Intra-Household, Individual-Level Measurement of Ownership ...surveys.worldbank.org › sites ›...

Intra-Household, Individual-Level Measurement of Ownership of and Rights to

Physical and Financial Assets: Insights from Methodological Experimentation

and Large-Scale Microdata Collection

Heather MoylanLiving Standards Measurement Study (LSMS)

Development Data Group | Survey Unit | The World Bank

C4D2 TrainingPerugia, Italy | December 14 2018

Outline

PART I

• Methodological Experiment on Assets Ownership from a Gender Perspective (MEXA), in collaboration with UBOS and UN EDGE Initiative

• UN EDGE guidelines & recommendations on questionnaire design and respondent selection

PART II

• Scaling up individual-level data collection: LSMS Plus program

• Considerations for operationalizing key recommendations

• Discussion

PART I

Research & International Guidelines on Individual-Level Data Collection on

Asset Ownership & Control

Uganda’s Methodological Experiment on Measuring Asset Ownership from a

Gender Perspective (MEXA)

Motivation• Assets generate income, facilitate capital & credit access, help smooth consumption

• Research on personal wealth provide insights into • Intra-household bargaining outcomes & ensuing effects• Long-term economic inequities & inter-generational implications

• Data on asset ownership largely available at the household-level, even when assets are owned & controlled by individuals • Extensive use of proxy respondents even w/ individual disaggregated data

• Guidelines on respondent selection & questionnaire design to capture asset ownership & control at the individual level did not previously exist• Persistence of “myths” in the absence of appropriate data & methods• Guidelines key to cross-country availability & comparability of sex-disaggregated SDG indicators

on asset ownership

MEXA: Objectives

• Assessed the effects of different approaches to respondent selection & questionnaire design on measuring individual ownership of & rights to assets

• Informed the design of 6 surveys in 2015-2016 under the UN Evidence and Data for Gender Equality (EDGE) initiative• Georgia, Maldives, Mexico, Mongolia Philippines, South Africa

• Served as a foundation for the UN EDGE international guidelines on measurement of individual ownership of & rights to assets• Submitted to the UNSC in 2017

• Relevance for SDGs: SDG 5.a.1 (a) Proportion of total agricultural population with ownership or secure rights over agricultural land, by sex; and (b) share of women among owners or rights-bearers of agricultural land, by type of tenure.

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/gender/EDGE/about.html

MEXA: Key Questions

• Are we doing enough to capture individual asset ownership patterns by only interviewing the “most knowledgeable” household member in household surveys?

• Does reporting change when individuals know that other household members are being interviewed?

• Do married individuals provide different information on their asset ownership when interviewed separately from their partners?

MEXA: Overview of Treatment Arms

Arm Who? How? What?

1 “Most Knowledgeable”Household Member

Alone Assets Owned Exclusively/ Jointly by Household Members

2 Randomly Selected Member of Principal Couple

Alone Assets Owned Exclusively/ Jointly by Household Members

3 Principal Couple Together Assets Owned Exclusively/ Jointly by Household Members

4 Adult (18+) Household Members

Alone, Simultaneous

Assets Owned Exclusively/ Jointly by Household Members

5 Adult (18+) Household Members

Alone, Simultaneous

Assets Owned Exclusively/Jointly by Respondent

MEXA: Scope of Data Collection (1)

• Basic Socio-Economic Information

• Core Asset Information (Asset Level)

• Dwelling & Residential Land

• Agricultural Land

• Non-Agricultural Land & Other Real Estate

• Livestock

• Non-Agricultural Businesses

• Agricultural Equipment

• Consumer Durables

• Financial Assets & Liabilities

• Valuables

MEXA: Scope of Data Collection (2)

Type of Ownership/Rights Individual Disaggregation

Reported Ownership Within-Household Identification of Individuals

Outside-Household Identification of Individuals

Capacity to Exercise Right Independently?

Identification of Provider of Consent/Permission

Economic Ownership

Documented Ownership

Bundle of Rights- Bequeath- Sell- Rent Out- Use as Collateral- Make Improvements/Invest

MEXA: Uganda ContextCountry Attribute Estimate Year

Population 37.5 mil 2013

Rural Population Share 84.6% 2013

Annual Population Growth Rate 3.3% 2013

National Absolute Poverty Rate 19.5% 2012

Rural Absolute Poverty Rate 22.4% 2012

GDP Per Capita in Current USD 657 2013

Ag Value Added As a Share of GDP 25.3% 2013

Share of Ag Employment in Total Employment 65.6% 2013

• Legal pluralism in acquisition & enforcement of property rights• Large disconnect – de facto (customary) vs.

de jure (legislative) arrangements

MEXA: Sampling Design

• 140 Enumeration Areas (EAs), split 60/40 across rural/urban domains, selected with PPS across Uganda• Actual EA coverage: 137

• HH listing in each EA for random selection of sample HHs

• 20 HHs randomly selected in each EA, 4 randomly allocated to each treatment arm in each EA prior to field work

MEXA: Fieldwork

• Implementing agency: Uganda Bureau of Statistics

• Fieldwork period: April-August 2014

• Used CAPI application designed with Survey Solutions

• Objectives• Conduct intra-household, individual interviews in Arms 4 & 5 in parallel

• Simultaneous interviews: 63%, based on the CAPI paradata• Achieve a gender match between respondents & enumerators

• 81.6% for female sub-population, 74.6% for male sub-population

• Average for Entire (Household & Individual) Interview: 60 minutes

• Average for Individual Interview Across Arms: 34 • 39 vs. 29 in Arms 3 vs. 5

http://www.worldbank.org/capi

Challenges – Field Reports• Approaching communities & respondents

• “In some rural areas, misconception regarding the objective of the survey led some respondents to keep away from us on the first day.”

• “There was resistance from respondents in Kampala: people are paranoid even after introducing the survey very well.”

• “Residents of an EA charged against us on our second day because of the questions on asset values and formal ownership.”

• Scheduling interviews• “It is hard to find the principal couple at home together. People go to the gardens and take care of other

responsibilities.”

• “ID Project: Most people are mobilized away from home.”• “Kampala: It is almost impossible to find people at home. It is even more difficult to find the principal couple

together at home.”

• “Arms 4 & 5: Interviewing respondents simultaneously

is a challenge – especially during weekdays.”

Challenges – Field Reports (2)• Asset valuation

• “Difficulty in verifying the figures respondents give us. When a respondent is asked the size of a parcel that is located 20 kilometers away and that is claimed to be 20 even 40 acres, it is hard to refute or prove what we are told since we cannot physically see this land.”

• “Declaration of assets by couples particularly land and bank accounts requires significant amount of explanation/probing.”

• “Some respondents not willing to provide information initially but would later provide after more sensitization.”

Empirical Analysis• Balance tests indicate that randomization was successful

• Unit of analysis: Adult individual

• Focus on all 13 asset types

• Pooling individual reporting to identify owners in Arm 4/5 HHs with multiple respondents

• Comparison across Arms 1 through 5 using HHs with a couple• Arm 4 & 5 effects robust in comparisons across Arms 1, 4 & 5 using all HHs

• Alternative sample specifications in Arms 4/5

Empirical Analysis (2)• Core specification:

• Probit (OLS) regressions for binary (continuous) dependent variables

• Standard errors clustered at the EA-level, take into account stratification

• i & h represent individual & household

• ∝ & 𝜀 represent constant & error term

• 𝜏2, 𝜏3, 𝜏4 & 𝜏5 represent identifiers for Arms 2 through 5

• Comparison category: Arm 1 (i.e. standard of practice)

• Tests of equality of 𝛽1, 𝛽2, 𝛽3 & 𝛽4 for complete inter-arm comparisons

• C represents a vector of control variables

• Regressions estimated on the whole & by gender

(1) 𝑦𝑖ℎ = ∝ +𝛽1𝜏2𝑖ℎ + 𝛽2𝜏3𝑖ℎ + 𝛽3𝜏4𝑖ℎ + 𝛽4𝜏5𝑖ℎ + 𝛾𝐶 + 𝜀𝑖ℎ

Empirical Analysis (3)• (6) Primary dependent variables – All binary

• Reported Ownership – Overall; Exclusive; Joint (w/ anyone)

• Economic Ownership – Overall; Exclusive; Joint (w/ anyone)

• (6) Secondary dependent variables – Continuous in italics• Right to Bequeath

• Right to Sell

• Right to Rent Out

• Right to Use as Collateral

• Right to Invest/Make Improvements

• PCA-based rights index across 5 rights

MEXA: Recommendations

• Implement Arm 5 for collecting intra-household information on individuals’ ownership of & rights to assets

• Interview multiple age-eligible individuals per household

• Reduces the reliance on a single respondent, notably the most knowledgeable household member

• Probe directly & solely regarding personal ownership of & rights to assets

• Eliminate distortionary proxy respondent effects

• Minimize (still-present) intra-household discrepancies in reporting

• Uncover hidden assets

UN EDGE Guidelines

• Since 2013, the Evidence and Data for Gender Equality (EDGE) is a joint collaboration of UNSD and UN Women, which builds on work of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Gender Statistics (IAEG-GS).

EDGE project GUIDELINES

EDGE

The guidelines were produced to provide guidance on collecting, processing, analyzing, disseminating individual level data on asset ownership for the production of official gender statistics.

UN Guidelines on the Production of Statistics

on Asset Ownership from a Gender Perspective

The methodology was tested in seven pilot countries: Georgia, Maldives, Mexico, Mongolia, the Philippines, South Africa and Uganda.

