators drawn from country experience and discussed later in this paper demonstrate that quantifying all types of assets is manageable; however, collecting certain types of data requires a mixed-methods approach.

Understanding the complex interaction among assets also presents challenges. The endowment of a single asset, such as ownership of land, can affect a person’s ability to make meaningful choices. In addition, as box 1 shows, an actor’s or group’s command over one asset can affect the endowment of another asset. For example, education (a human asset) often gives an actor greater access to information (itself an asset) and at times improves his/her capacity to envision alternative options (a psychological asset). In this case, all three assets contribute to an actor’s capacity to make meaningful choices. Therefore, data have to be gathered on a range of assets, and analysis can, if relevant, test for the effects of one asset on another as well as for their effects on empowerment outcomes.

## **Box 1.  The Effect of Education on Other Assets**

The Institute for Adult Education (INEA) in Mexico provides literacy training and basic education to young disadvantaged adults who have not attended or have dropped out of the formal school system. Student testimony indicates that enrollment in INEA programs has not only improved their education levels but has also provided them with other skills and assets. Students mention, for example, that being able to read and write has enhanced their levels of self-confidence and that, as a result, they are less hesitant to voice opinions and speak in public.

INEA courses also provide students with access to information. Women learn, for example, that domestic violence is an infringement of their rights and that they are entitled to seek help or redress. Coupled with increased self-confidence, an empowered INEA student might to take action to stop abuse. Providing a platform of interaction, INEA schools also contribute to a community’s level of social capital. Studying together, students learn to trust each other and develop friendships and networks of support.

_Source:_ Heinsohn 2004.

> 9 Alkire (2004) surveys a series of subjective measures of agency; that is, measures that capture people’s self-evaluation of whether or not they are free to act as agents. There is also a rich literature available on measuring social capital (see <u>www.worldbank.org/socialcapital). The tools these literatures describe</u> illustrate the practical difficulties of measurement.

8
# 1.2 Opportunity Structure

As demonstrated by the earlier examples from India and Benin, an actor’s opportunity structure is shaped by the presence and operation of formal and informal institutions, or rules of the game. These include the laws, regulatory frameworks, and norms governing people’s behavior.<sup>10</sup> The presence and operation of the formal and informal laws, regulations, norms, and customs determine whether individuals and groups have access to assets, and whether these people can use the assets to achieve desired outcomes.<sup>11</sup> As with assets, there is likely to be interaction among different types of institutions. In India, for example, the 1992 constitutional amendments reserving seats for women representatives has, in many places, been less than entirely successful because social norms that govern women’s public behavior undermine women’s capacity to operate as political leaders.<sup>12</sup> Changes in legislation, such as these constitutional amendments and subsequent State Acts, often pre-date changes in practice.

## **Box 2.  Relationship Between Formal and Informal Institutions**

Most rural people in Ethiopia continue to apply customary laws to their economic and social relationships. This is most apparent, and perhaps most damaging, in the ways in which customary conflict resolution mechanisms and the civil courts are legally integrated. While in theory this integration was meant to enable citizens to retain their ethnic and religious identities, in practice it has reinforced damaging attitudes and customs toward women. Article 34(7) of the Constitution reserves the option to adjudicate disputes related to personal matters in accordance with religious or customary laws, rather than under the civil code, if the parties to the disputes agree. In practice, personal disputes, particularly between men and women, are frequently directed to traditional adjudication mechanisms by the choice of men, without the consent of women. In Muslim areas, if a husband goes to the _Sharia_ court first to institute divorce proceedings, then the wife often does not have recourse to the civil court (World Bank 2004 draft). Focus group discussions among Orthodox Christians in Addis Ketama also note that if there is a conflict between husband and wife, the case is first handled by a traditional court. They note that even if one goes directly to formal courts, the case would be passed to traditional courts (Legovini 2004).

Testimony from a 32-year-old, well educated, head of the _kebele_ women’s association shows how damaging this situation can be for women: “My husband does not give me enough money for household expenses. ... He gets drunk every night and disturbs our peace. One day I had had enough and told him to leave the house, which I own. Surprisingly, the community leaders said I should leave the house. ... At the end, I had no choice but to continue living with him” (Legovini 2004). This was a repeated theme, even in many cases from men: traditional courts are the first recourse, and they generally favor men.

_Source:_ Kurey and Alsop, forthcoming.

10 Note that this study clearly differentiates between institutions and organizations. Where referenced, organizations are defined as groups of individuals, bound by a common purpose, involving a defined set of authority relations and dedicated to achieving objectives within particular rules of the game (derived from North 1990, and Uphoff 1986).

11 In addition to the authors listed in footnote 4, the institutional nature of power and agency is also recognized in the work of Freire (1973) and Fals Borda (1988). This conceptualization also fits with the World Bank’s _Empowerment Sourcebook_ , which states that powerlessness is embedded in the nature of institutional relations.

12 However, without the force of the constitution, women would have experienced a much longer and harder fight to enter and operate effectively in the political arena.

9
As box 2 illustrates, in Ethiopia, where the government is trying to empower citizens, the implementation of formal institutions (laws and acts) directly conflicts with many of the traditional informal institutions (social norms and customs) of some disadvantaged groups, such as women and pastoralists.

Measuring opportunity structure involves analyzing the presence and the operation of formal and informal institutions. Collecting and analyzing data may require a mixedmethods approach. For example, information on the presence of particular legislation can be drawn from secondary sources, but data on the actual operation of that formal institution within a particular community would likely require interviews with a range of respondents. Gathering data on the presence and operation of informal institutions may require a similar dual approach. Because understanding social norms often involves gathering personal or sensitive information, it will likely require a mix of interviewing techniques, both questionnaires and semi-structured interviewing, for example. It may also be important to take preliminary results back to key stakeholders for verification and discussion of anomalies or options for responding to undesirable findings.

# 1.3 Degrees of Empowerment

Measurement of assets and institutions provides intermediary indicators of empowerment. Direct measures of empowerment can be made by assessing:

1. Whether an opportunity to make a choice exists (existence of choice).

2. Whether a person actually uses the opportunity to choose (use of choice).

3. Whether the choice resulted in the desired result (achievement of choice).

To illustrate, if a team were trying to assess the degree of political empowerment of women, it would need to gather information on (1) whether opportunities for political participation exist, such as whether elections are held, and, if so, (2) whether women attempt to vote; and (3) whether they actually vote.

For several reasons, including the geographic, social, or economic positioning of a person or group, the opportunity to make a desired choice may not exist. Turning again to the woman from Benin who wants to send her daughter to school, determining whether she had viable options could involve gathering information on whether or not an accessible school existed. If it did, the option would exist. If an accessible school did not exist, neither would the option.

The use of choice involves measuring whether or not a person or group takes advantage of an opportunity to choose. If a school exists, does the woman from Benin choose to send her daughter there? In this case, the woman’s choice can be explored by analyzing the association between her agency (measured by assets) and her opportunity structure (measured by the presence and operation of institutions).

The achievement of choice is a measure of how far a person or group is able to achieve their desired outcome. If the woman in Benin has the option to send her daughter to 10
school, and if she makes that choice, does her daughter actually attend school? If an outcome needs explaining, the ME framework suggests collecting data on assets and institutions as these are the factors most strongly associated with empowerment.

Taken from empirical work on inclusion in local elected bodies in India, box 3 illustrates the complex relationships between assets and opportunity structure.

- 1.4 Where Empowerment Takes Place—Domains and Levels

Using agency and opportunity structure to frame analysis of empowerment is helpful, but leads to two further questions. First, does a person’s capacity to make effective choices vary according to _what_ he or she is doing? Second, does empowerment vary according to the _level_ at which a person is acting? As box 3 illustrates, the answer to both questions is yes.

# **Box 3.  The Importance of Assets and Opportunity Structure to Effective Political Choice in India**

[Elected] representatives who are landless participate [in local elected body meetings] to a significantly lesser extent than those who own some land. As the landless are dependent economically, they are therefore less likely to raise dissenting opinions against their potential employers in the village—a conclusion that is also supported by case study data. Education and access to information also significantly associate with participation among elected representatives. Every additional year of education tends on average to raise representatives’ participation by more than two-and-a-half percentage points. A representative who has ten years of education scores on average 27 percentage points higher on this scale compared to another who has no formal education. Similarly, higher access to information is associated with greater participation among representatives by almost three percentage points, on average, for each additional source of information that they consult.

Respondents stated that individual benefits [from the elected body—the Panchayat] could be accessed only by people who had a relationship with the Sarpanch’s [president’s] family. Such relationships were based on frequent labor work for the Sarpanch and kin, purchasing goods from shops owned by them, and voting in their favor. A scheduled tribe [low social status] wardpanch said that he had no powers, but that he “and other wardpanches have to go along with whatever the Patidars (the caste group of the Sarpanch) decide in the Panchayat as many of them are dependent on the Patidars for labor.... Many village people are dependent on the Patidars for their livelihoods.” The people who feel that they are excluded from the individual benefits of the Panchayat say they lack the awareness of what to do to change the situation and do not know to whom they should turn outside the Panchayat.

_Source:_ Alsop, Sjoblom, and Krishna 2001.

An Indian woman will experience a form of empowerment when she is trying to exercise choice over domestic resources within the household different from that which she will experience when in a bank trying to access a loan. Her experiences will also differ according to whether she is trying to operate in her village, at a market or office located at a distance from her village, or in a capital city.<sup>13</sup> These added complexities in the

> 13 In this example, one Indian woman may well experience different degrees of empowerment from another. These differences can largely be explained by assets—such as education, information, and social capital—and opportunity structure—such as social norms of behavior associated with caste and gender, or formal rules giving her access to loans, markets, or services.

11
measurement of empowerment are dealt with by conceptualizing three different _domains_ and three different _levels_ of actors’ lives.<sup>14</sup> This conceptualization is important to an analytic framework that has to span the multiple political, social, and economic conditions found in different countries. As the following discussion illustrates, the three domains and levels apply in each country. The ME framework is viable in different contexts and, if required, can allow for cross-country comparisons of actual or changing relative degrees of empowerment for different people.

# 1.4.1 Domains

The five-country study identifies three domains:

- _State_ , in which a person is a civic actor.

- _Market_ , in which a person is an economic actor.

- _Society_ , in which a person is a social actor.

The three domains are further divided into eight sub-domains:

- The domain of state is divided into the sub-domains of _justice, politics,_ and _service delivery._

- The domain of market is divided into the sub-domains of _credit, labor,_ and _goods_ (for both production and consumption).

- The domain of society is divided into the sub-domains of _family_ and _community._ These should be treated as opportunities to explore relations within the household and within the community. In certain contexts it may be necessary to refine or add to these sub-domains. For example, an extended family, a tribe, ethnic group, or caste group may be critical sub-domains in some cultures.

In each of these sub-domains, the individual actor experiences a certain degree of empowerment. This is likely to vary between people or groups.

In the state domain, citizens may experience very different degrees of empowerment in terms of accessing justice, participating in politics, or accessing social services. In India, a well educated, high-caste man with good social connections would experience a higher degree of empowerment in all three sub-domains than his low-caste, illiterate counterpart.

In the market domain, one person or group may be able to access credit yet have no labor opportunities or purchasing power. However, another group or person may have different experiences. For example, she or he could have a high level of asset endowment but a poor opportunity structure framing her engagement in the market domain. This could well be the case for a high-caste educated woman from a wealthy rural household whose family would not let her start a business or take up farming activities.

> 14 The concept of domains was originally developed and tested by Schuler and Hashemi (1994). In their work on women’s empowerment and use of contraception in Bangladesh, they identified seven domains of empowerment: income, employment, physical mobility, awareness of political life, and involvement in political life, physical violence, and reproductive behavior.

12
In the domain of society, a son in an Indian household is likely to experience a higher degree of empowerment than a daughter, yet, in her community, a high-caste daughter would experience a higher degree of empowerment than the daughter of a low-caste family.

While no prior assumption can be made about how empowerment in any one domain or sub-domain relates to empowerment in some other domain or sub-domain, the degree of empowerment in one sub-domain may well correlate with a similar degree of empowerment in another domain. For example, an individual who is severely disempowered in one domain, say, the market, may also be simultaneously disempowered in some other domain. Equal market opportunity might be denied to this person, and relations with the state might be repressive or exploitative.

# 1.4.2 Levels

People experience domains and sub-domains at different levels—macro, intermediary, and local. For ease of analysis, _a level_ is defined as an administrative boundary. These levels are common in most countries. For example, in Ethiopia, the macro level would correspond to the federal, the intermediary to the _woreda,_ and the micro to the _kebele_ or village. In Nepal, the macro level could correspond to the national, the intermediary to the administrative boundaries of a district, and the local to the jurisdiction of a village development committee. In India, where the vast size of a country means that states are extremely important administrative units, the macro level could correspond to the state, the intermediary to the district, and the local to the village. In India, it may also be necessary to add a supra-macro, federal level.

Another feature generalizable across countries is the distance of administrative boundaries from the individual or group.

- The _local level_ will comprise the immediate vicinity of a person’s everyday life. This is likely to be the level of an area contiguous with their residence.

- The _intermediary level_ will comprise a vicinity which is familiar but which is not encroached upon on an everyday basis. This is likely to be the level between the residential and national level.

- The _macro level_ will comprise a vicinity which is the furthest away from the individual. This is likely to be the national level.

A certain degree of empowerment at one level does not necessarily reflect the same degree of empowerment at other levels. As research demonstrates, individuals or communities empowered at the local level are not necessarily empowered at the intermediary or macro level (Fox 1996, Moore 2001, Moser, 1987).<sup>15</sup>

> 15 Witness rural communities in Mexico that are “institutionally thick” and yet remain powerless and poverty stricken. Politically empowering change often requires a spatial scaling up of social networks and networking (Fox 1996).

13
# 1.5 The Framework Summarized

A graphic summary of the framework is presented in table 1. The table indicates that empowerment can be assessed at different _domains_ of a person’s life (the state, the market, society) and at different _levels_ (macro, intermediary and local). Each domain can be divided into sub-domains, which will indicate where and in what areas of their lives actors are empowered. At the intersection of the domains and levels, people can experience different _degrees_ of empowerment, addressing the issues of whether and to what extent a person is empowered. Two clusters of interdependent factors associate with the different degrees of empowerment an individual or group experiences—the _agency_ of the actor and the _opportunity structure_ within which that actor operates. Analysis of agency and opportunity structure helps explain why an actor is empowered to one degree or another.

As the examples in section 2 demonstrate, data do not have to be collected for all the domains and levels that are presented in table 1. Rather, the numbers of domains and levels for which data on agency, opportunity structure, and DOE are collected depend on the nature and objectives of the development intervention or the purpose of the measurement exercise. The next section also reveals that, to date, the ME framework has been used to develop empowerment indicators for two to six domains and for one to three levels.

**<u>Table 1:  Summary of Analytic Framework</u>**

|DOMAIN|CONTRIBUTORY<br>|LEVEL|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Sub-domain|FACTOR<br>|Macro|Intermediary|Local|
|Justice<br>State|Agency (A)<sup>1</sup>|Degree of|||
||Opportunity<br>Structure (OS)<sup>2</sup>|Empowerment<br>(DOE)<sup>3</sup>|||
|Politics|A||||
||OS||||
|Service|A||||
|Delivery<br> <br>|OS<br>||||
|Credit<br>Market|A||||
||OS||||
|Labor|A||||
||OS||||
|Goods|A||||
||OS||||
||OS||||
|Family<br>Society|A||||
||OS||||
|Community|A||||
||OS||||

1 Agency: measured through endowment of psychological, informational, organizational, material, financial, and human assets. 2 Opportunity Structure: measured through presence and operation of informal and formal rules. 3 Degree of Empowerment: measured through presence of choice, use of choice, effectiveness of choice.

14
2. Using the Framework This section first discusses issues related to applying the framework, and then illustrates its use at the project level and at the country level.

# 2.1 Applications

The ME framework provides an analytic structure that can be used to (1) monitor change and evaluate the impact of a specific project that has empowerment as one of its goals, (2) conduct in-depth research, (3) monitor national-level concerns, and (4) track relative changes in empowerment among different countries. The objective and context of each activity will determine which aspects of the framework to use and how to collect and analyze data.

To illustrate, the framework can be applied to assess whether empowerment objectives are being reached and what specific factors associate with related outcomes. The five case studies of the ME study, for example, use the framework to evaluate the empowerment impacts and identify causal relations in Bank-financed interventions. Each of the five case studies has adapted the framework to fit the nature, context, and objectives of the intervention. For example, the community-based education project in Honduras collects empowerment data for the state and society domains at the local and intermediary levels. The market domain and the state sub-domains of justice and politics are not priorities for investigation, and the intra-household domain is of limited interest.

An in-depth research exercise could seek to understand whether, how, and to what extent marginalized people, such as Indian women, can be empowered. To develop policy and practice recommendations, such research would need to focus on all sub-domains and levels identified by the analytic framework. The framework has yet to be tested in this kind of analysis.

A national-level monitoring exercise can use the ME framework to identify key indicators in each domain and undertake an analysis of empowerment at different levels. Section 2.3 of this paper discusses work currently in progress on developing a survey module that can be added to a Living Standards Measurement Survey (LSMS) or other national household questionnaires.

Finally, using the ME framework concepts of domains and levels allows a comparative assessment of empowerment across countries. While some argue that inter-country comparisons are pointless, others indicate that information of this kind can encourage governments to improve performance. In fact, this has already happened as a result of the international governance reviews and databases now available to compare performance in governance across countries (Kaufmann, Kraay, and Mastruzzi 2003). Such information, particularly on trends, also helps international policymakers and donors decide strategy and financing priorities.

Two points are important in relation to these various applications. The first concerns the need for context-specific data collection and analysis. The second relates to conceptual 15
differences regarding terms used in data collection and analysis. First, as indicated above, the analytic framework is flexible in that it identifies what is important to measure, but it does not prescribe the depth of substantive coverage of data collection or analysis for any particular use. It also does not hypothesize directions of causality. Both are at the discretion of those undertaking the measurement. This is deliberate. In developing our approach to measuring empowerment, we needed to identify core elements of empowerment that could be measured and used within and across a range of countries and situations. Hence, the framework focuses on domains, levels, and degrees of empowerment. However, indicators, variables, and their values must be country- and context-specific. Therefore, for the five countries in which the study was undertaken, each country team decided for themselves the levels to examine, the indicators to use for measurement, and the values placed on variables. Some analysts may be uncomfortable with this flexibility, but the scope and scale of information gathered, along with prior information on the context, will help analysts hypothesize likely associations and causal relations for testing. In addition, the availability of resources always influences the depth and spread of analysis. The ME framework provides users with clear areas of enquiry and then allows them to adapt aspects of the framework to a specific situation.

The second point is that the _level about which_ information is gathered, the _level at which_ it is gathered and the _level of pooling_ of information for analysis are conceptually and practically distinct.<sup>16</sup> _Levels about which_ data are collected refer to administrative boundaries, such as a woman’s empowerment in a household, a community, or a district headquarters. This is different from the _level at which_ data collection is undertaken, for example, interviews or other means of enquiry undertaken at the individual, household, group, community, town, or regional level. Further, both levels about and levels of data collection are distinct from pooling, or _levels at which data are analyzed._ For example, a household survey applied at the local level can ask about activities relating to the local, intermediary, or macro levels. The information and data resulting from that survey are usually pooled and analyzed at an intermediary or national level—such as in the case of an LSMS or national poverty monitoring exercise.

# 2.2 Examples of Application in Interventions

Feedback from project teams indicates that the application of the framework for structuring analysis and developing empowerment indicators is a manageable task. Lead researchers for each case study were either involved in the development of the framework or briefed on its content by the coordinating team. The lead researchers then independently instructed local researchers about its application.

The following examples from Ethiopia, Nepal, and Honduras are taken from the measuring empowerment studies in those countries.<sup>17</sup> In each case presented, methodologies have been developed but findings have not yet been fully analyzed. A

> 16 This is the case even when some tasks are undertaken simultaneously.

> 17 To date, the framework has been applied only to the evaluation of investment loans. Measuring empowerment in the context of adjustment/development policy loans has not yet been initiated but is scheduled to begin in two countries during FY04.

16
fourth example is taken from the monitoring and evaluation component of the Mexico Lifelong Learning Project, currently under preparation. The tables in annex 2 provide information on indicators developed for each of the discussed projects. They do not identify the variables or the values attributed to the indicators. This information can be found in the survey instruments, which are available on request.

- 2.2.1 Applying the Framework in Ethiopia: The Women’s Development Initiatives Project (WDIP)

The ME framework structured the design of the Women’s Development Initiatives Project’s (WDIP’s) impact evaluation.<sup>18</sup> The evaluation assesses the empowerment status of Ethiopian women in both rural and urban areas in general, and then examines whether enhancements in their empowerment associate with their participation in WDIP.

The project aims to strengthen women’s self-help groups as a mechanism to increase their economic, social, and political opportunities. The evaluation has therefore developed empowerment indicators for all three domains. These are listed in table 1 of annex 2.

# _The Project_

WDIP is a community-driven development project that seeks to enhance women’s empowerment and participation in development interventions by mobilizing women at the grassroots level and capitalizing on their potential to support development processes. It does so by facilitating the formation of self-help groups, strengthening existing grassroots groups, and enhancing women’s capacity to act collectively, thereby increasing the social and economic welfare of their households.

The Government of Ethiopia, recognizing the disadvantaged position of women, has implemented a number of policies, laws, and initiatives to promote women’s empowerment, such as removing discriminatory laws from the constitution. With the announcement of the National Policy on Women in 1993 and promulgation of the new constitution in 1995, the government highlighted its commitment to the equal development of women. However, these policies and laws are often weakly enforced, and in many cases provide contradictory or incomplete coverage in their protection of women. For example, while violations such as female genital mutilation, wife battering, domestic violence, and sexual harassment are outlawed in the Constitution, the penal code contains no provisions for adjudicating them, and existing laws are often applied by judges in a manner that does not take account of women’s rights.<sup>19</sup> The underlying rationale for launching the project is that women remain among some of the poorest and most severely disadvantaged of citizens.

WDIP aims to redress gender imbalances in development opportunity by investing in women’s skills, productivity, and organizational capacity. The project components

> 18 This section draws upon the draft interim country case report, Legovini (2004). 19 World Bank 2004 (draft).

17
include (1) a demand-driven fund that finances women’s group activities, such as handicraft production, the rearing of animals and poultry, and the organization of a daycare center; (2) capacity building and training for women’s groups and other project stakeholders on organization, facilitation, project design, appraisal, and monitoring and evaluation; and (3) information, education, and communication activities that enhance gender awareness (World Bank 2000a).

# _Measuring Empowerment in WDIP_

This exercise has two objectives: (1) to examine the general empowerment status of poor women in Ethiopia, and (2) to assess the impact WDIP may have on women’s empowerment. Communities are selected from the Amhara and Addis Ababa regions. The study uses a mixed-methods approach, applying qualitative techniques such as semistructured individual and key-informant interviews, and focus group discussions. Results from this qualitative enquiry were used to develop testable hypotheses and indicators, which then framed a quantitative survey. Data collected using a household survey instrument are currently under analysis.

Qualitative data were collected in communities where WDIP is present from both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. During the quantitative stage as well, data were collected for both the treatment and a control (non-WDIP beneficiaries) group. The sample communities are at different stages of implementing WDIP components.

The qualitative and quantitative instruments gather data on women’s assets, their opportunity structure, and degrees of empowerment in all three domains. Asset and degree of empowerment indicators mainly correspond to the local and intermediary level. Opportunity structure indicators also encompass the macro level.

