DOCSLIB.ORG

The State Under Scrutiny. Public Opinion, Stateness and Goverment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The State Under Scrutiny. Public Opinion, Stateness and Goverment This document was prepared by Carlos Sojo and coordinated by Juan Carlos Feres, Chief of the Social Statistics Unit of the Statistics and Economic Projections Division of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and Pablo Villatoro, a staff member of the Division. Patricio Olivera contributed inputs for the study and valuable comments and suggestions were received from Luis Beccaria, Carlos Vergara, Sonia Montaño, Nieves Rico, María de los Ángeles Fernández, Marcela Ríos, Patricio Zapata, Rafael Urriola, Andrés Palma, Ana López, Máximo Aguilera, Roy Rivera, José Luis León-Manríquez and Juan Fernando Londoño. The document was financed from the regular budget of ECLAC and resources provided by the Spanish International Cooperation Agency for Development (AECID). ECLAC wishes to express its gratitude for the financial cooperation which made it possible to prepare and publish this document. The opinions expressed in this document, which has not undergone formal editing, are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Organization. Cover design and page layout: María de los Ángeles Renard. LC/R.2174 Copyright © United Nations, September 2011. All rights reserved. Printed in United Nations, Santiago, Chile. The State under scrutiny: Public opinion, Stateness and government performance in Latin America Table of contents Introduction 13 Chapter I Basic concepts 17 A. Public opinion on politics 17 B. Public opinion, the state and democracy 18 C. Opinion and public policies 27 D. The media and public opinion 32 E. Social perceptions of the role of the state: Towards a methodological focus 35 F. Stateness: beyond the size of the state 36 Chapter II The context: politics, state and democracy in Latin America at the turn of the century 43 A. The consolidation of electoral democracy 44 B. State performance in context 46 Chapter III Consent: democracy and legitimation 63 A. Attachment to democracy 67 B. The need for government 75 C. Active citizenship 81 Table of contents Chapter IV The dynamics of satisfaction: public opinion and the performance of the state 89 A. Opinion and public policies 90 1. Public spending, financing and social services 90 2. Anti-inflation policies 96 3. Unemployment and social insecurity 99 B. Social structure, state and public opinion 101 1. State performance and social gaps 102 2. Gender inequity and perceptions of the State 108 3. Ethnic diversity and satisfaction 113 Chapter V Perceptions of the role of the state 123 Conclusions 137 Bibliography 147 Boxes, diagrams, figures and tables Box I.1 Democracy, State and government 32 Box II.1 Time for equality: closing gaps, opening trails 59 Box III.1 Citizenship and state 81 Diagram II.1 Public opinion and the role of the state: analytical model 35 Figure II.1 Latin America (simple averages): central government tax revenue, 2008 47 Figure II.2 Latin America (simple averages, 4 countries): central government tax revenue in countries with high stateness 48 Figure II.3 Latin America (simple averages, 4 countries): central government tax revenue in countries with medium stateness 48 Figure II.4 Latin America (simple averages, 4 countries): central government tax revenue in countries with low stateness 49 Figure II.5 Latin America (weighted average, 21 countries): public social spending and total public spending, 1990-2008 50 Figure II.6 Latin America (simple averages): social investment per capita, by levels of stateness 51 Figure II.7 Latin America: poor and indigent population, by levels of stateness 51 6 The State under scrutiny: Public opinion, Stateness and government performance in Latin America Figure II.8 Latin America (9 countries): impact of social spending on primary incomes by household income quintile 53 Figure II.9 Latin America (17 countries): coverage of the main poverty reduction programmes, around 2009 54 Figure II.10 Latin America (4 countries): average annual unemployment rate in countries of high stateness, 1995-2009 55 Figure II.11 Latin America (6 countries): average annual unemployment rate in countries of medium stateness, 1995-2009 55 Figure II.12 Latin America (8 countries): average annual unemployment rate in countries of low stateness, 1995-2009 56 Figure II.13 Latin America (simple averages): migration rates, by stateness group, 1995-2010 57 Figure II.14 Latin America: gini coefficient, 1999 and 2007 58 Figure II.15 Latin America (simple averages): income ratio, richest to poorest quintile, by degree of stateness 1995-2007 59 Figure II.16 Latin America: homicide rate, 1995-2006 61 Figure II.17 Latin America: male homicide rate, 1995-2006 62 Figure II.18 Latin America: female homicide rate, 1995-2006 62 Figure III.1 Latin America: most important characteristic of democracy, 2001-2005 65 Figure III.2 Latin America: opinions about democracy, 1996-2009 69 