EDGE project GUIDELINES

Indicator 5.a.1, which focuses

on tenure rights over agricultural

land

EDGE guidelines focus on

asset ownership from a gender

perspective

EDGE guidelinesinformed

FAO further refined 5.a.1 as the custodian

agency

EDGE project GUIDELINES •

DEFINING ASSET OWNERSHIP RIGHTS

Asset ownership should be defined as a bundle of rights:

REPORTED OWNERSHIP

DOCUMENTED OWNERSHIP

RIGHT TO SELL

RIGHT TO BEQUEATH

Deriving globally comparable definition of asset ownership that is:

Locally relevant

Applicable across a range of financial and physical assets

Is a challenging task, because:

A myriad of tenure systems governing property rights complicates definitions of ownership (e.g. freehold tenure, customary tenure, state ownership)

•

Reported ownership

Measures whether people consider themselves owners

Need not – & cannot – be objectively verified

For understanding people’s motivations and behaviorson asset ownership and gaps between law and practice

Documented ownership

Measures existence of document an individual can use to claim tenure rights in law over asset

Type of document and rights conferred by document will vary by country but should be enforceable by law

Right to bequeath

Right to sell

Alienation rights

Measures ability of individuals to permanently transfer asset for cash or in-kind benefits

Measures ability of individuals to give asset by oral or written will to another person after his/her death

Two key tenets:

➢ There may be certain ownership rights no individuals hold due to the tenure systems governing property rights in a given country

➢ Even when the full set of ownership rights exists, they may not all be vested in one individual


The selected respondent (head of HH or most knowledgeable on topic) provides info for assets owned by HH members.

RESPONDENT RULES

The selected respondent(s) provides info on assets he/she owns.This approach captures people’s self-perception of what they own rather than what somebody else (the proxy) believes they own.

PROXY REPORTING

SELF REPORTING

During data collection, two approaches that can be followed with regards to the respondent:


Proxy reporting may be problematic due to:

➢ Incomplete pooling of information within household

➢Disagreement among household members about who owns a given asset

➢ Prevailing gender norms may bias proxy responses, therefore it’s problematic from a gender perspective

RECOMMENDATIONS ON RESPONDENT RULES

is recommended for collecting data on individual-level asset ownership from a gender perspective. Recommended

methodology is to randomly select 1 or more adults/household.

SELF REPORTING

PART II

Scaling-Up Individual-Level Data CollectionLSMS Plus

Background

• Improving individual-level microdata to monitor country progress towards SDGs• SDG 1.4.2 Proportion of total adult pop with secure tenure rights to land, with legally

recognized documentation, and who perceive their rights to land as secure, by sex, type of tenure

• SDG 5.a.1 (a) Proportion of total agricultural pop with ownership or secure rights over agricultural land, by sex; and (b) share of women among owners or rights-bearers of agricultural land, by type of tenure

• World Bank IDA18 commitment to “pilot data collection (..) in at least six IDA countries to gather direct respondent, intra-household level information on asset ownership and employment.”

• Desire to improve individual-level data availability broadly: education, health, employment…• Extensive use of proxy respondents even w/current individual-level modules

Proxy Respondent Use Across LSMS-ISA Countries

Overall Male Female Overall Male Female Overall Male Female

Malawi (2017) 64.1 72.2 56.7 45.0 55.1 36.1 37.9 48.1 29.1

Niger (2014) 44.8 43.1 46.5 42.0 37.8 45.6 41.1 36.4 45.1

Nigeria (2016) 34.1 35.3 32.7 24.2 27.9 20.9 24.2 27.9 20.9

Tanzania (2013) 35.3 42.9 28.1 24.1 30.3 18.3 21.6 27.3 16.4

Mali (2014) 99.0 98.2 99.8 84.9 70.5 98.1 81.1 63.0 97.6

Uganda (2014) 76.8 83.6 70.0 55.8 65.6 46.6 48.1 57.9 39.1

Age Group: 15-24 Age Group: 15-64 Age Group: 18+

Rate of Proxy Respondent Use for Individual-Level Labor Data Collection

in LSMS-ISA, by Gender and Age Group

Notes: The gender difference in the rate of proxy respondent use in each country age group is statistically significant at the 1 percent level,

with the exception of Nigeria Age Group 15-24 (5 percent significance), Mali Age Group 15-24 (5 percent significance), Niger Age Group 15-

24 (10 percent significance). The estimates are based on the latest LSMS-ISA-supported survey round in each country.