Table 1 in annex 2 provides examples of indicators used in this study. To illustrate, in the state domain/political sub-domain, the degree of empowerment indicators include the ratio of women versus men represented in village and district councils as well as the question of how women are affected by the country’s judicial environment. This includes both how women are treated within the national judicial system and by the laws upheld in the traditional courts still operating in the country. Assets that may help women both increase their representation (and influence) in the district councils and get a fair treatment in the juridical system include previous participation in associations (social assets) or political parties (political assets) as well as their level of education (human asset) and self-confidence (psychological asset) and the extent of their awareness of their rights (human asset). Opportunity structure indicators refer to formal rules of the game such as the existence of laws that ensure women equal treatment within the judicial system and grant them representation in community groups and councils. With regard to informal rules, indicators gauge the extent to which formal legislature may contradict or be in tension with traditional practices, making (a) women less likely to obtain justice than men, and/or (b) less able to engage in political matters/public life.

In the market domain/labor sub-domain, one of the degrees of empowerment indicators is the extent to which women are able to choose their type of employment. Asset indicators capture women’s education and income levels, their possession of job-specific skills, and 18
the extent to which they have access to different sources of information. Opportunity structure indicators capture the distance to the nearest market, the extent to which cultural restrictions determine the nature of professions women are allowed to pursue, the amount of time women have to dedicate to household chores, and the extent to which the government provides women with job-related training.

WDIP’s impact evaluation also establishes a series of empowerment indicators for the society domain/family sub-domain, such as the percentage of women who have decisionmaking power equal to that of their husbands over the number and spacing of children, the use of contraceptives, and conjugal relations (family sub-domain). The qualitative enquiry led the study team to hypothesize that the extent to which women have a say in these matters associates with such assets as women’s education, income, and selfconfidence levels, their awareness of reproductive health issues, and their participation in women’s groups. Analysis will also test for associations among opportunity structure indicators, such as customs that influence whether or not women are allowed to disagree with their husbands, and whether or not women are expected to play a subservient role regarding sexual conduct.

- 2.2.2 Applying the Framework in Nepal: The Measuring Empowerment and Social Inclusion (MESI) Study

The Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project I (RWSS project) was designed to build rural drinking water schemes and empower local citizens to undertake their construction and management.<sup>20</sup> In addition, it had a clear objective of empowering women, and therefore provided fertile ground for measuring empowerment. Further, this country study seeks to explore gender, caste, and ethnic dimensions of social inclusion. The MESI study is the broadest and only longitudinal study among the five cases. It is also financed independently of the other four country cases.

# _The Project_

The World Bank–funded RWSS project started in 1996. RWSS sought to promote decentralization and increase the involvement of beneficiaries and the private sector in rural water supply and sanitation service delivery; inculcate a demand-driven approach in the drinking water and sanitation sector; enable communities to take lead roles in the identification, design, implementation, operation, and maintenance of their water supply and sanitation schemes; and develop adequate capacities in the government and nongovernment sectors to support community initiatives. RWSS I was completed and RWSS II was launched in 2004 (World Bank 2004a, 2004b).

By far the largest component of the project is the construction of rural water supply and sanitation schemes in 900 rural communities. Service agencies and support organizations, including NGOs, community-based organizations, and private-sector firms help local communities define their needs and design suitable water and sanitation projects to be submitted for approval. Normally, a sub-project takes 36 months and has three main phases: (1) predevelopment, involving feasibility studies and selection of support

> 20 This section is largely drawn directly from the draft report by Bennet and Gajurel (2004).

19
organizations; (2) development, in which the scheme is designed and the rural community is prepared to take ownership; and (3) implementation, involving construction, establishment of a community action plan, and transfer of ownership to the rural community (Alsop 2004).

# _Measuring Empowerment in RWSS_

RWSS communities are organized into “batches” that are brought into the project, following the three phases above. Subsequent batches incorporate the lessons learned from previous ones. Focusing on a sample of RWSS I Batch IV and Batch V schemes that will be completed during the first two years of RWSS II, MESI research seeks to assess whether and how the RWSS project has empowered communities in relation to government and NGO service providers, and asks whether women, Dalits, and Janajatis, as previously marginalized groups, have been empowered and experience greater social inclusion due to the RWSS intervention (Bennett and Gajurel, 2004).

The MESI and the ME studies have collaborated on developing the overall framework for measurement, and both have used the same broad set of domains in operationalizing the concepts of empowerment and social inclusion. The MESI study is designed as two phases of research on empowerment and inclusion, integrated into the RWSS project cycle. Each phase includes a qualitative and quantitative component. The first phase spanned nine months, and the second phase will span three years. The first phase was a self-contained research design that established the baseline of the longitudinal study that is the keystone of this research. The quantitative portion of the design involved a comparison among communities that had already received an intervention with communities that have not. The use of control communities reduced the possibility of threats to the internal and external validity of the findings (Bennett and Gajurel, 2004).

Empowerment indicators used for the MESI study that apply to this framework are listed in table 2 of annex 2. The state and society domains are covered, and the research concentrates on the intermediary and local levels. Data are collected on wide range of assets hypothesized to have a relationship with empowerment outcomes. Assets include standard measures such as literacy and land ownership, as well as group membership, participation in training, and knowledge of rights. Indicators of opportunity structure focus on the rules that govern social positioning, social interaction, physical mobility, violence, and economic security or vulnerability. Degrees of empowerment indicators range from the ease with which people can approach legal services, to voting behavior, to the degree of control over various aspects of domestic life that different household members enjoy. There are also indicators of intra-community engagement and the manner in which people behave or are able to behave in that setting.

20
- 2.2.3  Applying the Framework in Honduras: The Community-Based Education Project (Proyecto Hondureño de Educación Comunitaria, PROHECO)

PROHECO is an education decentralization project that devolves decision-making authority over education matters to community-based school councils.<sup>21</sup> In addition to assessing the impact PROHECO has had on education outcomes (such as access to and quality of education), a recent evaluation also sought to gauge the extent to which community members have become empowered in terms of the functions devolved to them by the project. The ME framework was used to establish hypotheses and empowerment indicators and to design instruments for data collection. General hypotheses tested include (1) whether the reform empowers school councils to have greater decision-making authority, and (2) whether it empowers different community members to participate in and have a voice in school council meetings.

Indicators were constructed to measure school councils’ and community members’ degrees of empowerment as well as their assets and opportunity structure. Both quantitative and qualitative instruments were designed for data collection. The following paragraphs provide background information on PROHECO and discuss how the ME framework was used to evaluate the project. Empowerment indicators used for this evaluation are listed in table 3 of annex 2.

# _The Project_

PROHECO was launched in March 1999 with the objective of enhancing access to and quality of education as well as fostering community participation in school-related decision-making. Studies the Ministry of Education had carried out in 1997 showed that more than 14 percent of school-age children were not enrolled in schools; 85 percent of these children lived in rural areas. Building on the successful experiences in El Salvador and Guatemala, the Honduran government decided to establish new pre-schools and primary schools in remote rural villages, using a school-based management model (SBM). SBM is a type of education decentralization reform, key to which is the creation of a school council responsible for making a series of decisions on administrative, personnel, pedagogical, and budget matters. SBM envisages a redistribution of decisionmaking powers away from government agencies toward the school council, granting the school a greater degree of autonomy and empowerment in managing its services.

In Honduras, school councils comprise parents and other community members. They consist of two separate bodies: the general assembly and the board. Membership to the general assembly is granted automatically to all community members; only board membership requires a formal election process. While the board has to inform and consult with the general assembly, it has ultimate decision-making power. PROHECO devolves the following functions and responsibilities to the school councils: building and maintaining the school; buying school supplies; overseeing the school’s budget; and selecting, hiring, paying, monitoring and, if necessary, firing teachers.

> 21 This case was adapted from a draft report by Di Gropello and Heinsohn (2004).

21
Communities qualify for a PROHECO school if they meet the following criteria: (1) they are located in a rural area, (2) there are at least 25 pre-school and primary-school age children able to attend, (3) the nearest school is at least 3 km away, and (4) the village is located in an area that was affected by hurricane Mitch. Once communities are identified, a government employee visits them to inform them of the project and, if they agree to participate, helps them elect a school council. The government employee is also responsible for providing ongoing advice and capacity building on organizational matters and administrative and legal procedures. Training and support are crucial since communities are not familiar with carrying out the functions that the decentralization reform devolves to them.

# _Measuring Empowerment in PROHECO_

PROHECO’s impact evaluation seeks to measure empowerment in the context of two power relationships that are potentially affected by the education reform. These are power relations (1) among different community members, and (2) between the school council and education authorities, including school staff. Related hypotheses state that the project empowers different community members to participate in and have a voice in school council meetings, irrespective of their gender, socio-economic status, or ethnicity; and that the reform empowers school councils to have greater decision-making authority and autonomy in relation to education authorities and school staff.

Identifying these power relations and where they play out helped select the sub-domains and levels where empowerment is measured. It also helped determine the units and locus of data collection and analysis. The PROHECO evaluation addresses both the service delivery sub-domain (assessing whether the school council is able to carry out the devolved tasks) and the household and community sub-domains (assessing whether different household and community members are able to participate in the school council).

Similar to WDIP and RWSS, the PROHECO evaluation uses a mixed-methods approach, applying institutional and household surveys at the quantitative stage as well as key informant and community interviews during the qualitative stage. The evaluation uses both a treatment and a control group, allowing for a comparison between schools managed by the community school council and those which are part of the traditional state-run system.

In terms of school council empowerment, the evaluation assesses whether the council is able to carry out its devolved functions. Indicators of degrees of empowerment therefore correspond to a council’s capacity to build and maintain the school building, to buy school supplies, to oversee the budget, and to hire and fire teachers. Using the concepts of assets and opportunity structure, a series of factors that influence the council’s capacity to assume its new tasks were determined. Examples of assets that help councils carry out their newly assigned functions include the amount of relevant information and training the councils receive. The opportunity structure for school council empowerment can be divided into (1) formal rules, such as the decrees and regulations that specify the details of the decentralization reform, including the nature of the powers to be devolved to the 22
school councils, and (2) a series of socio-political factors that shape how the reform is implemented in practice and whether it leads to the desired empowerment outcomes. Examples of such factors include the technical capacity of the ministry to provide communities with adequate information and training to manage the school, and the regularity and timeliness of ministry financial transfers that enable councils to buy school supplies and pay teachers. Examples of variables upon which information are gathered for each indicator are given in box 4. While information on the degrees of empowerment and assets apply to the local (community) level, the opportunity structure operates at the national, intermediary, and local levels.

With regard to community empowerment, the evaluation seeks to assess whether and to what extent different family or community members are able to participate and have an effective voice in school council meetings and decision making. Of particular interest here is whether such attributes as gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic status deter or facilitate the participation or empowerment of specific groups. Degrees of empowerment indicators therefore relate to a person’s involvement in school council activities.

# **Box 4.  School Council Empowerment—Variables**

An indicator that refers to a school council’s degree of empowerment includes variables relating to the council’s ability to buy school supplies and pay teacher salaries. Asset variables include the hours and perceived usefulness of budget-related training the council receives. Variables of opportunity structure—in this case, factors that effect the efficient functioning of the decentralization reform—refer to the timeliness and adequacy with which the central government transfers funds to the communities. The timeliness of transfers is captured by asking about the amount of actual vs. prescribed numbers of transfers, the extent of the delays with which transfers are made, and the adequacy of the transfer amounts to cover costs for supplies and salaries.

Examples of assets include parents’ prior engagement in or experience with other community organizations as well their awareness of the right to participate in the council. The opportunity structure, in this case, refers to formal or informal rules of inclusion and exclusion, such as those that determine whether or not members of disadvantaged groups can participate in public meetings and decision-making. Examples of variables upon which information is gathered for each indicator are given in box 5.

# **Box 5.  Household and Community Empowerment—Variables**

A degree of empowerment indicator referring to household or community power relations is the ability of community members to participate in school council meetings. One asset that may improve parents’ ability to participate is prior involvement in other community organizations. Variables that can be used to gauge relevant prior experience include parents’ membership in other community organizations, the positions they held within these organizations, and the duration of their membership. In terms of opportunity structure, an indicator could refer to the existence and operation of rules of exclusion. This indicator can be broken down into such variables as the representation of disadvantaged groups in school councils, the functions disadvantaged groups hold in the councils, and the awareness of these groups that they may participate in school council meetings.

23
# 2.2.4 Applying the ME Framework in Mexico

The ME analytic framework was recently used to establish draft empowerment indicators for the impact evaluation component of the Mexico Lifelong Learning Project, currently under preparation and recently appraised by the Bank. The project aims to provide secondary education to young adults (15 – 34 years old) who have dropped out of the formal education system but are demanding the conclusion of their lower secondary level education (the equivalent of the first nine grades of compulsory basic education mandated by the Mexican Constitution). In addition to improving students’ literacy and numeracy thinking and problem-solving capacity, the modules offered aim to provide students with a series of skills and competencies to improve their quality of life and also strengthen their self-confidence. Participation in the project is therefore expected to improve a series of students’ assets and, as a consequence, enhance their ability to make more informed choices and decisions, in other words, to become empowered. Table 4 in annex 2 contains a list of preliminary empowerment indicators for this project.

## _The Project_

The Mexico Lifelong Learning Project will give young adults (15-34 years old) who have dropped out of the formal school system the opportunity to complete the equivalent of a lower secondary education certificate. The project counterpart is the National Institute for Adult Education (INEA), which provides non-formal education to adults throughout the country. The pedagogical model INEA applies is known as “education for life and work.” Its main characteristics are a competency-based curriculum, a modular design, and a recognition of individual potential and talent.

INEA offers literacy, primary and secondary education through a menu of entry points, including learning circles, peer facilitation and community learning centers. The community learning centers, in turn offer three different types of learning spaces: (1) “learning circles,” where adults study, making use of printed materials and a facilitator, (2) IT rooms, where students learn to use computers and where they can study, making use of digital versions of their modules, and (3) a multi-media center, where educational material is provided via television and videos.

In addition to providing students with modules in Spanish, math, and natural and social sciences, INEA also offer modules that aim to equip students with a diverse series of skills and competencies. These modules educate students, for example, about civic rights and responsibilities, legal procedures, parenting skills, environmental conservation, domestic violence, drug prevention and rehabilitation, and reproductive health.

## _Applying the Framework in the Lifelong Learning Project_

Monitoring and evaluation is one of the project’s components. Impacts will be evaluated on a regular basis, using the following indicators: health, income, employment, continued education, and empowerment. The following paragraphs discuss how the ME framework was used to develop empowerment indicators.

The project’s impact evaluation system will define empowerment as enhancing a student’s effective decision-making power. Education is crucial for empowerment 24
because it improves students’ assets, such as skills, confidence, and knowledge, thereby enabling them to make more informed and effective choices and decisions. However, while education is very important, it is not equal to empowerment. Rather, empowerment depends on the students’ ability to utilize the knowledge and skills acquired to make informed choices and achieve desired outcomes. This in turn will be influenced by the opportunity structure in which they live and work.

In addition, investments in education, itself an asset, can have a positive impact on other assets as well as on empowerment outcomes (see box 1, above). The core hypotheses framing the recurrent evaluations are therefore that (1) obtaining lower secondary education through participation in INEA’s lifelong learning program will enhance students’ assets, such as knowledge, skills, communication, and social capital, and (2) participation in INEA programs and the resulting asset improvements will empower students.

One modification made in this application of the ME framework is that the desire to choose and making a choice are treated as discrete degrees of empowerment.<sup>22</sup> The degrees of empowerment therefore, for this project evaluation, become: (1) having awareness and information about a given situation, (2) having the will to act, (3) making a decision, and (4) achieving the desired outcome. Using “casting a vote in local elections” as an example indicator, the impact evaluation could ask (a) whether the respondent was aware of the last local elections (awareness), (b) whether she or he wanted to vote (willingness), (c) whether she or he then proceeded to vote (implementation), and (d) whether the cast vote was counted (achievement of desired outcome). In this application, a person who is aware of the elections but does not cast a vote is still empowered if he or she, based on his or her own will and decision, chooses or decides not to do so.

Participation in the Lifelong Learning Project intends to empower students in different domains of their lives. Each module offered to students has a specific purpose or intention, often reflecting the aim of providing students with the knowledge and skills to make more effective and informed decisions in different areas of their lives, in other words, to contribute to their empowerment. For example, modules dealing with women’s rights or domestic violence seek to empower women in relation to their partners. Modules about democracy and political participation are intended to empower students to become more active citizens. Modules that strengthen student self-esteem and inform them about sexual health issues empower them to insist on the use of condoms to prevent the infection with STDs. Modules in home mathematics skills have provided opportunities for the start of self-generated micro-enterprises. The choice of empowerment indicators reflects these intended outcomes.

Four groups of empowerment indicators have been identified. They fall into the following categories: (1) women’s autonomous decision making within the household, (2) participation in public or political affairs, (3) taking action to improve one’s work

> 22 It can be argued that an actor will only choose to act freely if he or she has the will to act. In this case, the will to choose is causal to choosing to act.

25
situation, and (4) making decisions to improve one’s health. The suggested indicators are listed in table 4 of annex 2.

Evaluating empowerment outcomes within different domains/sub-domains (household, community, labor health, and continued education) allows the evaluation team to compare whether empowerment outcomes are the same for different domains, and to assess whether modules contribute to their intended outcomes.

The impact of the project on students will be evaluated on a bi-annual basis, with the first evaluation expected to be completed in 2005. The data collected during this first evaluation will serve as the baseline for future evaluations. The project team is currently in the process of defining the control group.

# 2.3 Applying the Framework within a National Survey

At the national level, empowerment has become embedded in the language of national policy frameworks for poverty reduction.<sup>23</sup> A recent review of some 39 Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) and Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (IPRSPs) (Thin 2002), for example, reveals that almost half of this sample explicitly mentions empowerment in some shape or form. The scope of discussion of empowerment issues and strategies within these PRSPs, however, is quite narrow. The three predominant thematic areas of discussing empowerment, echoed in a recent PREM review (Holland and Brook 2004) are governance, gender, and community participation (see annex 3). Governance is discussed particularly in the context of decentralization and service provision. Here, empowerment strategies focus on strengthening agency and “voice” through education, capacity building, and enhanced knowledge, while tackling “responsiveness” through public-sector reform and capacity building among service providers. PRSPs tackling empowerment were also quite likely to look at women’s empowerment, particularly in the political and economic domains, focusing on improved access to education, labor markets, credit, and political participation. Community participation is also widely addressed, emphasizing participation in the project cycle linked to ownership and sustainability, with, in some cases, specific reference to natural resource management. However, these PRSPs tend to be weak on conceptualizing what empowerment means, in some cases because empowerment is cross-cut or overshadowed by other conceptual frameworks such as rights, exclusion, or marginalization, and are also thin on the detail of strategies for empowerment.

Furthermore, although empowerment appears as an objective in many PRSPs, recent efforts to assess the extent to which these commitments have been achieved demonstrate the paucity of data available for such evaluations. The absence of instruments and reliable data for monitoring empowerment highlights an immediate need to enhance ongoing efforts to strengthen poverty and welfare monitoring systems. For example, the Government of Ethiopia’s monitoring and evaluation action plan outlines a system

> 23 This text in this section draws heavily on Holland and Brook 2004.

26
enabling assessment of a wide range of its PRSP achievements.<sup>24</sup> However, despite the prominence of citizen empowerment, the action plan’s detailing of ten critical areas of information gathering and analysis includes little mention of empowerment indicators or measurement. In addition, recent work undertaken for the World Bank’s forthcoming Ethiopia Poverty Assessment demonstrated that direct indicators of empowerment are extremely hard to find. Where information is available, it is scattered and largely anecdotal.

To address this problem, which Ethiopia has in common with many other PRSP countries, a draft empowerment module has been developed for partial integration into other household survey instruments or use “as is” at the national level. The full draft of the module can be found in 5. This represents an early and as yet untested effort to develop an instrument that can either stand alone as a national household survey, or have selected components modified to become an integral part of an LSMS or other national survey.<sup>25</sup> The draft survey module contains two sections. The first describes tools for institutional mapping at a local level. The second contains a questionnaire. At present, the questionnaire is lengthy and is regarded as providing a set of base questions that can be added to or subtracted from in different countries and contexts.

# 2.3.1 Agency and Opportunity Structure

Many intermediate indicators of empowerment, especially indicators referring to a person’s agency, are already generated by well-honed and tested questions in tools such as the LSMS and social capital survey tools.<sup>26</sup> Rather than generating new indicators or survey questions, the draft module utilizes indicators and questions that have already been developed. In both cases, existing sources of information or survey questions are identified. In addition to recognizing the contributions of existing instruments, this approach reduces possibilities of duplication—where surveys are already undertaken in countries—and enhances opportunities to easily integrate parts of the empowerment module into other national-level survey activities.

Table 1 in annex 4 identifies and lists those asset indicators developed by the LSMS and social capital survey tools that have been integrated into the national module. They cover psychological, informational, organizational, material, financial, and human assets. For analysis, data on respondents’ assets will need to be disaggregated by respondent/group attributes such as social and economic variables in order to understand the empowerment status of particular types of individuals or groups within a country.

In the ME framework, opportunity structure comprises the presence and enactment of institutions, defined as the “rules of the game.” Table 2 in annex 4 lists a series of indicators to capture the opportunity structure in a given country (divided by domains and

> 24 Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Program (SDPRP).

> 25 Efforts are being made to test the module as part of monitoring systems in at least two PRSP countries during FY04. Feedback on content and use would be appreciated.

> 26 On social capital survey tools, see Grootaert and van Basteler (2001), Grootaert, Narayan et. al. (2004)

27
sub-domains).<sup>27</sup> Where possible, it also identifies sources that can be used for finding related data. Measuring institutions is complicated by the huge gap that exists between the presence of rules and the messy, politicized, and socially constructed reality of the enactment of those rules.<sup>28</sup> Measurement of institutions will therefore require a mixedmethods approach that includes national-level tracking of legislation, regulations, and procedures (existence of rules) and, ideally, local in-depth probing of the operation of informal institutions, or at least the specification of well-informed assumptions about the operation of informal institutions.

# 2.3.2 Degrees of Empowerment

Direct indicators focus on the three degrees of empowerment as discussed in section 1.3. Table 3 in annex 4 provides a list of empowerment indicators that can be used to ascertain a respondent’s degree of empowerment in each domain and at each level of their lives. Data on degrees of empowerment are not available currently through any other survey instrument and therefore have to be collected as primary information.

# 2.3.3 Application at the National Level

All the indicators of assets, institutions, and degrees of empowerment are included in the draft national-level survey module found in annex 5. The survey module is included in this working paper to give more specificity to the variables used for indicators and to encourage interest in piloting all or part of the module.<sup>29</sup> Testing of the module is planned in two countries during FY04. This will appraise and refine indicators and related questions for application to a large sample. Some measures of empowerment will be more difficult to collect than others—such as those concerning sensitive issues within households and communities. While the draft module found in annex 5 is prepared as a questionnaire that can be used directly to measure empowerment or modified to add an empowerment dimension to other questionnaire-based household surveys, under ideal conditions more interactive forms of enquiry such as semi-structured interviews, case studies, participatory appraisal tools and focus groups would be used to deepen understanding of sensitive issues and causal links. The feasibility of using these approaches to data collection on a sub-sample of the national survey sites will be reviewed and, if appropriate, the preparation of field guidelines for such “deep-drill” sites initiated. In addition, options to develop a mixed-methods approach under certain survey conditions—such as where a PPA is undertaken at the same time as an LSMS survey is applied—will be explored.

