- background information Africa Regional Integration Index - background information William Davis African Trade Policy Centre (ATPC) RITD Xuan Che Statistical Development Section (SDS) ACS

Purpose  M&E framework to measure implementation of African integration agreements  Compare countries’ progress vis-a-vis another and over time (approach validated by multiple African Ministerial conferences)  Provide ‘dashboard’ for policy makers on regional integration issues  Improve dataset for African regional integration policy analysis

Consultations  SROs, ACS, RITD  EGM including internal and external experts  Indicators based on AU MIP, PIDA and energy frameworks (since infrastructure, energy not in MIP). These most recent and detailed expressions of priorities (Agenda 2063 not specific)  Mix of input, output, intermediate result indicators  Compare and rank member states against each other  MiniMax scaling, average aggregation  Cross-border component  Availability of data, measurability  CoM 2014, COMAI 2014 endorse, add macroeconomic policy convergence, social integration, gender

Merger with AfDB index  Merged with separate AfDB project endorsed by AfDB Board  Many similarities in methodology – joint index respects principles endorsed by CoM 2014 and COMAI 2014 and AfDB Board  Dimensions remain the same as before merger, individual indicators reviewed against measurability, availability of data and changed  All other elements also remain the same  ‘Political Economy’ dimension added to measure strength of RECs driving integration process.

Further refinement  Indicators further refined through consultations with NSOs, Member States (31 Member States in total), RECs (3), AfDB, AUC.  Criteria:  Based on data-collection ground: 85% completeness.  Based on conceptual ground.

Justification - balance of input and output indicators  Some countries have advantages e.g. regional integration – greater complementarity of exports (e.g. South Africa) – boosts intra-regional trade, independent of integration measures taken by South African government  Doesn’t reflect efforts  Not fair if countries that do their best still score poorly because of geographical disadvantages etc.

Justification - balance of input and output indicators  Therefore use adoption of policies etc?  BUT won’t measure implementation and won’t capture everything  Therefore also use outcomes and intermediate outputs (not the aims, but the expected results of the policy – e.g. low cost of transport is output, high trade is outcome)

Data collection  Four approaches to collect regional integration data:  First approach: questionnaires collected from countries.  Second approach: from REC and corridor management agencies (CMA).  Third approach: from national databases, websites and publications.  Fourth approach: from international organizations’ statistical databases.

Seven dimensions of indicators  Regional migration and the labour market  Trade integration  Political economy  Productive integration  Financial integration and macroeconomic policy  Regional infrastructure and interconnection  (Social and cultural integration)  TOTAL: 43 indicators.

First approach: national questionnaire  The first preference is to collect data directly from national governments and national statistical offices.  For each country, a focal point is selected.  Focal points are given national questionnaires, two months to collect data.  Three training sessions trained 25 national focal points:  From East and South African REC.  Two days of training on data collection questionnaire and metadata guide.

Second approach: REC and CMA  Some indicators are better positioned to be collected through REC and CMA.  e.g.: payment of REC financial due, cost of shipping along corridors.  A separate questionnaire on REC and CMA levels.  The REC questionnaire follows the same format of those for national focal points.

Third approach: national databases  If national focal points cannot locate indicator data, the RII team will try pulling data from national databases, NSO websites, publications, etc.  We are seeking help from the SRO.

Fourth approach: international sources  Where appropriate, data from other reputable organizations may be used: online database, international organizations, etc.  Whenever data has been provided by national government on its own score for a particular indicator, they will always be preferred over any other source.

Data completeness  Numbers of core indicators: 43.  Numbers of core indicators with 85% or more completeness: 27.  Still to go: 16.  We are confident these indicators will pass the 85% rule.  We keep track of: which indicators are collected for each country.

SRO involvement  Coordinate between RII team and NSO, countries.  Advocate regional integration at sub-regional level.  Analyse the success of best practices.  Deposit data to the data bank.  Improve data completeness for First and Third approaches.  Check country data release calendar to ensure data timeliness.

Multicollinearity critique  Misunderstands purpose of index  Not for statistical attribution – for fair aggregate ranking  Unless variables perfectly collinear, omission will disadvantage some countries

Overall scores Indicators will be scaled and aggregated Indicators will be scaled and aggregated Score = Score = (raw value – lowest raw value in dataset) (raw value – lowest raw value in dataset) (highest raw value in dataset – lowest raw value in dataset) Weighting – simple average but possible upcoming consultation of experts to see if some indicators should be more important Weighting – simple average but possible upcoming consultation of experts to see if some indicators should be more important

Any questions? Contact: