africa

methodology

Survey Design and Source of Data

This work employed descriptive, and comparative, cross-sectional survey designs, based on secondary data extracted from the 2013 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS, 2013)13, for Nigerian States, (see also Appendix A). Data used for the Comparison of African countries were sourced from the online databases of the World Bank14, the World Health Statistics15, the Transparency International16 and the Social Progress Imperative Organisation.

The Survey Indicators

Eighteen (18) basic indicators (Table 2.1), derived from, and in alignment with the World Development Indicators18 (Appendix B) were selected and specified by the author, and referred to as Development Performance 'Indicators (DPIs) (Table 2.1) to measure and compare the level of development within each state and between all states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) of the Nigerian Federation. The categories of the eighteen (18) basic indicators that were used are depicted in Figure 2.1. The following indicators, based on the World Bank data, World Health Statistics, survey results of the Transparency International and the Social Imperatives organization were used for the comparison of the state of development in various African countries.

Categories and Number of Indicators used

Procedure of Data Analysis

The Within-State (Intra state) Comparison involves the Comparison of the values of selected indicators within the same state and for all the 36 States and FCT. This is exhibited on the Within State page.

The Development Performance scores for each and all the selected indicators within each state were arranged in descending order and charted to identify the comparative performance of all the indicators with respect to each other within the state.

This was done for each of the 36 states of the federation and the FCT for each of the 18 selected performance indicators. The objective of this was to identify the indicators of development in which the state is best performing and those in which the state is lagging and needs improvement.

The average of all the indicator scores for each State indicates the State’s overall development performance.

The within state comparison outcome measures used are as below:

  • % Development Performance Scores for each of the 18 indicators within each State
  • Top, Best performing indicators (≥ 70% score) within the state
  • Moderately performing indicators within the state (50-<70%)
  • Bottom, Least performing indicators within the state (<50%)
  • Average % Development Performance Score (average of all the 18 performance indicators) for each State

The between states (inter-state) comparison involves the comparison of each of the selected indicators across the 36 states of the Federation and the FCT and the comparison of the Average score (of all the indicators) for each State, between all States and the FCT.

  • The Development Performance score for each of the 18 selected indicators for each of the 36 states and FCT were arranged in descending order and charted to identify the performance of each state with respect to each of the 18 selected Development Indicators.
  • The objective of this comparison was to identify the leading and lagging states with respect to each of the selected development indicators. The states’ Averages for the 18 indicators were computed and charted in descending order to identify the overall best, better and least performing states.
  • The computed average of all the indicator scores for each state (proxy of the state’s overall development performance of the state) was used to compare development between the states. The average score of the 18 indicators for each of the 36 States and the FCT (proxy of the overall development performance of the state) was computed and charted in descending order for all the states and the FCT to identify the overall best, better and least performing states.

The between states comparison outcome measures used are as below:

Average % Development Performance scores (average of the scores for all indicators) for each of the 36 States of the Federation and the FCT

  • The top-10 best performing states for each indicator
  • The bottom-10 least performing states for each indicator
  • The top-10 best performing states based on average score of all indicators
  • The Bottom-10 Least Performing States based on average score of all indicators

The between country comparison outcome measures used for the comparison of Nigeria and other countries in Sub-Sahara Africa are:

  • Selected World Bank and World Health Statistics indicators.
  • The Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index (CPI); and
  • The Social Imperatives’ Social Progress Index, and Basic Human Needs Index, for the periods 2014 and 2017.

Colour Codes

In the result charts for Within-State comparison, the following interpretation holds for the color codes:

Green for Performance Indicator (PI) scores equal or greater than 70% or Average Performance Indicator (API) Scores equal or greater than 50%; while Blue is for Performance Indicator (PI) scores from 50% to less than 70%, and Red for Performance Indicator (PI) scores or Average Performance Indicator (API) Scores less than 50%.

Definitions of the Survey Indicators

The indicators used in this work are defined in Table below.

