A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

More documents

Recommendations

Info

10 Desde lo Local (Strategic Decentralisation for Local Development – Mexico) Producer Instituto Nacional para el Federalismo y el Desarrollo Municipal – INFAED History The agenda Desde lo Local is a programme developed by the Mexican Government Secretary (SEGOB), through INAFED, in order to ensure an equal level of capacity and quality of governance across Mexican municipalities. Within the Agenda, a self-evaluation tool has been created, based on 4 categories: 1 Institutional Development for a Good Government 2 Sustainable Economic Development 3 Socially Inclusive Development 4 Environmentally Sustainable Development The initiative Desde lo Local forms part of a wider international initiative for local government performance measurement, based on an adaptation of the ISO9001 quality standard to local government (called International Working Agreement 4 – IWA4), which has been strongly influenced by the UN Local Agenda 21 objectives and gives to the tool a wider acknowledgement. The indicators making up the self-assessment tool were elaborated through several meeting with academicians, representatives of municipal associations and municipal as well as federal officials. These indicators were tested and further refined after the pilot project. levels (national, federal and municipal) in providing specific solutions to the daily problems of citizens and local authorities. The selfassessment tool corresponds to the first step of the Agenda Desde lo Local.The following steps are the verification of the municipal self-evaluation, the proposal and implementation of solutions for areas where indicators scores were low, and the emission of certificates acknowledging municipal improvements. Types and sources of data used Objective data, based on municipal statistics and regulation, administrative data on population, budgets, provisions of public services and procedures. Methodology The entire self-assessment tool is composed of 39 indicators organised in the 4 above-mentioned categories, along with 257 “parameters”. The two categories of Institutional Development for a Good Government and the Socially Inclusive Development include the following indicators: The following table presents an example of the ‘parameters’ and ‘means of verification’ defined for indicator 1.4. on ‘participatory municipality’. There are three levels of evaluation for each indicator: Green = municipal practices of high quality Yellow = municipal practices under acceptable quality; Red = municipal practices not acceptable. The following table provides two examples of scoring criteria based on the “evaluation colours”. Given the focus of this guide on decentralised governance, only the categories on Institutional Development for a Good Government and Socially Inclusive Development are here described. In order to obtain a “green evaluation” for a specific indicator, all the parameters belonging to it must be green. If only one parameter is yellow or red, the indicator will be yellow or red, respectively. Objectives The purpose of Desde lo Local is to provide a diagnostic tool to support the three government The self-evaluation of the municipality is then verified by a third independent entity – such as an academic institution or research outfit, recognised 94 UNDP Oslo Governance Centre
Table 20: Indicators belonging to the categories “Institutional Development for a Good Government” and “Socially Inclusive Development” INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR A GOOD GOVERNMENT SOCIALLY INCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT 1.1 Administration with responsibility and quality 3.1 Municipalities delivering public services 1.2 Municipality associated and interlinked (with other municipalities or government levels) 3.2 Municipality promoting sport and recreational activities 1.3 Municipality with professional system of public officers 3.3 Inclusive municipality (ethnically and socially vulnerable groups) 1.4 Participatory municipality 3.4 Municipality promoting gender equality 1.5 Municipality fiscally responsible 3.5 Municipality responsible for population with possible social risks 1.6 Municipality leader in Civil defence and supporter of a culture of Civil defence 3.6 Healthy municipality 1.7 Municipality provided with internet facilities 3.7 Municipality promoting basic quality education 1.8 Municipality legally compliant 3.8 Municipality with dignified housing 1.9 Municipality observing the rule of law 3.9 Municipality promoting citizenship 1.10Transparent municipality 1.11Municipality with sound finances 3.10Municipality promoting culture and archaeological, historical and paleontological heritage 3.11Municipality responsible for fighting poverty 1.12 Safe municipality Table 21: Parameters and means of verification defined for indicator 1.4 on participatory municipality INDICATOR PARAMETERS MEANS OF VERIFICATION PARTICIPATORY MUNICIPALITY 1.4.1 System of democratic participation Is there a committee for municipal planning? 