Download source CSV for disaggregations
Headline data
Year | Value | Units | Series | GeoCode | Observation status | Unit multiplier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2013/14 | 25.984206 | Percentage (%) | Percentage of people who feel they are able to influence decisions affecting their local area | Undefined | Units | |
2014/15 | 25.436388 | Percentage (%) | Percentage of people who feel they are able to influence decisions affecting their local area | Undefined | Units | |
2015/16 | 27.804348 | Percentage (%) | Percentage of people who feel they are able to influence decisions affecting their local area | Undefined | Units | |
2016/17 | 26.5292 | Percentage (%) | Percentage of people who feel they are able to influence decisions affecting their local area | Undefined | Units | |
2017/18 | 26.025694414 | Percentage (%) | Percentage of people who feel they are able to influence decisions affecting their local area | Undefined | Units | |
2018/19 | 25.391919984 | Percentage (%) | Percentage of people who feel they are able to influence decisions affecting their local area | Undefined | Units | |
2019/20 | 26.8 | Percentage (%) | Percentage of people who feel they are able to influence decisions affecting their local area | Undefined | Units | |
2020/21 | 26.5858371701 | Percentage (%) | Percentage of people who feel they are able to influence decisions affecting their local area | Undefined | Units |
This section provides metadata for the data reported for this indicator at the national level and at the global level.
- Goal
Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
- Target
Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels
- Indicator
Indicator 16.7.2: Proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive, by sex, age, disability and population group
- Series
- Related indicators
SDG indicator 16.7.2 complements indicator 16.7.1 (under the same target 16.7 -- “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels”) which draws on administrative data sources to measure the proportional representation of various population groups in public institutions. The two indicators are highly complementary as proportional representation alone is no guarantee that all population groups represented in public institutions have equal decision-making power, or that all population groups in the national population have equal opportunities to voice their interests and preferences and to influence public decision-making. Indicator 16.7.2 provides important additional information by focusing on the inclusiveness and responsiveness of decision-making, as perceived by the population (drawing from population surveys).
Indicator 16.7.2 can also be used to complement SDG target 10.2 on the promotion of the “social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status”, which only has one indicator measuring economic exclusion (SDG 10.2.1 – Proportion of people living below 50 per cent of median income, by age, sex and persons with disabilities). Indicator 16.7.2 therefore provides important additional information to measure progress against this target by providing data on political inclusion.
Similarly, 16.7.2 can also be used to complement SDG target 10.3 on “Ensuring equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard”, which only has one indicator measuring felt discrimination on various grounds (SDG 10.3.1 Proportion of the population reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed within the previous 12 months on the basis of a ground of discrimination prohibited under international human rights law). Indicator 16.7.2 therefore provides relevant additional information to measure progress against this target by helping to identify whether certain population groups might feel discriminated against in terms of their inclusion in public decision-making and the extent to which political institutions are responsive to their demands/preferences.
