A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Where to find it http://blgs.gov.ph/lgpms/ Contact details LGPMS National Project Management Team Bureau of Local Government Supervision 3/F A. Francisco Gold Condominium II Mapagmahal Sreet, Diliman, Quezon City. Philippines Phone: (02) 925-1153 or 925-0377 Fax: (02) 928-9181 Supplementary tools/guidelines More information about the tool: http://www.blgs.gov.ph/lgpms/about.php?about1_id=1 Local Governance Performance Management System Users’ Guide: http://www.blgs.gov.ph/lgpms/lgpms_manual.pdf LGPMS database: http://www.blgs.gov.ph/lgpms_live/v1.3d.001/default/login.php 134 UNDP Oslo Governance Centre
19 Index of Responsibility, Transparency and Accountability (Macedonia) Producer UNDP with Macedonia’s State Commission for Prevention of Corruption, Association of Local Self-Government Units, Ministry of Local Self-Government, State Audit Office, and other national actors. History The Index of Responsibility, Transparency and Accountability at the local level in Macedonia (RTA Index) has been developed within the framework of the UNDP project “Fighting corruption to improve governance”. It was created in response to the need for a tool to measure corruption at the local level, within the context of an intensive decentralisation process which confers an increasing number of competencies upon local governments. Objectives The overall objective of this Index is to increase accountability, responsibility and transparency of local governments, which will foster better local governance at the local level. In particular, the Index is designed to make measurable assessments of the capacity of a given institution to combat corruption, by identifying those ‘points’ most vulnerable to corruption, the specific mechanisms that can be used to prevent corruption, indicators measuring the effectiveness of these mechanisms, and criteria to score these indicators. Applicability The Index can be used as a mechanism for self-evaluation by the local government, as a tool used to identify the points that are vulnerable to corrupt behaviour, as a way to increase the level of accountability and transparency of local governments, and also as a solid database about local governance. It has universal features that enable its application to all Macedonian municipalities. With small adjustments to the local context, it could be used in other countries. Types and sources of data used Mainly based on objective information, including available administrative data on budgets, procedures and functions related to the local public administration. Methodology Perceptions from experts and users of municipal services have been used as an important source in the design of the tool, namely to identify corruption “hot spots” which need to be monitored. The Index covers three main areas of competence of local government: urban planning, financial management and property, and public procurement. For each of these areas, the Index identifies four aspects: • 10 to 15 “hot-spots” or “critical points” for corruption in local government, • the corresponding anticorruption mechanisms that can prevent the appearance of corrupt practices • the corresponding indicators of the existence and proper functioning of such mechanisms. • The scoring of indicators based on welldefined criteria Table 37 Presents examples of these four aspects for each of the three thematic areas: The final RTA Index value is obtained by the simple arithmetic average value of the indicator scores. Key actors/stakeholders Although designed in a way that does not require highly specialized skills for its implementation, at the beginning it would be desirable to implement the instrument by a specifically trained agency before local self-government units start their self-evaluation. This should be done in close coordination with municipal authorities in order to A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance 135
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 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
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 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: Coverage The LGPMS was field-tested
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?