Figure III.3 Latin America: preference for democracy, by country, 1996 and 2001 69 Figure III.4 Latin America (simple averages): net support for democracy, 2002-2009 70 Figure III.5 Latin America (simple averages): support for democracy by country, 2003 and 2009 71 Figure III.6 Latin America: perception of clean elections, 1996-2009 72 Figure III.7 Latin America (simple averages): real chances to choose in democracy 73 Figure III.8 Latin America (simple averages): support for democracy, by groups of countries classed by stateness, 1996 -2008 75 Figure III.9 Latin America (simple averages): preferences for order over freedom, 2004-2009 76 Figure III.10 Latin America (simple averages): perceptions of the state’s capacity to solve problems, 1998-2009 77 7 Table of contents Figure III.11 Latin America: perceptions of the state’s capacity to solve problems, by structural characterstics,1998-2009 78 Figure III.12 Latin America: perceptions of the relative independence of state institutions, 2004-2009 79 Figure III.13 Latin America: perceptions of the relative independence of state institutions, by country 2004-2009 80 Figure III.14 Latin America (simple averages): perceptions of fellow citizens’ civic awareness, 1996-2008 83 Figure III.15 Latin America: rate of change in perceptions of fellow citizens’ respect for the law, 1996 and 2008 85 Figure III.16 Latin America: rate of change in perceptions of fellow citizens’ insistence on their rights, 1996 and 2008 85 Figure III.17 Latin America: rate of change in perceptions of fellow citizens’ awareness of their duties and obligations, 1996 and 2008 86 Figure III.18 Latin America: confidence in the vote, 1996-2009 87 Figure IV.1 Latin America (17 countries): public spending preferences, 1998 91 Figure IV.2 Latin America (17 countries): people who believe more should be spent on infrastructure, 1998 91 Figure IV.3 Latin America (17 countries): people who believe more should be spent on defence and the armed forces, 1998 92 Figure IV.4 Latin America (17 countries): people who agree with the statement: “taxes should be as low as possible, even if this means cutting welfare spending”, 2002 95 Figure IV.5 Latin America (17 countries): which of the following things would you say is most important?, 1996-2002 96 Figure IV.6 Latin America: annual rate of change in the consumer price index, general and food, 1996-2009 97 Figure IV.7 Latin America: annual rate of change in the perception of inflation as the country’s principal problem and in the food price index, 1996-2008 98 Figure IV.8 Latin America (simple averages): objective and perceived trend in labour market problems, 1996-2008 100 Figure IV.9 Latin America: direct taxes, 1996-2005 104 Figure IV.10 Latin America: perception of tax evasion among close acquaintances, 1998 and 2002 106 Figure IV.11 Latin America: reasons for evading taxes, by social gaps, 1998 and 2004 107 8 The State under scrutiny: Public opinion, Stateness and government performance in Latin America Figure IV.12 Latin America: trust in government, by sex, for “gender gap” country groupings, 1996-2008 109 Figure IV.13 Latin America: equal treatment as reason for trust in public institutions, by sex, for “gender gap” country groupings, 2003-2004 110 Figure IV.14 Latin America: opinion of the functioning of public institutions, by sex, for “gender gap” country groupings, 2002 and 2005 111 Figure IV.15 Latin America: trust in government, by level of ethnolinguistic fractionalization of countries, 1996-2007 116 Figure IV.16 Latin America: trust in congress, by level of ethnolinguistic fractionalization of countries, 1996-2007 117 Figure IV.17 Latin America: trust in the judiciary, by level of ethnolinguistic fractionalization of countries, 1996-2007 117 Figure IV.18 Latin America: trust in public administration, by level of ethnolinguistic fractionalization of countries, 1996-2007 118 Figure IV.19 Latin America: subjective income, by ethnolinguistic fractioning of countries, 1996-2008 119 Figure IV.20 Latin America: satisfaction with available education services, by ethnolinguistic fractionalization of countries, 2003-2007 120 Figure IV.21 Latin America: satisfaction with available health services, by ethnolinguistic fractionalization of countries, 2003-2007 120 Figure V.1 Latin America (18 countries): from the list of activities that i am going to read to you, which do you think should mostly be in the hands of the state and which should mostly be in the hands of private companies?, 1998 And 2008 126 Figure V.2 Latin America (simple averages, 17 countries): population who believe that health, education, pensions, basic services and oil should be mostly in the hands
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Political Socialization, Public Opinion, and Polling
