IMPACT SURVEY ON VOTER KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS

Impact Survey of Voter Knowledge and Awareness

Center for Advanced Study

Occasional Paper No. 7 (March 2000)

The CAS team of researchers on this project included Dr. William Collins, Project Director,

Dr. Hean Sokhom, Research Coordinator, and Mr. Heng Kim Van, MA, Mrs. Lim Sidedine, MA, Mr. Hun Tirith, MA, Ms. Chan Kanha, BA., Ms. Kin Tepmoly, BA, Ms. Nguon Sokunthea, BA, Ms. Chraloeng Chanvattey, BA, Ms. Ros Dadanet, BA,

The following students also helped with canvassing, enumerating, data coding, and translation: Ms. Uch Kangkerya Pheakdey, Ms. Heng Chhun Oeurn, Ms. Hour Amara, Ms. Keo Sony, Ms. Hong Kolap, Mr. Un Moninita, Mr. Lath Poch, Mr. On Huoch, Ms. Mak Sophea, Ms. Oum Monirath and Mr. Phon Kasseka.

In addition, Ms. Van Sovathana, MA, Ms. Khim Kunthy, BA , Ms. Dy Many and Mr. E Neng supported the research team with data entry and secretarial skills and editing and layout of the Khmer questionnaire.

The CAS is grateful to the South East Asia Development Division of the British Department for International Development (DFID) for research support and to Forum Syd for additional overhead support that made the Impact Survey possible. Special thanks go to Dr Daniel Arghiros, DFID consultant, who was a great help in getting the project started.

Hean Sokhom, Ph.D.

President

Center for Advanced Study

6D Road 57, Boeung Keng Kang, Phnom Penh, Kingdom of Cambodia

Telephone (855) 23-214-494; 015-912-600. Email: cas@forum.org.kh

IMPACT SURVEY

OF VOTER KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS

William Collins, Ph.D.

Hean Sokhom, Ph.D.

Heng Kim Van M.A.

Mrs. Lim Sidedine, M.A.

Hun Tirith, M.A.

Ms. Chan Kanha, B.A.

Ms. Kin Tepmoly, B.A.

Ms. Nguon Sokunthea, B.A.

Ms. Chraloeng Chanvattey, B.A.

Ms. Ros Dadanet, B.A.

Center for Advanced Study

Phnom Penh, Kingdom of Cambodia

March 2000

Executive Summary

I. Introduction

One specific aim of this Impact Survey was to test whether any changes in awareness and perceptions had occurred among voters since the National Elections of 1998. This test involved a comparison with the findings of our Baseline Survey conducted before the election and included questions on the quality of participation in the elections and the mechanisms of vote-getting.

Another aim of this Impact Survey was to assess the effectiveness of the voter education campaign in reaching the electorate with apt, effective messages. This assessment included questions referring to voter education broadcasts and publications produced by Cambodian government and non-government organizations, with the help of international donors.

A third aim of the Impact Survey was to anticipate some of the challenges that the voter education community may face during the process of creating institutions of good governance at the local level. This involved questions regarding the constituencies of the new elected bodies that will be formed in the forthcoming commune level elections scheduled for late 2000. There are likely to be fewer donor funds available for commune elections than were available for the 1998 National Elections, so the voter education community will need information of the kind presented in this study to make their efforts most effective.

In order to carry out the survey, representative quota samples were constructed as far as possible on the basis of the census data available. We used categories of gender, age and rural /urban based on the composition of the total population, and applied them to the sample in each district selected for study. The sample was obtained from a randomly selected commune by random household calls in rural areas as well as from various sampling points in public urban space, especially markets. Following this methodology, a sample of N=546 was collected in August to October 1999.

II. Participation in the 1998 National Elections

Our results of 91% participation mirror the results of the 1998 National Elections, which were given officially to be 93.74%.