1.4.2 Number and type of citizen participation bodies Which are the existing commissions and councils in the municipality? 1.4.3 Mechanisms of citizens consultation for the implementation of policies and programmes Are there mechanisms of citizens consultation for the implementation of policies and programmes 1.4.4 Areas or instances promoting citizens participation Are there areas or instances promoting citizens participation? 1.4.5 Collaboration with civil society organisations Are there any means of collaborating with civil society organisations? Of what kind? 1.4.6 The municipality organises citizens consultations for evaluating municipal management Is the municipality organising citizens consultations for the management evaluation? 1.4.7 Mechanisms and bodies for social controllership Are there mechanisms and bodies for social controllership? Of which kind? What is their role? 1.4.8 Procedures for the collection of citizens’ petitions, complaints, denounces and suggestion, with an institutional follow up Are there any procedures for the collection of citizens’ petitions, complaints and suggestions, with an institutional follow up? A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance 95
Page 1:
A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local
Page 5 and 6:
Contents Acknowledgements Acronyms
Page 7 and 8:
Acknowledgements AUTHORS Alexandra
Page 9 and 10:
Introduction This Guide is intended
Page 11:
1 Assessments of Local Governance
Page 14 and 15:
Decentralized governance for develo
Page 16 and 17:
and local specificity. In order to
Page 18 and 19:
A critical step in developing an as
Page 20 and 21:
Box 5. Key phases in a governance a
Page 22 and 23:
achieve the results. These can incl
Page 24 and 25:
Gender-sensitivity in governance is
Page 26 and 27:
1.11 Key contextual factors influen
Page 28 and 29:
findings of the assessment in ways
Page 30 and 31:
for union parishads (UPs) comprise
Page 32 and 33:
Box 14. Short-, Medium- and Long-Te
Page 35 and 36:
Voices from the Trenches 2 2.1 Choo
Page 37 and 38:
governments, and representatives of
Page 39:
the assessment - in terms of social
Page 43 and 44:
Case Studies 3 The following four f
Page 45 and 46:
Case Study 2: Moving from governmen
Page 47 and 48:
Case Study 3: Balancing comparabili
Page 49 and 50:
Case Study 4: Ensuring uptake of as
Page 51 and 52: References • Aberbach, J.D. and R
Page 53 and 54: Source Guide
Page 55 and 56: The summary matrix also indicates w
Page 57 and 58: Summary matrix: Main features of to
Page 65 and 66: Table 3: UGI sub-indices and indica
Page 67 and 68: Weaknesses • While the UGI helps
Page 69 and 70: Table 4: Local Governance Barometer
Page 71 and 72: Table 5: Scale to assess local gove
Page 73 and 74: Jean-Michel Dufils, PACT (Madagasca
Page 75 and 76: Table 6: Principles and indicators
Page 77 and 78: Where to find it The initiative is
Page 79 and 80: Table 7: Local Democracy Assessment
Page 81 and 82: Poverty focus Not explicit. The onl
Page 83 and 84: Local governance performance measur
Page 85 and 86: Europe. They have first been used i
Page 87 and 88: Table 9: Methodological Guidelines
Page 89 and 90: 7 Governance Index (Indonesia) Prod
Page 91 and 92: Table 12: Example of form for colle
Page 93 and 94: Where to find it The initiative is
Page 95 and 96: Table 15: MIDAMOS’s themes, indic
Page 97 and 98: Table 17: Grading System Qualificat
Page 99 and 100: Table 18: Framework of module on
Page 101: Key actors/stakeholders The initial
Page 105 and 106: y the State and the municipality as
Page 107 and 108: 11 Council of Europe’s Guide to D
Page 109 and 110: Table 25: Evaluation and comments f
Page 111 and 112: 12 Citizen Report Cards (CRC) Produ
Page 113 and 114: Box 5: Citizen Report Card applicat
Page 115 and 116: 13 Social Audit of Local Governance
Page 117 and 118: Box 7: Sample indicators for Social
Page 119 and 120: 14 Social Audit of Governance and D
Page 121 and 122: Box 8: Report extract - The Social
Page 123 and 124: Table 26: Themes and issues analyse
Page 125 and 126: 15 Local Governance Self-Assessment
Page 127 and 128: Table 27: EXAMPLES OF KEY ISSUES FR
Page 129 and 130: 16 Governance for Local Development
Page 131 and 132: Coverage Following the pilot testin
Page 133 and 134: Table 32: PBGS in Uganda, Tanzania
Page 135 and 136: Table 34: Nepal - Summary of the st
Page 137 and 138: Manual for assessment of Minimum Co
Page 139 and 140: Table 35: LGPMS - perfofrmance them
Page 141 and 142: Coverage The LGPMS was field-tested
Page 143 and 144: 19 Index of Responsibility, Transpa
Page 145 and 146: Gender focus Not explicit. Poverty
Page 147 and 148: Table 39: Dimensions for the standa
Page 149 and 150: 21 Local Integrity Initiative Produ
Page 151 and 152: Table 42: Integrity Indicator score
Page 153 and 154:
Figure 6: 2008 Scorecard Summary: L
Page 155 and 156:
Table 43: Two examples of questions
Page 157:
Where to find it Users’ Guide & s
show all

A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?