    Political Socialization, Public Opinion, and Polling asic Tenants of American olitical Culture iberty/Freedom People should be free to live their lives with minimal governmental interference quality Political, legal, & of opportunity, but not economic equality ndividualism Responsibility for own decisions emocracy Consent of the governed Majority rule, with minority rights Citizen responsibilities (voting, jury duty, etc.) olitical Culture vs. Ideology Most Americans share common beliefs in he democratic foundation of government culture) yet have differing opinions on the proper role & scope of government ideology) olitical Socialization Process through which an individual acquires particular political orientations, beliefs, and values at factors influence political opinion mation? Family #1 source for political identification Between 60-70% of all children agree with their parents upon reaching adulthood. If one switches his/her party affiliation it usually goes from Republican/Democrat to independent hat factors influence political opinion mation? School/level of education “Building good citizens”- civic education reinforces views about participation Pledge of Allegiance Volunteering Civic pride is nation wide Informed student-citizens are more likely to participate/vote as adults Voting patterns based on level of educational attainment hat factors influence political opinion rmation? Peer group/occupation Increases in importance during teen years Occupational influences hat factors influence political opinion mation? Mass media Impact
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Human Subjects Protection Issues Related to Large Sample Surveys
    Summary of Human Subjects Protection Issues Related to Large Sample Surveys U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics Joan E. Sieber June 2001, NCJ 187692 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs John Ashcroft Attorney General Bureau of Justice Statistics Lawrence A. Greenfeld Acting Director Report of work performed under a BJS purchase order to Joan E. Sieber, Department of Psychology, California State University at Hayward, Hayward, California 94542, (510) 538-5424, e-mail [email protected]. The author acknowledges the assistance of Caroline Wolf Harlow, BJS Statistician and project monitor. Ellen Goldberg edited the document. Contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the Department of Justice. This report and others from the Bureau of Justice Statistics are available through the Internet — http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2 Limitations of the Common Rule with respect to survey research 2 2. Risks and benefits of participation in sample surveys 5 Standard risk issues, researcher responses, and IRB requirements 5 Long-term consequences 6 Background issues 6 3. Procedures to protect privacy and maintain confidentiality 9 Standard issues and problems 9 Confidentiality assurances and their consequences 21 Emerging issues of privacy and confidentiality 22 4. Other procedures for minimizing risks and promoting benefits 23 Identifying and minimizing risks 23 Identifying and maximizing possible benefits 26 5. Procedures for responding to requests for help or assistance 28 Standard procedures 28 Background considerations 28 A specific recommendation: An experiment within the survey 32 6.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evidence from World Values Survey Data
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive The return of religious Antisemitism? The evidence from World Values Survey data Tausch, Arno Innsbruck University and Corvinus University 17 November 2018 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/90093/ MPRA Paper No. 90093, posted 18 Nov 2018 03:28 UTC The return of religious Antisemitism? The evidence from World Values Survey data Arno Tausch Abstract 1) Background: This paper addresses the return of religious Antisemitism by a multivariate analysis of global opinion data from 28 countries. 2) Methods: For the lack of any available alternative we used the World Values Survey (WVS) Antisemitism study item: rejection of Jewish neighbors. It is closely correlated with the recent ADL-100 Index of Antisemitism for more than 100 countries. To test the combined effects of religion and background variables like gender, age, education, income and life satisfaction on Antisemitism, we applied the full range of multivariate analysis including promax factor analysis and multiple OLS regression. 3) Results: Although religion as such still seems to be connected with the phenomenon of Antisemitism, intervening variables such as restrictive attitudes on gender and the religion-state relationship play an important role. Western Evangelical and Oriental Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are performing badly on this account, and there is also a clear global North-South divide for these phenomena. 4) Conclusions: Challenging patriarchic gender ideologies and fundamentalist conceptions of the relationship between religion and state, which are important drivers of Antisemitism, will be an important task in the future. Multiculturalism must be aware of prejudice, patriarchy and religious fundamentalism in the global South.
