The Participatory Index of Women’s Empowerment: development and an application in Tunisia

Figures & data

Table 1. Indicators of empowerment, icons and descriptors.

Indicator	Code	Icon	Descriptor (not achieved)	Descriptor (achieved)
Personal
Self confidence and self esteem	P1		She feels she doesn’t have many good qualities	She feels that she has a number of good qualities
Ability to make decisions for herself	P2		She cannot personally take decisions regarding herself	She can personally take decisions regarding herself
Recognising that violence is not acceptable	P3		She considers it acceptable for a man to beat his wife	She considers it unacceptable for a man to beat his wife
Awareness that collective action is effective	P4		She does not believe that acting as a group is effective to solve issues	She believes that acting as a group is effective to solve issues
Knowledge and awareness of women’s rights	P5		She does not think that men and women should have the same rights	She thinks that men and women should have the same rights
Relational
Ability to make decisions in the household	R1		She is not able to make decisions within the household	She is able to make decisions within the household
Participation and ability to make decisions in the public sphere	R2		She does not participate in civil society and associations	She actively participates in civil society and associations
Participation and ability to influence or make decisions in the political sphere	R3		She does not actively participate in political parties	She actively participates in political parties
Taking action to stop violence	R4		She experiences violence and does not report it	In cases of experience of violence, she is able to report it
Independent income	R5		She does not have an independent source of income	She has an independent source of income
Control over resources in her household	R6		She has no control over assets and resources in her household	She has control over assets and resources in her household
Environmental
Equality of opportunity	E1		She lives in a community that does not allow women to have equal political opportunities with men	She lives in a community that ensures that women have equal political opportunities with men
Social norms	E2		She lives in a society that does not allow her to be free	She lives in a society that allows her to be free
Legislative protection for women’s rights	E3		She lives in a society where women’s rights are not enshrined in law	She lives in a society where women’s rights are enshrined in law

Notes: Indicator definitions and descriptors developed, and icons identified, in preliminary workshop in Tunis, November 2016.

Figure 1. Example DCE question. Source: SurveyCTO (Dobility, 2016).

Table 2. Estimation of probit coefficients and PIWE weights.

		(1)		(2)		(3)		(4)		PIWE weights
		Choice		Choice		Choice		Choice
Self confidence and self esteem	P1	1.104		0.726		0.381		0.391		10.10%
		(0.150)		(0.246)		(0.259)		(0.267)
Ability to make decisions for herself	P2	1.637*		0.733		0.735		0.524		13.53%
		(0.209)		(0.429)		(0.426)		(0.427)
Recognising that violence is not acceptable	P3	1.857***		0.136		0.575		0.286		7.39%
		(0.193)		(0.417)		(0.387)		(0.379)
Awareness that collective action is effective	P4	1.546		0.677		0.665		0.496		12.81%
		(0.168)		(0.286)		(0.314)		(0.325)
Knowledge and awareness of women’s rights	P5	1.553		0.578		0.549		0.380		9.79%
		(0.185)		(0.270)		(0.314)		(0.330)
Ability to make decisions in the household	R1	1.200		0.340		0.422		0.440		11.35%
		(0.073)		(0.137)		(0.133)		(0.133)
Participation and ability to make decisions in the public sphere	R2	0.758***		0.266		0.222		0.076***		1.97%
		(0.060)		(0.130)		(0.126)		(0.113)
Participation […] influence or make decisions in the political sphere	R3	0.428***		−0.863***						0.00%
		(0.062)		(0.168)
Taking action to stop violence	R4	1.306		0.592**		0.623***		0.640***		16.50%
		(0.077)		(0.138)		(0.122)		(0.119)
Independent income	R5	0.616***		0.040***		0.158		0.085**		2.19%
		(0.062)		(0.142)		(0.126)		(0.122)
Control over resources in her household	R6	0.898***		0.215		0.180		0.161		4.15%
		(0.066)		(0.133)		(0.122)		(0.121)
Equality of opportunity	E1	1.605		0.472		−0.622***				0.00%
		(0.218)		(0.256)		(0.215)
Social norms	E2	1.769***		0.315		0.067		0.158		4.08%
		(0.179)		(0.312)		(0.362)		(0.367)
Legislative protection for women’s rights	E3	1.648*		0.333		0.463		0.238		6.14%
		(0.202)		(0.237)		(0.227)		(0.221)
Unspecified indicators imputed		NO		YES		YES		YES
Sum of coefficients		17.925		4.559		4.418		3.876		100%
Coefficient values if equal		1.280		0.326		0.340		0.323		8.33%
Proportion of choices correctly predicted		0.735		0.694		0.693		0.672		67.2%
Observations		2988		2988		2988		2988

Notes: All models restricted to common support (N=498; six DCE questions and thus observations per study participant), PSM weights applied, standard errors in parentheses. Model (1): no imputation of non-specified indicators; standard errors clustered at respondent level. Models (2) – (4): imputation of non-specified indicators; standard errors obtained through bootstrap re-sampling of respondents (2000 repetitions). Hypotheses of equal rather than zero coefficients reported; * $\mathit{p}<0.1$, ** $\mathit{p}<0.05$, *** $\mathit{p}<0.01$.

