1. The Who: Experimental Evidence on the Effect of Respondent Selection on Collecting Individual Disaggregated Asset Ownership Information Living Standards Measurement Study Development Research Group, The World Bank Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty 03/24/2015 TALIP KILIC Senior Economist HEATHER MOYLAN Survey Specialist

2. Objectives Assess the effects of different approaches to respondent selection in household surveys on measuring individual ownership of & rights to assets Support the design of 9 pilot surveys that will be implemented throughout 2015 with support from the UN Evidence and Data for Gender Equality (EDGE) initiative Inform the UN EDGE guidelines on measurement of individual ownership of & rights to assets – To be submitted to the UN Statistical Commission for adoption in 2017

3. Motivation Assets: Key inputs into income generation, capital & credit access & consumption smoothing Research on disparities in personal wealth provide insights into – Intra-household bargaining outcomes, conflicts & ensuing effects – Long-term economic inequities & inter-generational implications – Processes shaping class structures & inter-relationships 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 Technical guidelines on survey protocols & questionnaire design to capture asset ownership at the individual level do not exist – Persistence of “myths” in the absence of appropriate data & methods

4. Key Questions Are we doing enough to capture individual asset ownership patterns by only interviewing the self-identified most knowledgeable household member in household surveys? Do females provide different information on their asset ownership when interviewed separate from their partners? Do reporting patterns change when respondents know that other household members are also being interviewed?

5. Overview of Treatment Arms ArmWho?How?What? 1“Most Knowledgeable” Household Member AloneAssets Owned Exclusively/ Jointly by Household Members 2Randomly Selected Member of Principal Couple AloneAssets Owned Exclusively/ Jointly by Household Members 3Principal CoupleTogetherAssets Owned Exclusively/ Jointly by Household Members 4Adult (18+) Household Members Alone, Simultaneous Assets Owned Exclusively/ Jointly by Household Members 5Adult (18+) Household Members Alone, Simultaneous Assets Owned Exclusively/ Jointly by Respondent

6. Sampling Design 140 Enumeration Areas (EAs) selected with probability proportional to size across Uganda Rural/Urban EA Split: 60/40 percent 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

7. Scope of Data Collection (1) Basic Socio-Economic Information (Individual Level) Core Asset Information (Asset Level) – Dwelling & Residential Land – Agricultural Land – Non-Agricultural Land & Other Real Estate – Livestock (Large & Small) – Non-Agricultural Businesses – Agricultural Equipment (Large & Small) – Consumer Durables – Financial Assets, Loans Out, Liabilities – Valuables

8. Scope of Data Collection (2) Type of Ownership/RightsIndividual Disaggregation Reported OwnershipWithin-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

9. Fieldwork Implementing agency: Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBoS) Implementation period: March-August 2014 Used computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) application designed in Survey SolutionsSurvey Solutions – MEXA CAPI application publically available to Survey Solutions users Arms 4 & 5 interviews attempted to be conducted in parallel Female (male) respondents attempted to be paired w/ female (male) enumerators

10. Sample Composition Table 1: MEXA Households Interviewed Interviewed w/ a Couple Initial Allocation ExpectedInterviewed % of Expected Any More than 1 Interview Both Members of Couple Interviewed TA #1548490495100%324--N/A TA #2548299304100%304--N/A TA #354829927291%272--272 TA #454849047597%302187150 TA #554849048198%310182160 Total2,7202,0682,02798%1512369570

11. Sample Composition (2) Table 2. Distribution of Treatment Arm 4 & 5 Households According to # of Adults Interviewed TA #4TA #5 Total% % Households Interviewed475481 All Eligible Adults Interviewed2950.612860.59 4 adults140.03150.03 3 adults200.04230.05 2 adults1370.291330.28 1 adults1240.261150.24 Subset of Eligible Adults Interviewed1800.381950.41 3 out of 4150.03120.02 2 out of 4200.04210.04 1 out of 4110.02120.02 2 out of 3260.05230.05 1 out of 380.02120.02 1 out of 21000.211150.24 Average # of Adults Interviewed1.621.61

12. Interview Dynamics Gender Match-up : 81.6% of female respondents paired w/ female respondents & 74.6 % for male respondents Duration of Interviews: 34 minute average across Arms – Min: 5 Max: 132 minutes across Arms – Average: 39 vs. 29 minutes in Arms 3 vs. 5 Simultaneous Interviews (Arms 4 & 5): 63% Alone Interviews: 90% - Across Modules & Arms

13. Scope of Preliminary Analysis Balance tests indicate that randomization was successful Unit of analysis: Adult individual Focus on all 13 asset types Two-pronged approach to inter-arm comparisons – Across Arms 1 through 5 using only households with a couple – Across only Arms 1, 4 & 5 using ALL households Two-pronged approach to multiple respondents in Arm 4/5 HHs – Taking individual reporting as is – Assuming Presumed Most Knowledgeable Member to override others

