Suchergebnisse

Results from a survey of 885 individuals conducted in Antananarivo regarding economic expectations and public perception of governmental role in combatting corruption, May 1995. Summary in English p. 167.

Malgré une dégradation du climat économique de Madagascar et du niveau de vie des populations, le processus démocratique n'est pas remis en cause. Une enquête d'opinion réalisée à Antananarivo révèle le besoin de plus de démocratie mais aussi de "mieux d'Etat" pour résoudre les problèmes de corruption. Il met aussi en évidence un besoin de plus d'Etat au moins au profit des plus démunis, la proportion des libéraux convaincus étant insignifiante. Ainsi, la solution des problèmes malgaches est perçue non comme étant de la responsabilité des bailleurs de fonds ou des pays industrialisés mais comme devant venir de la société, en particulier des investissements dans l'agriculture et de la réforme de l'administration. Le rôle des média et de la communication est enfin souligné. (Résumé d'auteur)

AbstractResearch has proved that social networks are unevenly distributed. Qualitative and theoretical work on elite networks raises the question: do they amplify or compensate for inequalities in the powerful other resources? We test these hypotheses using a unique dataset of hyper-elites in Madagascar. We identify three network dimensions: extent, quality and effectiveness. We find that elite groups disadvantaged in terms of social position are generally disadvantaged in terms of social networks. In particular, the caste system is still key to network building at the top. Homophily is the dominant bonding dynamic among elites. However, some compensatory mechanisms are in play. Socially disadvantaged elites tend to make more use of their networks. They also have more upwardly heterophilous potential and mobilized networks. The predominance of the elite network's amplifying role explains the prevalence of the elite reproduction dynamic. Newcomers, who represent a minority, are excluded from the highest decision-making bodies.

International audience ; The need to collect data on governance-related issues has been growing since the 1990s. Demand gained momentum in 2015 with the adoption of SDG16 worldwide and Agenda 2063 in Africa. African countries played a key role in the adoption of SDG16 and are now leading the process of collecting harmonised household data on Governance, Peace and Security (GPS). Yet the possibility has recently been raised that sensitive survey data collected by government institutions are potentially biased due to self-censorship by respondents. This paper studies the potential bias in responses to what are seen as sensitive questions, here governance issues, in surveys conducted by public organisations. We compare Afrobarometer (AB) survey data, collected in eight African countries by self-professed independent institutions, with first-hand harmonised GPS survey data collected by National Statistics Offices (NSOs). We identify over 20 similarly worded questions on democracy, trust in institutions and perceived corruption. We first compare responses from AB survey respondents based on who they believe the survey sponsor to be. No systematic response bias is found between respondents who believe the government to be behind the AB survey and those who consider it to be conducted by an independent institution. Our estimations suggest that the observed residual differences are due to a selection bias on the observables, which is mitigated by propensity score matching procedures. The absence of a systematic self-censorship or attenuation bias is further evidenced by means of an experimental design, whereby responses from GPS surveys conducted by NSOs (the treatment) are compared with AB surveys sponsored by reportedly independent bodies. Our results provide evidence, at much higher levels of precision than other existing data sources, of the capacity and legitimacy of government-related organisations to collect data on governance as a matter of national interest and sovereignty.