> 27 Grootaert (2003) also discusses indicators that refer to the institutions that influence empowerment and identifies the data sources from which these can be extracted.

> 28 Formal rules can be enacted through both formal and informal institutional contexts. Kabeer explains that the enactment of formal rules in informal contexts is bound up in the societal norms, beliefs, customs, and values (Kabeer 2002, p. 22).

> 29 The empowerment team of PRMPR is available to assist in developing or piloting part or all of this module.

28
# 3. Summary

The framework proposed for measuring empowerment is a simple one. It comprises three core concepts: agency, opportunity structure, and degree of empowerment. These are further refined into clusters of indicators. A broad range of assets are used as indicators of agency. Measurement of the presence and operation of formal and informal institutions provides indicators of opportunity structure. The existence of choice, the use of choice, and the effectiveness of choice are used as indicators of the degree of empowerment a person or group experiences. For ease of data collection and analysis, three domains (state, market, and society) are identified and divided into a number of sub-domains, or stages in or upon which actors live out their lives. These sub-domains are differentiated according to the level at which actors operate—the macro, intermediary, and local levels.

Using this framework, empowerment can be measured within projects or interventions. It can also be used as the basis for in-depth research, for national-level monitoring, and, with certain caveats, for comparing the status of and changes in empowerment across countries. While the framework is simple and easily applied, it is also comprehensive in that it enables an assessment of a person’s or group’s empowerment across the different domains in which they act. In how many different domains and at how many different levels empowerment is assessed depends on the nature of the intervention and the scope of the measurement exercise. As demonstrated in the Ethiopia WDIP indicators (annex 2, table 1), empowerment is measured in five of the eight sub-domains, but in the Honduras Community-Based Education Project (annex 2, table 3), empowerment is measured in only two sub-domains. How many domains an in-depth research exercise focuses on depends on the purpose of the study and the specific country context. As outlined in section 2.3, national-level monitoring is recommended for all sub-domains.

This paper also introduces indicators and a preliminary household survey instrument that can be used to measure and track empowerment within countries. In contrast to the five ME studies, national-level tracking is not used for measuring the processes and impacts of a specific intervention. Rather, targeting a much wider group of stakeholders, it can be used to measure the empowerment status of a country’s population. The national-level module, once refined, can stand alone or can be modified to work with other poverty or governance monitoring tools. The module will be piloted and amended over the next year.

Six key findings that have emerged during the development and preliminary effort to test the ME framework include: First, is the ME framework’s value for both analytic and applied purposes. Operationally, the framework has informed both the conceptualization and the activities of two empowerment projects currently under preparation.<sup>30</sup> In addition to using the framework to measure empowerment in six countries (the five-country study plus Mexico), it has also structured three country case studies on power, equality, and poverty (Ethiopia,

> 30 The Tamil Nadu Empowerment and Poverty Reduction Project, and the Ethiopia Civil Society Capacity Building Project.

29
Indonesia, and Uganda), and the analysis of empowerment for one country poverty assessment (Ethiopia).

Second, while providing very broad boundaries, the concepts of domains, sub-domains, and levels provide a pragmatic solution to the fact that degrees of empowerment vary according to what people are engaged in and where the activity occurs.

Third, the conceptualizations of assets and opportunity structure are useful for understanding the underlying reasons and dynamics that shape the degrees of empowerment of different actors, and for identifying activities and strategies for improving people’s empowerment. Changes in assets or the opportunity structure are likely to precede changes in degrees of empowerment. Identifying asset and opportunity structure indicators is therefore also useful for evaluating intermediate impacts of investments in empowerment. This appears to be the case in Mexico, for example, where investments in education enhance a series of student assets (skills, self-confidence and information) prior to contributing to improved degree of empowerment outcomes. Depending on the nature and components of the intervention, monitoring and evaluation teams have to decide whether they want to focus their studies on assets, opportunity structure, degrees of empowerment, or any combination thereof.

Fourth, distinguishing between different degrees of empowerment is important for two reasons. One, it helps to identify indicators that adequately reflect an empowerment outcome. For example, “voting in the last local elections” is not an adequate empowerment indicator for the political sub-domain at the local level, if, for whatever reason, local elections do not take place in the community where data are collected (the choice does not exist) or if respondents had the choice and knowledge to vote but, due to personal preferences, decided against voting (the respondents decided not to implement the choice). Two, the distinction between different degrees of empowerment makes it possible to capture gradual advancements in the empowerment status of respondents. Before a woman can take effective action against an abusive husband, for example, by getting help from the local police (achievement of choice), she first needs to be aware of her rights and have access to authorities that will accommodate her complaints (existence of choice). Then she must make use of her right and file a complaint with them (use of choice).

Fifth, context-specific variables and values are important. Empowerment implies changing power relations among people or groups. As such, it is a relational concept, and neither the actors nor the relationships are likely to be the same in any two countries. While domains, levels, and the three degrees of empowerment may be generic, within those, any measurement has to be based on locally defined variables and values.

Finally, local definition of variables and values generates analysis that is of primary use within a single country. However, this does not mean that certain generalizations cannot be made about differences in degrees of empowerment among countries. Using the concepts of domains and levels, useful cross-country commentary is possible on the relative degree of empowerment of different groups, such as women or those traditionally 30
marginalized. In addition, if empowerment indicators become part of regular surveys generating panel data, changes in degrees of empowerment in different countries can be observed over time.

This working paper is an interim product of a series of in-country efforts to measure empowerment. Five of these measuring empowerment studies (Brazil, Ethiopia, Honduras, Indonesia, and Nepal) have been synchronized and the teams linked through the development of the analytic framework and exchanges. In this paper, examples of indicators have been drawn from two of these studies. A third example of measuring empowerment as part of a project monitoring and evaluation system in Mexico is also given. In each case, the ME framework has structured and informed the methodology design for the project’s impact evaluation. All five country cases that are part of the ME study have completed data collection and are currently finalizing data analysis. Country reports detailing findings and listing the empowerment indicators and instruments that were used are expected to be available in spring 2005. These will form the basis of a multi-country synthesis report and other dissemination products on measuring empowerment. Documentation and updates on these initiatives can be found on: <u>www.worldbank.org/empowerment.</u> 31
# **Reference List**

Alsop, Ruth. 2004. Local Organizations in Nepal. A Study of District and Sub-district Organizations. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Alsop, Ruth, Anirudh Krishna, and Disa Sjoblom. 2001. Inclusion and Local Elected Governments: the Panchayat Raj System in India. Social Development Paper No. 27, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Appadurai, A. 2004. “The Capacity to Aspire: Culture and the Terms of Recognition,” in _Culture and Public Action_ , eds. Rao, V. and M. Walton. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Barahona, C., and S. Levy. 2002. How to Generate Statistics and Influence People Using Participatory Methods in Research.” Statistic Services Centre Working Paper. Available at: <u>www.reading.ac.uk/ssc.</u> Bennett, Lynn. 2003. Empowerment and Social Inclusion: A Social Development Perspective on the Cultural and Institutional Foundations of Poverty Reduction. World Bank, Washington DC.

Bennett, Lynn, and Kishor Gajurel. 2004. Negotiating Social Change in Rural Nepal: Crosscutting Gender, Caste and Ethnic Dimensions of Empowerment and Social Inclusion. Draft, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Davies, R., 2000. “Does Empowerment Start at Home? And If So, How Will We Recognise It?” Paper given at the 4th International Workshop on the Evaluation of Social Development, Oxford, UK. 3-5 April. Available at: <u>http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/empowerment2.htm.</u> Fals Borda, O. 1988. _Knowledge and People’s Power_ . New Delhi: Indian Social Institute.

Fox, J. 1996. “How Does Civil Society Thicken? The Political Construction of Social Capital in Rural Mexico.” _World Development_ 24 (6): 1089-1103.

Freire, P. 1973. _Pedagogy of the Oppressed_ . London: Penguin Books.

Grootaert, C. 2003. “Assessing Empowerment in the ECA Region.” Paper presented at the “Measuring Empowerment: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives” workshop, ECA Region, Washington DC., World Bank, February 4-5.

Grootaert, C., D. Narayan, V. Nyhan-Jones, and M. Woolcock. 2004. Measuring Social Capital. World Bank Working Paper 18, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Grootaert, C., and T. van Bastelaer. 2001. Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A Synthesis of Findings from the Social Capital Initiative. Social Capital Initiative Working Paper 24, Social Development Department, World Bank, Washington, DC.

32
Gropello, Emanuela di, and Nina Heinsohn. 2004. School-Based Management in Central America: What are the Effects on Community Empowerment? Draft, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Heinsohn, N. 2004. Mexico Lifelong Learning Project, Mission Report: Empowerment Impact Evaluation. PRMPR, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Holland, Jeremy, and Simon Brook. 2004. Measuring Empowerment: Country Indicators. Draft, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Kabeer, N. 1999. “Resources, Agency, Achievements: Reflections on the Measurement of Women’s Empowerment.” _Development and Change_ 30: 435-464.

———. 2002. “Reflections on the Measurement of Women’s Empowerment.” In _Discussing Women's Empowerment: Theory and Practice,_ eds. B Sevefjord and B. Olsson. Stockholm: SIDA.

Kaufmann, Daniel, Aaart Kraay, and Massimo Mastruzzi. 2003. Governance Matters III: Governance Indicators 1996-2002. Policy Research Working Paper 3106, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Krishna, Anirudh. 2003. _Measuring Empowerment: An Analytic Framework_ . World Bank: Washington DC.

Kurey, B., and R. Alsop. Forthcoming. Empowerment in Ethiopia. PRMPR, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Legovini, Arianna. 2004. Preliminary Findings from a Study on “Measuring Women’s Empowerment.” World Bank, Addis Ababa.

Malhotra, A., S. Schuler, and C. Boender. 2002. “Measuring Women’s Empowerment as a Variable in International Development.” Draft, PRMGE, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Moore, M. 2001. “Empowerment at Last?” _Journal of International Development_ 13: 321-329.

Moser, C. 1987. Mobilisation is Women’s Work: Struggles for Infrastructure in Guayaquil, Ecuador. In _Women, Human Settlements and Housing_ , eds. C. Moser and L. Peake. London: Tavistock.

Narayan, D., ed. 2002. _Empowerment and Poverty Reduction: A Sourcebook._ Washington, DC: The World Bank.

North, D., 1990. _Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance_ . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

33
Nussbaum, M. 2001. _Women and Development: The Capabilities Approach_ . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Schuler, S. R., and S. M. Hashemi. 1994. “Credit Programs, Women’s Empowerment and Contraceptive Use in Rural Bangladesh.” _Studies in Family Planning_ 25 (2): 65-76.

Sen, A. 1985. _Commodities and Capabilities._ Amsterdam: Elsevier.

———. 1992. _Inequality Reconsidered._ Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Smulovitz. C., M. Walton, and P. Petesch. 2003. Notes on Evaluating Empowerment. Draft, LAC, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Srijan. 1999. _Negotiating Spaces. Collaboration between Government and Non Governmental Organizations in Rajasthan._ Volume 2, Case Studies, Srijan, New Delhi.

Thin, N. 2002. Overview: Human Rights Coverage in National Anti-poverty Documents. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.

Uphoff, N. 1986. _Local Institutional Development: An Analytical Sourcebook with Cases_ . West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.

World Bank. 1998. Indonesia Kecamatan Development Project, 1998. _Project Appraisal Document_ , Report No. 17397, World Bank, Washington DC.

World Bank. 2000a. Ethiopia Women's Development Initiatives Project. _Project Appraisal Document_ , Report No. 20428, World Bank, Washington DC.

———. 2000b. _World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty_ . Washington, DC: World Bank.

———. 2001. Honduras Community Based Education Project. _Project Appraisal Document_ , Report No. 21851, World Bank, Washington DC.

———. 2004a. Nepal Rural Water and Sanitation Project. _Implementation Completion Report_ , Report No. 28523, World Bank, Washington, DC.

———. 2004b. Nepal Rural Water and Sanitation Project II. _Project Appraisal Document, Report No. 28124,_ World Bank, Washington, DC.

34
**Annex 1** .  Approaches to Measuring Empowerment

|Study and Location|Definition of<br>Empowerment|Measurement<br>Concept|Data Sources|Focus|Conclusions|Implication|Scope|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Lokshin and<br>Ravallion (2003)<br>_Russia_|Taking actions<br>that selectively<br>empower those<br>with little power<br>to redress power<br>inequality|Respondents place<br>themselves on<br>Cantil ladder (nine<br>steps) for power; the<br>interpretation of the<br>meaning of the<br>lower and higher<br>steps is left to<br>participants|Data on Russian<br>adults from the<br>Russian<br>Longitudinal<br>Monitoring<br>Survey (1998<br>and 2000)|Comparability<br>of expressed<br>perceptions of<br>power and<br>economic<br>welfare|Significant but<br>seemingly weak<br>association<br>between power<br>and welfare in<br>levels and<br>changes over time|The scope of<br>empowerment is<br>not limited to the<br>poor|Individual and<br>household level.<br>Perceptions of status of<br>empowerment/outcome.<br>Economic domain.|
|Moser (2003)<br>_Columbia_|Expanding<br>assets and<br>capabilities of<br>poor people to<br>participate in,<br>negotiate with,<br>influence,<br>control, and hold<br>accountable<br>institutions that<br>affect their lives|Composite<br>indicators at the<br>individual level<br>(self-esteem,<br>importance of<br>gender identity,<br>attitude towards<br>peace, participation<br>in meetings, time for<br>conflict/peace<br>related activities),<br>organizational<br>(internal cohesion),<br>and inter-<br>institutional<br>(contact,<br>coordination) levels|Quantitative<br>descriptive<br>information on<br>inputs and<br>outputs from<br>written<br>documentation<br>and interview<br>sources;<br>qualitative<br>participatory<br>evaluation<br>workshop from<br>two projects|Empowerment<br>of local<br>communities<br>through<br>participation<br>in ongoing<br>peace<br>processes|Empirical issue<br>concerning<br>community<br>perceptions of<br>empowerment<br>such as the<br>difficulty to<br>conceptualize<br>indicators; their<br>context<br>specificity; or<br>delayed impacts|Problems of<br>context<br>specificity of<br>indicators, the<br>difficulty for<br>participants to<br>conceptualize<br>them; delayed<br>impacts; and<br>unpredictability<br>of the forms of<br>outcomes|Community-level<br>perception indicators<br>(individual,<br>organizational and<br>inter-institutional<br>level); changes in<br>inclusion/participation<br>and local organizational<br>capacity (agency).<br>Political domain.|
|Malena (2003)<br>_Pilot_|Enabling or<br>giving power to|Aggregated<br>empowerment score|Media review,<br>focus groups,|State of civil<br>society around|Description of the<br>CIVICUS Civil|Comprehensive<br>approach (social|Civil society/national<br>level; empowerment in|

35
|Study and Location|Definition of<br>Empowerment|Measurement<br>Concept|Data Sources|Focus|Conclusions|Implication|Scope|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|_implementation in_<br>_13 countries (South_<br>_Africa, Mexico,_<br>_Uruguay, Indonesia,_<br>_Pakistan, Belarus,_<br>_Croatia, Estonia,_<br>_Romania, Ukraine,_<br>_Canada, New_<br>_Zealand, and Wales)_|<br>(whom) to do<br>(what)|based on the<br>average of five<br>indicators scored<br>from 0 to 3: activity<br>and effectiveness of<br>civil society in<br>informing and<br>educating, building<br>capacity for<br>collective action,<br>empowering poor<br>people, empowering<br>women, and<br>building social<br>capital|community<br>surveys,<br>secondary data<br>and fact finding|the world|Society Index<br>with a larger<br>scoring matrix<br>and 69 indicators<br>encompassing<br>four dimensions<br>(structure,<br>external<br>environment,<br>values, and<br>impact of<br>activities)|forces, map of<br>civil society;<br>power relations in<br>society and<br>relations within<br>organizations)|relation to the impact of<br>activities of civil<br>society (opportunity<br>structure); indicators<br>related to aspects of<br>inclusion/participation<br>(under structure),<br>opportunity structure<br>(under environment and<br>values), and influence<br>(under impact). Social<br>domain.|
|Grootaert (2003)<br>_Albania, Armenia,_<br>_Azerbaijan,_<br>_Georgia, Kyrgyz_<br>_Republic,_<br>_Macedonia,_<br>_Moldova, Tajikistan,_<br>_and Uzbekistan_|Expanding<br>assets and<br>capabilities of<br>poor people to<br>participate in,<br>negotiate with,<br>influence,<br>control, and hold<br>accountable<br>institutions that<br>affect their lives|Average<br>empowerment score<br>based on 12 priority<br>indicators along five<br>elements: state<br>reform (government<br>effectiveness,<br>corruption<br>perceptions index,<br>incidence of illicit<br>payments); reform<br>of legal system (rule<br>of law, regulatory<br>quality, pro-poor<br>decentralization);<br>democracy (civil<br>liberties and<br>political freedoms,<br>voice and<br>accountability, civil<br>society strength);|International<br>databases<br>(governance<br>database,<br>Transparency<br>International,<br>WBES/BEEPS,<br>Freedom House,<br>UNDP, and<br>World<br>Development)|Non-income<br>dimensions of<br>poverty|Many indicators<br>are available from<br>international<br>databases; lack of<br>indicators of<br>decentralization<br>or social capital|Overview of<br>accessible<br>indicators<br>available at<br>different points in<br>time|National level.<br>Opportunity structure.<br>Political domain.|

36
|Study and Location|Definition of<br>Empowerment|Measurement<br>Concept|Data Sources|Focus|Conclusions|Implication|Scope|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|||removal of social<br>barriers (share of<br>women in political<br>offices, income<br>inequality); and<br>building social<br>capital||||||
|Oppenheim Mason<br>and Smith (2003)<br>_56 communities in_<br>_Pakistan, India,_<br>_Malaysia, Thailand,_<br>_and the Philippines_|Extent to which<br>some categories<br>of people are<br>able to control<br>their own<br>destinies even<br>when their<br>interests are<br>opposed by<br>others with<br>whom they<br>interact|Six-item scale of<br>women’s say in<br>household economic<br>decisions, three-<br>point scale of<br>women’s<br>participation in<br>family planning<br>decisions, five-item<br>scale of women’s<br>freedom of<br>movement, two<br>yes/no items about<br>women’s exposure<br>to coercive controls<br>by the husband, and<br>community-level<br>gender attitude<br>measures (means<br>calculated and<br>attached to the<br>records for<br>individual women)|Section of a<br>larger household<br>questionnaire|Women’s<br>empowerment<br>in the<br>domestic<br>sphere and<br>fertility|Community is a<br>far stronger<br>predictor of<br>women’s<br>empowerment at<br>the individual<br>level than are<br>individual traits;<br>empowerment is<br>multi-<br>dimensional, and<br>direct measures<br>are preferable to<br>proxies|Empowerment as<br>a group-based<br>process is<br>influenced by<br>culture at the<br>group level;<br>multi-<br>dimensional with<br>imperfect<br>associations<br>among different<br>levels|Individual and group<br>level; status of<br>empowerment;<br>opportunity structure in<br>the household.<br>Economic domain and<br>social domain.|
|Bartle, Phil (2003).<br>_Enabling_<br>_Community_<br>_Empowerment:_<br>_Political and_<br>_Administrative_|Having the<br>capacity to do<br>things that<br>community<br>members want to<br>do and going|Discussion of the<br>degree that the<br>community has<br>changed with<br>respect to 16<br>elements: altruism,|Facilitator<br>calling for the<br>observations of<br>all community<br>members in an<br>annual|Capacity<br>development|Workshop<br>presenting a<br>participatory<br>methodology to<br>measure<br>community|Participative<br>methods; tapping<br>community<br>information to<br>measure progress<br>towards their own|Community level.<br>Capacity building.<br>Political domain.|

37
|Study and Location|Definition of<br>Empowerment|Measurement<br>Concept|Data Sources|Focus|Conclusions|Implication|Scope|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|_Factors Affecting_<br>_Self Reliance_<br>www.scn.org/cmp|beyond political<br>or legal<br>permission to<br>participate in the<br>national political<br>system|common values,<br>communal services,<br>communications<br>within the<br>community and<br>between itself and<br>outside, confidence,<br>political and<br>administrative<br>context,<br>information,<br>intervention,<br>leadership,<br>networking,<br>organization,<br>political power,<br>skills, trust, unity<br>and wealth|evaluation<br>meeting to reach<br>consensus on the<br>relative strength<br>of and changes<br>in each item||empowerment|objectives||
|Spreitzer (1995)<br>_U.S._|Intrapersonal<br>empowerment as<br>the component<br>of psychological<br>empowerment<br>that deals with<br>cognitive<br>elements. Other<br>components are<br>interactional<br>(thinking about<br>and relating to<br>the environment)<br>and behavioral<br>(taking action<br>and engaging<br>issues)|Self-assessment<br>using a seven-point<br>Likert response<br>format for four<br>dimensions (sense<br>of meaning-beliefs<br>and attitudes,<br>competence, self-<br>determination, and<br>impact or efficacy)<br>averaged into a<br>single measure of<br>intrapersonal<br>empowerment|Survey data from<br>a sample of 324<br>middle managers<br>from different<br>units of a<br>Fortune 50<br>organization|Intrapersonal<br>empowerment<br>in the<br>workplace|Intrapersonal<br>empowerment<br>mediates the<br>relationship<br>between<br>workplace social<br>structure and<br>innovation, but<br>not effectiveness.|Intrapersonal<br>empowerment as<br>a mediator<br>between the<br>social context<br>(support,<br>information,<br>resources and unit<br>culture) and<br>behavioral<br>outcomes|Individual level;<br>perceptions (also<br>informational resources<br>and culture included in<br>social structural<br>context). Market<br>Domain.|
|McMillan, et al.|Gaining|Psychological|Data from|Predictors of|Predictors of|Ongoing|Individual and|

38
|Study and Location|Definition of<br>Empowerment|Measurement<br>Concept|Data Sources|Focus|Conclusions|Implication|Scope|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|(1995)<br>_US_|influence over<br>events and<br>outcomes of<br>importance|empowerment<br>measures using self<br>assessment scales<br>for five components<br>(perceived<br>knowledge and skill<br>development,<br>perceived<br>participatory<br>competence,<br>expectancies for<br>future individual<br>contributions,<br>perceived<br>group/organization<br>accomplishments,<br>and expectancies for<br>future<br>group/organizational<br>accomplishments);<br>organizational<br>empowerment<br>derived from two<br>items (key<br>informant telephone<br>survey) rated on a<br>four-point scale<br>concerning the<br>impact of the task<br>force on their<br>organization<br>policies or<br>procedures and<br>resources|members of 35<br>community<br>coalitions<br>organized for the<br>prevention of<br>alcohol and other<br>drug problems;<br>key informant<br>telephone survey|empowerment<br>of individuals<br>and<br>organizations<br>in the context<br>of community<br>coalitions|individual<br>psychological<br>empowerment<br>(participation<br>levels, sense of<br>community,<br>perceptions of a<br>positive<br>organizational<br>climate),<br>collective<br>empowering of<br>members (net<br>benefits of<br>participation,<br>commitment and<br>positive<br>organization<br>climate), and<br>empowered<br>organizations<br>(psychological<br>empowerment<br>and positive<br>organization<br>climate)|interactional<br>process linking<br>the individual to<br>the collective,<br>that is both<br>multilevel and<br>context specific|organizational level;<br>empowerment seen<br>mostly as outcome<br>(influence,<br>achievements);<br>participation,<br>perception of<br>community, and<br>inclusion treated<br>separately. Social<br>domain.|
|Albertyn (2001)<br>_South Africa_|Effective<br>empowerment|Questionnaire<br>refined to 61|Questionnaire<br>implemented in|Developing a<br>standardized|Instrument that<br>can be used for|Using local and<br>personal|_[NOTE: Potentially_<br>_interesting. Need to see_|