LSMS Plus: Objectives

• Expand individual-level data collection on IDA18 priority topics, starting with 3 LSMS-ISA countries, namely Malawi (completed), Tanzania, and Ethiopia• Generate unit-record, publicly available, individual-disaggregated, household

survey data on physical and financial assets and employment

• Enhance country capacity in analyzing and reporting individual-disaggregated microdata

• Provide and disseminate methodological and operational guidance on individual-disaggregated microdata collection on IDA18 priority topics

LSMS Plus-Supported Operations in Malawi

Operationalizing MEXA Recommendations: IHPS 2016

• 12,446 cross-sectional IHS households + 2,508 panel IHPS households interviewed

• Fieldwork: 04/2016-04/2017 (IHS); 04/2016-12/2016 (IHPS)

• The set up allows for comparative analysis of data from:

• Cross-sectional – most knowledgeable respondent interviews

• Panel sample – individual interviews

• Interview max. 4 adults per household in the IHPS 2016 sample

• Modules on education, health, employment, food insecurity

• Augmented MEXA modules on dwelling, ag land (following the creation of a household inventory) & financial assets

Individual Interviews in IHPS 2016

HOUSEHOLD & AGRICULTURE QUESTIONNAIRES

• Created rosters of assets as part of the household interview - in line with the UN Guidelines

• Random selection of individual interview targets

INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONNAIRE

• Included modules on education, health & labor • Fed forward information on household members

& gardens from household & agriculture qx• Ensured that selected respondents were

clear on identification of gardens so that information matches across interviews

• Respondents allowed to add gardens• Respondents asked about personal ownership of

and rights to assets, exclusively or jointly with others

Most Knowledgeable Respondent Interviews in IHS4

HOUSEHOLD & AGRICULTURE QUESTIONNAIRES• Created rosters of assets as part of the household

interview- in line with the UN Guidelines

• Within the questionnaire modules, captured all owners and rights holders within the household

• Information provided only by one respondent: “Most knowledgeable household member” (or who was available)

Country Context: Malawi

Country Attribute Estimate

Population 19 mil

Urban Population Share 16.1%

Urban Population Growth Rate 3.8%

National Absolute Poverty Rate 50.7%

Urban Absolute Poverty Rate 17.3%

Structure of Asset Data Collection

• Asset classes of interest:

• Agricultural Land

• Dwelling & Residential Land

• Mobile Phones

• Financial Assets

Type of Ownership/Rights

Individual Disaggregation

Reported Ownership Within-Household Identification of Individuals

Outside-Household Identification of Individuals

Economic Ownership

DocumentedOwnership

Bundle of Rights- Bequeath- Sell- Use as Collateral- Rent it Out- Make Improvements

Snapshot of Agricultural Land Module Used in IHPS Individual Interviews

MODULE G: AGRICULTURAL LAND

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Do you own or hold use

rights for this [PARCEL],

either alone or jointly

with someone else?

Does anyone

jointly own or

hold use

rights for this

[PARCEL]

with you?

What other types of ownership or legal

documents does your household have for this

[PARCEL]?

Is your name

among the

names listed

on the

ownership

document for

the

[PARCEL]?

1

2

3

1. Do you own or hold use rights for any parcel of land, either alone or jointly with someone else,

irrespective of whether the parcel is used by your or another household, and irrespective of the

use of the parcel (including dwelling plot, agricultural, pastoral, forest and business/commercial

plots)?

P

A

R

C

E

L

I

D

PARCEL NAME

[FED FORWARD]

(PARCEL ROSTER IS

PREFILLED WITH THE

OPPORTUNITY TO

ADD ADDITIONAL

PARCELS)

Is this

[PARCEL] the

same piece

of land on

which the

dwelling is

located?

Who else jointly owns or holds use rights for

this [PARCEL] with you?

LIST UP TO 3 ADULTS FROM THE HOUSEHOLD/2

FROM THE NETWORK ROSTER. IF OWNED BY

ALL ADULT HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS THEN FILL IN

THE 4 HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS.

What type of legal certificate

does your household have for

this [PARCEL]?

HH ID

#1

HH ID

#2

HH ID

#3

NETWORK

ROSTER

ID #1

NETWORK

ROSTER

ID #2

YES..1

NO...2 Q7

YES..1

NO...2YES..1

NO...2

YES..........1

NO...........2 >> NEXT MODULE

YES..1

NO...2 NEXT PARCEL

GRANTED RIGHT OF

OCCUPANCY........1 ►Q9

CERTIFICATE OF

CUSTOMARY RIGHTS

OF OCCUPANCY.....2 ►Q9

NO CERTIFICATE....3

VILLAGE-GOVERNMENT-WITNESSED

PURCHASE AGREEMENT.........1

LOCAL-COURT-CERTIFIED

PURCHASE AGREEMENT.........2

INHERITANCE LETTER...........3

LETTER OF ALLOCATION

FROM VILLAGE GOV'T.........4

OTHER GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT....5

OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE......6

UTILITY OR OTHER BILL........7

NO DOCUMENTATION.............8 Q10

Success of Implementation

• Overall Success Rate: • 97.8% of panel households

successfully completed at least 1 individual-level questionnaire

• 79% of targeted individuals interviewed

• 72% of panel households contain a principal couple, 75% of these households had both the husband and spouse interviewed

