Column Actions

This indicator 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.)

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).

Statistical Institute of Belize (SIB)

Statistical Institute of Belize (SIB)

Annual

Cumulative rating

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).

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.

• Sex: Male/Female
• Age groups: It is recommended to follow UN standards for the production of age-disaggregated national population statistics, using the following age groups: (1) below 25 years old, (2) 25-34, (3) 35-44, (4) 45-54, (5) 55-64 and (6) 65 years old and above.
• Disability status: ‘Disability’ is an umbrella term covering long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of disabled persons in society on an equal basis with others. If possible, NSOs are encouraged to add the Short Set of Questions on Disability developed by the Washington Group to the survey vehicle used to administer the two questions selected for 16.7.2 to disaggregate results by disability status.
• Nationally relevant population groups (groups with a distinct ethnicity, language, religion, indigenous status, nationality or other characteristics): The population of a country is a mosaic of different population groups that can be identified according to racial, ethnic, language, indigenous or migration status, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation, amongst other characteristics. For the purpose of this indicator, particular focus is placed on minorities. Minority groups are groups that are numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a state, in a non-dominant position, whose members—being nationals of the state—possess ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics differing from those of the rest of the population and show, even if only implicitly, a sense of solidarity directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language.
• Income level: By income quintile.
• Education level: Primary education, Secondary education, Tertiary education.

NSOs should simply calculate the cumulative rating on each question (on a scale of 1 to 5), and then calculate the average rating for the two questions (again, on a scale of 1 to 5).  Global reporting on SDG 16.7.2 will require:

• Distributions of answers across all answer options, for each one of the two questions;
• Cumulative ratings provided on each one of the two questions; and
• Average rating for the two questions

This indicator is used to measure political efficacy - 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.

• 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 the second dimension, ‘external efficacy’. This methodology therefore stops short of measuring ‘internal political efficacy’ (also called ‘subjective competence’). 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.
• 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. 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, 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.

All the metadata shown was gathered from United Nation Statistics Division. The metadata was extracted from https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/.