39
|Study and Location|Definition of<br>Empowerment|Measurement<br>Concept|Data Sources|Focus|Conclusions|Implication|Scope|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||must occur at<br>each of 3 levels:<br>micro (attitude,<br>feelings and<br>skills), interface<br>(participation<br>and action<br>immediately<br>around the<br>individual) and<br>macro (beliefs,<br>action and<br>effects)|statements (33 on<br>the micro, 15 on the<br>interface and 13 on<br>the macro level)<br>after pretesting,<br>implementation, and<br>validity testing|an experimental<br>design in eight<br>Free to Grow<br>Groups<br>(company<br>presenting self-<br>development<br>programs in<br>organizations),<br>combined with<br>qualitative data<br>collection|instrument to<br>measure the<br>outcomes of<br>empowerment<br>and increase<br>accountability<br>in adult<br>education<br>programs|needs analysis<br>(baseline<br>assessment), long<br>term trends and<br>effects, proof of<br>impact,<br>comparison of<br>methods, and<br>action research|interpretations of<br>the definitions<br>and validating<br>with an objective<br>measurement tool|_the questionnaire,_<br>_which is proving hard_<br>_to access at the present_<br>_time.]_|
|Kroeker (1995)<br>_Nicaragua_|Reversing the<br>process of<br>alienation and<br>disbelief in<br>change and<br>increasing<br>access to<br>resources and|Seven months of<br>participant<br>observation and four<br>follow-up visits|An agricultural<br>cooperative in<br>Nicaragua in<br>1989, literature<br>review,<br>interviews of key<br>informants, and<br>visits to 15|Factors<br>enhancing and<br>impeding<br>individual,<br>organizational<br>and societal<br>empowerment|Factors enhancing<br>empowerment at<br>each level<br>(personal,<br>collective and<br>societal) are sense<br>making and<br>informal|Interrelated levels<br>of empowerment<br>are necessary:<br>personal,<br>organizational,<br>and societal|No specific instrument|
||control over the<br>conditions and<br>decisions that<br>affect one’s<br>personal life and<br>environment||cooperatives<br>around the<br>country||consciousness<br>raising processes;<br>impeding factors<br>are fears of<br>speaking in<br>meetings and<br>reluctance to face<br>crises,<br>environment and<br>outsiders|||
|UNDP (1995)<br>_Human_<br>_Development Report_|Unspecified|Gender<br>Empowerment<br>Measure (GEM):<br>index based on<br>women|Data about<br>percentage of<br>women in<br>parliament,<br>among|Comparing<br>abilities of<br>women and<br>men to<br>participate|Measure of<br>whether women<br>can take active<br>part in economic<br>and political|Participation and<br>measure of<br>gender inequality<br>in political and<br>economic life|National level<br>(typically); opportunity<br>structure; status of<br>empowerment/outcome.<br>Political and economic|

40
|Study and Location|Definition of<br>Empowerment|Measurement<br>Concept|Data Sources|Focus|Conclusions|Implication|Scope|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|||parliamentary<br>representation,<br>economic<br>participation and<br>decision making<br>(combining<br>administrative and<br>managerial positions<br>and professional and<br>technical positions)<br>and the gender<br>disparity in earned<br>incomes, reflecting<br>economic<br>independence|legislators,<br>senior officials,<br>and managers,<br>and among<br>professional and<br>technical<br>workers, as well<br>as male and<br>female<br>proportional<br>income share|actively in<br>economic and<br>political life|matters||domains.|
|Kvinnoforum<br>(2001)<br>_Namibia, Bostwana,_<br>_Zimbabwe, and_<br>_Mozambique_|No set definition<br>of empowerment<br>but focus on two<br>basic principles:<br>(1)<br>disempowerment<br>as starting point<br>for<br>empowerment<br>processes, and<br>(2)<br>empowerment<br>cannot be given<br>to someone by<br>somebody else;<br>it has to start<br>from within and<br>be owned by the|Project tested a<br>number of<br>qualitative and<br>quantitative<br>methods: Circle of<br>Important Areas,<br>House of Life,<br>ratings<br>questionnaire,<br>individual<br>interviews, focus<br>group discussion,<br>participatory<br>observations, case<br>studies|Participatory<br>methods that ask<br>women to reflect<br>on their own<br>situation|Women’s<br>empowerment|Importance of<br>empowering<br>methods and<br>acknowledging<br>that concepts<br>mean different<br>things to different<br>women.<br>Participants felt<br>that the House of<br>Life tool and the<br>individual<br>questionnaire best<br>captured their<br>own<br>empowerment<br>status|Participatory<br>methods;<br>indicators at<br>individual level,<br>group level, and<br>societal level are<br>different, even for<br>the same concept<br>(e.g., agency)|Participatory tools<br>rather than specific<br>instruments. Project<br>and individual levels.|

41
|Study and Location|Definition of<br>Empowerment|Measurement<br>Concept|Data Sources|Focus|Conclusions|Implication|Scope|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||person herself|||||||
|Malhotra (2002)<br>_Review of 45 studies_|Enhancing assets<br>and capabilities<br>of diverse<br>individuals and<br>groups to<br>engage,<br>influence, and<br>hold accountable<br>the institutions<br>that affect them||Review of 45<br>studies using<br>quantitative<br>and/or<br>qualitative data|Women’s<br>empowerment<br>and gender<br>relations in<br>international<br>development|Empowerment<br>can occur in one<br>or more areas of<br>life, at various<br>levels, and be<br>individual or<br>collective. Most<br>studies focus on<br>the household<br>level and are<br>usually weak with<br>respect to<br>intervening<br>processes; only<br>two studies<br>measure data over<br>time|Overview of<br>indicators used in<br>past studies|List of indicators<br>covering different<br>dimensions (economic,<br>socio-cultural, familial,<br>legal, political and<br>psychological), levels<br>of aggregation<br>(household,<br>community, broader<br>arenas), in which<br>empowerment was<br>considered as an<br>outcome or an<br>intermediary process|
|Brown (2003)<br>_Hypothetical_<br>_example_|Providing<br>empowerment<br>opportunities as<br>necessary<br>prerequisites to<br>altering a<br>person’s<br>potential reality<br>and giving<br>people the<br>means to better<br>themselves|Q-sample<br>(purposive selection<br>of statements on<br>what it means to be<br>empowered), Q-<br>sorting (having<br>participants rank-<br>order them for -4 or<br>disagree to +4 or<br>agree), and Q-factor<br>analysis to show<br>how opinions are<br>patterned into<br>overall perspectives|Participatory<br>method; must<br>enter into reality<br>and become a<br>functional part of<br>the person’s<br>perspective|Poverty<br>reduction|Q-methodology<br>to provide a<br>measure of how<br>strategies that<br>emphasize the<br>material world<br>outside the<br>individual relate<br>to poor people’s<br>realities|Measures must be<br>grounded in the<br>realities of the<br>poor, ad hoc<br>categorizations<br>may not be<br>adequate|Sorting individuals into<br>groups; perceptions|

42
# Annex 2.  Intervention-Level Indicators of Empowerment

This annex contains agency, opportunity structure, and empowerment indicators that were developed to measure empowerment in the context of the Ethiopia Women’s Development Initiatives Project, the Honduras Community-Based Education Project, and the Mexico Lifelong Learning Project. Indicators were developed for different domains. Degree of empowerment indicators mainly correspond to the local or intermediary levels. The Mexico impact evaluation uses only degree of empowerment indicators. In this example, asset and opportunity structure indicators have not been developed.

# **Table 1.  Empowerment Indicators, Ethiopia Women’s Development Initiatives Project**

|DOMAIN|SUB-|ASSET AND OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURE<br>|DEGREES OF E|MPOWERMENT INDICATO|RS|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||DOMAIN|INDICATORS<sup>31</sup>|National|Intermediary|Local|
|STATE|Political|•<br>Education levels<br>•<br>Levels of self-confidence<br>•<br>•<br>Percentage of women who participate in a<br>community group<br>•<br>Amount of time passed since joining the group, if<br>any<br>•<br>Percentage of women who are members of a political<br>party||Extent to which<br>women are equally<br>represented in district<br>councils (compared<br>with men)|Extent to which<br>women are equally<br>represented in village<br>councils (compared<br>with men)|
|||•<br>Laws that treat men and women differently<br>•<br>Cases where formal laws contradict informal rules<br>and traditional procedures<br>•<br>Extent to which men regard women as equal to them<br>•<br>Likelihood of a woman obtaining justice in disputes<br>between a man and a woman||||

> 31 Asset indicators are listed in the shaded boxes, opportunity structure indicators in the non-shaded ones.

43
|DOMAIN|SUB-<br>DOMAIN|ASSET AND OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURE<br>INDICATORS|DEGREES OF EMPOWERMENT INDICATO|RS|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|MARKET|Labor|•<br>Literacy levels<br>•<br>Possession of job-specific skills (leadership, problem<br>solving, managing accounts, housework, weaving,<br>farming, driving)<br>•<br>Income levels and household income shares<br>•<br>Percentage of women who have access to and use<br>information from the (1) radio, (2) TV, (3)<br>newspaper, (4) post office, (5) telephone<br>(information)<br>•<br>Percentage of women who participate in a<br>community group<br>•<br>Amount of time passed since joining the group, if<br>any|Extent to which<br>women choose their<br>type of employment|Extent to which<br>women choose their<br>type of employment|
|||•<br>Distance to the nearest market<br>•<br>Extent to which other household members (husband,<br>parents, children) participate in such chores as<br>fetching water and firewood, cleaning, cooking,<br>grocery shopping, taking care of children<br>•<br>Extent to which government provides job-related<br>training<br>•<br>Cultural restrictions determine which professions<br>women are allowed to pursue|||
|MARKET|Labor|•<br>Levels of literacy<br>•<br>Levels of self-confidence<br>•<br>Percentage of women who participate in a<br>community group<br>•<br>Amount of time passed since joining the group, if<br>any<br>•<br>Laws grant equal rights to men and women<br>•<br>Women can demand equal work conditions to those<br>of men|Extent to which<br>women negotiate<br>working conditions<br>with their employers|Extent to which<br>women negotiate<br>working conditions<br>with their employers|

44
|DOMAIN|SUB-<br>DOMAIN|ASSET AND OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURE<br>INDICATORS|DEGREES OF EMPOWERMENT INDICATO|RS|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|MARKET|Credit|•<br>Percentage of women who are members in a credit<br>and savings association or other community group<br>•<br>Income levels<br>•<br>Lenders trust men more than women regarding the<br>repayment of debts|Extent to which<br>women have access<br>to credit:<br>Distance to nearest<br>bank or credit<br>institute (measured in<br>hours/minutes)<br>Number of times<br>women have asked<br>for a (1) loans from<br>bank, (2) loans from<br>moneylenders, (3)<br>loans from family<br>and friends, (4) store<br>credits, (5) forward<br>sales in the last year<br>Number of times<br>women received (1) –<br>(5) over the last year|Extent to which<br>women have access<br>to credit:<br>Distance to nearest<br>bank or credit<br>institute (measured in<br>hours/minutes)<br>Number of times<br>women have asked<br>for a (1) loans from<br>bank, (2) loans from<br>moneylenders, (3)<br>loans from family<br>and friends, (4) store<br>credits, (5) forward<br>sales in the last year<br>Number of times<br>women received (1) –<br>(5) over the last year|
|SOCIETY|Family|•<br>Percentage of women who have received training on<br>(1) women’s rights, (2) female genital mutilation, (3)<br>milk tooth extraction, (4) early marriage<br>•<br>Percentage of women who participate in a<br>community group<br>•<br>Amount of time passed since joining the group, if<br>any<br>•<br>Levels of self-confidence<br>•<br>Laws protect women from harmful traditional<br>practices<br>•<br>Extent to which women are treated equally under the<br>law in practice<br>•<br>Operation of non-formal courts that discriminate<br>against women|Percentage of women<br>who take action<br>against harmful<br>traditional practices<br>(female genital<br>mutilation, milk tooth<br>extraction etc.)|Percentage of women<br>who take action<br>against harmful<br>traditional practices<br>(female genital<br>mutilation, milk tooth<br>extraction etc.)|

45
|DOMAIN|SUB-<br>DOMAIN|ASSET AND OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURE<br>INDICATORS|DEGREES OF EMPOWERMENT INDICATO|RS|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|SOCIETY|Family|•<br>Percentage of women who have received training on<br>their rights<br>•<br>Percentage of women who are aware that they are<br>entitled to seek redress<br>•<br>Percentage of women who participate in a<br>community group<br>•<br>Amount of time passed since joining the group, if<br>any<br>•<br>Levels of self-confidence<br>•<br>Laws protect women from domestic violence<br>•<br>Extent to which women are treated equally under the<br>law in practice<br>•<br>Operation of non-formal courts that discriminate<br>against women<br>•<br>Perception of men/women that domestic violence is<br>acceptable<br>•<br>Extent to which men are punished in courts for<br>committing acts of domestic violence|Percentage of women<br>take action against<br>domestic violence|Percentage of women<br>take action against<br>domestic violence|
|SOCIETY|Family|•<br>Percentage of women who participate in a<br>community group<br>•<br>Amount of time passed since joining the women’s<br>group, if any<br>•<br>Income level<br>•<br>Employment status||Extent to which<br>women can make<br>independent decision<br>over investments in<br>(1) house durables,<br>(2) kitchen utensils,<br>(3) farm tools, (4)<br>yard animals, (5)<br>farm inputs, (6)<br>business inputs|

46
|DOMAIN|SUB-<br>DOMAIN|ASSET AND OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURE<br>INDICATORS|DEGREES OF EMPOWERMENT INDICATORS|
|---|---|---|---|
|SOCIETY|Family|•<br>Extent of awareness of reproductive health issues<br>•<br>Levels of self-confidence<br>•<br>Education levels<br>•<br>Percentage of women who participate in women’s<br>groups<br>•<br>Amount of time passed since joining the women’s<br>group, if any<br>•<br>Levels of obedience with which women encounter<br>their husbands|Percentage of women<br>have an equal say<br>over (1) the spacing<br>of children, (2) using<br>contraceptives, (3)<br>having sex|
|SOCIETY|Community|•<br>Levels of confidence to speak in public<br>•<br>Percentage of women who are informed about the<br>timing and purpose of meetings<br>•<br>Percentage of women who participate in women’s<br>groups<br>•<br>Amount of time passed since joining the women’s<br>group, if any<br>•<br>Extent to which women are allowed to participate in<br>communal meetings|Ratio of women vs.<br>men who attend (1)<br>political, (2) social,<br>(3) religious<br>community meetings<br>Extent to which<br>women vs. men (1)<br>speak up at these<br>meetings, (2) have<br>their views taken into<br>consideration, (3)<br>affect decisions|

47
# **Table 2.  Empowerment Indicators, Nepal Rural Water and Sanitation Project**<sup>32</sup>

|DOMAIN|SUB-DOMAIN|ASSET AND OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURE<br>|DEGR|EES OF EMPOWERMENT INDI|CATORS|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|||INDICATORS<sup>33</sup>|Fed.|Intermediary|Local|
|STATE|Justice|•<br>Literacy levels<br>•<br>Monthly income levels<br>•<br>Size of land household owns<br>•<br>Perceived levels of wealth<br>•<br>Participation in training events on the rights of low<br>castes/indigenous peoples<br>•<br>Membership in (1) externally organized groups,<br>such as credit/saving group, users’ group,<br>women’s group, (2) traditional indigenous<br>organizations||Extent to which respondents<br>find it easy to approach (1) the<br>police, (2) a court<br>Extent to which respondents<br>feel that they are treated fairly<br>(1) by the police, (2) by the<br>court|Extent to which respondents<br>find it easy to approach (1)<br>the police, (2) a court<br>Extent to which respondents<br>feel that they are treated<br>fairly (1) by the police, (2)<br>by the court|
|||•<br>Perceived levels of respect with which members of<br>one caste/ethnicity are treated by members of other<br>castes/ethnicities<br>•<br>Perceived degree of security relative to other<br>castes/ethnicities<br>•<br>Perceived levels of opportunity for improvement<br>relative to other castes/ethnicities<br>•<br>Respondent is restricted from entering certain<br>public areas, such as village district office<br>•<br>Perceived levels of improvements in the status of<br>indigenous people’s rights since 1990||||

> 32 Asset indicators are listed in the shaded boxes, opportunity structure indicators in the non-shaded ones.

48
|DOMAI<br>N|SUB-DOMAIN|ASSET AND OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURE<br>INDICATORS|DEGREES OF EMPOWERMENT INDICATORS|
|---|---|---|---|
|STATE|Political|•<br>Literacy levels<br>•<br>Monthly income levels<br>•<br>Perceived levels of wealth<br>•<br>Membership in (1) externally organized groups,<br>such as credit/saving group, users’ group,<br>women’s group, (2) traditional indigenous<br>organizations<br>•<br>Extent of awareness of the candidates who ran for<br>office<br>•<br>Participation in training events on the rights of low<br>castes/indigenous peoples|Respondent voted in the last<br>village district council<br>election<br>Extent to which other<br>household members decide<br>for who respondent votes|
|||•<br>Perceived levels of respect with which members of<br>own caste/ethnicity are treated by members of<br>other castes/ethnicities<br>•<br>Perceived degree of security relative to other<br>castes/ethnicities<br>•<br>Respondent is restricted from entering certain<br>public areas, such as village district office<br>•<br>Perceived levels of improvements in the status of<br>indigenous people’s rights since 1990||
|STATE|Service Delivery|•<br>Literacy levels<br>•<br>Monthly income levels<br>•<br>Perceived levels of wealth<br>•<br>Participation in training events on the rights of low<br>castes/indigenous peoples<br>•<br>Membership in (1) externally organized groups,<br>such as credit/saving group, users’ group,<br>women’s group, (2) traditional indigenous<br>organizations|Number of development<br>agencies operating in village<br>of which respondent is<br>aware<br>Type of agency respondent<br>visited for assistance in past<br>Degree of responsiveness of|

49
|DOMAI<br>N|SUB-DOMAIN|ASSET AND OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURE<br>INDICATORS|DEGREES OF EMPOWERMEN|T INDICATORS|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|||•<br>Perceived levels of respect with which members of<br>own caste/ethnicity are treated by members of<br>other castes/ethnicities<br>•<br>Perceived levels of opportunity for improvement<br>relative to other castes/ethnicities<br>•<br>Perceived levels of improvements in the status of<br>indigenous people’s rights since 1990||development agencies to<br>respondent’s request|
|STATE|Service Delivery|•<br>Size of land household owns<br>•<br>Number of livestock household raises<br>•<br>Monthly income levels<br>•<br>Perceived levels of wealth<br>•<br>Literacy levels<br>•<br>Participation in training events on the rights of low<br>castes/indigenous peoples<br>•<br>Membership in (1) externally organized groups,<br>such as credit/saving group, users’ group,<br>women’s group, (2) traditional indigenous<br>organizations<br>•<br>Perceived levels of respect with which members of<br>one caste/ethnicity are treated by members of other<br>castes/ethnicities<br>•<br>Perceived degree of security relative to other<br>castes/ethnicities<br>•<br>Perceived levels of opportunity for improvement<br>relative to other castes/ethnicities<br>•<br>Respondent is restricted from entering certain<br>public areas, such as village district office<br>•<br>Perceived levels of improvements in the status of<br>indigenous people’s rights since 1990|Respondents have filed<br>complaints with district<br>representatives about public<br>services in the past<br>Perceived extent to which<br>complaint influenced<br>representatives’ decisions|Respondents have filed<br>complaints with<br>village/ward representatives<br>about public services in the<br>past<br>Perceived extent to which<br>complaint influenced<br>representatives’ decisions|
|SOCIETY|Household|•<br>Literacy levels<br>•<br>Monthly income levels<br>•<br>Membership in (1) externally organized groups,<br>such as credit/saving group, users’ group,<br>women’s group, (2) traditional indigenous<br>organizations<br>•<br>Participation in training events on women’s rights||Extent to which women,<br>over the last year, were<br>involved in decision making<br>about (1) changing farming<br>practices, selling/purchasing<br>cattle, purchasing durables,<br>(2) visiting health posts,|

50
|DOMAI<br>N|SUB-DOMAIN|ASSET AND OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURE<br>INDICATORS|DEGREES OF EMPOWERMEN|T INDICATORS|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|||•<br>Frequency with which women are subject to<br>domestic violence (verbal and physical<br>harassment)<br>•<br>Perceived levels of improvement in the status of<br>women’s rights since 1990||visiting children’s school,<br>building/repairing home, (3)<br>purchasing clothes,<br>ornaments, food items, or<br>school supplies|
|STATE|Household|•<br>Literacy levels<br>•<br>Membership in (1) externally organized groups,<br>such as credit/saving group, users’ group,<br>women’s group, (2) traditional indigenous<br>organizations<br>•<br>Extent of awareness over women’s rights<br>•<br>Participation in training on women’s rights<br>•<br>Perceived levels of improvement in the status of<br>women’s rights since 1990||Ratio of women vs. men<br>who control their cash<br>income|
|STATE|Household|•<br>Literacy levels<br>•<br>Income levels<br>•<br>Perceived levels of wealth<br>•<br>Membership in (1) externally organized groups,<br>such as credit/saving group, users’ group, women’s<br>group, (2) traditional indigenous organizations<br>•<br>Extent of awareness over women’s rights<br>•<br>Participation in training events on women’s rights<br>•<br>Frequency with which women are subject to<br>domestic violence (verbal and physical<br>harassment)<br>•<br>Perceived levels of improvement in the status of<br>women’s rights since 1990|Women visit the following<br>places with or without<br>accompaniment: (1) the town<br>bazaar, (2) the district center|Women visit the following<br>places with or without<br>accompaniment: (1) their<br>native village, (2) the<br>nearest local bazaar, (3) the<br>local tea shop, (4) the movie<br>hall, (5) the temple|
|SOCIETY|Household|•<br>Literacy levels<br>•<br>Membership in (1) externally organized groups,<br>such as credit/saving group, users’ group, women’s<br>group, (2) traditional indigenous organizations<br>•<br>Extent of awareness over women’s rights<br>•<br>Participation in training events on women’s rights||Frequency with which<br>women experienced (1)<br>verbal harassment, (2)<br>physical violence in the<br>home in the past year|

51
|DOMAI<br>N|SUB-DOMAIN|ASSET AND OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURE<br>INDICATORS|DEGREES OF EMPOWERMENT|INDICATORS|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|||•<br>Perceived levels of improvement in the status of<br>women’s rights since 1990||Women seek help from<br>relatives, friends, group<br>members, authorities and/or<br>others against such violence<br>Perceived levels of<br>usefulness of efforts to seek<br>help|
|SOCIETY|Community|•<br>Membership in (1) externally organized groups,<br>such as credit/saving group, users’ group,<br>women’s group, (2) traditional indigenous<br>organizations<br>•<br>Participation in training events on the rights of low<br>castes/ indigenous peoples<br>•<br>Literacy levels<br>•<br>Perceived levels of economic success of own<br>caste/ ethnicity<br>•<br>Perceived levels of improvement in the status of<br>indigenous people’s rights since 1990<br>•<br>Perceived levels of opportunity for improvement<br>relative to other castes/ethnicities<br>•<br>Perceived degree of security relative to other<br>castes/ethnicities|Frequency with which<br>respondents were verbally<br>harassed, threatened, or<br>physically assaulted by (1)<br>high-caste people, (2) police,<br>(3) other groups of people<br>Respondents were able to get<br>help regarding these<br>incidences with police or<br>authorities<br>Perceived levels of usefulness<br>of attempts to get help|Frequency with which<br>respondents were verbally<br>harassed, threatened or<br>physically assaulted over<br>the last year by (1) high<br>caste people, (2) police, (3)<br>other groups of people<br>Respondents were able to<br>get help regarding these<br>incidences with their<br>community, user group<br>members, police, or<br>authorities<br>Perceived levels of<br>usefulness of attempts to get<br>help|

_Source_ : MESI study survey instruments. Indicators here do not at all times reflect their actual categorization in the study. In this table, we have adapted the classification (not content) of indicators strictly to illustrate our analytic framework.