• Gender Match-up : • 80.7% of male respondents paired w/

male enumerators & 73.2 % for female respondents

• Alone Interviews: • 99% - Across Modules

Total %

Households Interviewed 2477

All Eligible Adults Interviewed 1675 68%

4 adults 115 5%

3 adults 225 9%

2 adults 1003 40%

1 adults 332 13%

Subset of Eligible Adults Interviewed 802 32%

3 out of 4 106 4%

2 out of 4 92 4%

1 out of 4 29 1%

2 out of 3 167 7%

1 out of 3 65 3%

1 out of 2 343 14%

Average # of Adults Interviewed

Distribution of Panel Households

According to # of Adults Interviewed

Panel

1.89

Empirical Analysis (1)

• Focus: Agricultural land – in line with the focus on SDG 5.a.1.

• Unit of analysis: Adult individual (18+, prioritizing members of principal couple)

• Household sample specification: All Agricultural Households (in line with SDG 5.a.1)

• Individual sample specification:

• Cross-Section “Business as Usual”: All Adults, identifying owners/right holders if they are reported by the respondent – “most knowledgeable member”

• Panel “Gold Standard”: Respondents, identifying owners/right holders if they reported themselves

Empirical Analysis (2)

• Core specification:

(1) 𝑦𝑖ℎ = ∝ +𝛽4𝜏𝐶𝑆𝑖ℎ + 𝛾𝐶 + 𝜀𝑖ℎ

• Probit regressions of following binary outcomes:1. Reported Ownership2. Documented Ownership 3. Economic Ownership 4. Right to Bequeath5. Right to Sell6. SDG construct: Documented Ownership,

Right to Bequeath, Right to Sell• 1-5: Overall; Exclusive; Joint versions estimated

separately.

• Standard errors clustered at the EA-level, take into account stratification

• i & h represent individual & household, ∝ & 𝜀 represent constant & error term

• 𝜏CS represents identifier for Cross-Sectional Sample

• Comparison category: Panel (i.e. gold standard)

• C represents a vector of control variables

• Regressions estimated on the whole & by gender

Core Results – Agricultural Land

Agricultural Land Ownership Results

Sample Overall Excl Joint Overall Excl Joint

0.038* 0.054*** -0.031** 0.013 0.029*** -0.020

(0.021) (0.014) (0.015) (0.020) (0.009) (0.018)

0.062** 0.075*** -0.025 0.041 0.039*** 0.005

(0.028) (0.019) (0.020) (0.027) (0.010) (0.025)

0.021 0.037* -0.035** -0.007 0.022 -0.038**

(0.026) (0.022) (0.015) (0.023) (0.014) (0.017)

SDG Owner

Sample Overall Overall Excl Joint Overall Excl Joint

0.072*** 0.045*** 0.002 0.042*** 0.070*** 0.007 0.065***

(0.020) (0.016) (0.013) (0.009) (0.020) (0.014) (0.012)

0.062** 0.039* 0.000 0.039*** 0.050* -0.007 0.056***

(0.027) (0.024) (0.018) (0.012) (0.027) (0.019) (0.016)

0.083*** 0.052*** 0.005 0.044*** 0.089*** 0.018 0.073***

(0.023) (0.019) (0.016) (0.010) (0.023) (0.019) (0.014)

N

Reported Economic

All adults

Overall 26,006

Male 11,802

Female 14,204

Sell Bequeath

All adults

Overall

Male

Female




0.038* 0.054*** -0.031** 0.013 0.029*** -0.020

(0.021) (0.014) (0.015) (0.020) (0.009) (0.018)

0.062** 0.075*** -0.025 0.041 0.039*** 0.005

(0.028) (0.019) (0.020) (0.027) (0.010) (0.025)

0.021 0.037* -0.035** -0.007 0.022 -0.038**

(0.026) (0.022) (0.015) (0.023) (0.014) (0.017)

SDG Owner


0.072*** 0.045*** 0.002 0.042*** 0.070*** 0.007 0.065***

(0.020) (0.016) (0.013) (0.009) (0.020) (0.014) (0.012)

0.062** 0.039* 0.000 0.039*** 0.050* -0.007 0.056***

(0.027) (0.024) (0.018) (0.012) (0.027) (0.019) (0.016)

0.083*** 0.052*** 0.005 0.044*** 0.089*** 0.018 0.073***

(0.023) (0.019) (0.016) (0.010) (0.023) (0.019) (0.014)