III. Knowledge of Registration and Balloting

One striking finding of our survey is that the village chief, mephum, was by far the most important source of information about registration and voting for our largely rural respondents. Given the great importance of the village chief in informing his constituents about civic affairs, it is noteworthy that current designs for decentralization of governance in Cambodia focus on elections at the commune level. It remains to be seen how the village chief will be selected and how the village chief will articulate with the new commune council.

IV. Experience of Difficulties During Registration and Elections.

A. Experience of the registration process

The registration process, which was heavily supported by the European Union, appears from the responses to our Impact Survey to have been conducted with few major problems for the electorate.

B. Perceptions of danger and fear during the elections

In both the Baseline Survey before the elections, and in the Impact Survey after the elections, we asked respondents if they felt the contest and campaigning associated with elections created unsafe or dangerous conditions for them. Our findings show a sharp decrease in “don’t know” responses from 50% before the elections to 1% after the elections. But we note a doubling of both the “yes” and the “no” responses after the elections.

Although the bulk of respondents, 70%, report no danger, the 29% of respondents who report perceptions of danger tend to be found at either end of the socio-economic spectrum. Urban respondents evidently feared a recurrence of factional fighting in the city and the possibility of danger to themselves or their property. At the other end of the spectrum, vulnerable landless peasants are probably prone to feel the potential for danger in any political events.

We asked another related question in both Baseline and Impact Survey, if respondents felt fearful about going to cast their votes. The dramatic rise in the feeling of “not fearful” from 62% to 86%, is reflected in the very high voter turn-out in the 1998 National Elections.

C. Perceptions of monitoring during the election

We asked respondents if they noticed any independent monitoring of the polling process. Approximately 25% of respondents gave negative or no reply responses to this question. This finding may be due to failure of respondents to recognize monitors. All independent monitors should agree on a standard identification device, a logo on a tee shirt or a badge, and this identification should be a prominent part of future voter education campaigns.

Of those who noticed monitors, 61% said monitors made them feel safer. Voter education efforts had a demonstrable impact on making people aware of the function of independent monitors and their organizations in contributing to a safe experience at the polling place. However, our findings also highlight the fact that certain important sub-groups, like traders and market sellers, who were likely to feel fearful, require special targeting with voter education messages to convince them of the positive value of monitoring to assure safe polling.

D. Experience of difficulties during the polling

The widespread presence of armed persons at polling stations, noticed by 45% of respondents, and civil authority at polling stations, noticed by 60% of respondents, provides a powerful argument for the importance of independent monitors in assuring free and fair elections. The presence of monitors is clearly needed to counter intimidation and to promote a sense of safety for the electorate while they vote.
V. Influences on Voting Behavior

A. Secrecy of the ballot

A “wait and see” attitude registered by 52% of respondents before the election, who said they did not know if the elections would be secret or not, was largely converted to a positive “secret” response, 86%, after the experience of balloting. The presence of international and national monitors no doubt contributed to the predominant experience of secrecy and safety of the ballot, unresolved complaints about the process notwithstanding.

B. Need for advice on how to vote

Most respondents, 58%, say that women need not seek advice from men about how to vote. The 36% of respondents who do think women need advice from men tend to be

relatively sophisticated, richer, more educated respondents, especially men. They are the important target to reach with messages about women’s right to an independent vote. The corollary message to women in these same categories might be that their vote is secret and has noì¥ÁG ¿ŽY
bjbjŽÙŽÙ ™ì³ì³TR(ÿÿ¤ÿÿ¤ÿÿ¤]$$$"F¾
¾
¾
D^^^^€Þtì¥ÁG ¿ŽY

bjbjŽÙŽÙ ™ì³ì³TR(ÿÿ¤ÿÿ¤ÿÿ¤]$$$"F¾
¾
¾
D^^^^€Þtne’s conscience regardless of the gifts offered to vote a particular way might be successful, in a political climate where vote buying will likely increase.

E. Obligations to vote in a particular way

There is little change from Baseline results in perceptions regarding obligations entailed by party membership, in a context where aggressive recruiting techniques are often used to swell party membership. The results suggest intensified voter education emphasis should be placed on voting one’s conscience in the privacy and safety of the polling booth.

There is a demonstrable impact of voter education awareness on loosening the bonds of party pledging. Impact survey findings in regard to perceptions of obligations entailed by party pledging show a dramatic drop in affirmative response, from 35% to 18%, and a rise in “don’t know” responses from 27% to 43%. An analysis of these findings suggests that continued voter education efforts should be directed at undecided young voters. These messages should emphasize the freedom and secrecy of the ballot booth in which the voter’s real convictions and preferences can be expressed, regardless of any commitments made outside the polling place.

VI. Voting Rights

Impact Survey findings in regard to voting rights of non Khmers suggest that voter education campaigns directed at undecided and younger voters can have a demonstrable impact on perceptions of the rights of non-Khmer minorities in Cambodia. The dramatic increase of “yes” responses to the rights of immigrants, from 12% in the Baseline Survey to 31% in the Impact Survey, especially among younger voters and more educated voters, indicates the impact of messages and practices before the registration and election that emphasized the voting rights of this group.

VII. Consequences of the Vote

A. Knowledge of the elected representative

There is a sharp increase in correct identification of a MP’s name from 1% in the Baseline Survey to 13% in the Impact Survey. However, the huge “don’t know” response, 83% in the Impact Survey, still indicates a fundamental problem of communication of election results to the electorate. These findings highlight the importance of civic education campaigns directed at elected officials in order to raise their awareness of the importance of the constituency that votes them into office.

The importance of this issue of accountability is heightened by the prospect of commune elections in the near future. Vigorous voter education and civic education efforts are clearly needed at the grassroots to avoid the gulf in communication between elected officials and the electorate at the commune level that appears to exist at the national level. Only with such education efforts to increase effective demand for accountability will the process of democratization and decentralization in Cambodia be successful.

In our Impact Survey, we asked what the respondents felt the MP should do for the electorate that elected him. A remarkably consistent and strong reply from nearly every province we surveyed was that the principal duty of the MP was to improve the livelihood of the people, particularly in regard to water control and rice cultivation.

B. Awareness of benefits to the community from the election

A very small proportion, 11% of respondents, could name any benefit that the elections had brought to their community. The connection of local development projects to the election of representatives who will advocate on behalf of their constituency is still relatively weak in Cambodia.

The election of commune councils with responsibility for development and with the power of taxation may bring significant changes in the demand for accountability and effectiveness in elected officials to fulfil community needs for public goods.

VIII. Commune Level Elections

A. Voter awareness

Approximately 2/3 of respondents were aware of forthcoming commune level elections. Our findings indicate that women and the poor should be especially targeted for voter education and civic education efforts to bring up their level of understanding of the importance of these upcoming local level elections

B. Sources of information

The village leaders, who were so important in informing villagers before the National Elections, have not yet been mobilized to inform the electorate of commune elections. These findings suggest an opportune opening for civil society voter education organizations to reach the electorate with civic education that will assure the success of decentralization plans that are underway. Radio broadcasts with special programming to raise grassroots civic consciousness could be developed and presented even before the draft laws on commune council formation are finalized.

C. Secrecy

Although 86% of respondents perceived National Elections to have been secret, only 41% now say that commune elections will be secret. These findings present a clear challenge to the voter education community and election monitoring organizations. They must try to overcome the deep and abiding suspicion in the electorate that the secrecy, and thus the free and fair nature of elections planned for the commune level, may not meet the standards already set by recent National Elections.

IX. Candidates for the Commune Council Elections.

A. Political party candidates

Half our respondents agreed that party candidates could participate in commune elections and half said “no,” or “don’t know.” Our analysis of these strongly divided responses suggests that respondents with less education and information are especially likely to withhold judgement about the involvement of political parties in local level elections.