52
**Table 3.  Empowerment Indicators, Honduras Community Based Education Project**

|DOMAIN|SUB-DOMAIN|ASSET AND OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURE INDICATORS<sup>34</sup>|DEGREE<br>Federal|S OF EMPOWERMEN<br>Intermediary|T INDICATORS<br>Local|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|STATE|Service Delivery|•<br>Percentage of schools councils that are informed of the requirement<br>to acquire legal status to open up a bank account<br>•<br>Percentage of councils that possess an operational manual that lists<br>their responsibilities<br>•<br>Percentage of councils that have opened a bank account to receive<br>transfers from the government<br>•<br>Percentage of councils that file (1) bank statements, (2) receipts of<br>purchases and payments, (3) receipts of transfers<br>•<br>Percentage of councils that have received training on budgetary<br>matters<br>•<br>Duration of the training<br>•<br>Levels of perceived usefulness of the training||Percentage of school<br>councils that oversee<br>their budgets||
|||•<br>Legislation grants school councils the right to oversee their budgets<br>•<br>Provision is made to inform councils about their budget<br>responsibilities<br>•<br>Provision is made to train councils about budget responsibilities<br>•<br>Extent to which other actors (school principal, mayor, council<br>member, PROHECO district or departmental officer) intervene in<br>budget oversight||||

> 34 Asset indicators are listed in the shaded boxes, opportunity structure indicators in the non-shaded ones.

53
|DOMAIN|SUB-DOMAIN|ASSET AND OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURE INDICATORS|DEGREE<br>Federal|S OF EMPOWERMEN<br>Intermediary|T INDICATORS<br>Local|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|STATE|Service Delivery|•<br>Percentage of councils that have been informed that they are<br>responsible for buying school supplies<br>•<br>Percentage of councils that possess an operational manual that lists<br>their responsibilities<br>•<br>Percentage of councils have received training about how to purchase<br>school supplies<br>•<br>Duration of training<br>•<br>Perceived levels of usefulness of training||Percentage of school<br>councils that buy<br>school supplies||
|||•<br>Legislation grants school councils the right to purchase school<br>supplies<br>•<br>Number of financial transfers government made to councils over the<br>last year<br>•<br>Number of occasions in which transfers were made on time over the<br>last year<br>•<br>Extent to which transfer amounts are sufficient for councils to buy<br>school materials<br>•<br>Extent to which other actors (school principal, mayor, council<br>member, PROHECO district or departmental officer) intervene in<br>||||
|||task of buying school supplies||||
|STATE|Service Delivery|•<br>Percentage of councils that are informed that they are responsible for<br>selecting and hiring teachers<br>•<br>Percentage of councils that possess an operational manual that lists<br>their responsibilities<br>•<br>Percentage of councils that have received training on how to recruit<br>teachers<br>•<br>Duration of training<br>•<br>Perceived levels of sufficiency of the training||Percentage of school<br>councils that recruit<br>teachers||
|||•<br>Legislation grants councils the right to select and hire teachers<br>•<br>Provisions are made to train councils on personnel management<br>matters<br>•<br>Extent to which other actors (school principal, mayor, council<br>member, PROHECO district or departmental officer) intervene in<br>task of teacher recruitment||||

54
|DOMAIN|SUB-DOMAIN|ASSET AND OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURE INDICATORS|DEGREE|S OF EMPOWERMEN|T INDICATORS|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||||Federal|Intermediary|Local|
|STATE|Service Delivery|•<br>Percentage of councils that are informed of their right to supervise<br>teacher performance<br>•<br>Percentage of councils that have received training on how to supervise<br>teacher performance<br>•<br>Duration of training<br>•<br>Perceived levels of usefulness of training<br>•<br>Levels of perceived capacity to supervise teachers<br>•<br>Legislation grants councils the right to supervise teachers<br>•<br>Provisions are made for informing councils about teacher<br>supervision<br>•<br>Provisions are made for training councils on how to supervise<br>teachers<br>•<br>Extent to which other actors (school principal, mayor, council<br>member, PROHECO district or departmental officer) intervene in<br>task of teacher supervision|||Percentage of<br>school councils<br>that supervise<br>teacher<br>performance|
|SOCIETY|Household|•<br>Percentage of women who are literate<br>•<br>Percentage of women who are aware of when council meetings take<br>place<br>•<br>Percentage of women who understand what type of decisions are<br>made during the meetings<br>•<br>Percentage of women who have received training regarding the<br>council’s functions<br>•<br>Levels of perceived effectiveness of training<br>•<br>Percentage of women who are involved in other community<br>organizations<br>•<br>Type of position held in other organization, if any<br>•<br>Women are included in public decision making|||Percentage of<br>women who<br>participate in<br>school council<br>meetings|

55
|DOMAIN|SUB-DOMAIN|ASSET AND OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURE INDICATORS|DEGREE|S OF EMPOWERM|ENT INDICATORS|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||||Federal|Intermediary|Local|
|SOCIETY|Community|•<br>Percentage of the poorest members who are literate<br>•<br>Percentage of poorest members who are aware of when council<br>meetings take place<br>•<br>Percentage of the poorest who understand what type of decisions are<br>made during the meetings<br>•<br>Percentage of poorest members who have received training<br>regarding the council’s functions<br>•<br>Levels of perceived effectiveness of training<br>•<br>Percentage of poorest members who are involved in community<br>organizations<br>•<br>Type of position held in other organization, if any<br>•<br>The poorest members are included in public decision-making|||Percentage of the<br>poorest members<br>of the<br>community who<br>participate in<br>school council<br>meetings|

56
# **Table 4.  Draft Empowerment Indicators, Mexico Lifelong Learning Project**

|DOMAIN|SUB-DOMAIN|DEGREE OF EMPOWERMENT INDICATOR|SAMPLE QUESTIONS|
|---|---|---|---|
|SOCIETY|Family|•<br>Percentage of (married) women who have a say over how<br>the household income is spent<br>•<br>Percentage of women who have taken action to stop<br>domestic violence by (1) speaking up against the husband,<br>(2) leaving the husband, (3) seeking help from friends or<br>family, (4) seeking help from authorities, (5) other<br>•<br>Level of women’s involvement in reproductive decisions<br>such as (1) family size, (2) child spacing, (3) use of birth<br>control|•<br>Who in your household decides how the household<br>income is spent on (list investment options) (Husband<br>decides. Wife decides. Joint decision). Have you ever<br>wanted to manage a larger part of the household income?<br>What was the outcome?<br>•<br>Would you say that there have been incidences of<br>domestic violence in your household? Have you ever<br>taken action to stop it? If no, why not? If yes, what did<br>you do? What was the outcome?<br>•<br>Who in your household decides (1) family size, (2) child<br>spacing, (3) use of birth control? (The husband decides.<br>The husband consults the wife but makes the final<br>decision. The husband and the wife make a joint decision.<br>The wife decides.) Have you ever wanted to assume a<br>greater degree of control of 1-3? What was the outcome?|

57
|DOMAIN|SUB-DOMAIN|DEGREE OF EMPOWERMENT INDICATOR|SAMPLE QUESTIONS|
|---|---|---|---|
|STATE|Political/ Judicial|•<br>Percentage of respondents who voted in either (1) local,<br>(2) federal, or (3) national elections last year|•<br>Did any local, federal or national elections take place last<br>year? Which ones? Did you vote? If not, why not? (I<br>didn’t want to//I didn’t know how to// I wasn’t allowed)|
|||•<br>Percentage of respondents who participate in political or<br>social organizations (such as political parties, parent-<br>teacher associations, user groups)<br>•<br>Percentage of respondents who filed a complaints (_quejas_<br>_o denuncias_) with public authorities (police, court, local<br>council) for the following reasons: (1) divorce, (2)<br>alimony, (3) the provision or quality of public services<br>over the past year|•<br>What type of political or social organizations exist in<br>your community? Please list/select from the following<br>options. Have you ever wanted to participate in any of<br>these? Did you participate?<br>•<br>Over the past year, have you been in a situation in which<br>you wanted to file a complaint with public authorities<br>because you wanted to (1) file for divorce, (2) claim<br>alimony, (3) complain about the provision or quality of<br>public services? Did you file any such complaint? If yes,<br>what was the outcome? If no, why not (I don’t know<br>which type of complaints can be filed// I don’t know how<br>to file a complaint// I was too intimidated to do so)|
|MARKET|Labor|•<br>Percentage of respondents who negotiate working<br>conditions (salary, working hours, training, benefits) with<br>their employers<br>•<br>Percentage of respondents who have solved work related<br>problems over the last year|•<br>Are you aware of the rights you have at your workplace?<br>Have you ever wanted to negotiate working conditions at<br>your work place? If so, did you do so? What was the<br>outcome?<br>•<br>In the past year, have you had a problem at your work<br>with (1) your colleague.(2) your boss? If so, did you<br>attempt to do something about it? What did you so? What<br>was the outcome?|
|HEALTH||•<br>Percentage of respondents who insist on the use of<br>condoms to prevent STDs|•<br>Do you know about methods to prevent STDs? Have you<br>ever wanted to use any of them? Have you ever used<br>them? If not, why not?|
|||•<br>Percentage of women who make use of their right to go<br>to the doctor (gynecologist)|•<br>Do you know why it is important to get a gynecological<br>check-up? In the last year, have you wanted to get a<br>check-up? Did you get one? If not, why not? (I was<br>embarrassed// My husband didn’t let me// other)|

58
Annex 3. Empowerment Themes and Strategies in Selected PRSPs

|**Country PRSP**|**Empowerment theme**|**Empowerment strategies**|
|---|---|---|
|Albania|Governance|•<br>Enhancing accountability through public administration reforms and <br>community participation in local government<br>•<br>Legal and judicial reform<br>•<br>Anti-corruption<br>•<br>Decentralization<br>•<br>Public education on decentralization and civic rights in local<br>government|
|Ethiopia|Good governance, accountability and improved service<br>delivery, with a focus on gender equality|•<br>Democratic decentralization: fiscal federalism and enabling<br>legislation<br>•<br>Strengthen capacity of communities to federate and take advantage of<br>opportunities for voice afforded by decentralization|
||Community participation|Ethiopian Social Rehabilitation and Development Fund (ESRDF) has<br>during previous four years empowered poor communities through<br>participation in projects|
|The Gambia|Empowerment of women|Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education|
||Participation in governance|Decentralization as a key poverty alleviation component for the<br>empowerment of the poor|
||Community empowerment|“Community empowerment initiatives”|
|Ghana|Empowering grassroots organizations|Not clear|
||Access to information on government policies, linked to<br>accountability among public office holders and informed<br>choices|Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs disseminated government policies and<br>programs to the unit committee levels of the decentralized administrative<br>system|
||“Deepened” citizen participation in decision making|•<br>Strengthen administrative capacity among District Assemblies (with<br>outcomes including more regular meetings and properly functioning<br>committees)<br>•<br>Passage of Local Government Service Bill (to raise morale on<br>expectation of improved service conditions)<br>•<br>Piloting system of district composite budgets<br>•<br>Expand number of districts and constituencies for administrative and<br>electoral functions|

59
|||•<br>Civil service reform: including performance orientation<br>•<br>Greater cooperation between District Assemblies and Civil Society<br>Organizations<br>•<br>Empower communities to demand accountability (e.g. budget<br>advocacy)|
|---|---|---|
||Empowering women|•<br>Funds disbursed through Women’s Development Fund<br>•<br>Ministry of Women and Children’s Affairs creating new jobs for<br>women nationally<br>•<br>Increase school enrollment for girls nationally|
|Guinea|Grassroots empowerment|Participation in the design, implementation and evaluation of development<br>projects by “grassroots entities”|
|Guyana|Local governance and service delivery|•<br>Decentralize service provision<br>•<br>Strengthen local government by improving the representation of<br>communities on local government councils, improving accountability<br>mechanisms and introducing expenditure tracking systems|
|Kenya|Farmers’ empowerment|Improved legislation and empowerment of farmers’ associations|
||Unlocking capacity in Local Governments and communities|Not clear|
|Lao PDR|Participatory community development: empowering the<br>grassroots level to participate in development dialogue and<br>decision-making processes|Improve levels of education; higher degree of human and social<br>development|
|Macedonia|Empowerment and ownership of the PRSP|Participation in the PRSP|
|Madagascar|Governance and service delivery|Decentralization and empowerment of individuals and local communities|
|Malawi|Economic empowerment, with specific reference to gender<br>imbalances|Raise awareness of gender issues, women’s legal rights and economic<br>empowerment of women|
||Empowerment for forest resource management|•<br>Capacity building for forest resource management<br>•<br>Introduce regular meetings to discuss and explain changes in forestry<br>policy|
||Local empowerment and participation|Civic education|
|Nepal|Empowerment broadly|Greater access to markets, public services, income generating activities,<br>and opportunities for self-help, security, and lower vulnerability|
||Women’s empowerment and gender equality|•<br>Mainstreaming women’s participation in every aspect of national<br>development<br>•<br>Micro-credit expansion linked to INGOs/NGOs marketing assistance<br>program|
||Empowerment of local users for forest management and<br>utilization|<br>Not clear|
|Nicaragua|Governance: Lack of economic and political power among the<br>poor to influence decision-making processes that affect their|•<br>Develop a set of indicators for participation, dialogue, and consensus-<br>building for good governance|

60
||lives|•<br>Improve transparency and accountability among public officials and<br>prevent and punish corruption|
|---|---|---|
|Rwanda|Good governance: Grassroots participation in development<br>and decision making|Capacity building programs at grassroots level|
||Economic empowerment, with specific reference to unskilled<br>youth|Creation of training and employment opportunities|
||Community empowerment through participation|Community development projects|
||Women’s empowerment|•<br>Eliminating gender disparity in primary and secondary education<br>•<br>Targeted microcredit programs|
|Senegal|Empowerment to manage natural resources|Participatory methods for natural resource management|
|Tanzania|Governance and service provision|•<br>Stakeholder participation in sector strategy design and implementation<br>•<br>Information campaigns on local government reform to promote<br>transparency and accountability in public services delivery<br>•<br>Institutional reforms on governance, accountability, and transparency<br>•<br>Codes of conduct for councilors and staff at local government level|
|Uganda|Powerlessness, defined as the inability to affect things around<br>one (reflected in the findings of the UPAP), with specific<br>reference to service provider accountability|•<br>Public information around entitlements and roles in service delivery<br>•<br>Mechanisms for citizen participation in policymaking<br>•<br>Reform of public procurement regulations<br>•<br>Leadership code for political leaders|
|Vietnam|Governance and service delivery|Decentralization of service delivery, increased participation, and more<br>transparent resource allocation|
|Yemen|All encompassing approach policy framework which would<br>enable the government to empower the poor|Not clear|
||Women’s low level of participation in labor markets,<br>education systems, decision-making structures as well as in<br>exercising their reproductive health choices and legal rights|Not clear|
|Zambia|<br>Economic empowerment to escape poverty (contrasted with a<br>safety nets approach)|Programs such as the Agricultural Sector Investment Programme (ASIP),<br>which includes developing infrastructure for small-scale farmers, and the<br>Environmental Support Programme (ESP) which includes support for<br>sustainable community-based projects.|

61
# Annex 4.  National-Level Indicators of Empowerment

Many asset indicators have already been generated and tested by such survey instruments as the Living Standards Measurement Survey and social capital assessment tools. Table 1 identifies a series of asset indicators that have been identified by these instruments. The draft module for measuring empowerment at the national level (annex 5) makes use of many of the indicators presented in this table.

Opportunity structure comprises the presence and operations of institutions, defined as rules. Tables 2-4 of this annex lists key indicators for measuring institutions in different domains and sub-domains. Column one of these tables identifies indicators that refer to the presence of rules; column two those that gauge the operation of rules. A series of data sources exist that can provide information on the proposed opportunity structure indicators. Existing data sources are listed and numbered in column three of the tables. Where a data source exists for a suggested indicator, the source is identified in parentheses. Where no prior source is available, new data need to be collected from either the survey.

Direct indicators of empowerment capture the extent to which a person is able to transform a choice into a desired outcome. Specifically, they distinguish between three different degrees of empowerment, namely (1) whether a person has the option to make a choice, (2) whether the person decides to make use of the option to choose, and (3) whether the person achieves the desired result after making a choice. Table 5 identifies a list of indicators that can be used to ascertain respondents’ degrees of empowerment for each domain and level they operate in. The module for measuring empowerment at the national level (presented in annex 5) makes use of the direct empowerment indicators presented in table 5.

62
# **Table 1.  Intermediate Indicators of Empowerment: Agency**

|**Asset base**|**Indicator**|**Existing sources/ instruments**|
|---|---|---|
|**Psychological**<br>**assets**|•Self-perceived exclusion from community<br>activities<br>•Level of interaction/sociability with people<br>from different social groups<br>•Capacity to envisage change, to aspire|•IQMSC – section 5<br>•IQMSC – section 5<br>•IQMSC – section 6|
|**Informational**<br>**assets**|•Journey time to nearest working post office<br>•Journey time to nearest working telephone<br>•Frequency of radio listening<br>•Frequency of television watching<br>•Frequency of newspaper reading<br>•Passable road access to house (by periods of<br>time)<br>•Perceived changes in access to information<br>•Completed education level|•IQMSC – section 4<br>•IQMSC – section 4<br>•IQMSC – section 4<br>•IQMSC – section 4<br>•IQMSC – section 4<br>•IQMSC – section 4<br>•IQMSC – section 4<br>•SCAT Household Questionnaire –<br>section 2|
|**Organizational**<br>**assets**|•Membership of organizations<br>•Effectiveness of group leadership<br>•Influence in selection of group leaders<br>•Level of diversity of group membership|•IQMSC – section 1<br>•IQMSC – section 1<br>•IQMSC – section 1<br>•IQMSC – section 1|
|**Material assets**|•<br>Land ownership<br>•<br>Tool ownership<br>•<br>Ownership of durable goods<br>•<br>Type of housing|•LSMS – economic activities module<br>•LSMS – economic activities module<br>•LSMS – economic activities module<br>•SCAT Household Questionnaire –<br>section 2|
|**Financial assets**|•<br>Employment history<br>•<br>Level of indebtedness<br>•<br>Sources of credit<br>•<br>Household expenses<br>•<br>Food expenditure<br>•<br>Occupation|•LSMS – economic activities module<br>•LSMS – economic activities module<br>•LSMS – economic activities module<br>•LSMS – housing module<br>•LSMS – food expenditures module<br>•SCAT Household Questionnaire –<br>section 2|
|**Human assets**|•<br>Literacy levels<br>•<br>Numeracy levels<br>•<br>Health status|•LSMS – education module<br>•LSMS – education module<br>•LSMS – health module|

63
IQMSC: Integrated Questionnaire for the Measurement of Social Capital; LSMS: Living Standards Measurement Survey; SCAT: Social Capital Assessment Tool _Note_ : Inevitably, some indicators in this table apply to two or more asset categories. For instance, access to communications infrastructure can be classified as an informational asset or a material asset. Where this is the case, they have been placed in just one category in the table. Where duplication of sources occurs, only one source is suggested.

64
# **Table 2.  Intermediate Indicators of Empowerment: State Domain**

||**Sub-domain: Justice**||
|---|---|---|
|**Presence of rules (institutions)**|**Enactment of rules (institutions)**|**Existing data**<br>**sources/indices**|
|_Formal_<br>•Number of international instruments<br>and conventions on civil and political<br>rights ratified (6)<br>•Index of Civil Liberties (1)<br>(independent judiciary; civil and<br>criminal rule of law)<br>•Press Freedom Index (1) (legislation<br>protecting press freedom)<br>•Civil Society Index (3) (civil and<br>criminal rule of law)<br>•Number of laws/acts providing<br>protection from political oppression<br>•Number of laws/acts providing<br>protection from social oppression<br>•Number of laws/acts providing<br>_protection_from domestic violence<br>•Number of anti-corruption laws/acts<br>(2, 4)<br>•Number of statutory rights conferred<br>by a national framework of criminal,<br>commercial, and international law|_Formal_<br>•Number of reported incidents of government<br>interference in police force per year<br>•Corruption Perception Index (5)<br>(transparency/accountability/freedom from<br>corruption to ensure accessible justice with respect to<br>public officials and professional groups (including<br>investment in capacity building and in HR education/<br>training)<br>•Number of corruption cases tried per year<br>•Number of constitutional courts and national legal<br>mechanisms protecting national constitutional rights<br>(e.g. to fair trial, protection from torture and<br>detention without trial, divorce rights) (8)<br>•Number of affordable and accessible public redress<br>procedures (e.g. independent HR commissions,<br>ombudsmen and complaints tribunals)<br>•Number of cases tried in the national formal legal<br>system enforcing statutory rights per year<br>•Number of cases tried in local formal legal systems<br>(through local government enacting by-laws)<br>enforcing statutory rights per year<br>•Annual public expenditure in rights awareness<br>campaigns<br>•Number of extra-judicial killings per year (8)<br>•Number of extra-judicial disappearances per year (7,<br>8)<br>_Informal (Cultural)_<br>•Number of human rights violations occurring as a<br>result of the enforcement of customary rights<br>through structures of customary authority per year<br>(8)<br>•Number of crimes rooted in living, customary, or<br>religious law (e.g. honor killing, domestic violence,<br>and sexual abuse) reported per year (8)<br>•Number of women using local informal|(1) Freedom House<br>(2) Political Risk Services:<br>International Country Risk<br>Guide–Political Risk Rating<br>(3) CIVICUS<br>(4) World Bank Governance<br>Datasets<br>(5) Transparency International<br>(6) Office of the UN High<br>Commissioner for Human<br>Rights<br>(7) UN Working Group on<br>Enforced or Involuntary<br>Disappearances<br>(8) US State Department–<br>Country Reports on Human<br>Rights Practices<br>Where no data source is<br>identified, data must be<br>collected using the national<br>survey or in-depth research<br>techniques.|

65
|•|justice/dispute resolution systems per year<br>Number of ethnic/religious minority groups using<br>local informal justice / dispute resolution systems per<br>year|
|---|---|
|•|Number of complaints regarding accessibility and|
||equitability of local informal justice/dispute<br>resolution systems per year|