N

Reported Economic

All adults

Overall 26,006

Male 11,802

Female 14,204

Sell Bequeath

All adults

Overall

Male

Female

Reported Ownership:

When implementing cross-sectional business-as-usual interviews, relative to the gold-standard panel individual interviews…

• Increase in the rate of overall reported ownership

• Driven by the positive effect on the rate of male reported ownership




0.038* 0.054*** -0.031** 0.013 0.029*** -0.020

(0.021) (0.014) (0.015) (0.020) (0.009) (0.018)

0.062** 0.075*** -0.025 0.041 0.039*** 0.005

(0.028) (0.019) (0.020) (0.027) (0.010) (0.025)

0.021 0.037* -0.035** -0.007 0.022 -0.038**

(0.026) (0.022) (0.015) (0.023) (0.014) (0.017)

SDG Owner


0.072*** 0.045*** 0.002 0.042*** 0.070*** 0.007 0.065***

(0.020) (0.016) (0.013) (0.009) (0.020) (0.014) (0.012)

0.062** 0.039* 0.000 0.039*** 0.050* -0.007 0.056***

(0.027) (0.024) (0.018) (0.012) (0.027) (0.019) (0.016)

0.083*** 0.052*** 0.005 0.044*** 0.089*** 0.018 0.073***

(0.023) (0.019) (0.016) (0.010) (0.023) (0.019) (0.014)

N

Reported Economic

All adults

Overall 26,006

Male 11,802

Female 14,204

Sell Bequeath

All adults

Overall

Male

Female

Reported Ownership:


• Overall effect on female ownership is not significant as the increase in exclusive ownership is negated by the significant decrease in reported joint female ownership




0.038* 0.054*** -0.031** 0.013 0.029*** -0.020

(0.021) (0.014) (0.015) (0.020) (0.009) (0.018)

0.062** 0.075*** -0.025 0.041 0.039*** 0.005

(0.028) (0.019) (0.020) (0.027) (0.010) (0.025)

0.021 0.037* -0.035** -0.007 0.022 -0.038**

(0.026) (0.022) (0.015) (0.023) (0.014) (0.017)

SDG Owner


0.072*** 0.045*** 0.002 0.042*** 0.070*** 0.007 0.065***

(0.020) (0.016) (0.013) (0.009) (0.020) (0.014) (0.012)

0.062** 0.039* 0.000 0.039*** 0.050* -0.007 0.056***

(0.027) (0.024) (0.018) (0.012) (0.027) (0.019) (0.016)

0.083*** 0.052*** 0.005 0.044*** 0.089*** 0.018 0.073***

(0.023) (0.019) (0.016) (0.010) (0.023) (0.019) (0.014)

N

Reported Economic

All adults

Overall 26,006

Male 11,802

Female 14,204

Sell Bequeath

All adults

Overall

Male

Female

Economic Ownership:


• Trends are similar, but not as strong• Fewer significant results on overall,

exclusive and joint ownership




0.038* 0.054*** -0.031** 0.013 0.029*** -0.020

(0.021) (0.014) (0.015) (0.020) (0.009) (0.018)

0.062** 0.075*** -0.025 0.041 0.039*** 0.005

(0.028) (0.019) (0.020) (0.027) (0.010) (0.025)

0.021 0.037* -0.035** -0.007 0.022 -0.038**

(0.026) (0.022) (0.015) (0.023) (0.014) (0.017)

SDG Owner


0.072*** 0.045*** 0.002 0.042*** 0.070*** 0.007 0.065***

(0.020) (0.016) (0.013) (0.009) (0.020) (0.014) (0.012)

0.062** 0.039* 0.000 0.039*** 0.050* -0.007 0.056***

(0.027) (0.024) (0.018) (0.012) (0.027) (0.019) (0.016)

0.083*** 0.052*** 0.005 0.044*** 0.089*** 0.018 0.073***

(0.023) (0.019) (0.016) (0.010) (0.023) (0.019) (0.014)

N

Reported Economic

All adults

Overall 26,006

Male 11,802

Female 14,204

Sell Bequeath

All adults

Overall

Male

Female

Rights to Sell and Bequeath:

• An overall increase in both female and male sub-samples • Driven by the increase in joint right holdership

Partially driven by…Questionnaire design: ex. 9 percent of cross-sectional adults with the right to sell the dwelling were not among the reported owners of the dwelling




0.038* 0.054*** -0.031** 0.013 0.029*** -0.020

(0.021) (0.014) (0.015) (0.020) (0.009) (0.018)

0.062** 0.075*** -0.025 0.041 0.039*** 0.005

(0.028) (0.019) (0.020) (0.027) (0.010) (0.025)

0.021 0.037* -0.035** -0.007 0.022 -0.038**

(0.026) (0.022) (0.015) (0.023) (0.014) (0.017)