B. Political party members elected to commune level office

Two thirds of respondents agreed that party members could be elected to commune office, if they were chosen by the electorate.

C. Candidate lists

Approximately half our respondents agreed with the use of closed party lists, which are connected to proportional representation, and are familiar from their use in the National Elections.

A massive civic education effort will be needed to assure that the electorate understands whatever commune election system is adopted in law. That grassroots civic education will be necessary to overcome the doubt and misgivings associated with party conflict and violence in Cambodia.

D. Candidates from villages

A more direct form of representation was favored by 86% of our respondents, by which members of the commune council would be representatives elected from each village of the commune.

Our respondents clearly perceive that direct elections are more likely to produce officials who feel accountable to a village constituency of voters rather than to a political party. It is essential that the voter education campaign organized in connection with the new commune councils acknowledge the evident importance of the village and village identity as the focus for local issues, whatever election system may be adopted in the law.

E. Rights of women and poor to be candidates

We asked if women and poor people should be elected to commune level office and why. The results are overwhelmingly positive and mirror the very strong sentiment in favor of voting rights of women and the poor that we observed in the Baseline Survey.

X. Expectations for Commune Councils

A. Community needs

We asked what the priority needs were that respondents thought elected commune level officials should address. The main response was local infrastructure development, roads, schools, health centers. A second prominent response was to take care of the people and to conduct peaceful, fair resolution of disputes.

We also asked respondents to mention any advantages they saw in electing local officials. The main categories of responses to this open question were leadership, dispute resolution and development.

B. Limits on the Commune Council

We asked respondents to mention any duties or powers that elected commune officials should not be given. The most frequent response, voiced by nearly 80% of respondents, was that the new local officials should not oppress or threaten the people or exploit them in other ways by corruption or expropriation.

These responses indicate the background of complaints about local authority that has developed since the Vietnamese-backed PRK regime when most of these commune level officials were appointed. This is the context in which the forthcoming commune council elections will be held. Voter education efforts should be based on an understanding of the actual experience of the electorate with local government officials during the last twenty years.

C. Accountability of elected commune officials

We found a very strong response, 61%, in favor of consultation between elected officials and the villager electorate. These findings indicate that the respondents to this survey understand the concept of a constituency.

Both voter and civic education efforts aimed at the general population and capacity building efforts aimed at the new elected officials should build on this understanding of a linkage of responsibility between an elected official and the voters who put him/her into office.

Finally, we asked respondents if they thought they would have the right to use their vote to remove from office any elected local official who was found unacceptable. The Impact Survey shows that 91% of respondents hold that elected leaders are supposed to be accountable to their constituency and can be replaced by the voters if they are found to be unsatisfactory.

Responses to earlier questions suggest that voters expect their commune council members to provide good leadership, fair dispute resolution and development activities and to avoid oppressing villagers and stealing from them. Failure in these areas will evidently have an effect on a commune official’s chance for reelection.

These extremely significant findings indicate that the Cambodian electorate overwhelmingly grasps the fundamental tenet of democracy and will be expecting to hold their elected commune and sangkat leaders accountable, whatever shape or form the commune/sangkat counì¥ÁG   ¿ŽY
bjbjŽÙŽÙ        ™ì³ì³TR(ÿÿ¤ÿÿ¤ÿÿ¤]$$$"F¾
¾
¾
D^^^^€Þtì¥ÁG ¿ŽY
bjbjŽÙŽÙ        ™ì³ì³TR(ÿÿ¤ÿÿ¤ÿÿ¤]$$$"F¾
¾
¾
D^^^^€Þtfindings indicate that narrative dramatizations are the most effective programming to reach the electorate through the broadcast media.

B. Print media

We showed respondents photographs of posters and brochures that had been used in the voter education campaign to carry messages about registration and voting. We asked respondents if they recognized the material from the pre-registration and pre-election period or not. The results verify the usefulness and reliability of this kind of question in a survey in Cambodia.