S/N Indicators used in this work Definition of the indicators according to NDHS, 2013 Source of the Data in NDHS, 2013 1 % of Households with access to electricity Percentage of households that have electricity Table A.2.3 Household characteristics: Electricity, p371 2 % of Population with improved drinking water Percentage of population with drinking water that would be considered improved if they were not shared by two or more households Table A.2.2 Household sanitation facilities: States, p370 3 % of Population with improved toilet facilities Percentage of women who attended secondary school or higher and women who can read a whole sentence or part of a sentence Table 3.3.1 Literacy: Women, p37 4 % of Women who are currently employed Percentage of women between the age 15-49 who were employed in the 12 months preceding the survey by continuity of employment Table A.3.7.4 Continuity of employment: Women by State, p375 5 % of Men who are literate Percentage of men who attended secondary school or higher and men who can read a whole sentence or part of a sentence Table 3.3.2 Literacy: Men, p38 6 Table 3.3.2 Literacy: Men, p38 Percentage of women between the age 15-49 who were employed in the 12 months preceding the survey by continuity of employment Table A.3.7.4 Continuity of employment: Women by State, p375 7 % of Men who are currently employed Percentage of men between the age 15-49 who were employed in the 12 months preceding the survey by continuity of employment Table A 3.7.5 Continuity of employment: Men by State, p376 8 % of Men who own a house alone and jointly Percentage of men between the age 15-49 who own a house alone and jointly Table 15.4.2 Ownership of assets: Men, p287 9 % of Women who own a house alone or jointly Percentage of women between the age 15-49 who own a house alone and Jointly Table 15.4.1 Ownership of assets: Women, p286 10 % of Births delivered in health facilities Percentage of live births by a skilled provider in the five years preceding the survey by person providing assistance during delivery Table 9.7 Assistance during delivery, p139 11 % of Births delivered by a skilled provider Percentage of men between the age 15-49 who own a house alone and jointly Table 15.4.2 Ownership of assets: Men, p287 12 % of Births delivered by a doctor Percentage of live births by a doctor in the five years preceding the survey by person providing assistance during delivery Table 9.7 Assistance during delivery, p139 13 % of Births that have a reported birth weight Percentage of live births that have Reported birth weight in the five years preceding the survey by mother’s estimate of baby’s size at birth, percentage less than 2.5 kg Table 10.1 Child’s size and weight at birth, p157 14 % of Births average or larger in birth weight Percentage of live birth average or larger in birth weight in the five years preceding the survey by mother’s estimate of baby’s size at birth Table 10.1 Child’s size and weight at birth, p157 15 % of Under-5 children with a birth certificate Percentage of Under-5 children with birth certificate whose births are registered with the civil authorities Table 2.9 Birth registration of children under age 5, p20 16 % of Under-5 children not underweight Percentage of children under age 5 classified as not underweight, not malnourished, computed as (100%-% of Under5 children that are Underweight, i.e. 100%-% weight for age below -2SD) Table 11.1 Nutritional status of children, p178, 179 17 % of Births registration with the LGA Percentage of births registration with the LGA under age 5 whose births are registered with the civil authorities, percent distribution of children by authority Table 2.10 Birth registration of children under age 5 by authority, p22 18 % of Births registration with the NPC Percentage of births registration with the LGA under age 5 whose births are registered with the civil authorities, percent distribution of children by authority Table 2.10 Birth registration of children under age 5 by authority, p22

About The Book

Development Performance Ranking of Nigerian States
and Monitoring of African Countries

This book is a ‘must read’ for the President, Vice-President and their Ministers, Senators, Governors, Members of the States and Federal House of Reps, Commissioners, L.G. Chairmen, top Administrators in Ministries, Departments and Agencies, Media practitioners, Human right activists and Advocates of responsible Leadership and good Governance.
Mohammed Taofeek Ibrahim

Nadim Book