- Custodian agencies
UNDP Oslo Governance Centre
Field | National | Global |
---|---|---|
Organisation | Not available for this indicator |
UNDP Oslo Governance Centre |
Contact organisation unit | Not available for this indicator |
Not available for this indicator |
Contact email address | Not available for this indicator |
Not available for this indicator |
Field | National | Global |
---|---|---|
Definition and concepts | Not available for this indicator |
Definition: This survey-based indicator measures self-reported levels of ‘external political efficacy’, that is, the extent to which people think that politicians and/or political institutions will listen to, and act on, the opinions of ordinary citizens. To address both dimensions covered by this indicator, SDG indicator 16.7.2 uses two well-established survey questions, namely: 1) one question measuring the extent to which people feel they have a say in what the government does (focus on inclusive participation in decision-making) and 2) another question measuring the extent to which people feel the political system allows them to have an influence on politics (focus on responsive decision-making). All efforts should be made to disaggregate survey results on these two questions by sex, age group, income level, education level, place of residence (administrative region e.g. province, state, district; urban/rural), disability status, and nationally relevant population groups. Concepts Decision-making: It is implicit in indicator 16.7.2 that ‘decision-making’ refers to decision-making in the public governance realm (and not all decision-making). Inclusive decision-making: Decision-making processes which provide people with an opportunity to ‘have a say’, that is, to voice their demands, opinions and/or preferences to decision-makers. Responsive decision-making: Decision-making processes where politicians and/or political institutions listen to and act on the stated demands, opinions and/or preferences of people. |
Unit of measure | Not available for this indicator |
Percentage |
Classifications | Not available for this indicator |
Not applicable |
Field | National | Global |
---|---|---|
Data sources | Not available for this indicator |
This indicator needs to be measured on the basis of data collected by NSOs through official household surveys. |
Data collection method | Not available for this indicator |
NSOs should identify suitable survey vehicles to incorporate the two questions for measuring SDG indicator 16.7.2, keeping in mind the guidelines on survey methodology provided above. |
Data collection calendar | Not available for this indicator |
To ensure timely capture of changes in levels of external political efficacy, NSOs should report data on indicator 16.7.2 at least once every two years. NSOs will need to choose the most appropriate time/period for administering the 16.7.2 questions. Electoral periods should be avoided, and NSOs should aim for the middle of an electoral term. Experience shows that surveys conducted at the beginning of an electoral term generate more positive responses than surveys conducted at the end of a term. |
Data release calendar | Not available for this indicator |
Data will be reported at the international level in April each year. The first full release of data for the indicator will take place in April 2021. |
Data providers | Not available for this indicator |
National Statistical Offices |
Data compilers | Not available for this indicator |
UNDP |
Institutional mandate | Not available for this indicator |
UNDP helps national and local government partners to build capable, responsive, open, inclusive and accountable core governance institutions that reinforce the dynamic relationship between the State and the people across all developmental contexts, by supporting inclusive political processes and strengthening multi-stakeholder engagement at the local level for more community participation and capacity and the inclusion of marginalized groups. |
Field | National | Global | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rationale | Not available for this indicator |
SDG indicator 16.7.2 refers to the concept of ‘political efficacy’, which dates back to the 1950s, when the concept was discussed jointly with political trust as a key measure of the overall health of a democratic system (Craig et al, 1990). It can be defined as the “feeling that political and social change is possible and that the individual citizen can play a part in bringing about this change" (Campbell, Gurin and Miller, 1954, p.187). This perception that people can impact decision-making is important as it makes it worthwhile for them to perform their civic duties (Acok et al, 1985). The ability to participate in society, to have a say in the shaping of policies and to dissent without fear are essential freedoms. Political voice also provides a corrective to public policy: it can ensure the accountability of officials and public institutions, reveal what people need and value, and call attention to significant deprivations. Political voice also reduces the potential for conflicts and enhances the prospect of building consensus on key issues, with payoffs for economic efficiency, social equity, and inclusiveness in public life.