14. Scope of Preliminary Analysis (2)

15. Scope of Preliminary Analysis (3) (6) Primary dependent variables – All binary – Reported Ownership – Overall; Exclusive; Joint (w/ anyone) – Economic Ownership – Overall; Exclusive; Joint (w/ anyone) (8) Secondary dependent variables – Continuous in bold – Right to Bequeath – Right to Sell – Right to Rent Out – Right to Use as Collateral – Right to Invest/Make Improvements – PCA-based overall, exclusive & joint rights indices across 5 rights

16. Key Findings The following synthesis focuses on Effects statistically significant at least at 5 percent level Female adult population in households with a couple, for reported & economic ownership indicators No statistically significant effects assoc. with Arm 2 – across the board Arm 3 exerts statistically significant positive effects on overall & joint dwelling reported ownership incidence – No similar effect for other assets & for economic ownership Arm 4 exerts statistically significant positive effects on reported & economic ownership (overall & joint) across the board – Indistinguishable from Arm 5 effects

17. Treatment Arm 4 Effects Sizeable in magnitude, significant at the 1 percent level Table 3. Selected Treatment Arm 4 Effects TA1 Mean Average T4 Effect Effect As a % of TA1 Mean Dwelling Reported Ownership0.1100.09082% Dwelling Economic Ownership0.2710.13048% Agricultural Land Reported Ownership0.1200.07764% Agricultural Land Economic Ownership0.2710.12245% Large Livestock Reported Ownership0.1820.11764% Small Livestock Reported Ownership0.2760.08531% Durables Reported Ownership0.5220.16231% Financial Asset Reported Ownership0.1820.08849%

18. Treatment Arm 4 Effects (2) Stronger in magnitude if the Arm 4 sample is restricted households in which both members of the principal couple were interviewed Robust if sample includes all households, whether or not with a couple Wiped out if Presumed Most Knowledgeable Member overrides

19. Messy Business Intra-Household Variation in Reporting on Ownership Table 4. Agreement on Individual Reported Ownership in Arm 4 Level of Analysis: Individual Owners DwellingAg LandNFEFinancial Avg. Share of Respondents Reporting an Individual as an Owner 0.800.730.690.62 Avg. Share of Respondents in Unanimous Agreement on Individual's Ownership Status 0.610.480.370.26

20. Messy Business Intra-Household Variation in Reporting on Ownership Intra-Household Variation in Reporting on Valuation Table 5. Average Within-HH Respondent Value for Dwelling As a % of Presumed Most Knowledgeable Member Reported Value in Arm 4 HHs w/ 2+ Respondents No Trimming 298% # of Households 195 Trimmed Top & Bottom 1%134% # of Households 191 Trimmed Top & Bottom 5 %34% # of Households 174

21. Messy Business Intra-Household Variation in Reporting on Ownership Intra-Household Variation in Reporting on Valuation Hidden Assets Table 6. Hidden Assets # of Respondent Owners # of Owners Reporting a Hidden Asset Module Overall # MaleFemaleOverallMaleFemale #%% Parcels83362.3%37.7%253.0% Non-Farm Enterprises53642.5%57.5%10.2% Financial Accounts79546.9%53.1%11114.0%16.4%12.8% Loans Given Out28756.4%43.6%7827.2%25.3%29.6% Loans Taken Out41051.1%48.9%9322.7%24.6%17.7%

22. Concluding Thoughts Clear value addition of implementing Arm 4 – Robust & sizeable impacts across priority modules – Not a pipe dream given constraints that MEXA & other household surveys share But need... – Careful questionnaire design & pre-fieldwork validationdesign – Agile, gender-balanced, mobile teams – Re-thinking fieldwork management, scheduling interviews Remaining questions & further methodological research need – Specificity to Uganda & need for validation in alternative settings – Scope for third-party verification for selected dimensions of data collection to resolve intra-household discrepancies in reporting? – What does “joint” really mean? – Valuation remains problematic – even without discrepancies

23. Concluding Thoughts (2) The remaining analytical work is also substantial: – Synthesis of treatment effects for Male adult population Respondents regarding self-reported ownership & rights Secondary dependent variables – Heterogeneity of impact by age, disparities in couple attributes, region – Descriptive effects of respondent/enumerator gender match – Understanding correlates of intra-household discrepancies in reporting – Extending the analysis beyond the priority modules – Moving from individual to asset level analysis – Gender wealth gap: Differences by treatment arm

24. The Who: Experimental Evidence on the Effect of Respondent Selection on Collecting Individual Disaggregated Asset Ownership Information Living Standards Measurement Study Development Research Group, The World Bank Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty 03/24/2015 TALIP KILIC Senior Economist HEATHER MOYLAN Survey Specialist

25. Treatment Arm 4Pairwise Correlation % Overlap in Total Pop Reported Own. & Economic Own.70%37% Reported Own. & Right to Bequeath78%31% Economic Own. & Right to Bequeath69%32% Reported Own. & Right to Invest70%35% Economic Own. & Right to Invest73%41% >>