The Impact Survey findings clearly demonstrate the improvement in distribution techniques from the initial registration education phase of the election process, when EU support was strong, to the later balloting education phase of the voter education process. These findings reflect the effectiveness of the Cambodian NGOs involved in developing and distributing voter education materials nationwide.

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................ v

Table of Contents........................................................................................................................................... 1

IMPACT SURVEY OF VOTER KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS................................................................ 2

Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................. 2

Methodology............................................................................................................................................................. 3

Analysis...................................................................................................................................................................... 5

I. Background Demographics............................................................................................................................... 6

A. Rural/Urban............................................................................................................................................................ 6

B. Gender.................................................................................................................................................................... 8

C. Age.......................................................................................................................................................................... 9

D. Education.............................................................................................................................................................. 10

F. Marital Status....................................................................................................................................................... 11

G. Ethnicity............................................................................................................................................................... 12

G. Socio-economic Level........................................................................................................................................... 12

H. Migration.............................................................................................................................................................. 16

II. Participation in the 1998 National Elections............................................................................................ 17

III. Knowledge of Registration and Balloting................................................................................................. 18

IV. Experience of Difficulties During the Process from Registration to Elections.................................... 20

A. Experience of the Registration Process................................................................................................................ 20

B. Perceptions of Danger and Fear during the Elections........................................................................................... 21

C. Perceptions of Monitoring During the Election................................................................................................... 23

D. Experience of Difficulties during the Polling........................................................................................................ 25

V. Influences on Voting Behavior...................................................................................................................... 26

A. Secrecy of the ballot............................................................................................................................................. 26

B. Need for advice on how to vote............................................................................................................................ 26

C. Intimidation.......................................................................................................................................................... 28

D. Vote buying.......................................................................................................................................................... 30

E. Obligations to vote in a particular way................................................................................................................. 32

VI. Voting Rights................................................................................................................................................... 34

VII. Consequences of the Vote............................................................................................................................ 37

A. Knowledge of the elected representative.............................................................................................................. 37

B. Awareness of benefits to the community from the election................................................................................. 39

VIII. Commune level elections............................................................................................................................ 41

A. Voter awareness................................................................................................................................................... 41

B. Sources of information.......................................................................................................................................... 42

C. Secrecy.................................................................................................................................................................. 43

IX. Candidates for the Commune Council elections...................................................................................... 45

A. Political party candidates..................................................................................................................................... 45

B. Political party members elected to commune level office..................................................................................... 45

C. Candidate lists...................................................................................................................................................... 46

D. Candidates from villages....................................................................................................................................... 47

E. Rights of women and poor to be candidates......................................................................................................... 48

X. Expectations for Commune Councils........................................................................................................... 50

A. Community needs................................................................................................................................................ 50

B. Limits on the Commune Council.......................................................................................................................... 51

C. Accountability of elected commune officials........................................................................................................ 52

XI. Voter Education............................................................................................................................................... 54

A. Broadcast media................................................................................................................................................... 54

B. Print media............................................................................................................................................................ 56

ANNEX..................................................................................................................................................................... 65

Abbreviations............................................................................................................................................................. 66

Provinces and Districts Selected for the Impact Survey............................................................................................ 67

English Version of the Questionnaire......................................................................................................................... 69

Khmer Version of the Questionnaire.......................................................................................................................... 84

IMPACT SURVEY OF VOTER KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS

Introduction

One specific aim of this Impact Survey was to test whether any changes in awareness and perceptions had occurred among voters since the National Elections of 1998. This test involved a comparison with the findings of our Baseline Survey conducted before the election[1] and included questions on the quality of participation in the elections and the mechanisms of vote-getting.

In this Impact Survey we did not test for changes in attitude toward the participation of women, the poor and the illiterate as voters in elections, since the Baseline Survey showed overwhelmingly positive support for the voting rights of these citizens, which is unlikely to decrease.[2] We did, however, pose questions in the Impact Survey about the ability of these categories of citizens to serve in elected commune office.

