Dignity Analysis: Insights from Afrobarometer and Arab Barometer Surveys

Research into dignity shows that people value being treated in a way that respects their dignity, and that when they are, it unlocks other benefits. So, how does people’s experience of being treated in a way that respects their dignity vary around the world? We (IDinsight’s Dignity Initiative and students from the University of Chicago Harris School’s MPP program) analysed people’s experiences of dignity and respect in Africa and the Middle East, drawing on new analyses of dignity-related questions in the Afrobarometer Round 9 (2021-2023) and Arab Barometer Wave 8 (2023-2024) surveys. These datasets offer nationally representative samples across 39 African countries and 8 countries in the Middle East and North Africa, respectively, with approximately 1,200-2,400 respondents per country. While not designed exclusively to measure dignity, these surveys contain relevant proxy indicators, particularly questions about respect in interactions with public officials in Afrobarometer, and perceptions of the essential “pillars” of dignity in Arab Barometer. This work builds on previous analysis of Afrobarometer Round 7 data, reported in the Dignity Report 2021, as well as other comparative explorations of dignity across countries we have undertaken. 

1. Disrespect for dignity is common

Around a third of all public service interactions across Africa are disrespectful of dignity, according to Afrobarometer’s data. 

• 39% of those who sought a government identity document say they were treated with little or no respect by service providers.
• 36% of those who sought medical care say they did not feel respected
• 26% of those who contacted a public school say they did not feel respected
• 34% of all respondents say their country’s police rarely or never “operate in a professional manner and respect the rights of all citizens.”

As the Afrobarometer team have themselves argued, there is a promise of dignity and respect in public services that is not being fulfilled. 

2. Geography significantly influences dignity experiences

Consistent with our previous work, geographic context continues to shape dignity experiences substantially. The analyses reveal significant cross-national variations in reported respect from government officials, healthcare workers, and teachers. Some countries consistently appear among those with lower reported respect (e.g., Gabon, Namibia), while others maintain higher reported respect levels across different interactions (e.g., Cabo Verde, Seychelles, Madagascar). That at least partly matches experiences in Afrobarometer Round 7 (2017-2018), which also showed lower reported respect in Gabon and higher respect in Cabo Verde. 

Urban/rural location also matters. Individuals in rural areas reported higher levels of respect from public officials than urban residents. This finding emerged despite rural areas typically having fewer services and higher poverty rates. It may be that public services are genuinely more respectful in rural areas. One other potential explanation we might grapple with involves expectations—urban residents may have higher standards for respectful treatment, leading to more perceived disrespect when those expectations aren’t met. This may be an area for further investigation, including developing methods to understand people’s expectations of how they should be treated.

3. Dignity must be understood as multidimensional with resource access as foundational

The Arab Barometer data reinforces that dignity comprises multiple dimensions. When presented with six potential “pillars” of human dignity (equality under law, absence of corruption, basic necessities, free elections, safety from physical danger, and civil rights guarantees), respondents overwhelmingly rated all six as “very essential” or “somewhat essential.”

However, economic circumstances significantly influenced which pillar respondents identified as most important. Those with lower food security or financial stability were approximately 60% more likely to select “basic necessities” as the primary pillar of dignity. As socioeconomic status improved, respondents shifted toward governance-related pillars (equality under law, free elections, civil rights). As Alicia Ely Yamin has argued, dignity and development are deeply intertwined, not separate or conflicting goals.

4. Social expectations are essential to understanding dignity experiences, and are more important than raw demographic privilege

Gender differences emerged, though not always as expected. In Africa, women reported feeling significantly more respected by public sector workers than men, particularly in interactions with government officials. In the Middle East and North Africa, women more frequently prioritized basic necessities and safety compared to men, who selected governance-related pillars more often.

Educational attainment showed a similarly unexpected pattern. People with at least secondary education reported less respectful treatment than those with less education. This again suggests expectations may play a crucial mediating role—more education potentially correlates with higher awareness of rights and standards for respectful treatment.

5. Interaction context matters for dignity experiences, but service quality matters more than mere presence

In the African context, respondents consistently reported lower levels of respect from government officials compared to teachers/school officials and healthcare workers. This pattern held across countries, suggesting systematic differences in how dignity is experienced across institutional contexts, with government offices potentially being particularly problematic spaces. We know that each of these institutions could do better, because there is nothing fixed about dignity experiences, and different institutions can do better or worse over time – just as the experiences of medical care in the United Kingdom have evolved over the years, as we noted in previous analyses.

People reported feeling less respected as the difficulty in accessing services increased. However, the analysis found no meaningful relationship between respect and the number of services or facilities available. This suggests dignity experiences respond more to the ease and quality of service access rather than simply their existence. This finding highlights the importance of assessing service quality, reliability, and continuity in understanding dignity violations.

Conclusion

Dignity varies by place and by other factors. That is a finding that has emerged across multiple cross-sectional analyses, but which is undervalued in a literature that too often treats dignity as fixed and global. These types of cross-sectional analyses are a missing piece in the research agenda for dignity. They complement and deepen our understanding of how dignity is experienced. This is a crucial complement to our research on effective interventions and ‘what works’ to better respect dignity in many contexts.

The full datasets and statistical analysis code are available here for researchers interested in more detailed methodological information and findings.