[1] Since the seminal studies of Campbell, Gurin and Miller (1954) and Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes (1960), the political efficacy construct has been regarded both as an important predictor of political participation and as a positive outcome of participation (Finkel, 1985). High levels of political efficacy among citizens are regarded as desirable for democratic stability. Individuals that are confident about their ability to influence the actions of their government are more likely to support the democratic system of government (Easton, 1965). There are two dimensions to political efficacy. First, subjective competence, or ‘internal efficacy’, can be defined as the confidence of the individual in his or her own abilities to understand politics and to act politically. Second, system responsiveness, or ‘external efficacy’, can be defined as the individual’s belief in the responsiveness of the political system, i.e. policymaking processes and government decisions that respond to public demands or preferences (Lane 1959; Converse 1972; Balch 1974). SDG indicator 16.7.2 focuses only on this second dimension, ‘external efficacy’. Levels of external efficacy across various population groups are important to measure as they are correlated with trust in government and government evaluations (Finkel, 1985; Quintilier & Hooghe, 2012), as well as perceptions of the legitimacy of public institutions (Mcevoy, 2016). Higher levels of system responsiveness are also expected to be associated with higher levels of political participation, including voting in elections (Abramson and Aldrich, 1982), and with people’s own life satisfaction (Flavin and Keane, 2011). The OECD monitors levels of external political efficacy – “the personal feeling of having a say in what the government does” – as part of its biennial report on Measuring Well-Being (OECD, How’s Life? 2017: Measuring Well-Being, p.182). A survey question on system responsiveness, sourced from the OECD Adult Skills Survey (PIAAC)[2], is used by the OECD to produce one of two ‘headline indicators’ of civic engagement and governance for close to 40 OECD countries and/or partner countries (the other headline indicator used by the OECD is voter turnout). The specific question used by the OECD asks respondents: “To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? People like me don’t have any say in what the government does”, which is answered through a 5-point Likert-type scale (ranging from 1 for “strongly agree” to 5 for “strongly disagree”). Since 2016, the European Social Survey[3] has integrated in its core module two questions on system responsiveness, namely “How much would you say the political system in [country] allows people like you to have a say in what the government does?” and “How much would you say that the political system in [country] allows people like you to have an influence on politics?”, each answered through a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘Not at all’, ‘Very little’, ‘Some’, ‘A lot’, ‘A great deal’, in its last Round 9 in 2018. In its last round 9 in 2018, the ESS was conducted in 29 European countries.[4]
As part of its 7th wave (2018-19), the World Values Survey Association (WVSA) administered in 15 countries worldwide[5] the first question on external political efficacy used by the ESS (“How much would you say the political system in [country] allows people like you to have a say in what the government does?”). This question has since been incorporated in the core WVS questionnaire for all countries, and the WVSA will incorporate the second question used by the ESS (“How much would you say that the political system in [country] allows people like you to have an influence on politics?”) in its next survey wave. 1 See OECD, “Final report of the expert group on quality of life indicators”, 2017 ↑ 2 The question on external political efficacy was included in the past two rounds of the OECD Adult Skills Survey (PIAAC), with each data collection round including different countries: in 2008-2013, the PIAAC covered 20 OECD countries plus 3 OECD sub-entities, namely Flanders, England and Northern Ireland, and the Russian Federation; and in 2012-2016, the PIAAC covered 6 additional countries, as well as Lithuania (an OECD accession country). ↑ 4 The European Social Survey in its Round 9 (2018) was run in Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom. ↑ 5 The World Values Survey Association administered the first question on external political efficacy used by the ESS in the following 15 countries: Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru. ↑ |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments and limitations | Not available for this indicator |
Excludes measurement of ‘internal political efficacy’ As discussed in detail above, there are two dimensions to political efficacy. First, subjective competence, or ‘internal efficacy’, and second, system responsiveness, or ‘external efficacy’. This methodology stops short of measuring ‘internal political efficacy’ (also called ‘subjective competence’), which can be defined as the confidence or belief that an individual has in his or her own abilities to understand politics and to participate in the political process. Subjective competence is expected to be correlated with political interest (ESS, 2016). Higher levels of subjective competence are also expected to be associated with higher levels of political participation, including voting in elections. As such, policymakers interested in identifying factors driving high or low levels of political participation should not base their diagnostics solely on levels of external efficacy measured by SDG 16.7.2, as levels of internal efficacy (not measured by SDG 16.7.2) also come into play. Translation challenges The idiom ‘having a say’ can be difficult to translate into other languages, given it can also have various meanings in English (such as expressing one’s views, or being in command, among others). To ensure global comparability of results on this question, getting good quality local language translations is a critical step in the measurement of SDG 16.7.2. To ensure the best possible quality of local language translations, NSOs should be cautious not to use formal or ‘academically correct’ versions of the local languages; rather, they should focus on the everyday (colloquial) use of the language. To ensure equivalence of meaning during translation, the following protocol is recommended:
It is important to recognize that it takes time to go through these steps and get good quality translations. NSOs should start this process well ahead of the planned fieldwork dates so that the procedures can be carefully followed. Translation for the two questions is readily available in all languages used by the 29 European countries covered by the European Social Survey, as well as in Arabic, Catalan, Malay, Chinese/ Mandarin, Hausa, Igbo, Yoruba, Indonesian, Urdu, Bengali, Russian, Swahili and Kazakh languages. Social desirability bias Surveys are the most common and most reliable method of gathering public opinion data representative of the population from which the sample is drawn. However, when studying public opinion with surveys, the researcher assumes that respondents answer truthfully to the questions that interviewers pose. It has been shown that this assumption does not hold in many instances. Survey measures of self-reported voter turnout for example are highly biased in that a significant portion of survey respondents in the US have been found to state they have voted, when they have in fact not.[6] Similarly, social scientists have determined that many common survey items are plagued by such bias such as those that probe for an individual’s attitude towards race relations[7], corruption, and electoral support. ‘Social desirability bias’, as this is known in the literature, arises whenever survey respondents do not reveal their true beliefs but rather provide a response that they believe to be more socially acceptable, or the response that they believe the interviewers wish to hear. Naturally, this poses a threat to the reliability and validity of survey items. It is possible that the two questions used to measure SDG indicator 16.7.2 could be affected by social desirability bias. However, pilot-testing of the two questions across all regions and diverse national contexts, as well as statistical analysis of existing survey results on these two questions (using national datasets from the ESS), have not detected any systematic occurrence of social desirability bias. A useful way of detecting more positive results inflated by social desirability bias is to compare the results obtained by an NSO to results obtained by different entities (e.g. by independent researchers from the WVSA or the ESS), provided the time lag between the two data collection efforts is not too wide. It is useful also to keep in mind that high levels of ‘don’t know’ or ‘refuse to answer’ in a national dataset may be a possible sign that respondents do not feel comfortable revealing their true opinion on the questions posed. Normative framework for selection of disaggregation dimensions People’s perceived capacity to shape government decisions is affected by their personal characteristics and socio-economic background. As such, the indicator calls for disaggregation of survey results by age, sex, nationally relevant population groups and disability status. The following international human rights instruments contain provisions on enhancing opportunities for participation by individuals and groups holding such characteristics:
6 See Holbrook, A. L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2010). Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports tests using the item count technique. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74 (1), 37{67}. ↑ 7 See Kuklinski, J. H., Cobb, M. D., & Gilens, M. (1997). Racial attitudes and the new south. The Journal of Politics, 59 (02), 323{349}. ↑ 8 See https://www.un.org/development/desa/ageing/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2018/03/Report-of-the-United-Kingdom-of-Great-Britain-and-Northern-Ireland-on-ageing-related-statistics-and-age-disaggregated-data.pdf ↑ |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Method of computation | Not available for this indicator |
For instance:
(70% + 54%) / 2 = 62% *Note: It is important for NSOs to clearly report, for each question, the number of respondents who selected “don’t know” (DK), “no answer” (NA) or “refuse to answer” (RA), and to exclude such respondents from the calculation of cumulative shares of positive responses. For instance, if 65 out of 1000 respondents responded either one of these three options on the first question, the cumulative share of positive responses on this first question will be calculated out of a total of 935 respondents, and the reporting sheet will indicate that for this particular question, x respondents responded DK, y responded NA, and z responded RA. Overall, global reporting on SDG 16.7.2 will require:
9 If this indicator is being calculated from an existing survey that uses a non-standard response scale, please contact UNDP at sdg16indicators@undp.org for guidance on identifying “positive” responses in non-standard response scales. ↑ |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adjustments | Not available for this indicator |
Not Applicable |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Treatment of missing values (i) at country level and (ii) at regional level | Not available for this indicator |
• At country level There is no treatment of missing values. • At regional and global levels There is no imputation of missing values. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Regional aggregations | Not available for this indicator |