66
||**Sub-domain: Political**||
|---|---|---|
|**Presence of rules (institutions)**|**Enactment of rules (institutions)**|**Existing data**<br>**sources/indices**|
|_Formal_<br>•Number of international instruments<br>and conventions on civil and political<br>rights (including the right to<br>participate) ratified (3)<br>•Index of Political Rights (1)<br>(constitutional support for free, fair<br>and regular elections; accountability<br>of monarchy)<br>•Index of Civil Liberties (1) (freedom<br>of association and political<br>organization)<br>•Civil Society Index (2) (freedom of<br>association and political organization)<br>•Number of laws/Acts protecting<br>freedom of association and political<br>organization (4)<br>•Number of formal rules of<br>inclusion/exclusion in political life<br>(e.g. India: formal rules for<br>percentage inclusion)|_Formal_<br>•Index of Political Rights (1) (fair electoral process;<br>elected representatives endowed with real power;<br>effective opposition parties; freedom of association<br>enforced)<br>•Civil Society Index (2) (freedom of expression<br>enforced)<br>•Index of Civil Liberties (1) (freedom of expression<br>enforced)<br>•Number of cases alleging discrimination filed per<br>year<br>•Number of cases alleging discrimination won per<br>year<br>•Informal (cultural)<br>•Number of people influenced by tribal/religious<br>leaders in their voting choice per election<br>•Number of reported cases of local elites using<br>informal hierarchical power relationships as form of<br>social control per year<br>•Number of women participating in political<br>processes per year<br>•Number of people from ethnic/religious minorities<br>participating in political processes per year<br>•Number of women in positions of political influence<br>per year<br>•Number of people from ethnic/religious minorities in<br>positions of political influence<br>•Number of reported cases of local feudal or patron-<br>client power relations per year<br>•Number of private armed groups operating per year|(1) Freedom House<br>(2) CIVICUS<br>(3) Office of the UN High<br>Commissioner for Human<br>Rights<br>(4) US State Department –<br>Country Reports on Human<br>Rights Practices<br>Where no data source is<br>identified, data must be<br>collected using the national<br>survey or in-depth research<br>techniques.|
||**Sub-domain: Service Delivery**||
|**Presence of rules (institutions)**|**Enactment of rules (institutions)**|**Existing data**<br>**sources/indices**|
|_Formal_<br>•Number of laws/acts ensuring<br>freedom of information (1)<br>•Number of international instruments|_Formal_<br>•Number of national data systems accessible to the<br>public as percentage of total number of data systems<br>•Percentage of real annual budget allocation in line|(1) Privacy International –<br>Country Reports<br>(2) Office of the UN High<br>Commissioner for Human|

67
|and conventions on economic, social,<br>and cultural (ESC) rights (including<br>the right to education and to highest<br>attainable standard of physical and<br>mental health) ratified (2)<br>•Percentage of nominal annual budget<br>allocation in line with PRS priorities<br>(4)<br>•Number of formal initiatives<br>supporting free access to information<br>on service entitlements per year (1)<br>•Number of formal initiatives<br>supporting free access to information<br>on government service delivery<br>performance (1)|with PRS priorities (e.g. government expenditure on<br>health and education as percentage of GDP) (4)<br>•Number of public consultations on policy proposals/<br>formulation per year<br>•Number of women attending public consultations on<br>policy proposals/ formulation per year<br>•Number of inclusive platforms for participation in<br>service delivery<br>•Number of formal legal actions upholding ESC<br>rights with respect to government conduct per year<br>•Number of reported cases of corruption among<br>“street level” bureaucrats per year<br>•Corruption Perception Index (3)<br>(transparency/accountability/freedom from<br>corruption among “street level” bureaucrats, public<br>officials, and professional groups, including<br>investment in capacity building)<br>•Percentage of total population unable to access at<br>least one basic service in the previous year due to<br>cost (4)<br>•Percentage of total population unable to access at<br>least one basic service due to physical distance (4)<br>•Percentage of total population unable to access at<br>least one basic service due to social distance (4)<br>_Informal (cultural)_<br>•Number of complaints regarding transparency and<br>equity of operation of informal social transfer<br>systems (e.g. Zakat) per year<br>•Percentage of women able to access public service<br>entitlements during previous year<br>•Percentage of total ethnic/religious minority<br>population able to access public service entitlements<br>during previous year|Rights<br>(3) Transparency International<br>(4) World Bank Country Policy<br>and Institutional<br>Assessment<br>Where no data source is<br>identified, data must be<br>collected using the national<br>survey or in-depth research<br>techniques.|
|---|---|---|

68
**Table 3.  Intermediate Indicators of Empowerment: Market Domain**

||**Sub-domain: Credit**||
|---|---|---|
|**Presence of rules (institutions)**|**Enactment of rules (institutions)**|**Existing data**<br>**sources/indices**|
|_Formal_<br>•Number of laws/acts supporting pro-<br>poor credit rules<br>•Existence of regulatory framework<br>for credit and savings provision|_Formal_<br>•Number of formal transparency and accountability<br>mechanisms and procedures for credit provision<br>agencies<br>•Number of reported cases of corrupt practices within<br>credit provision agencies per year as percentage of<br>total transactions<br>Informal (cultural)<br>•Percentage of informal credit sources providing<br>credit with exploitative terms and conditions<br>•Percentage of women accessing formal credit<br>sources per year<br>•Percentage of women accessing informal credit<br>sources per year<br>•Percentage of ethnic/religious minorities accessing<br>informal credit sources per year<br>•Percentage of ethnic/religious minorities accessing<br>formal credit sources per year<br>•Percentage of women controlling use of credit within<br>household<br>**Sub-domain: Labor**|There are no pre-existing data<br>sources for data in the credit<br>sub-domain. Data must be<br>collected using the national<br>survey or in-depth research<br>techniques.|
|**Presence of rules (institutions)**|**Enactment of rules (institutions)**|**Existing data**<br>**sources/indices**|
|_Formal_<br>•Number of international instruments<br>and conventions on Core Labor<br>Standards, the rights of the child, and<br>the right to work (full employment,<br>choice and conditions of work)<br>ratified (1, 2, 3)<br>•Number of laws/acts supporting pro-<br>poor labor shifts in labor market<br>segmentation<br>•Number of regulatory reforms for<br>economic participation over<br>preceding two years<br>•Legislation exists to ensure equal|_Formal_<br>•Total number of cases filed against employers for<br>non-compliance with core labor standards per year<br>•Number of cases filed by the state against employers<br>for non-compliance with core labor standards per<br>year<br>•Percentage of employers complying fully with state<br>regulations as percentage of total number of<br>employers<br>_Informal (cultural)_<br>•Percentage of women able to choose their<br>employment options<br>•Percentage of ethnic/religious minorities able to|(1) International Labour<br>Organisation<br>(2) Office of the UN High<br>Commissioner for Human<br>Rights<br>(3) World Bank Country Policy<br>and Institutional<br>Assessment<br>(4) US State Department –<br>Country Reports on Human<br>Rights Practices<br>Where no data source is<br>identified, data must be<br>ll<br>d<br>i<br>h<br>i<br>l|

69
|•<br>•<br>•<br>•<br>•<br>•|remuneration for men and women<br>Legislation exists to ensure non-<br>discrimination in respect of<br>employment and occupation<br>Legislation exists to ensure protection<br>of children and adolescents<br>Legislation exists to abolish forced<br>labor (3, 4)<br>Legislation exists protecting the right<br>to organize and bargain collectively<br>(4)<br>Core labor standards are implemented<br>through regulatory frameworks (3)<br>Institutional framework exists for<br>government – employer – trade union<br>partnerships|choose their employment options<br>•Percentage of people from identified caste able to<br>choose their employment options<br>•Percentage of households with no rigidly defined and<br>inflexible roles for household members<br>•Percentage of households with equal workloads for<br>adult members<br>•Percentage of total workforce working as bonded<br>labor (4)<br>•Percentage of school-age children working to<br>contribute to household income (4)|collected using the national<br>survey or in-depth research<br>techniques.|
|---|---|---|---|

70
|**Sub-domain:**<br>|**Goods**(production/consumption, including basic<br>|needs)<br>|
|---|---|---|
|**Presence of rules (institutions)**|**Enactment of rules (institutions)**|**Existing data**<br>**sources/indices**|
|_Formal_<br>•Number of international instruments<br>and conventions on ESC rights,<br>including land rights, standard of<br>living, freedom from hunger and<br>social security ratified (1)<br>•Pro-redistribution legislation for<br>access to and control over productive<br>assets (including land) (2)<br>•Regulatory framework in place for<br>market based allocation of basic<br>needs and goods<br>•Pro-transparent and simple regulation<br>exists for small businesses (2)<br>•Legislation exists ensuring fair<br>trading conditions/relationships<br>between buyers and sellers (2)|_Formal_<br>•Number of formal social policy commitments to<br>basic needs provision backed by budget execution<br>(2)<br>•Percentage of threatened evictions prevented through<br>formal legal processes and protection (2)<br>•Percentage of productive assets owned by poorest 20<br>percent of households<br>•Percentage of productive assets owned by richest 20<br>percent of households<br>•Number of cases of fair-trading violations filed<br>through the justice system per year (2)<br>•Number of mechanisms for ensuring transparency<br>and accountability among product producers and<br>distributors<br>•Number of complaints regarding transparency and<br>accountability by product producers and distributors<br>per year<br>_Informal (cultural)_<br>•Percentage of women able to inherit property<br>•Percentage of men able to inherit property<br>•Percentage of “lower” castes or classes owning<br>property<br>•Percentage of women within household owning<br>property and productive assets<br>•Percentage of men within household owning<br>property and productive assets<br>•Percentage of households with joint ownership of<br>property and productive assets|(1) Office of the UN High<br>Commissioner for Human<br>Rights<br>(2) World Bank Country Policy<br>and Institutional<br>Assessment<br>Where no data source is<br>identified, data must be<br>collected using the national<br>survey or in-depth research<br>techniques.|

71
Table 4. Intermediate Indicators of Empowerment: Society Domain

||**Sub-domain: Family**||
|---|---|---|
|**Presence of rules (institutions)**|**Enactment of rules (institutions)**|**Existing data**<br>**sources/indices**|
|_Formal_<br>•Ratification of Convention on the<br>Rights of the Child (CRC) and<br>Convention on Elimination of all<br>Forms of Discrimination Against<br>Women (CEDAW) (1, 2)<br>•Number of legislative responses to the<br>Convention on the Rights of the Child<br>(CRC) and Convention on<br>Elimination of all Forms of<br>Discrimination Against Women<br>(CEDAW) (1, 2)|_Formal_<br>•Number of cases filed in the formal justice system<br>enforcing children’s rights legislation per year (3)<br>•Number of formal justice cases filed against<br>violators of women’s rights legislation per year (2, 3)<br>_Informal (cultural)_<br>•Percentage of cases in which rules governing duties<br>and entitlements relating to accumulation and<br>redistribution within households and kinship groups<br>diverge from joint utility maximizing rules<br>•Number of women working in occupations socially<br>defined as male occupations as percentage of total<br>women working<br>•Percentage of women able to travel alone outside of<br>community in the previous year<br>•Percentage of men able to travel alone outside of<br>community in the previous year<br>•Percentage of females accessing formal institutions<br>in the previous year<br>•Percentage of males accessing formal institutions in<br>the previous year<br>•Number of community advocacy and awareness<br>campaigns against domestic violence and sexual<br>abuse in the previous year|(1) Office of the UN High<br>Commissioner for Human<br>Rights<br>(2) World Bank Country Policy<br>and Institutional<br>Assessment<br>(3) US State Department –<br>Country Reports on Human<br>Rights Practices<br>Where no data source is<br>identified, data must be<br>collected using the national<br>survey or in-depth research<br>techniques.|
||**Sub-domain: Community**||
|**Presence of rules (institutions)**|**Enactment of rules (institutions)**|**Existing data**<br>**sources/indices**|

72
|_Formal_|_Formal_|There are no pre-|
|---|---|---|
|•Number of laws/acts supporting<br>community level organization and<br>association<br>•Number of decision-making processes<br>decentralized to local authority<br>control|•Number of public meetings at which the implications of rules<br>are discussed per year<br>•Percentage of cases in which rules of community membership<br>groups reflect normative formal rules<br>_Informal (cultural)_|existing data sources<br>for data in the<br>community sub-<br>domain. Data must<br>be collected using the<br>national survey or in-|
|•Percentage of budget allocation<br>decentralized to local authority<br>control|•Percentage of labor force employed outside any traditionally<br>expected roles based on social identity<br>•Variance between membership diversity|depth research<br>techniques.|
|•Institutional framework exists for<br>local government – civil society –<br>private sector partnerships<br>•Number of laws/acts addressing<br>social, ethnic and religious<br>discrimination|(gender/social/ethnic/religious) of community associations and<br>diversity of local community<br>•Number of reported cases of community association<br>membership restrictions based on<br>gender/social/ethnic/religious identity per year<br>•Percentage of decision-making positions with occupied by<br>people from lower castes or classes||

73
# **Table 5.  Direct Indicators of Degrees of Empowerment**

||**DOMAIN**||**INDICATOR OF FORMS OF EMP**|**OWERMENT**|
|---|---|---|---|---|
||**Sub-domain**|**National**|**Intermediary**|**Local**|
|**State**|**Justice**|•Number of court cases and the<br>time between submission and<br>conclusion of cases<br>•Percentage of positions in<br>justice system per<br>social/ethnic/religious group<br>•Number of national<br>newspapers/media<br>organizations independent of<br>government influence or<br>control|•Number of local court cases and<br>the time between submission and<br>conclusion of cases<br>•Percentage of positions in local<br>justice system per<br>social/ethnic/religious group|•Percentage awareness of listed (formal/informal)<br>justice systems (4.1)<sup>a</sup><br>•Number of times justice systems used (4.2-4.3)<br>•Score of effectiveness of justice systems (4.4)<br>•Score of fairness of justice systems (4.5-4.6)<br>•Score of gender equity in treatment by justice<br>systems (4.7)<br>•Score of equity by other stated social variable in<br>treatment by justice systems (4.8)<br>•Score of accessibility of justice systems (4.9)<br>•Score of ability to complain about justice<br>systems’ performance (4.10-4.11)<br>•Score of level of independence of police force<br>(4.12)<br>•Score of confidence in corrupt people facing<br>justice (4.13)|
||**Political**|•HH survey questions 4.14-<br>4.32 also apply at the national<br>level<br>•Percentage of elected<br>representatives in national<br>government per social/ ethnic/<br>religious group<br>•Number of people actively<br>voting in national elections<br>compared to those entitled to<br>vote|•HH survey questions 4.14-4.32<br>also apply at the regional level|•Percentage awareness of local electoral process<br>(4.14)<br>•Percentage interest in local electoral process<br>(4.15)<br>•Percentage entitled to vote in local elections<br>(4.16)<br>•Percentage voting in last local elections (4.17)<br>•Percentage wanting to vote in last local elections<br>(4.18)<br>•Percentage control over their voting choice (4.19)<br>•Frequency of, and impact of, discussion about<br>l<br>l l<br>i<br>did<br>(4 20 4 23)|

a Number in parentheses refers to the section in the national survey where questions corresponding to the indicator can be found. For example, questions about the respondent’s awareness of listed justice systems can be found in survey section 4.1 74
|**DOMAIN**||**INDICATOR OF FORMS OF**|**EMPOWERMENT**|
|---|---|---|---|
|**Sub-domain**|**National**|**Intermediary**|**Local**|
||•Number of representative and<br>democratic national political<br>parties<br>•Diversity of representative<br>and democratic national<br>political parties<br>•Number of national<br>newspapers/media<br>organizations independent of<br>government influence or<br>control<br>•Diversity of newspaper/<br>media ownership||local election candidates (4.20-4.23)<br>•Score of involvement in the local political<br>process (4.24)<br>•Score of aspiration to be more or less involved in<br>the local political process (4.25)<br>•Score of number of representatives of national<br>political parties in the local area (4.26)<br>•Score of degree of influence of elected<br>representative at local level (4.27)<br>•Score of fairness of local electoral process (4.28)<br>•Frequency of dissatisfaction with local elected<br>representative (4.29)<br>•Availability of accountability mechanisms (4.30)<br>•Frequency of use of accountability mechanisms<br>(4.31)<br>•Score of effectiveness of accountability<br>mechanisms (4.32)|
|**Service delivery**||||

75
||**DOMAIN**||**INDICATOR OF FORMS OF EMP**|**OWERMENT**|
|---|---|---|---|---|
||**Sub-domain**|**National**|**Intermediary**|**Local**|
|||•Score of satisfaction with<br>national executive<br>administration (key line<br>ministries)<br>•Score of effectiveness of<br>regional executive<br>administration (key line<br>ministries) compared with<br>other social groups|•Score of satisfaction with<br>regional executive administration<br>•Score of effectiveness of regional<br>executive administration<br>compared with other social<br>groups|•No. of publicly provided services available<br>locally (4.33)<br>•Percentage able to access public services (4.34;<br>4.37)<br>•Number of public services used (4.35)<br>•Score of quality of public services used (4.36)<br>•Percentage individuals that have complained<br>about public service delivery (4.38)<br>•Percentage of households that have complained<br>about public service delivery (4.39)<br>•Frequency of complaints (4.40)<br>•Score of satisfaction with outcome of complaint<br>(4.41)<br>•Score of equitability in addressing needs and<br>concerns (4.42)<br>•Score of influence of social characteristics on the<br>authorities treatment of people (4.43)|
|**Market**|**Credit**<br>**Labor**|•Score of civil society<br>advocacy activity for pro-poor<br>credit provision<br>•Percentage of credit provision<br>by formal institutions<br>according to<br>social/ethnic/religious group<br>•Diversity of national credit<br>providing institutions|•Score of consultation levels by<br>credit providing agencies with<br>clients<br>•Number of partnerships in credit<br>system design and delivery<br>•Diversity of local formal credit<br>sources<br>•Diversity of local informal credit<br>sources|•Percentage needing to borrow money or goods in<br>past year (4.44)<br>•Percentage borrowing money or goods in past<br>year (4.45)<br>•Score of awareness of formal/ informal credit<br>services (4.46)<br>•Score of accessibility to formal credit-providing<br>institutions (4.47-4.50)<br>•Score of control over loans and savings (4.51-<br>4.52)|

76
|**DOMAIN**||**INDICATOR OF FORMS OF EMP**|**OWERMENT**|
|---|---|---|---|
|**Sub-domain**|**National**|**Intermediary**|**Local**|
||•Diversity of national labor<br>organizations<br>•Percentage changes in labor<br>market composition per year<br>•Score of civil society<br>advocacy activity for labor<br>protection legislation<br>•Percentage presence in capital<br>intensive/high-skill positions<br>per social/ethnic/religious<br>group<br>•Percentage difference in<br>salary levels by ethnic/<br>social/religious group<br>•Number of industrial disputes<br>resolved equitably per year|•Score of effectiveness of local<br>labor organizations<br>•Diversity of local labor<br>organizations<br>•Number of collective bargaining<br>mechanisms/processes over wage<br>rates/employment conditions|•Score of control over employment/occupation<br>choices (4.53-4.55, 3.41-3.42)<br>•Percentage involved in household work (4.56)<br>•Score of time used for unpaid household work<br>and childcare (4.57-4.58)<br>•Score of division of labor and roles within<br>household (4.59)|
|**Goods**<br>(production/<br>consumption,<br>including basic<br>needs)|•Score of civil society<br>advocacy activity for<br>redistribution of productive<br>assets<br>•Score of civil society<br>advocacy activity for basic<br>needs provision<br>•Percentage awareness of<br>national market prices and<br>conditions<br>•Score of civil society and<br>state advocacy activity for<br>equitable access to markets<br>•percentage change in national<br>asset ownership per social/<br>ethnic/ religious group per<br>year<br>•percentage change in control<br>over national assets per<br>social/ ethnic/ religious group<br>per year|•Score of civil society advocacy<br>activity for (decentralized) basic<br>needs provision<br>•Number of local buyers of<br>products<br>•Number of local suppliers of<br>products<br>•Number of producer<br>cooperatives|•Score of perceived risk/threat of eviction (4.60)<br>•Score of protection from eviction (4.61)<br>•Score of influence of social characteristics on<br>asset ownership/access (4.62-4.63)<br>•Score of gender influence on inheritance rights<br>(4.64-4.66)|

77
||**DOMAIN**||**INDICATOR OF FORMS OF EMP**|**OWERMENT**|
|---|---|---|---|---|
||**Sub-domain**|**National**|**Intermediary**|**Local**|
|**Society**|**Family**|•Score of civil society<br>advocacy activity for<br>legislation addressing<br>informal patriarchal rules|•Score of community advocacy<br>activity addressing informal<br>patriarchal rules<br>•Score of civil society monitoring<br>activity of unequal household<br>relations|•Score for distribution of HH decision making<br>power (4.67)<br>•Score of individual’s decision making autonomy<br>(4.68)<br>•Score of control over one’s body (4.69)<br>•Score of individual mobility (4.70)<br>•Score of individual access to basic services (4.71-<br>4.72)<br>•Score of comparative household expenditure on<br>healthcare per individual HH member (4.73-4.74)|
||**Community**|•No. of national networks/<br>alliances of community<br>organizations<br>•Diversity of community based<br>organizations|•Score of inter-community<br>networking activity<br>•Score of authority over local<br>policy process<br>•Score of authority over local<br>budgets<br>•Percentage of local government<br>budget allocated per social/<br>ethnic/ religious group<br>•Score of mobility of social/<br>ethnic/ religious groups outside<br>their immediate locality|•% awareness of main local public service<br>decision-makers (4.75)<br>•Score of involvement in community decision<br>making processes (4.76)<br>•Score of aspiration to be more or less involved in<br>community decision making processes (4.77)<br>•Score of influence in community decision<br>making processes (4.78)|

78
Annex 5. Draft National Survey Empowerment Module Contents

1. Introduction

2. Institutional Mapping 3. Individual Questionnaire 79
# 1. Introduction

The format of this module is designed to elicit information that, after analysis, will enable researchers to assess the degree of empowerment of various individuals and groups within the three domains and eight sub-domains of the ME framework.<sup>35</sup> It will also allow analysis of agency and opportunity structure, the factors associated with empowerment.

The module combines an institutional mapping section and an individual questionnaire. The institutional mapping section is designed to capture data regarding opportunity structure. During analysis, researchers may also need to take into account asset indicators or opportunity structure indicators captured using pre-existing data sources and indices.

The module can also be used in combination with other survey instruments that already capture some of the data elicited by the module, such as the Social Capital Assessment Tool (SCAT), the Integrated Questionnaire for the Measurement of Social Capital (IQMSC), and the Living Standards Measurement Survey (LSMS). When questionnaire is used in conjunction with other instruments, it must be adapted to ensure that questions are not duplicated.

> 35 This module is from Holland Brook 2004.

80
# 2. Institutional Mapping

The purpose of the institutional mapping section is to contribute to the measurement of opportunity structure discussed in the paper. The measurement of the institutional element of opportunity structure is not easily captured using individual or household surveys and therefore requires a mixed-methods approach, combining various participatory tools and processes in group discussion exercises to generate local indepth data on the operation of formal and informal institutions together with the national tracking of legislation, regulation, and procedures. Participatory group analysis will enable data to be collected on those intermediate indicators where preexisting indices do not exist, and additionally enable a degree of triangulation on those where they do.

Table 1 summarizes the information that can be elicited from both the institutional mapping and from the questionnaire. Institutional mapping can be sequenced with the administration of the questionnaire, providing an opportunity to identify focus groups through sub-sampling of the questionnaire households (see discussion below).

There are various participatory tools that can be used to capture information not already available through pre-existing indices or sources within different domains/sub-domains. These are listed in the final column of table 1. Where there is more than one possible tool, the most appropriate tool is identified as primary. The selection of tools depends very much on the context and the information being sought.

Groups should consist of between five to twelve participants (ideally about eight) and reflect social stratification in any particular context. Key informants with in-depth country knowledge should be able to provide the researchers with the most important social groupings. Researchers should place particular emphasis on ensuring that marginal groups are included in the process. Mixed group interviews can also be conducted to assess levels of consensus, but these should be in addition to separate groups.