We did retest voter attitudes toward the voting rights of ethnic minorities. The Impact Survey aimed to determine if the experience of the voter education campaign had any impact on the very large percentage of “don’t know” responses to questions about the rights of these categories of people in the Baseline Survey.

In the Impact Survey we also compared pre-election expectations and actual experience in regard to difficulties and influence on the electorate associated with registration or voting. We also considered voter knowledge of their elected officials, following up on questions in the Baseline Survey.

Early interim results of this Impact Survey were made available to Cambodian voter education and development NGOs and to election monitoring organizations in late 1999 and early 2000. We were able to bring our Survey findings to the civil society groups that were formed in the Fall of 1999 to discuss the drafts of the Commune Council Administration law that were currently being deliberated in the Council of Ministers. The results of our research were able to inform the efforts of these civil society organizations at a crucial time as they attempted to consult with government officials regarding the process of decentralization reflected in the formation and function of elected commune councils.

In accord with the original design of the project, an important workshop was held in February 2000 at which the results of our Impact Survey were presented and discussed in Khmer (with simultaneous translation in English). The workshop was held jointly with COFFEL, COMFREL and NICFEC who also presented their findings on the specific topic of voter preferences for election mechanisms to form commune councils. The event attracted a number of participants from the National Assembly and Senate, spokespersons from the Ministry of Interior, and a large audience from embassies, from international organizations and from NGOs and the public.

One of the results of the workshop was to bring public attitudes, gathered at the grassroots by means of social research, into a high profile discussion with government officials that received considerable TV attention. Another result of the workshop was to raise the issue of the kind of voter education campaign that would be required, once the Commune Laws were finalized, in order to meet the needs of the electorate to participate in these local elections with understanding.

Methodology

The Impact Survey instrument was developed in English and Khmer, using the Baseline Survey as a guide, especially where follow-up questions were concerned. The written questions were composed in a brief, simple language to avoid problems of formality and status that are encoded in literary Khmer. The CAS team of trained survey researchers was especially sensitive to the need to avoid “translating,” or elaborating on the written questions, when dealing with illiterate respondents.

We utilized “semi-open” questions by which respondents were asked to volunteer examples or instances in the order that came to mind, while the researcher prompted the respondent to give more examples. These replies were pre-coded and entered by the researcher on the questionnaire. The pre-codes were generated by means of an extensive pretest of the instrument. (The Khmer and English versions of the instrument are attached in the Annex.)

Our sample came from seventeen Provinces and Municipalities and included respondents from fifty-six districts/khan. Extensive census had not yet become available when we designed our research, so we used the preliminary data included in the Demographic Survey of Cambodia, (1996),[3] as we had done for the Baseline Survey.

Representative quota samples were constructed as far as possible on the basis of the Demographic Survey, using categories of gender, age and rural /urban based on the composition of the total population, and applied to the sample in each district selected for study. The sample was obtained from a randomly selected commune by random household calls in rural areas as well as from various sampling points in public urban space, especially markets. Following this methodology, a sample of N=546 was collected in August to October 1999.

As detailed Census information on CD becomes available from the National Institute of Statistics and when commune boundaries are settled after the commune elections, random sampling at khum, phum and krom levels will be more firmly based. It should also be possible to combine survey data with GIS mapping data to produce spatial analyses in studies like these. This a refinement of findings that could be especially useful to future voter education campaigns.

Survey execution was carried out by three teams of five researchers each. The rainy weather and poor road conditions made travel difficult in our 4wd vehicles. This reduced our rate of questionnaire completion, but did not deter us from visiting the often remote communes that had been selected for the sample.

In conducting the Impact Survey, our teams did not face the difficulty we had experienced in the Baseline Survey, in which respondents regarded our questions with suspicion that we were operatives of a political party. The open questions elicited brief but frequent responses from informants, and are summarized in the following report.

