A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Coverage At the beginning of 2008, the self-evaluation had been undertaken by 464 of the 2440 Mexican municipalities. Only 57 municipalities, out of 464, have reached a “green”evaluation for all 39 indicators. Timeline Pilot project undertaken in 26 municipalities of the Nuevo Leon State between 2002 and 2003. Agenda “Desde lo Local” endorsed in 2004. Nationwide roll-out on-going. Where to find it Agenda “Desde lo Local”: “Descentralizacion Estrategica para el Desarrollo do lo Local”, Programa del Gobierno Federal para el Desarrollo Integral de los Municipios Mexicanos: http://www.inafed.gob.mx/work/resources/LocalContent/8600/1/AGENDA%202008%20III.pdf Database on the Agenda: http://egobierno.aguascalientes.gob.mx/seplade/siglags/Login_datos.aspx Contact details INAFED Roma 41, casi esq. Insurgentes, Col. Juárez, Del. Cuauhtémoc, C.P. 06600 México, D.F. Tel. Conmutador +52(55) 5062.2000 inafedwebmaster@segob.gob.mx Supplementary tools/guidelines Power point presentation on the Agenda Desde lo Local: http://www.iacipgto.org.mx/web/cont/Agenda_desde_lo_local_Felipe_de_Jesus%20_Romo_INAFED.pdf The relevant website of the ISO9001 quality standard to local government (called International Working Agreement 4 – IWA4) is: http://www.gobiernosconfiables.org/queesiwa.html 98 UNDP Oslo Governance Centre
11 Council of Europe’s Guide to Developing Well-Being / Progress Indicators with Citizens – Application of the Governance Module in Timisoara (Romania) Producer Council of Europe, Inter-réseau Européen des Initiatives Ethiques et Solidaires, Territoire Responsable: Groupe de Coordination Timisoara, European Commission. History The Council of Europe published in 2005 a methodological guide entitled “Concerted development of social cohesion indicators”, which sets out the broad concepts and methods and proposes a database of possible indicators. In the wake of this publication, at the suggestion of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, various experiments in applying the principles set out in the guide were carried out at local level, in order to construct indicators of progress / well-being with citizens. In these applications, eight dimensions of well-being were systematically reflected in the criteria put forward by citizens: Feelings (subjective well-being), Social balances, Relations between persons, Access to essential resources, Personal balance, Commitment/participation, Relations with institutions, Living environment. The Well-being Indicators have been used in Timisoara as an experimental application of the guide of the Council of Europe. Given the focus of this guide on decentralised governance, only the governance module of the indicators system developed in Timisoara will be considered. Objectives The well-being indicators aim to foster, among those concerned in a particular area or institution, shared responsibility for the well-being of all and ensure that the parties concerned actually take part in fulfilling this responsibility. Applicability The indicators are applicable to a variety of different local contexts, ranging from municipalities and districts (where citizens are involved in the assessment process to obtain data that are often not available from statistical departments) to school establishments and private companies (to analyse the impact of human activities on well-being.) Types and sources of data used Data (both subjective and objective information) are collected through statistical records, studies, activity reports, well-informed persons and citizens’ surveys. Methodology The Indicators were elaborated and measured through a five-stage process, involving about 250 citizens. In the first stage, different citizens’ categories were organised in small, homogeneous groups of eight to ten people. These groups were invited to consider well-being issues individually (by writing “post it” notes) and then collectively (taking stock of their thoughts together) in light of three simple and completely open questions: 1) What do you understand as “well-being” in Timisoara? 2) What you understand as “ill-being” in Timisoara? 3) What do you do to ensure your own well-being in Timisoara? This generated almost 300 highly varied criteria for well-being. In the second phase, these criteria were pooled and organised according to the main facets of well-being, so as to produce a consolidated, inclusive set of 31 indicators organised along 7 principal dimensions. The following table presents the indicators chosen for the dimension on governance. Each indicator of progress/well-being can be evaluated on the basis of a 5-point scoring scale expressing the existent situation with respect to each indicator: from 0 = very bad situation to 5 = ideal situation. The following table provides an example of such a scoring scale for the governance indicator “institutional relations with citizens.” A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance 99
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 and 102: Key actors/stakeholders The initial
Page 103 and 104: Table 20: Indicators belonging to t
Page 105: y the State and the municipality as
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?