    [Show full text]
  • Indicators for Support for Economic Integration in Latin America
    Pepperdine Policy Review Volume 11 Article 9 5-10-2019 Indicators for Support for Economic Integration in Latin America Will Humphrey Pepperdine University, School of Public Policy, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/ppr Recommended Citation Humphrey, Will (2019) "Indicators for Support for Economic Integration in Latin America," Pepperdine Policy Review: Vol. 11 , Article 9. Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/ppr/vol11/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Public Policy at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pepperdine Policy Review by an authorized editor of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. Indicators for Support for Economic Integration in Latin America By: Will Humphrey Abstract Regionalism is a common phenomenon among many countries who share similar infrastructures, economic climates, and developmental challenges. Latin America is no different and has experienced the urge to economically integrate since World War II. Research literature suggests that public opinion for economic integration can be a motivating factor in a country’s proclivity to integrate with others in its geographic region. People may support integration based on their perception of other countries’ models or based on how much they feel their voice has political value. They may also fear it because they do not trust outsiders and the mixing of societies that regionalism often entails. Using an ordered probit model and data from the 2018 Latinobarómetro public opinion survey, I find that the desire for a more alike society, opinion on the European Union, and the nature of democracy explain public support for economic integration.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Opinion Survey: Residents of Armenia
    Public Opinion Survey: Residents of Armenia February 2021 Detailed Methodology • The survey was conducted on behalf of “International Republican Institute’s” Center for Insights in Survey Research by Breavis (represented by IPSC LLC). • Data was collected throughout Armenia between February 8 and February 16, 2021, through phone interviews, with respondents selected by random digit dialing (RDD) probability sampling of mobile phone numbers. • The sample consisted of 1,510 permanent residents of Armenia aged 18 and older. It is representative of the population with access to a mobile phone, which excludes approximately 1.2 percent of adults. • Sampling frame: Statistical Committee of the Republic of Armenia. Weighting: Data weighted for 11 regional groups, age, gender and community type. • The margin of error does not exceed plus or minus 2.5 points for the full sample. • The response rate was 26 percent which is similar to the surveys conducted in August-September 2020. • Charts and graphs may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. • The survey was funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development. 2 Weighted (Disaggregated) Bases Disaggregate Disaggregation Category Base Share 18-35 years old n=563 37% Age groups 36-55 years old n=505 34% 56+ years old n=442 29% Male n=689 46% Gender Female n=821 54% Yerevan n=559 37% Community type Urban n=413 27% Rural n=538 36% Primary or secondary n=537 36% Education Vocational n=307 20% Higher n=665 44% Single n=293 19% Marital status Married n=1,059 70% Widowed or divorced n=155 10% Up
    [Show full text]
  • World Values Surveys and European Values Surveys, 1999-2001 User Guide and Codebook
    ICPSR 3975 World Values Surveys and European Values Surveys, 1999-2001 User Guide and Codebook Ronald Inglehart et al. University of Michigan Institute for Social Research First ICPSR Version May 2004 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research P.O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 www.icpsr.umich.edu Terms of Use Bibliographic Citation: Publications based on ICPSR data collections should acknowledge those sources by means of bibliographic citations. To ensure that such source attributions are captured for social science bibliographic utilities, citations must appear in footnotes or in the reference section of publications. The bibliographic citation for this data collection is: Inglehart, Ronald, et al. WORLD VALUES SURVEYS AND EUROPEAN VALUES SURVEYS, 1999-2001 [Computer file]. ICPSR version. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research [producer], 2002. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2004. Request for Information on To provide funding agencies with essential information about use of Use of ICPSR Resources: archival resources and to facilitate the exchange of information about ICPSR participants' research activities, users of ICPSR data are requested to send to ICPSR bibliographic citations for each completed manuscript or thesis abstract. Visit the ICPSR Web site for more information on submitting citations. Data Disclaimer: The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for uses of this collection or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses. Responsible Use In preparing data for public release, ICPSR performs a number of Statement: procedures to ensure that the identity of research subjects cannot be disclosed.
    [Show full text]
  • ESOMAR/WAPOR Guide to Opinion Polls- Including the ESOMAR International Code of Practice for the Publication of Public Opinion Poll Results Contents
    } ESOMAR/WAPOR Guide to Opinion Polls- including the ESOMAR International Code of Practice for the Publication of Public Opinion Poll Results Contents Introduction to the Guide Opinion Polls and Democracy Representativeness of Opinion Polls International Code of Practice for the Publication of Public Opinion Poll Results Guideline to the Interpretation of the International Code of Practice for the Publication of Public Opinion Poll Results Guidelines on Practical Aspects of Conducting Pre-Election Opinion Polls Introduction to the Guide Public opinion polls are regularly conducted and published in many countries. They measure not only support for political parties but also public opinion on a wide range of social and political issues and are published frequently in a variety of newspapers and broadcast media. They are the subject of much discussion by the public, journalists and politicians, some of whom wish to limit or ban them completely. In a small number of European countries legislation actually exists which restricts the publication of opinion polls during the late stages of election campaigns. The public discussion of opinion polls is not always well informed. The case for restriction on the publication of polls during election campaigns is hard to support with rational argument or empirical evidence. ESOMAR has produced the present booklet in order to help those interested in the subject of opinion polls to reach a more informed judgement about the value of such polls and the most appropriate ways of conducting and reporting them. WAPOR joins ESOMAR in the publication of this booklet. The WAPOR Council endorses all recommendations put forward in this document.
    [Show full text]
  • PARCA-Public-Opinion-Survey-2019
    Public Opinion Survey ALABAMA 2019 Alabama Public Opinion Survey: 2019 Edition Survey and analysis conducted by: Dr. Randolph Horn Professor of Political Science Director, Strategic and Applied Analysis Samford University Alabamians want similar things…good schools, safe neighborhoods, a strong economy, freedom, equality, and opportunity, but we often disagree about the best way to achieve these goals. We resolve these disagreements through healthy debate and negotiation, which requires accurate and unbiased information. PARCA provides this information. PARCA is… …Alabama’s first and only nonprofit, nonpartisan, good government research center. PARCA believes • Alabama can do better. • Sound public policy is essential. • Sound public policy requires open, transparent and responsive government. • Sound public policy is based on fact, pursues a clear goal, and is assessed honestly. PARCA works… …to inform and improve the decision making of state and local leaders in Alabama through objective research and analysis. PARCA researches… government structure and performance, public education, public finance, workforce development. PARCA provides… …data analysis, policy research, performance evaluation, and technical assistance. _____ PARCA’s board PARCA is governed by an independent board of directors composed of up to 45 business, civic, and education leaders from across Alabama. PARCA’s funding PARCA is funded through charitable contributions, public agency memberships, and contract fees. Contributions account for 60% of annual revenue. P.O. BOX 293931 · 800 LAKESHORE DRIVE · BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35229 · 205 726 2482 PARCALABAMA.ORG 2019 Board of Directors LARKIN MARTIN* Alexia Borden Donny Jones Dudley Reynolds PRESIDENT Senior Vice President & Chief Operating Officer CEO, Retired Agent General Counsel Chamber of Commerce Alagasco Martin Farm Alabama Power Company of West Alabama Lindsay Sinor Fred O.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey Burden and Its Impact on Attitudes Toward the Survey Sponsor
    Survey Burden and its Impact on Attitudes Toward the Survey Sponsor Jaki Stanley McCarthy and Daniel G. Beckler _______________________________________________________________________________________ The organization sponsoring a survey data collection may affect respondents’ willingness to respond. USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) has begun asking agricultural establishments questions during ongoing surveys about respondents’ knowledge and attitudes about NASS. These questions were asked of both respondents and non-respondents to the surveys, and clearly showed a correlation between respondents’ knowledge and attitudes toward NASS and their willingness to cooperate when contacted by NASS. Past burden (number, length, complexity, frequency of contacts, etc.) imposed by NASS was also measured and found to have little correlation with survey cooperation. It was hypothesized that increased contacts may provide opportunities for public relations and help foster more positive attitudes towards the survey sponsor. If increases in burden create more positive opinions of the survey sponsor, this may offset expected declines in cooperativeness as burden increases. However, little relationship was found between respondents’ attitudes toward NASS and the past burden imposed on them. KEY WORDS: Respondent burden, accumulated burden, agricultural survey ______________________________________________________________________________________ 1 INTRODUCTION1 validation, authority, scarcity and liking. One method interviewers report
    [Show full text]
  • SUMMARY of RESULTS AFROBAROMETER ROUND 5 SURVEY in ZIMBABWE Mass Public Opinion Institute (MPOI)
