The 2014 Reform Efforts Survey Aggregate Dataset
(Used in the 2015 Listening to Leaders Report)
Custer, Samantha, Zachary Rice, Takaaki Masaki, Rebecca Latourell and Bradley Parks. 2015. Listening to Leaders: Which Development Partners Do They Prefer and Why? Williamsburg, VA: AidData. http://aiddata.org/listening-to-leaders.
Updated in: AidData. 2017. The 2014 Reform Efforts Survey Aggregate Dataset. Williamsburg, VA: AidData. Accessed on [date]. www.aiddata.org/listening-to-leaders-survey-data
Please note: Both sources should be used as the official citation for the 2014 Reform Efforts Survey aggregate dataset.
About the 2014 Reform Efforts Survey
How do we measure the influence of development partners on policy reforms in low- and middle-income countries? There previously existed no metric of policy influence that allowed us to quantify and compare the extent to which different development partners shape the trajectory of reform process in their partner countries. With the aim of filling this knowledge gap, the College of William and Mary’s Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations (ITPIR) conducted a global elite survey, or the 2014 Reform Efforts Survey, in the summer of 2014, in partnership with the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago. This first-of-its-kind survey was explicitly designed to provide timely, detailed, and accurate data on the trustworthiness, influence, and performance of 100+ Western and non-Western development partners, as observed and experienced by in-country counterparts. The survey ultimately benefited from the participation of nearly 6,750 development policymakers and practitioners in 126 low- and middle-income countries.
The survey implementation was preceded by five years of painstaking efforts to identify the population of our interest, which includes those individuals who are knowledgeable about the formulation and implementation of government policies and programs in low- and lower-middle income countries at any point between 2004 and 2013. See more details on the process of sampling frame construction and the survey questionnaire in the online Appendix of Custer et al. (2015). We successfully constructed a sampling frame of approximately 55,000 host government and development partner officials, civil society leaders, private sector representatives, and independent experts from 126 low- and lower-middle income countries and semi-autonomous territories. Of those individuals included in the sampling frame, we successfully sent a survey invitation to the email inbox of over 43,427 sampling frame members. From this cohort of survey recipients, 6,731 participated, yielding an overall, individual-level survey participation rate of approximately 15.5%.
Key findings from the 2014 Reform Efforts Survey are summarized in AidData’s two flagship reports: The Marketplace of Ideas for Policy Change and Listening to Leaders: Which Development Partners Do They Prefer and Why?
Files in the 2014 Reform Efforts Survey Dataset
|score_no_wt.csv||Unweighted scores of development partner performance. Bilateral development partner agencies are collapsed by country.|
|score_inv_prob_wt.csv||Scores of development partner performance weighted based on inverseprobability weights. Bilateral development partner agencies are collapsed by country.|
|score_country_policydomain_wt.csv||Scores of development partner performance that are weighted equally across policy area and country. Bilateral development partner agencies are collapsed by country.|
|score_no_wt_agency.csv||Unweighted scores of development partner performance by development partner agency. Bilateral development partner agencies are not collapsed by country.|
|score_inv_prob_wt_agency.csv||Weighted scores of development partner performance by development partner agency. Bilateral development partner agencies are collapsed by country.|
|score_country_policydomain_wt_agency.csv||Scores of development partner performance that are weighted equally across policy area and country. Bilateral development partner agencies are not collapsed by country.|
|score_by_country_no_wt.csv||Country-level scores of development partner performance with no weights.|
|score_by_country_inv_prob_wt.csv||Country-level scores of development partner performance that are weighted based on inverse-probability weights.|
Description of variables
|score_q13||Average of responses in Question 13 (frequency of communication)|
|stderr_q13||Standard error of score_q13|
|n_q13||Number of observations used to compute score_q13|
|score_q14||Average of responses in Question 14 (usefulness of policy advice)|
|stderr_q14||Standard error of score_q14|
|n_q14||Number of observations used to compute score_q14|
|score_q21||Average of responses in Question 21 (agenda-setting influence)|
|stderr_q21||Standard error of score_q21|
|n_q21||Number of observations used to compute score_q21|
|score_q25||Average of responses in Question 25 (helpfulness in reform implementation)|
|stderr_q25||Standard error of score_q25|
|n_q25||Number of observations used to compute score_q25|