A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

Table 23:
Indicators chosen for the dimension on governance
DIMENSION
GOVERNANCE
INDICATORS
institutional relations with citizens
non-discrimination in rights
rule of law
social services
civic dialogue and public consultation in decision-making process
Table 24:
Scoring scale for the indicator on “Institutional relations with citizens”
SCORINGS
DEFINITION OF SITUATIONS
0 – nothing Absence of communication between public authorities and citizens as well as absence of aid efficiency,
corruption and favouritism
1- Very bad situation Information on public services superficial and/or wrong, disinterest from public authorities towards
citizens, absence of aid efficiency, corruption and favouritism, high local taxes
2 – Bad situation Information on public services superficial and/or wrong, disinterest from public authorities towards
citizens, lack of public consultations, bureaucracy and long waiting-time for aids, corruption, favouritism,
reduced capacities of public officers, high local taxes
3 – Average situation Correct and complete information but lack of transparency for decisions, disinterest, formal organisation
of public consultations, long waiting-time for aids, equal access for everybody, reduced capacities of
public officers, high local taxes
4 – Good situation Information with transparency for decisions, public authorities open to citizens, organisation of public
consultations with support for citizen participation, bureaucratic simplification, equal access for
everybody, good capacities of public officers, reasonable local taxes
5 – Ideal situation Information with transparency for decisions, citizens’ opinions are taken into account. Public authorities
interested and proactive for citizens participation, bureaucratic simplification, on-line services, equal
access for everybody, good capacities of public officers, reasonable local taxes
In the third phase, the indicators and the scoring
scales were validated by citizens groups. Statistical
and objective data were then collected, as well as
citizens’ perceptions. At the end of this process,
citizens were also asked to reflect critically on any
missing and/or misleading information in order to
identify any supplementary data needed.
Key actors/stakeholders
This tool rests on a collective definition of
“well-being” and on a shared understanding of
how progress in well-being can be measured in a
joint manner, involving different population
groups. As such, different categories of actors can
intervene in the different phases of the process
(formulation of well-being criteria, validation of
well-being criteria, and evaluation of the wellbeing
indicators in each location): groups of young
people, elderly people, housewives, people with
disabilities, migrants, members of a particular
ethnic group, entrepreneurs, civil servants,
representatives of associative structures, women,
and low-income groups. The meetings with
citizens can be facilitated by local groups of
researchers and students, for instance.
Results reporting format
Objective and subjective information is reported in
the column corresponding to the evaluation (from
0 to 5) and comments can be included for each
100 UNDP Oslo Governance Centre