Figure 2. Comparison of PIWE (outer ring) and OxWEI (inner circle) weights.

Figure 3. Comparison of PIWE and OxWEI scores.

Notes: Marker size represents aggregate PSM weight for each OxWEI/PIWE combination; markers are semitransparent to reveal overlaps; solid line is the line of equality.

Table 3. Impact of AMAL project on women’s empowerment.

	(1)		(2)
	OxWEI (equal weights)		PIWE
Project participants’ mean	0.578		0.641
Matched non-participants’ mean	0.513		0.595
Difference in means (ATT)	0.065***		0.047**
	(0.023)		(0.023)
Observations	498		498

Notes: Sample restricted to common support (N=498 of whom 214 are project participants); matched non-participant sample constructed by application of a Gaussian kernel to estimated propensity scores. Standard errors in parentheses. Hypotheses of zero difference between project participants’ mean score and matched non-participants’ mean score reported; * $\mathit{p}<0.1$, ** $\mathit{p}<0.05$, *** $\mathit{p}<0.01$.

Table 4. Estimation of probit model with project participation interactions.

		${\gamma }_j$		${\delta }_j$
		(Coefficient for non-participants)		(Interaction)
Self confidence and self esteem	P1	0.583		0.327
		(0.257)		(0.290)
Ability to make decisions for herself	P2	0.044		1.134**
		(0.517)		(0.555)
Recognising that violence is not acceptable	P3	0.315		−0.323
		(0.482)		(0.513)
Awareness that collective action is effective	P4	0.502		0.309
		(0.339)		(0.342)
Knowledge and awareness of women’s rights	P5	0.636		−0.054
		(0.309)		(0.316)
Ability to make decisions in the household	R1	0.477		−0.210
		(0.155)		(0.175)
Participation and ability to make decisions in the public sphere	R2	0.260		0.005
		(0.142)		(0.149)
Participation and ability to influence or make decisions in the political sphere	R3	−0.775***		−0.219
		(0.189)		(0.214)
Taking action to stop violence	R4	0.532		0.113
		(0.166)		(0.180)
Independent income	R5	0.038*		−0.008
		(0.155)		(0.151)
Control over resources in her household	R6	0.305		−0.162
		(0.066)		(0.163)
Equality of opportunity	E1	0.435		0.200
		(0.306)		(0.394)
Social norms	E2	0.467		−0.193
		(0.349)		(0.345)
Legislative protection for women’s rights	E3	0.283		0.070
		(0.283)		(0.304)
Sum of coefficients		4.100
Coefficient values if equal		0.293
Observations				2988

Notes: Restricted to common support (N=498; six DCE questions and thus observations per study participant), PSM weights applied. Imputation of non-specified indicators; standard errors (in parentheses) obtained through bootstrap re-sampling of respondents (2000 repetitions). Hypotheses of equal rather than zero coefficients reported for ${\gamma }_j$; hypotheses of zero coefficients reported for interaction term coefficients ${\delta }_j$; * $\mathit{p}<0.1$, ** $\mathit{p}<0.05$, *** $\mathit{p}<0.01$.

Dobility, Inc. (2016). SurveyCTO (Version 2.12) [Computer software]. https://www.surveycto.com

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data used in this research were collected as part of Oxfam GB’s Effectiveness Review project, a key element of its Global Performance Framework (GPF). The GPF helps Oxfam to deliver on its commitments to be accountable to its wide range of stakeholders and to improve its ability to understand and communicate the impact of its programmes (Hutchings, 2014). All the Effectiveness Reviews are published on Oxfam’s Policy & Practice webpage (https://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/) regardless of whether the results are positive or negative. Data from individual studies are also made available via the UK Data Service (https://views-voices.oxfam.org.uk/2016/09/real-geek-out-in-the-open-oxfams-impact-evaluation-survey-data-now-available-for-download/) to promote replication and transparency.