Abstract
As mentioned in previous chapters, the analysis of factors affecting decentralization process was done using both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Chapter 3 established the theoretical foundations of the quantitative approach, the hypothesis to be tested and the model used to test the hypothesis in its three dimensions: (i) contextual factors and initial conditions, (ii) characteristics of decentralization process and (iii) characteristics of central government/basin-level relationships and capacities. However, it did not describe the empirical model used to analyze the factors affecting decentralization process and performance. This is the objective of this chapter, where the variables used in the three dimensions listed above and the procedures used to construct these variables are described. Furthermore, the present chapter highlights the process used to collect the data, the challenges faced during data collection and mechanisms used to mitigate these challenges and assure data quality.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Variables represented by a bold letter indicate a vector.
- 2.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistic, predicts if data are likely to factor well, based on correlation and partial correlation. The KMO overall statistic is used to decide whether or not to include a variable in the PC analysis. KMO overall should be 0.60 or higher to proceed with factor analysis. Variables with KMO statistic lower than 0.60 should be dropped from the PC analysis.
- 3.
For definition of the variables see Annex C.
- 4.
The river basins where the questionnaire was tested are Inkomoati in South Africa, Limpopo in Mozambique, and Mzingwane in Zimbabwe.
- 5.
Another measure of response rate could be obtained from the ratio of questionnaires that were returned, to questionnaires that were sent to potential responding RBOs. Sixty-six questionnaires were sent and twenty-seven were filled, which makes the response rate at 41 %.
References
Alderman, H. (2002). Do local officials know something we don’t? Decentralization of targeted transfers in Albania. Journal of Public Economics, 83, 375–404.
Blomquist, W., Dinar, A., & Kemper, K. (2010). A framework for institutional analysis of decentralization reforms in natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources, 23(7), 620–635.
Dinar, A., Kemper, K., Blomquist, W., Diez, M., Sine, G., & Fru, W. (2005). Decentralisation of river basin management: A global analysis. The World Bank (Policy Research Working Paper 3637). Washington: The World Bank.
Dinar, A., Kemper, K., Blomquist, W., & Kurukulasuriya, P. (2007). Whitewater: Process and performance of decentralization reform of river basin water resource management. Journal of Policy Modeling, 29(6), 851–867.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mutondo, J., Farolfi, S., Dinar, A. (2016). Quantitative Analysis: Empirical Models and Data Collection Process. In: Water Governance Decentralization in Sub-Saharan Africa. SpringerBriefs in Water Science and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29422-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29422-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29420-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29422-3
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)