The last question of the questionnaire involved a test of recognition of voter education print material. We showed the informant a packet of laminated photographs (5 x 7 inches) of posters, brochures and booklets that had been distributed widely before the elections. We had made a collection of these materials from voter education sources. Each photograph was numbered. We asked respondents whether they had seen the original item during the pre-registration and pre-election period. We found respondents were very conscientious in examining each of the forty-two photographs to recollect if they had seen the item or not. The photographs often attracted a group around the informant and the so the response elicited may reflect a more general awareness of the print material than that of an individual respondent. But we felt that the response given could still be very useful to ascertain how widely the posters and other materials had circulated among the electorate.

The responses to these photographs enabled us to generate a “voter education awareness” variable. We counted the number of items that each respondent recognized in this set of images. We ranked the respondents from fewest to most items recognized and then divided this ranked list into three approximately equal groups. The groups were then identified as “low,” “medium” and “high” levels of voter education awareness. This variable was then used, along with the demographic variables, to develop interesting cross-tabulations with knowledge, attitude and awareness variables in the survey.

We did not develop an efficient way to test voter recognition of live theatrical, audio or video voter education materials. A high capacity portable computer taken to the field with multimedia recordings of such performance and broadcast materials should make this test possible in the future.

Analysis

We used SPSS for Windows to process the questionnaire data and produce the chart output, as we had done for the Baseline Survey. This made the comparisons of Baseline and Impact findings very straightforward.

To assess the statistical significance of cross tabulated variables we used Pearson chi-square tests. Significance is conventionally cited at the p=0.05 level, p=0.01 level and p=0.001 level. This means that the probability, p, of the association between the variables being due to sampling error is at this level or less. To put it another way, our confidence that the association observed between two variables is not due to sampling error is 95%, 99% and 99.9%, respectively. In this study we note significant associations at the 95% level of confidence and better.

I. Background Demographics

These background variables are presented to show how our closely our sample mirrors the Cambodian population as a whole. We also use several of these demographic variables to test for association with variables concerning voter knowledge and awareness. This analysis can help provide specific recommendations for future voter education campaigns.

A. Rural/Urban

We decided not to use government designations of jurisdictions as the basis for our distinction of rural and urban because the boundaries of the jurisdictions were often not easy to ascertain. Following a procedure we used in our Baseline Survey, our researchers noted whether the community in which respondents were sampled was a rural or urban locale, depending on their consensus.

For the purposes of refining our cross tabulations, where a rural/urban distinction might be interesting and informative, we created a variable derived from a question on whether a respondent were a rice (srae) farmer, garden (chamkar) farmer or neither. The first two represent “rural” respondents or “farmer” respondents and the third represents “urban” or “non-farmer” respondents, for the purposes of this study.

According to the estimates of the Demographic Survey(1996), Cambodia was 85.6% rural and 14.4% urban, based on administrative jurisdictions. According to the results of the Census of 1998, which are now available,[4] the population is 84.3% rural and 15.7% urban. Our sample, according to our researchers judgment of locale, was 85.9% rural and 14.1% urban. Our sample, according to primary occupation, farmer versus non-farmer, was 79.3% rural (farmer) and 20.7% urban (non-farmer).

B. Gender

The proportion of men to women of voting age (³18) which can be derived from 1998 Census tables is 46.6% males to 52.2% females. Our sample of 43% males to 57% females over-represents women slightly. One reason for this is that during the day in village Cambodia many of the men are working in the fields. As security and road conditions improve it should be easier to visit remote villages in the evening, which would improve sampling of all relevant household members.

C. Age

According to Census tables, Cambodians of voting age (³18) comprise 49.4% of the total population. The age distribution of our sample, which was designed to obtain quotas for each age category, conforms fairly well to the distribution of ages of voting age persons that can be derived from Census tables. Middle aged voters are slightly over-represented and the youngest and oldest voters are slightly under-represented in our sample.

Age cat.

18-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65+