International audience The need to collect data on governance-related issues has been growing since the 1990s. Demand gained momentum in 2015 with the adoption of SDG16 worldwide and Agenda 2063 in Africa. African countries played a key role in the adoption of SDG16 and are now leading the process of collecting harmonised household data on Governance, Peace and Security (GPS). Yet the possibility has recently been raised that sensitive survey data collected by government institutions are potentially biased due to self-censorship by respondents. This paper studies the potential bias in responses to what are seen as sensitive questions, here governance issues, in surveys conducted by public organisations. We compare Afrobarometer (AB) survey data, collected in eight African countries by self-professed independent institutions, with first-hand harmonised GPS survey data collected by National Statistics Offices (NSOs). We identify over 20 similarly worded questions on democracy, trust in institutions and perceived corruption. We first compare responses from AB survey respondents based on who they believe the survey sponsor to be. No systematic response bias is found between respondents who believe the government to be behind the AB survey and those who consider it to be conducted by an independent institution. Our estimations suggest that the observed residual differences are due to a selection bias on the observables, which is mitigated by propensity score matching procedures. The absence of a systematic self-censorship or attenuation bias is further evidenced by means of an experimental design, whereby responses from GPS surveys conducted by NSOs (the treatment) are compared with AB surveys sponsored by reportedly independent bodies. Our results provide evidence, at much higher levels of precision than other existing data sources, of the capacity and legitimacy of government-related organisations to collect data on governance as a matter of national interest and sovereignty.

International audience ; The need to collect data on governance-related issues has been growing since the 1990s. Demand gained momentum in 2015 with the adoption of SDG16 worldwide and Agenda 2063 in Africa. African countries played a key role in the adoption of SDG16 and are now leading the process of collecting harmonised household data on Governance, Peace and Security (GPS). Yet the possibility has recently been raised that sensitive survey data collected by government institutions are potentially biased due to self-censorship by respondents. This paper studies the potential bias in responses to what are seen as sensitive questions, here governance issues, in surveys conducted by public organisations. We compare Afrobarometer (AB) survey data, collected in eight African countries by self-professed independent institutions, with first-hand harmonised GPS survey data collected by National Statistics Offices (NSOs). We identify over 20 similarly worded questions on democracy, trust in institutions and perceived corruption. We first compare responses from AB survey respondents based on who they believe the survey sponsor to be. No systematic response bias is found between respondents who believe the government to be behind the AB survey and those who consider it to be conducted by an independent institution. Our estimations suggest that the observed residual differences are due to a selection bias on the observables, which is mitigated by propensity score matching procedures. The absence of a systematic self-censorship or attenuation bias is further evidenced by means of an experimental design, whereby responses from GPS surveys conducted by NSOs (the treatment) are compared with AB surveys sponsored by reportedly independent bodies. Our results provide evidence, at much higher levels of precision than other existing data sources, of the capacity and legitimacy of government-related organisations to collect data on governance as a matter of national interest and sovereignty.

While researchers are increasingly encouraged to refocus their publishing activities towards so called "excellence" academic journals, the question of knowledge dissemination and its role in developing countries becomes more acute. This dilemma, whereby any scientist is confronted, affects even more social sciences since they bear directly on topics and social issues where social demand is huge and unsatisfied, especially in the South. This contribution proposes to make explicit the foundations of this contradiction and discuss the potential role of communication strategies of research results and practical consequences which they generate. It addresses, inter alia, the question of media, targeted audiences, communication language, its effects and risks for the researcher when it deals with politically sensitive issues (corruption, discrimination, evaluation of public policies, etc.). Thiscontribution feed on author's experiences over the past 20 years in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and Asia. ; A l'heure où les chercheurs sont de plus en plus incités à recentrer leurs activités de publication sur les revues académiques dites "d'excellence", la question de la diffusion des savoirs et de son rôle dans les pays en développement se pose avec une acuité accrue. Ce dilemme, auquel tout scientifique est confronté, affecte d'autant plus les sciences sociales que ces dernières portent directement sur des sujets et des enjeux de société où la demande sociale est immense et insatisfaite, tout spécialement au Sud. Cette contribution se propose d'expliciter les fondements de cette contradiction, de s'interroger sur le rôle potentiel des stratégies de communication des résultats de la recherche et des effets pratiques qu'elles engendrent. Elle aborde, entre autres, la question des supports, des publics visés, de la langue de communication, de ses effets et des risques pour le chercheur lorsqu'il aborde des sujets politiquement sensibles (corruption, discriminations, évaluation des politiques publiques, etc.). Elle se ...