    SUMMARY OF RESULTS AFROBAROMETER ROUND 5 SURVEY IN ZIMBABWE Compiled by: Mass Public Opinion Institute (MPOI) 1 Survey Overview The Quality of Democracy and Governance in Zimbabwe Afrobarometer Round 5, 2012 Dates of Fieldwork: 16-30 July 2012 Sample size: 2400 Sampling frame: 2011 projected population figures based on 2002 National Census Population Figures provided by Zimbabwe Statistics Agency (ZIMSTAT) Sample universe: Citizens aged 18 years or older, excluding institutions Sample design: Nationally representative, random, clustered, stratified, multistage, probability sample design. Stratification: (i) Sub-national area (Province) and (ii) Place of residence (rural-urban) Stages: Rural Areas: Randomly select SSUs (Wards), PSUs (EAs), starting points, households and respondents. Urban Areas: Randomly select PSUs (EAs), starting points, households and respondents PSU selection: Probability Proportionate to Population Size (PPPS) Cluster size: 8 households per PSU Household selection: Randomly select start points, followed by walk pattern using 5/10 interval. Respondent selection: Gender quota filled by alternating interviews between males and females. Respondents of appropriate gender are listed, after which a household member draws a numbered card to select the respondent. Weighting: Weighted to account for individual selection probabilities. Margin of Error: +/-2% with 95% confidence level Fieldwork by: Mass Public Opinion Institute (MPOI) Survey Languages: Shona, Ndebele and English Main Researcher(s): Eldred V. Masunungure Outcome Rates: Contact rate: 96.% Cooperation rate: 77.7% Refusal rate: 10.2% Response rate: 75.1% EA Substitution Rate: 2.7% (8 EAs) 2 Afrobarometer Round 5 Survey Findings Summary of Results for Zimbabwe The Afrobarometer is a comparative series of public attitude surveys covering up to 35 African countries in Round 5 (2011-2012).
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Public Support for Democracy: a Resource Guide
    Measuring Public Support for Democracy A Resource Guide www.idea.int © 2017 International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance International IDEA publications are independent of specific national or political interests. Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the views of International IDEA, its Board or its Council members. References to the names of countries and regions in this publication do not represent the official position of International IDEA with regard to the legal status or policy of the entities mentioned. Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or any part of this publication should be made to: International IDEA Strömsborg SE–103 34 STOCKHOLM SWEDEN Tel: +46 8 698 37 00 Email: [email protected] Website: <http://www.idea.int> International IDEA encourages dissemination of its work and will promptly respond to requests for permission to reproduce or translate its publications. This publication has received support from International IDEA’s Member States through the Institute’s core funding. Grateful acknowledgement is made to the governments of Norway and Sweden, whose generous support made this publication possible. Text editing: Andrew Mash Layout: International IDEA Original design concept: Phoenix Design Aid Measuring Public Support for Democracy Helena Schwertheim This Resource Guide is part of a series designed for readers, including students and practitioners, interested in exploring further some of the themes and issues raised in the first edition of International IDEA’sThe Global State of Democracy 2017: Exploring Democracy's Resilience (International IDEA 2017). The contents of the series reflect the topics of each chapter in the larger report, presenting current and past debates and key concepts related to each topic.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Survey Research to Evaluate Communications Campaigns
    Using Survey Research to Evaluate Communications Campaigns Prepared for the Communications Consortium Media Center Belden Russonello & Stewart November 2004 Introduction When should a non-profit communications effort use survey research to evaluate a communications campaign? The best advice is: Start before you begin. It sounds like something Yogi Berra might say, but it is the best way to summarize the key to successfully deciding whether or not to use a survey and ultimately in evaluating a communications campaign. The goal for communications campaigns generally fall into three categories of attempted influence: a) awareness and perhaps salience of a topic, such as building public recognition of global warming and then increasing public concern; b) behavior, that is moving the public to drive less or to buy hybrid fuel cars; and c) policy change, such as getting Congress to pass legislation mandating higher fuel efficiency standards. Other key components of any communication plan are the audience and the overall budget for the campaign. The use of survey research is perhaps the best example of the need to plan for communications evaluation because it is costly and highly sensitive to three elements of campaign design: your audience, your goal, and your campaign’s communications budget. This paper will outline the questions you need to ask in the design stages of a communications campaign to maximize your chances of using survey research only when you need it, as well as explain the different types of survey methodologies for evaluation and their advantages and disadvantages. What evaluation surveys tell us and when to use them Surveys can reveal the impact of communications on an audience’s thinking.
    [Show full text]