81
**Table 1.  Summary of Survey Module and Institutional Mapping Themes and Tools**

|Instrument|How administered|Themes|Tools|
|---|---|---|---|
|Survey module|Random-stratified<br>sample administered<br>through existing<br>survey instrument (can<br>be administered to a<br>sub-sample)|•Location details (1)<br>•Respondent details (2)<br>•Intermediate indicators of<br>agency (asset ownership)<br>(3)<br>•Direct indicators of<br>empowerment measuring:<br>(i) opportunity to use<br>influence; (ii) use of<br>influence; and (iii)<br>effectiveness of use of<br>influence (4)|Survey module questions<br>(1) Section 1<br>(2) Section 2<br>(3) Section 3<br>(4) Section 4|
|Institutional<br>mapping|Socially stratified<br>focus groups<br>composed from sub-<br>sample of<br>questionnaire survey|Enactment of rules<br>(processes) in the following<br>areas:<br>State<br>•Justice systems (primary<br>tool – 1; additional tool – 5)<br>•Political representation<br>(primary tool – 5; additional<br>tool – 4)<br>•Access to and quality of<br>services (primary tool – 5;<br>additional tools – 1, 4)<br>Market<br>•Credit provision and<br>services (primary tool – 1;<br>additional tools – 4, 5)<br>•Labor market and<br>employment conditions and<br>choices (primary tools – 1,<br>3)<br>•Asset entitlements and<br>consumption (primary tool<br>– 4; additional tools – 1, 2)<br>Society|Participatory tools<br>(1)_Preference ranking or scoring_– This method involves ranking or scoring people’s priorities, problems,<br>or preferences. Disaggregation of groups performing the analysis by age, gender, class, ethnic group,<br>etc. enables comparative analysis and exploration of people’s experience, perceptions, priorities, and<br>choices based on criteria identified by them regarding a range of subjects from resource allocation to<br>service provision to choice of employment (e.g. how do people rate different justice systems or health<br>services according to effectiveness, cost, accessibility etc.?).<br>(2)_Well-being (or wealth) ranking_– This method involves ranking different individuals, households, or<br>communities according to an overall view of well-being. Within the context of the measuring<br>empowerment study, it can be adapted to allow expression of people’s own definitions of<br>empowerment and also enable them to identify, using their own criteria, who in their communities is<br>more or less empowered. It can be used only within the limitations of the shared mutual knowledge of<br>the group carrying out the analysis (detailed knowledge is needed to establish the ranking). Performing<br>such exercises for communities as well as households or individuals can illustrate the significance of<br>factors and assets which affect empowerment at the community or group level (e.g. distance from<br>local/regional government offices or road infrastructure).<br>(3)<br>_Charts illustrating cyclical change (seasonality, daily activities etc.)_– These methods address the<br>distribution of phenomena over time in more or less predictable cycles (e.g. employment options<br>through the year or the distribution of tasks and workload over a woman’s day). They enable temporal<br>analysis of, and the trends evident in relation to, selected variables, and can also enable an<br>understanding of the links among variables.<br>(4)_Social mapping, modeling and transects –_These methods enable situational analysis of social<br>structures and services. Representations of spatial distribution and location of resources, social groups,<br>f<br>iliti<br>t<br>h l<br>l<br>f<br>d<br>f<br>i ti<br>i<br>d id<br>tif<br>i<br>th t|

82
|•Household and kinship<br>group entitlements, roles<br>and responsibilities<br>(primary tools – 3, 4, 5;<br>additional tool –1)<br>•Community organization<br>and relationships (primary<br>tools – 4, 5; additional tools<br>– 1, 3)|facilities etc. can help analyze performance and coverage of existing services and identify services that<br>are needed but are not available. Mapping social structures can help analyze how social differences can<br>affect people’s lives (e.g. the degree of influence of social differences on political participation and<br>influence).<br>(5)_Institutional and Venn diagramming:_Diagramming enables a representation and analysis of<br>institutional relationships, linkages, accessibility, significance and influences affecting local people,<br>households, and communities from within and outside their area. Institutions could include government<br>service providers, the police, or even individuals with significant power. An analysis of institutional<br>impact (i.e. whether positive or negative) can also be undertaken.|
|---|---|

83
In participatory research, if the information being generated belongs to the community and can be provided in an unbiased way by key informants, there is no need to select these key informants randomly (Barahona and Levy 2002, 23). Given that this institutional mapping is generating largely interpretive qualitative and quantitative data, however, it will be important to try to reduce bias by selecting (socially stratified) participants from the household survey sample using probability-based (random) methods. It should be noted that within each social stratum there is an ethical trade-off between employing probability-based (random) sampling to offset biases introduced by participant self-selection and adhering to participatory research principles of including those who wish to be included.<sup>36</sup> A less objective but more voluntaristic and democratic alternative is to record key social information (e.g. sex, age, educational level, religion, and reading ability) about each participant in order to assess the profile of each socially stratified focus group (Barahona and Levy 2002, 26).

Each group should have a moderator and two observers. The moderator facilitates the discussion, probes on key issues, elicits comments from all participants, and focuses the discussion on the issues of interest. This should be done without interrupting or ignoring extraneous comments from participants, but also ensuring that the discussion remains focused as far as possible. The observers take notes on the content of the discussion and process of group dynamics, noting, for instance, who talks the most or the least, who does not participate at all or defers to others in the group, who tries to dominate the discussion, and so on. The observers will record the discussion on tape, and photograph and sketch any visual diagrams from the tools. The facilitators will explain the purpose of the discussion and research, and prior consent will be asked from the group for the use of tape-recorders.

The facilitation and observation of participatory group discussions using some of the tools suggested is not an easy task. Researchers should be well aware not only of how to apply and use the tools, but also of the importance of the manner in which they facilitate and behave when using the tools in a discussion. Training researchers is key to the success and accuracy of participatory methodologies in the gathering of data.

Each group discussion should last about two to three hours. The discussion should be based on the tools suggested in table 1 and around a set of guide questions discussed below. One possible problem with focus group discussions is that too much information may be generated. Key prompts are highlighted in box 1, designed for use by experienced researchers to explore selected key indicators.

**Box 1.  Checklist of prompts for the facilitation of focus group discussions in each domain/subdomain.**

The following prompts are designed to help an experienced focus group facilitator to guide discussion and elicit key information in each domain and sub-domain. The prompts are not designed to be followed rigidly.

<u>State – justice:</u> 36 These ethical issues are discussed further in the “Parti-Numbers” Network’s Guidelines and Code of Conduct (2003), available at www.reading.ac.uk/ssc.

84
- Is there a local word for “a right” or “rights,” and to what things is it applied?

- What rights do people in general have?

- What rights do ___________________________________ [describe group membership/characteristics, i.e. young unmarried women]_ have _?_

- What are the sources of rights (i.e. legal, social, cultural)?

- What can ___________________________________ [describe group membership/characteristics, i.e. young unmarried women]_ do when they feel discriminated against or are the victims of crimes?

- How common are crimes rooted in living, customary, or religious law (e.g. honor killing, domestic violence, and sexual abuse)?

- What are the most preferred local informal justice or dispute resolution systems? What are their advantages/disadvantages compared to other systems?

- How protected by legislation do people feel from political and social oppression and from domestic violence?

# <u>State – political:</u>

- Are some people or groups left out of society or excluded from community life or decisionmaking (social exclusion)? If yes, who is left out, why and how?

- To what degree are different groups of people _(differentiated by social differences)_ able to participate in political processes?

# <u>State – service delivery:</u>

- To what extent does the formal justice system ensure that economic, social, and cultural rights are recognized and provided by government institutions?

- When faced with a crisis or shock (i.e. unemployment, illness, crop failure, etc.), what institutions do people turn to? How are they ranked in terms of preference?

- What government and non-government safety nets or informal social transfer systems are available to vulnerable people and how are they ranked in terms of preference (i.e. in terms of transparency and equity of operation)?

# <u>Market – credit:</u>

- Where can you access credit? How do different groups in the community _(differentiated by social differences)_ rank them in order of accessibility, effectiveness, transparency, accountability, and freedom from corruption?

- Who has control and access to credit within different households?

# <u>Market – labor:</u>

- How aware are people of any legal labor standards that employers should comply with? To what degree do employers comply, and how effective is government in ensuring compliance?

- • Within the household, how are roles allocated and work divided? How easy is it for different people to change roles?

# <u>Market – goods:</u>

- How have markets, e.g. for labor (local, national and international), land, water, housing and produce, and access to markets changed? Over what period?

- Are different social groups affected differently by any changes?

- To what degree are relationships between product producers and distributors/buyers transparent and accountable? Is there any legislation designed to ensure fair trading conditions and how effectively is it enforced?

- To what degree is access to and control over productive assets influenced by social characteristics?

- Are there any rules regarding inheritance of assets (i.e. gendered inheritance rules? How strongly are they upheld and enforced?

- Are <u>there any government policies and programs concerned with the redistribution of land</u>

85
- (land reform)?

- • To what degree do different people in households have access to and control over consumption goods and services?

- –

- <u>Society household and kinship groups:</u> • Have there been any changes in the roles that men and women (of different groups) have traditionally played? Why have these changes occurred and what are the impacts of these changes?

- Are women better or worse off today compared to the past? In what ways? Are women of different groups (differentiated by class, age, ethnicity, religion, etc.) better or worse off today compared to the past? In what ways?

-

- <u>Society community:</u> • How many and how diverse are the membership organizations that exist? What are the “rules” of community membership groups?

- • To what degree does social identity affect membership of community groups and associations?

- • Is there conflict between different groups in the community?

Analyzing the qualitative data normally produced using participatory tools can be difficult, especially when trying to incorporate the data into the predominantly statistical analysis of the individual survey. The analysis of this data often relies to a certain extent on interpretation and reflection. However, generating numbers from, or quantifying, the qualitative outputs of participatory approaches and tools is possible and can help when trying to combine the analysis with the data from the individual survey. Given that the information being analyzed will be from focus groups spanning a number of different sites, recoding the information should be systematic and should use consistent pre-determined formats and terminology where possible.

The analysis of the focus group discussion data will be crosschecked with data from the individual interviews. Crosschecking may produce contradictions that will also need to be explained or resolved.

Diversity is another important factor to consider when analyzing the data from focus groups and interviews. Diversity in responses can be seen as an indicator of empowerment, with diversity of behavior at the population level being a gross indicator of agency (of the ability to make choices), relative to homogenous behavior by the same set of people. Analysis of responses should therefore take into account the range of responses, as well as the average response (Davies 2000). For the focus group discussions, this means that accurate documentation of discussions is vital to record all views expressed before any consensus is reached by a group.

The need to analyze a diversity of qualitative factors for the existence of complex relationships may well benefit from the use of computer-based qualitative data analysis or thinking support software, such as NUD*IST, Creative Thinker, or Visual Concept, to enable alternative relationships to be visualized, documented, and assessed in an effective manner.

86
# 3. Individual Questionnaire

# 3.1. Guidelines on application

This questionnaire is designed to be administered with a researcher and respondent present. In some contexts, it may be more difficult to interview some respondents privately (e.g. in some households it may be difficult interview women without other people being present, even when the enumerator is female). Where this is the case, it is important to indicate this on the questionnaire and recognize any possible implications in the analysis. Similarly, where respondents have chosen not to answer a question, the questionnaire provides additional space for the enumerator to write in a reason for a non-response, although it may be difficult or inappropriate to elicit this information.

Researchers should follow the questionnaire’s wording exactly to ensure consistency and to allow comparisons across sites. Changes are made to the wording of the questionnaire should be fully described and also applied consistently across research sites.

Where the questionnaire is being used in conjunction with other survey instruments such as the Social Capital Assessment Tool (SCAT) or the Integrated Questionnaire for the Measurement of Social Capital (IQMSC), the there may be replications. Those questions that are already found in the SCAT are marked (*) after the question, and those already found in the IQMSC are marked (+). The precise questions used in the LSMS modules were not available at the time of writing. The LSMS Economic Activities, Housing, Food Expenditure, Education, and Health Modules cover areas also covered in the individual questionnaire. If LSMS modules are used in conjunction with the questionnaire, care must be taken to avoid duplication. It should also be noted that the SCAT, IQMSC, and LSMS are household-level instruments, whereas this questionnaire is designed for use at the individual level.

87
# 3.2. Questionnaire

Thank you for agreeing to take part in this survey. We would like to ask you some questions that will help us to understand the situation in which you find yourself in various areas of your life, and how these are connected with how much control you feel you have when you are making decisions and putting your decisions into action.

The results of this survey will be completely confidential and no identifying data will be collected. Some of the questions may also be quite personal and we hope this will be OK with you. If, however, you do not feel comfortable answering any questions, please feel free to say so.

## _Section 1: Location details_

|1.1|Province/state _______________|_______________ (*)|
|---|---|---|
|1.2|District ____________________|________________ (*)|
|1.3|Sub-district<br>______________|________________ (*)|
|1.4|Town/village ______________|________________ (*)|
|1.5|Community<br>______________|________________ (*)|
|1.6|Street<br>______________|________________ (*)|

- 1.7 Type of area: _[Observation only]_ (*)

- 1 Urban 2 Rural 3 Indigenous 4 Difficult access

- 1.6 Location: Unit __________________ (*) Number __________________

- 1.7 Respondent code number (from list):

# Section 2: Respondent details

First, I would like to ask some questions about yourself. If you do not wish to answer a particular question, please feel free to say.

- 2.1 Sex of respondent _[Observation only]_

- 1 Female

- 2 Male

88
2.2 Can you please tell me your age group?

- 1 Under 16

- 2 16 – 20

- 3 21 – 25

- 4 26 – 35

- 5 36 – 45

- 6 46 – 55

- 7 56 – 65

- 8 66 or over

- 2.3 What is your marital status?

- 1 Married

- 2 Living with domestic partner (all suggestions on the questionnaire are from Estanislao) 3 Single

- 4 Separated

- 5 Widowed

- 6 Divorced

- 2.4 How many people do you share your house with?

- 2.5 What is your religion? _[Options and codes to be filled in as locally appropriate]_

- 1

- 2

- 3

- 4

- 5

- 2.6 In terms of your ethnicity, do you consider yourself ...? _[Options and codes to be filled in as locally appropriate]_

- 1

- 2

- 3

- 4

- 5

- 2.7 (If appropriate) Do you belong to a particular tribe? _[Options and codes to be filled in as locally appropriate]_

- 1

- 2

- 3

89
4 5

- 2.8 (If appropriate) What caste do you belong to? _[Options and codes to be filled in as locally appropriate]_

- 1

- 2

- 3

- 4

- 5

- 2.9 What educational level have you reached at the moment? (*)

- 1 Elementary (not completed)

- 2 Elementary (completed)

- 3 Secondary (not completed)

- 4 Secondary (completed)

- 5 Technical college graduate

- 6 University graduate

- 7 Post-graduate

- 8 Other _[Specify and add code:___________________]_

- 2.10 Who is present during the interview? _[Observation only]_

- 1 Respondent and enumerator only

- 2 Respondent, spouse, and enumerator 3 Respondent, other household member and enumerator

90
# Section 3: Intermediate Indicators of Individual Agency

The next set of questions we would like to ask you concern your feelings about yourself, the community/society you live in, and the property and assets you own or have access to. If you do not wish to answer a particular question, please feel free to say. If you can tell us why you do not want to answer a particular question, that would be very useful to us, but you should not feel under any obligation to do so.

# Informational assets

- 3.1 How long does it take you to reach the nearest working post office? (+)

- 1 Less than 15 minutes

- 2 15-30 minutes

- 3 31-60 minutes

- 4 More than one hour 5 More than four hours

- 3.2 How many times in the last month have you read a newspaper or had one read to you? (+)

- 3.3 How often do you listen to the radio? (+)

- 1 Every day

- 2 A few times a week

- 3 Once a week

- 4 Less than once a week

- 5 Never

- 3.4 How often do you watch television? (+)

- 1 Every day

- 2 A few times a week

- 3 Once a week

- 4 Less than once a week

- 5 Never

- 3.5 How long does it take you to get to the nearest working telephone? (+)

- 1 Telephone in the house

- 2 Less than 15 minutes

- 3 15-30 minutes

- 4 31-60 minutes

- 5 More than 1 hour

- 6 More than four hours

3.6 In the past month, how many times have you made or received a phone call? (+) 91
- 3.7 In general, compared to five years ago _[Enumerator: Time period can be clarified by situating it before/after a major event]_ , has your access to information about (specify) improved, deteriorated, or stayed about the same? (+)

- 1 Improved

- 2 Deteriorated

- 3 Stayed about the same

- 3.8 Is your house easily accessible by road all year long or only during certain seasons? (+)

- 1 All year long

- 2 Only during certain seasons

- 3 Never easily accessible

- 3.9 In the last three years, do you feel the roads leading to your community have:

- 1 Improved

- 2 Worsened

- 3 Remained the same

- 3.10 How many times have you traveled to _[Enumerator: In rural areas, specify a neighboring village or town; in urban areas, specify another part of the city]_ in the past year? (+)

Organizational assets

- 3.11 Are you a member of any organization or group? (*) (+)

- 1 Yes 2 No _[Go to question 3.21]_

- 3.12 Which of the following groups are you a member of? (*)

- 1 Farmer/fisher group or cooperative

- 2 Other production group

- 3 Traders or Business Association

- 4 Professional Association (doctors, teachers, veterans)

- 5 Trade Union or Labor Union

- 6 Neighborhood/Village committee

- 7 Religious or spiritual group (e.g. church, mosque, temple, informal religious group, religious study group)

- 8 Political group or movement

- 9 Cultural group or association (e.g. arts, music, theatre, film)

- 10 Burial society or festival society

92
- 11 Finance, credit or savings group

- 12 Education group (e.g. parent-teacher association, school committee)

- 13 Health group

- 14 Water and waste management group

- 15 Sports group

- 16 Youth group

- 17 NGO or civic group (e.g. Rotary Club, Red Cross)

- 18 Ethnic-based community group

- <u>19 Other groups</u> _<u>[Please specify in table below and add code]</u>_

_<u>[Code] [Code]</u>_ _[Enumerator: List all categories of organization/groups]_

- 3.13 Which of these organizations/groups are the most important to you? Please specify up to three. Please rank (1=most important) (*) (+)

Org/group 1 Org/group 2 Org/group 3

- 3.14 For each of these three important groups, how effective overall is the group’s leadership ? (*) (+)

- 1 Very effective

- 2 Fairly effective

- 3 Not effective

Org/group 1 Org/group 2 Org/group 3

- 3.15 How are leaders in each group selected? (+)

93
- 1  By an outside person or entity

- 2 Each leader chooses his/her successor

- 3 By a small group of members

- 4 By decision or vote of all members

- 5 Other _[Specify and add code: ______________________________]_

- 6 Don’t know/not sure

Org/group 1 Org/group 2 Org/group 3

- 3.16 How much influence do you think you have when each group chooses its leaders?

- 1 A lot of influence

- 2 Some influence

- 3 A little influence

- 4 No influence

Org/group 1 Org/group 2 Org/group 3

- 3.17 How much does being a member of these groups benefit you individually?

- 1 Greatly

- 2 Fairly

- 3 A little

- 4 Not at all

Org/group 1 Org/group 2 Org/group 3

- 3.18 What is the most important benefit, if any, that you feel you gain from being a member of these groups? _[Enumerator: Specify benefit for each group and add code]_

|Org/group1:|_[Code]_|
|---|---|
|Org/group2:|_[Code]_|
|Org/group3:|_[Code]_|

- 3.19 Overall, are the same people members of these three different groups, or is there little overlap in membership? (*)

94
- 1  Little overlap

- 2  Some overlap

- 3  Much overlap

Org/group 1 Org/group 2 Org/group 3

- 3.20 For each group, do the members mostly hold the same political values or belong to the same political party? (*) (+)

- 1 All with the same political values or belonging to the same political party

- 2 Mainly from the same political values or belonging to the same political party

- 3 With a few different political values or belonging to a few different political parties in the community

- 4 With many different political values or belonging to many different political parties in the community

- 5 Not applicable in this situation/ context

Org/group 1 Org/group 2 Org/group 3

# Material assets

- 3.21 Does your household use any land or property (for farming/livestock/renting out etc.)?

- 1 Yes 2 No _[Go to question 3.23]_

- 3.22 What is the “ownership status” of this land?

- 1 Owned

- 2 Rented

- 3 Sharecropped

- 4 Combination

- 5 Used with no formal agreement

- 6 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

- 3.23 Do you personally use any land or property (for farming/livestock/renting out etc)?

- 1 Yes 2 No _[Go to question 3.25]_

- 3.24 What is the “ownership status” of this land?

95
- 1 Owned 2 Rented 3 Sharecropped 4 Combination

- 5 Used with no formal agreement 6 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

- 3.25 Is your home... (*)

- 1 Owned and completely paid for

- 2 Owned with a mortgage

- 3 Rented

- 4 Given in exchange for services

- 5 Squatter 6 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

- 3.26 How many rooms are used for sleeping only? (*)

- 3.27 Type of house _[Observation only]_ (*)

- 1 Individual house

- 2 Open roof and patio

- 3 Apartment

- 4 Room within a larger house

- 5 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

3.28 What construction material is used for the majority of the exterior walls of the house or building? _[Observation only]_ (*)

- 1 Cinderblock/brick/stone/concrete/cement

- 2 Fiberglass

- 3 Wood

- 4 Adobe/wattle and daub

- 5 Cane/straw/sticks

- 6 No walls

- 7 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

- 3.29 What is the construction material of most of the roof of this house? _[Observation only]_ (*)

- 1 Concrete/cement

- 2 Tiles

- 3 Metal (zinc, aluminum, etc.)

- 4 Wood

- 5 Straw or thatch

- 6 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

- 3.30 What is the construction material of most of the floor of this house? _[Observation only]_ (*)

96
- 1 Concrete/cement

- 2 Tiles, brick, granite

- 3 Wood

- 4 Vinyl

- 5 Earth, sand

- 6 Cane

- 7 Other (specify)

- 3.31 What type of sanitary services does this household use? (*)

- 1 Connected to sewage system

- 2 Connected to septic tank

- 3 Latrine

- 4 None

- 5 Other (specify)

3.32 What is the primary source of water for this household? (*)

- 1 Public piped water system to individual house 2 Private well 3 Public well

- 4 Shared open tap or faucet

- 5 River or stream

- 6 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

- 3.33 What type of lighting does this household use? (*) 1 Electricity (public source) 2 Electricity (private source)

- 3 Electricity (combination of public and private)

- 4 Only kerosene, gas, candles 5 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

3.34 In your work or livelihood, do you need to use any particular tools or equipment? 1 Yes 2 No _[Go to question 3.37]_ 3.35 What tools or equipment do you need?

_<u>[Enumerator: Please specify and add code]</u>_

|Tool A:<br>_[Code]_|
|---|
|Tool B:<br>_[Code]_|
|Tool C:<br>_[Code]_|

97
- 3.36 Which of these tools or equipment do you own (either individually or collectively), rent, borrow, or not have any access to?

1 Own individually 2 Own collectively 3 Rent individually 4 Rent collectively 5 Borrow 6 Do not have any access to 7 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_ Tool A Tool B Tool C

- 3.37 Which of the following items do you own, if any?

1 Bicycle 2 Television 3 Radio 4 Refrigerator 5 Motor bike 6 Motor vehicle

# Financial assets

3.38 What is your main occupation? (*) 1 Farmer 2 Fisherman 3 Trade 4 Manufacturing – Artisan 5 Manufacturing – Industrial 6 Private sector – Unskilled 7 Private sector – Skilled 8 Public sector – Unskilled 9 Public sector – Skilled 10 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

- 3.39 What is your secondary occupation?