SDG Owner


0.072*** 0.045*** 0.002 0.042*** 0.070*** 0.007 0.065***

(0.020) (0.016) (0.013) (0.009) (0.020) (0.014) (0.012)

0.062** 0.039* 0.000 0.039*** 0.050* -0.007 0.056***

(0.027) (0.024) (0.018) (0.012) (0.027) (0.019) (0.016)

0.083*** 0.052*** 0.005 0.044*** 0.089*** 0.018 0.073***

(0.023) (0.019) (0.016) (0.010) (0.023) (0.019) (0.014)

N

Reported Economic

All adults

Overall 26,006

Male 11,802

Female 14,204

Sell Bequeath

All adults

Overall

Male

Female

SDG Construct (Sell, Bequeath, Documented):

• Driven primarily by the rights to sell and bequeath since incidence of documented ownership is so low

• An overall increase in both female and male sub-samples (joint ownership)

Implementing best practices (currently) overlook within-household discrepancies in reporting

Reported Documented Economic Sell Bequeath Use as Collateral Rent it Out Make Improvements

24.8 97.9 30.8 46.8 42.9 53.3 44.7 34.4

14.2 1.0 4.6 22.7 22.3 21.3 21.6 15.0

21.2 0.4 9.0 17.9 18.8 14.9 17.4 16.4

10.7 0.2 13.8 0.9 1.2 0.6 1.2 5.3

Total Agree 70.9 99.5 58.2 88.3 85.2 90.1 84.9 71.1

Husband's Reporting Wife's Reporting

Husband Exclusively Owns Jointly Own 5.8 0.0 2.2 1.9 3.4 1.3 2.4 4.0

Husband Exclusively Owns Wife Exclusively Owns 1.3 0.1 0.2 1.3 1.7 1.2 2.0 3.1

Jointly Own Wife Exclusively Owns 4.9 0.1 1.2 1.5 2.2 1.0 1.8 2.4

Jointly Own Wife does not own 7.7 0.2 18.3 4.3 5.2 5.2 5.7 10.8

Husband does not own Jointly Own 9.5 0.2 19.9 2.7 2.4 1.2 3.2 8.6

Total Disagree 29.2 0.6 41.8 11.7 14.9 9.9 15.1 28.9

Husband Exclusively Owns

Wife Exclusively Owns

Jointly Own

Disagree

Agricultural Land Individual Interview Discrepancy Topology

Agreement Status

Ownership Right

Agree

Neither Own



24.8 97.9 30.8 46.8 42.9 53.3 44.7 34.4

14.2 1.0 4.6 22.7 22.3 21.3 21.6 15.0

21.2 0.4 9.0 17.9 18.8 14.9 17.4 16.4

10.7 0.2 13.8 0.9 1.2 0.6 1.2 5.3

Total Agree 70.9 99.5 58.2 88.3 85.2 90.1 84.9 71.1







Total Disagree 29.2 0.6 41.8 11.7 14.9 9.9 15.1 28.9



Jointly Own

Disagree


Agreement Status

Ownership Right

Agree

Neither Own



24.8 97.9 30.8 46.8 42.9 53.3 44.7 34.4

14.2 1.0 4.6 22.7 22.3 21.3 21.6 15.0

21.2 0.4 9.0 17.9 18.8 14.9 17.4 16.4

10.7 0.2 13.8 0.9 1.2 0.6 1.2 5.3

Total Agree 70.9 99.5 58.2 88.3 85.2 90.1 84.9 71.1







Total Disagree 29.2 0.6 41.8 11.7 14.9 9.9 15.1 28.9



Jointly Own

Disagree


Agreement Status

Ownership Right

Agree

Neither Own



24.8 97.9 30.8 46.8 42.9 53.3 44.7 34.4

14.2 1.0 4.6 22.7 22.3 21.3 21.6 15.0

21.2 0.4 9.0 17.9 18.8 14.9 17.4 16.4

10.7 0.2 13.8 0.9 1.2 0.6 1.2 5.3

Total Agree 70.9 99.5 58.2 88.3 85.2 90.1 84.9 71.1







Total Disagree 29.2 0.6 41.8 11.7 14.9 9.9 15.1 28.9



Jointly Own

Disagree


Agreement Status

Ownership Right

Agree

Neither Own

Summary of Findings & Next Steps• Results highlight the differences in how the different ownership and rights constructs may be

defined as well as interpreted by respondents

• Provides further evidence for survey practitioners to move away from capturing ownership and rights data on agricultural land at the household-level and instead administering multiple interviews per household to adults 18 years of age and above

Further work with the Malawi IHS data to…

• better understand the correlates of the various forms of discrepancies and their associations with agricultural and welfare outcomes

