A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Gender focus A specific attention is given to the gender aspect of social exclusion in the region due to the particularly bad conditions of women’s access to assets, poverty and political representation, together with higher levels of poverty and unemployment amongst women than for men. As a result, the questionnaire aims, at a minimum, to consider the situation of women in economic and political participation, and how they relate to the functions and services of the municipality. Questions have been included in the questionnaire to assess the ability of the municipal administration to implement gender-mainstreaming measures efficiently. Questions also cover specific actions, such as encouraging women to apply for vacancies, and measures to increase the number of women in public and private decision-making bodies, and the quality of their participation (e.g. “Does the municipal administration use any of the following special methods (Interviews with individuals, Specially targeted surveys, Focus group discussions, Advisory panels, Working groups or Committees, Separate public meetings) to ensure that women, minorities and typically socially excluded groups are participating effectively in public consultations regarding drinking water supply, liquid waste management, solid waste management, basic healthcare, and primary education?”, or “If there are specific guidelines / procedures covering the integration gender and human rights issues into policies, strategies, and services, to what extent are they actually implemented with respect to drinking water supply, liquid waste management, solid waste management, basic healthcare, and primary education?”). Poverty focus The tool explicitly focuses on the capacity of municipal administrations to deliver services to all sectors of the community, in particular those members of the community facing increased risk of poverty and social exclusion. The questionnaire therefore includes questions that directly address the accessibility of public services to these groups (women, ethnic and religious minorities, old people, people with disabilities, migrants, etc.) with respect to their needs, their participation in defining these services, and their participation in service delivery (e.g.“Which of the following issues are important when selecting service delivery partners: Partner’s services meet pro-poor requirements (affordability), regarding setting of tariffs, users fees, payment methods etc.”). Strengths • The capacity assessment exercise is not conceived to be a measurement tool per se, but to be followed by the implementation of capacity response strategies on the ground. • The questionnaire is intended to be used as it stands. Thus there should be no need for significant modification. Nevertheless, if it is considered desirable and feasible, some supplementary questions formulated by the assessment team may be added or may be taken directly from the list of supplementary questions annexed to this user guide. Weaknesses • The methodology is limited to services that are delivered exclusively by municipalities, and to a lesser extent, services that are delivered with the involvement of other service delivery organisations. It does not cover services for which municipalities have no responsibility, or for which they have minimal responsibility. Thus, in some countries, the methodology may not cover all five of the above services, where municipalities have little or no involvement the delivery of one or other of these services. • A wide range of human and institutional resources are required to manage, implement and follow-up the capacity assessment exercise: UNDP country offices, national central, regional, and local administrations, associations of municipalities, national, regional, and local NGO, citizen representatives, national public administration academies, EC Delegations, independent experts, etc. Coverage It is envisaged that all the municipalities of Turkey and the Western Balkans will be covered by the survey. Timeline 2008. On-going. 148 UNDP Oslo Governance Centre
Where to find it Users’ Guide & supplementary questions: http://europeandcis.undp.org/cd/show/68567553-F203-1EE9- B0F61CC5775E3F9E Capacity assessment questions: http://europeandcis.undp.org/cd/show/B1FC1F8E-F203-1EE9-B06F342DB5E4E9C9 Contact details UNDP RBEC Bratislava Regional Centre Mailing address Grosslingova 35 811 09 Bratislava Slovak Republic Telephone: +421 (2) 59337 111 Fax: +421 (2) 59337 450 E-mail: webeditor.rbec@undp.org A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance 149
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 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: Table 43: Two examples of questions
show all

A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?