1 Farmer 2 Fisherman 3 Trade 98
- 4 Manufacturing – Artisan 5 Manufacturing – Industrial 6 Private sector – Unskilled 7 Private sector – Skilled 8 Public sector – Unskilled 9 Public sector – Skilled 10 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

3.40 How would you categorize your employment status?

- 1 Self-employed 2 Employed on permanent contract 3 Employed on temporary contract 4 Employed but with no contract 5 Casual employee with contract 6 Casual employee without contract 7 Employed on a daily basis 8 Working within the household 9 Unemployed

3.41 How often have you voluntarily changed your employment/occupation in the past?

- 1 Very often 2 Fairly often 3 Not very often 4 Never

- 3.42 How often have you involuntarily had to change your employment/occupation in the past?

- 1 Very often

- 2 Fairly often 3 Not very often 4 Never

- 3.43 How secure do you feel in your present employment/occupation?

- 1 Very secure

- 2 Fairly secure

- 3 Neither secure nor insecure

- 4 Fairly insecure

- 5 Very insecure

- 3.44 Have you ever borrowed money from another person or institution?

- 1 Yes

- 2 No

- 3.45 Are you in debt to anyone at the moment?

- 1 Yes

99
2 No _[Go to question 3.48]_

- 3.46 How indebted would you say you are at the moment?

- 1 Extremely indebted

- 2 Very indebted

- 3 Fairly indebted

- 4 A little indebted

- 3.47 Do you feel you struggle to repay any debts you have?

- 1 Yes, I struggle greatly

- 2 Yes, I struggle a little

- 3 No, I don’t struggle at all

- 3.48 Can you tell me  what proportion of your household expenditure you think is spent on the following in an average month?

|1:|Food|
|---|---|
|2:|Rent and housingcosts|
|3:|Utilitybills|
|4:|Clothing|
|5:|Loan repayment|
|6:|Livelihood related expenses|
|7:|Education fees/costs|
|8:|Healthcare expenses|
|9:|Savings|
|10:|Entertainment|

- 3.49 How many illnesses or medical problems that have stopped you working or attending school have you had in the last...

A. Month B. 6 months C. Year D. 3 years

# Psychological assets

- 3.50 Are there any community activities, such as those organized by the local government, religious organizations, the school, the local development association etc, in which you think you are not allowed to participate? (+)

- 1 Yes

- 2 No, I can participate in all activities _[Go to question 3.53]_

- 3.51 In which activities do you perceive you are not allowed to participate? (+)

100
_[Enumerator: List up to 3 activities and add codes]_

|_[Code]_|
|---|
|_[Code]_|
|_[Code]_|

3.52 Why do you think you are not allowed to participate? (+) _[Enumerator: List up to 2 reasons]_

- 1 Poverty 2 Occupation 3 Lack of education 4 Gender 5 Age 6 Religion 7 Political affiliation 8 Ethnicity or language spoken/race/caste/tribe 9 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

3.53 How often have you met with and talked to people from other social groups outside your home in the last week? (+)

- 1 Not at all 2 Once 3 Several times 4 Daily 5 Several times a day

3.54 Are there any people from different social groups that you feel you cannot, or would have difficulty in socializing with? 1 Yes 2 No _[Go to question 3.56]_ 3.55 Why do you feel you cannot socialize with these people?

_[Enumerator: List up to 2 reasons]_ 1 Poverty 2 Occupation 3 Lack of education 4 Gender 5 Age 6 Religion 7 Political affiliation 8 Ethnicity or language spoken/race/caste/tribe 9 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_ 3.56 Is there anything in your life that you would like to change?

101
1 Yes

- 2 No _[Go to question 3.62]_

- 3.57 What thing(s) would you most like to change?

_[Enumerator: List up to 3 areas/things and add codes]_

|A:<br>_[Code]_|
|---|
|B:<br>_[Code]_|
|C:<br>_[Code]_|

- 3.58 Do you think these will ever change?

- 1 Yes 2 No _[Go to question 3.62]_

- 3.59 When do you think they will change?

- 1 Very soon

- 2 Fairly soon

- 3 A long time in the future

- 3.60 Who do you think will contribute most to any change?

_[Enumerator: list up to 2 reasons]_

- 1 Myself

- 2 My family

- 3 Our group _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

- 4 Our community

- 5 The local government

- 6 The national government

- 7 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

- 3.61 What are the main difficulties that you feel might prevent these changes from occurring?

_[Enumerator: List 1 reason for each area/thing listed in 3.57 and add code]_

|A:<br>_[Code]_|
|---|
|B:<br>_[Code]_|
|C:<br>_[Code]_|

- 3.62 Do you feel that people like yourself can generally change things in your community if they want to?

- 1 Yes, very easily

- 2 Yes, fairly easily

- 3 Yes, but with a little difficulty

102
- 4 Yes, but with a great deal of difficulty

- 5 No, not at all

- 3.63 What is the one thing you would most like to do in your life?

_[Enumerator: List and add code]_ _<u>[Code]</u>_

- 3.64 How difficult do you think it will be for you to achieve this?

- 1 Very difficult 2 Fairly difficult 3 Fairly easy 4 Very easy

103
_Section 4: Direct Indicators of Empowerment_ We would like to ask your opinions about the situation of your society, government, and institutions that have an effect on the lives of people. If you do not wish to answer a question, please feel free to say.

Domain/sub-domain: State/justice

- 4.1 To your knowledge, what mechanisms are used  in your area and in other parts of the country to achieve justice?

_[Enumerator: List all systems mentioned and add codes. Codes must distinguish between formal and informal justice systems]_

|A:<br>_[Code]_|
|---|
|B:<br>_[Code]_|
|C:<br>_[Code]_|
|D:<br>_[Code]_|
|E:<br>_[Code]_|

- 4.2 Have you ever used these systems to seek redress or access justice?

- 1 Yes

- 2 No _[If none at all, go to question 4.6]_

<!-- Start of picture text --> A: [Code] B: [Code] C: [Code] D: [Code] E: [Code]<br><!-- End of picture text -->

- 4.3 How many times in the last three years have you used these systems to seek redress or access justice?

<!-- Start of picture text --> A: [Code] B: [Code] C: [Code] D: [Code] E: [Code]<br><!-- End of picture text -->

- 4.4 How happy were you with the outcome?

- 1 Completely happy

- 2 Fairly happy

- 3 Neither happy nor unhappy

- 4 Fairly unhappy

- 5 Completely unhappy

A: _[Code]_ B: _[Code]_ C: _[Code]_ D: _[Code]_ E: _[Code]_ 104
- 4.5 How fairly do you think you were treated?

- 1 Completely fairly

- 2 Reasonably fairly 3 Not fairly

<!-- Start of picture text --> A: [Code] B: [Code] C: [Code] D: [Code] E: [Code]<br><!-- End of picture text -->

- 4.6 How fairly do you think you would be treated if you were involved in any of these systems of justice in the future?

- 1 Completely fairly

- 2 Reasonably fairly

- 3 Not fairly

4.7 Do you think women/men _[Enumerator: Delete as appropriate i.e. opposite to respondent]_ get better, equal, or worse treatment in these systems of justice compared to yourself?

- 1 A lot better

- 2 A little better

- 3 Equally

- 4 A little worse

- 5 A lot worse

- 4.8 Do you think other groups of people, for instance __________, _[Enumerator: Insert as appropriate i.e. different group to respondent]_ get better, equal or worse treatment in these systems of justice compared to yourself?

- 1 A lot better

- 2 A little better

- 3 Equally

- 4 A little worse 5 A lot worse

105
- 4.9 How easy is it for you to seek and access justice using these systems should you need to?

- 1 Very easy

- 2 Fairly easy

- 3 Fairly difficult

- 4 Very difficult

- 5 Impossible

<!-- Start of picture text --> A: [Code] B: [Code] C: [Code] D: [Code] E: [Code]<br><!-- End of picture text -->

- 4.10 How active are you in complaining about the systems of justice that you mentioned above?

- 1 Very active

- 2 Fairly active

- 3 A little bit active

- 4 Not active at all

<!-- Start of picture text --> A: [Code] B: [Code] C: [Code] D: [Code] E: [Code]<br><!-- End of picture text -->

- 4.11 How effective are your complaints about the systems of justice that you mentioned above?

- 1 Very effective

- 2 Fairly effective

- 3 A little bit effective 4 Not at all effective

A: _[Code]_ B: _[Code]_ C: _[Code]_ D: _[Code]_ E: _[Code]_

- 4.12 How independent of government or politicians/powerful people do you feel the police force is?

- 1 Very independent

- 2 Fairly independent

- 3 Not independent

- 4 Would rather not say _[If possible, specify reason and add code:________________________]_

- 4.13 How confident do you feel that corrupt people will face justice?

106
- 1 Very confident

- 2 Fairly confident

- 3 Not confident

- 4 Would rather not say

- _[If possible, specify reason and add code:________________________]_

Domain/sub-domain: State/political

- 4.14 How often are elections usually held to choose your local, regional, and national government/administrations?

- 1 Never

- 2 Not held on a regular basis at all

- 3 Every two to three years

- 4 Every four to five years

- 5 Every six to seven years

- 6 At intervals greater than seven years

- 7 Do not know

Local Regional National

- 4.15

How interested are you in these different elections?

- 1 Very interested

- 2 Fairly interested

- 3 Slightly interested

- 4 Not interested at all

Local Regional National

- 4.16 Were you entitled to vote in the last elections that were held at these levels?

- 1 Yes

- 2 No _[Go to question 4.20]_

Local Regional National

- 4.17 Did you vote in the last elections that were held at these levels? (+)

- 1 Yes

- 2 No

107
- 3 Would rather not say

- _[If possible, specify reason and add code:________________________]_

Local Regional National

- 4.18 Did you want to vote in the last elections held at these levels? [go to 4.19]

- 1 Yes

- 2 No

- 3 Would rather not say

_[If possible, specify reason and add code:________________________]_ Local Regional National

- 4.19 If you vote in an election, whom do you decide with when choosing which candidate to support at the following levels?

- 1 I decide by myself

- 2 I decide with my spouse

- 3 I decide with another family member _[Specify and add code: __________]_ 4 A community leader helps me decide

- 5 My employer helps me decide

- 6 A government official helps me decide

- 7 A member of a political party contacts me

- 8 Would rather not say

- _[If possible, specify reason and add code:________________________]_

Local Regional National

- 4.20 Do your tribal, social, or religious leaders ever discuss election candidates at the following levels with you?

- 1 Very often

- 2 Fairly often

- 3 Sometimes

- 4 Never

Local Regional National 108
- 4.21 Do your tribal, social, or religious leaders ever discuss election candidates at the following levels with others?

- 1 Very often

- 2 Fairly often

- 3 Sometimes

- 4 Never

Local Regional National

- 4.22 Do they ever tell you who they will vote for in the elections at the following levels?

- 1 Very often

- 2 Fairly

- 3 Sometimes

- 4 Never

Local Regional National

- 4.23 Have you ever changed your mind when you voted at the following levels because of discussions with other people (such as tribal, social, or religious leaders)?

- 1 Yes

- 2 No

- 3 Would rather not say

- _[If possible, specify reason and add code:________________________]_

Local Regional National

- 4.24 How involved in the political process at these levels do you feel you are at the moment?

- 1 Very involved

- 2 Fairly involved

- 3 Slightly involved

- 4 Not involved at all

- 5 Would rather not say

- _[If possible, specify reason and add code:________________________]_

Local Regional National 109
- 4.25 Would you like to be more or less involved in the political process than you are at the moment?

- 1 Much more involved

- 2 A little more involved

- 3 Neither more nor less involved

- 4 A little less involved

- 5 Much less involved

Local Regional National 4.26 How many representatives of national political parties or movements have you heard of in you local area?

- 1 Many

- 2 Several

- 3 One

- 4 None

- 5 Would rather not say

- _[If possible, specify reason and add code:________________________]_

- 4.27 How much power/influence do you think your local elected representative at each level has in the political process?

- 1 A lot of power/influence

- 2 Some power/influence

- 3 No power or influence

- 4 Would rather not say

- _[If possible, specify reason and add code:________________________]_

Local Regional National

- 4.28 Overall, how fair do you think the electoral process is at each level?

- 1 Very fair

- 2 Reasonably fair

- 3 Not fair

- 4 Would rather not say

- _[If possible, specify reason and add code:________________________]_

Local Regional National 110
- 4.29 Have you ever been dissatisfied with the way that your elected representative behaves?

- 1 Most of the time

- 2 Some of the time

- 3 Rarely

- 4 Never

- 5 Would rather not say

- _[If possible, specify reason and add code:________________________]_

Local Regional National

- 4.30 Are there ways of holding him/her accountable?

- 1 Yes

- 2 No

- 3 Would rather not say

_[If possible, specify reason and add code:________________________]_ Local Regional National

- 4.31 Have you ever used these?

- 1 Often

- 2 Sometimes

- 3 Never _[Go to question 4.33]_ 4 Would rather not say _[Go to question 4.33]_

_[If possible, specify reason and add code:________________________]_ Local Regional National

- 4.32 If yes, did they work?

- 1 Yes

- 2 Some impact

- 3 Little impact

- 4 No impact

- 5 Would rather not say

_[If possible, specify reason and add code:________________________]_ 111
Local Regional National Domain/sub-domain: State/service delivery 4.33 What publicly provided services _[Give examples i.e. education/health etc.]_ are generally available to people in your area?

- 1 Primary schools

- 2 Secondary schools

- 3 Medical clinic

- 4 Hospital

- 5 Agricultural extension

- 6 Transportation

- 7 Water supply

- 8 Sanitation services

- 9 Waste disposal services

- 10 Electricity supply

- 11 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

4.34 What publicly provided services do you feel you personally can have access to should you need them?

- 1 Primary schools

- 2 Secondary schools

- 3 Medical clinic

- 4 Hospital

- 5 Agricultural extension

- 6 Transportation

- 7 Water supply

- 8 Sanitation services

- 9 Waste disposal services

- 10 Electricity supply

- 11 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

112
- 4.35 Which publicly provided services listed above do you use?

- 4.36 How would you rate the general quality of the publicly provided services you use?

- 1 Very good

- 2 Fairly good

- 3 Neither good nor bad

- 4 Fairly bad

- 5 Very bad

- 4.37 What other public services are provided by the state but you do not have access to?

- 1 Primary schools

- 2 Secondary schools

- 3 Medical clinic

- 4 Hospital

- 5 Agricultural extension

- 6 Transportation

- 7 Water supply

- 8 Sanitation services

- 9 Waste disposal services

- 10 Electricity supply

- 11 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

- 4.38 Have you individually ever made a complaint to the authorities regarding the delivery of public services?

- 1 Yes 2 No

- 4.39 Have any members of your household ever made a complaint to the authorities regarding the delivery of public services?

- 1 Yes

- 2 No _[Go to question 4.44]_

- 4.40 How many times have you made a complaint in the last?

113
Month 6 months Year 3 years

- 4.41 How successfully do you feel your complaint was resolved?

- 1 Completely successfully

- 2 Fairly successfully

- 3 Slightly successfully

- 4 Not at all successfully

4.42 Do you think that the authorities are more or less effective when addressing other people’s needs/concerns compared to yours?

- 1 Much more effective

- 2 Slightly more effective

- 3 Neither more nor less effective

- 4 Slightly less effective

- 5 Much less effective

4.43 Do you feel the way in which the authorities treat people is affected by people’s ethnicity or religion (or other social characteristic)?

- 1 Yes, very much

- 2 Yes, slightly

- 3 No, not at all

- 4 Would rather not say

- _[If possible, specify reason and add code:________________________]_

Domain/sub-domain: Market/credit

- 4.44 Did you feel the need to borrow goods or money in the past year?

- 1 Yes, very often

- 2 Yes, fairly often

- 3 Yes, sometimes

- 4 No, not at all

- 4.45 Did you actually borrow money or goods in the past year?

- 1 Yes 2 No

- 4.46 How many sources of credit do you think you have access to, including informal sources?

114
- 4.47 Which two sources do you most usually borrow from?

- 1 Bank

- 2 Credit association

- 3 Shopkeeper

- 4 Landlord

- 5 Family

- 6 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

Source A Source B

- 4.48 Why do you choose to borrow from this/these source(s)?

- 1 Close location

- 2 Interest rates

- 3 Easy requirements and procedures

- 4 No formal requirements or procedures

- 5 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

Source A Source B

- 4.49 Are there any other sources of credit for people in your area which you feel are not available to you?

- 1 Yes 2 No _[Go to question 4.51]_

- 4.50 Why are these not accessible by you?

- 1 Lack of collateral

- 2 No guarantor

- 3 Interest rates too high

- 4 Culturally unacceptable

- 5 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

- 4.51 Do you have any savings?

- 1 Yes

- 2 No _[Go to question 4.53]_

- 4.52 How do you decide when the savings will be used and what for?

115
- 1 I decide on my own

- 2 I decide jointly with my spouse

- 3 My husband/wife decides for me/us

- 4 Another household member decides

- 5 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

Domain/sub-domain: Market/labor At the start of the questionnaire you described your main occupation/livelihood as _[enter code]_ _____________________. We would like to ask you some questions about your occupation and work.

- 4.53 How much choice do you feel you have in deciding your occupation?

- 1 Complete choice

- 2 Some choice

- 3 No choice

- 4.54 How easy would it be to change your occupation if you wanted to?

- 1 Very easy

- 2 Fairly easy

- 3 Not very easy

- 4 Impossible to change

4.55 Why would it be easy/not easy _[Enumerator: See above and delete as appropriate]_ to change your occupation?

- 1 Lack skills

- 2 No local alternatives

- 3 Occupation is determined by caste

- 4 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

4.56 Do you ever do any work within the household?

- 1 Yes

2 No _[Go to question 4.60]_

- 4.57 When you are at home what household work do you do?

- 1 Childcare

- 2 Laundry

- 3 Cooking

- 4 Cleaning

- 5 House maintenance/repair

- 6 Collecting water

- 7 Collecting firewood/fuel

- 8 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

116
<!-- Start of picture text --> A B C D E<br><!-- End of picture text -->

- 4.58 How often do you do this work?

- 1 Every day

- 2 Every few days

- 3 Every week

- 4 Once a month

- 5 Every few months

- 6 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

A B C D E

|Chores / Frequency|Every<br>day|Every<br>few<br>days|Every<br>week|Once a<br>month|Every<br>few<br>months|Other|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Childcare|||||||
|Laundry|||||||
|Cooking|||||||
|Cleaning|||||||
|Housemaintenance|||||||
|Collecting water|||||||
|Collectingfirewood/fuel|||||||
|Other|||||||

4.59 What household work would you never do?

- 1 Childcare

- 2 Laundry

- 3 Cooking

- 4 Cleaning

- 5 House maintenance/repair

- 6 Collecting water

- 7 Collecting firewood/fuel

- 8 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

A B C D E 117
Domain/sub-domain: Market/ goods Previously you stated that you ________________ [Enumerator: Enter code as applicable e.g. own, rent etc.]_ land or property _._

- 4.60 Have you ever felt threatened with eviction from this land/property?

- 1 Yes, very often

- 2 Yes, fairly often

- 3 Yes, occasionally

- 4 No, never

4.61 How strongly do you feel the authorities would protect you if somebody tried to make you leave your property/land?

- 1 Very strongly

- 2 Fairly strongly

- 3 Not at all

- 4.62 Are there any restrictions on what you are able to own or rent?

- 1 Yes 2 No _[Go to question 4.64]_

- 4.63 Why do you think there are restrictions on what you can own or rent?

- 1 Your gender

- 2 Your ethnicity

- 3 Your age

- 4 Your tribe

- 5 Your caste

- 6 Your religion

- 7 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

- 4.64 Have you ever personally inherited any land/property or other items?

- 1 Yes

- 2 No

- 4.65 Have your brothers or sisters ever inherited any land/property or other items?

- 1 Yes, brothers

- 2 Yes sisters

- 3 Yes, brothers and sisters

- 4 No

- 4.66 Who is traditionally allowed to inherit land/property or other assets?

- 1 All family members

- 2 Male family members only

118
- 3 Female family members only

- 4 Other _[Specify and add code: ________________________]_

Domain/sub-domain: Society/household & kinship groups

- 4.67 When decisions are made regarding the following aspects of household life, who is it that normally takes the decision?

- 1 Male head of household

- 2 Adult male household members

- 3 Female head of household

- 4 Adult female household members

- 5 Male and female heads of households

- 6 All adult members of household

- 7 All members of household, including children

- 8 Other _[Specify and add code: ______________________]_

Household Education Political Marriage Religious expenditure and health decisions choices beliefs 4.68 To what degree do you feel you can make your own personal decisions regarding these issues if you want to?

- 1 To a very high degree

- 2 To a fairly high degree

- 3 To a small degree

- 4 Not at all

Household Education Political Marriage Religious expenditure and health decisions choices beliefs 4.69 To what degree do you feel you have control over decisions regarding your own personal welfare, health and body?

- 1 To a very high degree

- 2 To a fairly high degree

- 3 To a small degree

- 4 Not at all

- 4.70 Where do you go on your own?

- 1 Everywhere I want to

- 2 Most places I want to

- 3 Some places I want to

119
# 4 Nowhere

- 4.71 How easy do you find it to access health services when you need to?

- 1 Very easy

- 2 Fairly easy

- 3 Fairly difficult

- 4 Very difficult

- 5 Impossible

- 4.72 How easy do you find it to access education or training services when you need to?

- 1 Very easy

- 2 Fairly easy

- 3 Fairly difficult

- 4 Very difficult

- 5 Impossible

- 4.73 Looking back over the past year, do you feel more or less has been spent on your personal health care compared to other household members?

- 1 Much more

- 2 A little more

- 3 About the same

- 4 A little less

- 5 Much less

- 6 We all spend whatever is needed for our care 7 Not sure

- 4.74 Do you think this is generally the case each year?

- 1 Yes 2 No

Domain/sub-domain: Society/community

- 4.75 Who makes the main decisions about public services in your community?

_[Enumerator: List and add code]_

|A:<br>_[Code]_|
|---|
|B:<br>_[Code]_|
|C:<br>_[Code]_|

- 4.76 How involved do you feel in these decision-making processes within your community?

- 1 Very involved

- 2 Fairly involved

- 3 Slightly involved

120
# 4 Not involved at all

- 4.77 How much would you like to be involved in these decision-making processes within your community?

- 1 Much more involved

- 2 Slightly more involved

- 3 Neither more nor less involved

- 4 Slightly less involved

- 5 Much less involved

4.78 How much influence do you feel you have in community level decision-making processes?

- 1 A great deal of influence

- 2 A reasonable level of influence

- 3 A low level of influence

- 4 No influence at all

121
# _Section 5: End Comments and Feedback_

Thank you very much for taking part in this survey, which has taken _______ [Enumerator: fill in as appropriate]_ hours of your time. We would like to ask you some final questions and would appreciate any comments you have about the survey or the way it was conducted.

- 5.1 What would you have normally been doing at this time?

_[Enumerator: List and add code]_ A: _<u>[Code]</u>_ B: _<u>[Code]</u>_ 5.2 Would you be willing to take part in a similar survey in the future?

1 Yes 2 No 3 Possibly

- 5.3 Is there anything you would like to ask me or the research team?

- _[Enumerator: List and add code]_

|A:<br>_[Code]_|
|---|
|B:<br>_[Code]_|

- 5.4 Do you have any other comments or suggestions you would like to add about the survey and our research?

_[Enumerator: List and add code]_

|A:<br>_[Code]_|
|---|
|B:<br>_[Code]_|

Once again, thank you very much for your time and effort.

122
WB10116 C:\ME Working Paper Final Jan 2005.doc February 2, 2005 2:05 PM 123