The average share of respondents who responded positively to the two questions selected to measure SDG 16.7.2 will be provided for each region, and globally. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Methods and guidance available to countries for the compilation of the data at the national level | Not available for this indicator |
Methods and guidance available to countries for the compilation of data at national level: To disaggregate survey results by disability status, it is recommended that countries use the Short Set of Questions on Disability elaborated by the Washington Group. Methods and guidance available to countries for the compilation of data at international level: European Social Survey: Source questionnaire and accompanying guidance, in various languages: https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/methodology/ess_methodology/source_questionnaire/ OECD’s Adult Skills Survey (PIAAC): Questionnaire and accompanying guidance, in various languages: http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/samplequestionsandquestionnaire.htm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quality management | Not available for this indicator |
Statistics for this indicator is inputted in the reporting platform (https://sdg16reporting.undp.org/login). UNDP has dedicated staff to verify the collected data and liaise with the data officers in the agency in the countries. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quality assurance | Not available for this indicator |
NSOs have the main responsibility to ensure the statistical quality of the data compiled for this indicator. One possible quality assurance mechanism would be to compare results obtained by the NSO with readily available survey results on external political efficacy generated by relevant national, regional or global unofficial data producers (see potential global and regional unofficial sources below). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quality assessment | Not available for this indicator |
UNDP will make available a quality assessment protocol for national statistics office to be used at national level and intended to assess the alignment of data produced with users needs, the compliance with guidelines in terms of computations, the timeliness of data production, the accessibility of statistics produced, the consistent use of methodology both in terms of geographic representation and through time, the coherence in terms of data production, and the architecture of data production. |
National | Global |
---|---|
Not available for this indicator |
Description and time series:
Disaggregation: Indicator 16.7.2 aims to measure how individual beliefs in the inclusiveness and responsiveness of the political system differ across various demographic groups, including by sex, age, disability status and nationally relevant population groups. While empirical analysis confirmed the effect of these demographic variables on self-reported levels of external efficacy, other influential variables were identified, including income and education level. Moreover, since target 16.7 focuses on ‘decision-making at all levels’, disaggregation by place of residence (by administrative region e.g. by province, state, distrct; urban/rural) is also important to help identify areas in a given country where people feel most excluded from decision-making.
10 The ESS was primarily designed as a time series that could monitor changing attitudes and values across Europe. For this reason, its questionnaire comprises a core module, containing items measuring a range of topics of enduring interest to the social sciences as well as the most comprehensive set of socio-structural ('background') variables of any cross-national survey. The exact number of items can change from round to round, but each question has a unique variable name to assist users working with data over time. ↑ 11 The European Social Survey in its Round 9 (2018) was run in Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom. ↑ 12 In 2008-2013 (round 1), the PIAAC covered 20 OECD countries plus 3 OECD sub-entities, namely Flanders, England and Northern Ireland, and the Russian Federation; in 2012-2016 (round 2), the PIAAC covered 6 additional countries, as well as Lithuania (an OECD accession country); in 2016-19, the PIAAC is covering Ecuador, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Peru and the United States. ↑ 13 UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, 24 January 2007, A/RES/61/106, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/45f973632.html ↑ 14 Francesco Capotorti, Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (1977). ↑ 15 UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Minority Rights: International Standards and Guidance for Implementation, 2010, HR/PUB/10/3, <http://www.refworld.org/docid/4db80ca52.html> ↑ |
National | Global |
---|---|
Not available for this indicator |
Sources of discrepancies: There is no internationally estimated data for this indicator. |
National | Global |
---|---|
Not available for this indicator |
Guidelines on survey methodology
Questions
Clarifications on question wording “The political system in [country]”: A particular form of government. For example, democracy is a political system in which citizens govern themselves. Other political systems include republics, monarchies, communist systems and dictatorships. “Having a say in what the government does” means having a channel to express one’s demands, opinions or preferences about what the government does, and feeling listened to. “Have an influence on politics” means feeling that decision-makers listen to and act on one’s demands, opinions or preferences. |