A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Table 25: Evaluation and comments for the indicator “Institutional relations with citizens” SCORING EVALUATION 0 – nothing / 1 – Very bad situation / 2 – Bad situation / 3 – Average situation • All public institutions have a programme for relations with the public; 95% of positive responses to requests for public information (national level) • According to the opinion of a juridical officer: institutional mechanisms are formal, to underline the legitimacy of their action; formality, long waiting-time, lack of public officers efficiency and capacities • According the opinion of an handicapped person: more that 30 days to receive an answer to a petition, long waiting-time and to obtain services (authorisation to build); formal organisation of public debates 4 – Good situation • The municipality put on the website all the Municipal Council meetings reports and all the public debates (2007) • 600 people participated to public debates (2007) 5 – Ideal situation / COMMENTS Access to public information: • statistics related to the number of requests to access public information • statistics on public meetings and debates organised by the municipality • information about the extent of citizens’ recommendation included into municipal projects and decisions Citizens said that they lack information related to the quality of public information, to the connection between statistics and reality, to efficiency of authorities to solve citizens’ problems, to the legality of authorisations for construction work, to the number of people sanctioned for violating the law. indicator. Table 25 presents a summary of the evaluation and comments made on the indicator “Institutional relations with citizens”. Gender focus In the case of the application in Timisoara, a specific women group was formed to evaluate all indicators. Poverty focus In the case of Timisoara, a specific Roma group was formed to evaluate all indicators. Furthermore, some indicators take into account the level of family revenues such as the indicator on the purchasing power (access to essential resources dimension). Strengths • These indicators are constantly redefined for each application allowing for a ample adaptation to local situations. • The process proposed to identify and measure indicators is carried out in collaboration with a wide diversity of citizens groups, thus fostering braod-based ownership of the assessment process and results. Weaknesses • For some other dimensions – such as relationships between persons as well as personal and social balance – it is not always easy to identify criteria/indicators. • Specialists are not always used to such a multidisciplinary and extremely participatory approach • Citizens may not always understand statistics, and as a result, they sometimes do not recognise them as a reliable source. A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance 101
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 and 106: y the State and the municipality as
Page 107: 11 Council of Europe’s Guide to D
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?