• estimate survey treatment effects on personal wealth

• feed into broader LSMS Plus Guidelines

Thinking Ahead for LSMS Plus Operations Beyond Malawi

Survey Design Considerations• New in Tanzania & Ethiopia

• Accommodating SDGs 1.4.2 & 5.a.1 requires rostering of non-agricultural land

• Questionnaire Design• Focus on self-reported data on education, health, labor• Major change: need new individual level questionnaire with augmented asset modules• Consideration for placement of non-agricultural land rostering in core household questionnaire• Asset classes covered: dwelling, agricultural land, durables (mobile phones), financial assets

• Timing of individual interview within fieldwork for 2-visit countries• Ethiopia choosing to tag it on post-harvest interview

• Approaching communities & respondents• Clearly communicating objective of the survey

• Scheduling individual interviews• Supervisors to approach all households early on and gather intel on number of adults and the gender

breakdown

• Interview environment• Sensitivity of questions, making sure respondents alone and feel free to share

• Administration of questionnaire in CAPI• Copying household, garden, plot rosters

Proxy Respondent Use Across LSMS-ISA Countries

Obs Percent Obs Percent Obs Percent Obs Percent Obs Percent Obs Percent Obs Percent Obs Percent Obs Percent

Proxy 3,412 47 1,907 55 1,505 41 3,392 47 1,905 55 1,487 40 3,354 47 1,892 54 1,462 39

Self 3,797 53 1,589 45 2,208 59 3,813 53 1,588 45 2,225 60 3,852 53 1,600 46 2,252 61

Proxy 13,062 75 5,002 60 8,060 89 13,151 75 5,056 61 8,095 89 12,961 74 4965 59 7996 88

Self 4,382 25 3,344 40 1,038 11 4,293 25 3,290 39 1,003 11 4,483 26 3381 41 1102 12

Proxy 5,447 50 2,280 44 3,167 55 5,548 51 2,331 45 3,217 56 5,294 49 2201 43 3093 54

Self 5,440 50 2,865 56 2,575 45 5,339 49 2,814 55 2,525 44 5,593 51 2944 57 2649 46

Proxy 8,526 52 3,482 45 5,045 58 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8,616 53 3569 46 5048 58

Self 7,834 48 4,238 55 3,596 42 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7,744 47 4151 54 3593 42

Proxy N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,865 22 1,721 28 1,144 17 2,835 22 1,707 27 1,128 16

Self N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10,249 78 4,530 72 5,719 83 10,275 78 4,543 73 5,732 84

Proxy 3,481 49 1,951 58 1,530 41 3,610 50 2,008 59 1,602 42 3,489 49 1,938 58 1,551 42

Self 3,654 51 1,409 42 2,245 59 3,628 50 1,408 41 2,220 58 3,561 51 1,387 42 2,174 58

Labor

Overall Male Female

Module-Specific Incidence of Proxy Respondent Use for Data Collection on Individuals 18 Years & Older in Selected LSMS-ISA Countries, By Gender

Country

Source of

Individual-Level

Information

Education Health

Overall Male Female

Malawi

Mali

Overall Male Female

Niger

Nigeria

Tanzania

Uganda

Note: The most recent round for survey data that is publically available is used for each LSMS-ISA country.

MEXA Technical Report Available on LSMS Website

• MEXA Technical Report

• Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C

Malawi IHS4 2016/17 & IHPS 2016 Questionnaire Instruments & Data Available on LSMS Website and Microdata Catalogue as of November 2017

• IHS4 2016/17 Cross-Sectional Data and Documentation

• IHPS 2016 Panel Data and Documentation

• IHS4 Cross-Sectional Survey Solutions Instrument

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLSMS/Resources/3358986-1423600559701/MEXA_Technical_Report.pdf

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLSMS/Resources/3358986-1423600559701/MEXA_Technical_Report_Appendix_A.pdf

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLSMS/Resources/3358986-1423600559701/MEXA_Technical_Report_Appendix_B.pdf

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLSMS/Resources/3358986-1423600559701/MEXA_Technical_Report_Appendix_C.pdf

http://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/2936

http://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/2939

https://designer.mysurvey.solutions/questionnaire/details/2c0623297cfc48cab5f8b5fa0af3a518/chapter/7c59f8092c13666736624648f1e6e829/group/7c59f8092c13666736624648f1e6e829

Intra-Household, Individual-Level Measurement of Ownership of and Rights to

Physical and Financial Assets: Insights from Methodological Experimentation

and Large-Scale Microdata Collection

Heather MoylanLiving Standards Measurement Study (LSMS)

Development Data Group | Survey Unit | The World Bank

C4D2 TrainingPerugia, Italy | December 14 2018

Date post:	24-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	9 times
Download:	0 times

Intra-Household, Individual-Level Measurement of Ownership ...surveys.worldbank.org › sites ›...

Documents