A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

Box 1.
Financial performance systems in the Philippines
The Philippines intends to roll out a national Local Governance Performance Management System and a Local
Government Financial Performance Management System. The first is a web-based, self-diagnostic tool with 107
indicators covering good governance, administration, delivery of social services, economic development and
environmental management.The financial performance system has 14 indicators covering the quality and efficiency of
revenue generation from both traditional and non-traditional sources, the quality and sustainability of expenditures,
and debt management.
Box 2.
Measuring responsibility, transparency and accountability at municipal level in Macedonia
to combat corruption 13
In Macedonia, a methodology for measuring responsibility, transparency and accountability in the local selfgovernment
units was developed with the support of UNDP. This instrument assesses the “vulnerability” of local
governments to unethical and corrupt practices by measuring their resistance to such practices. Compared with
‘traditional’ local corruption assessments measuring the incidence of corrupt practices, which is both politically
sensitive and methodologically challenging, the Macedonian instrument diagnoses the effectiveness of anticorruption
mechanisms in three main areas of competence of local governments: 1) financial management, 2) urban
planning, and 3) public procurement. The data generated is therefore highly “actionable” and policy relevant, which
makes it attractive to local policymakers.
Local stakeholders with responsibility and/or power for tackling corruption had a key role to play in the design of the
instrument. This early involvement of relevant stakeholders was instrumental in securing their ownership of the
assessment process and of the data generated, and in ensuring uptake of results in local policy-making.
Users of public services, including citizens and CSOs, were also consulted in the process of designing the instrument, to
identify corruption “hot spots” based on their experience and perceptions of corruption. Such inputs by citizens in the
design phase allows for the instrument to have a focus on poverty and gender, through the identification of corruption
hot spots of particular relevance to the poor, women and vulnerable groups. Citizens’ participation also enhances the
potential for the assessment to serve as an effective accountability mechanisms between local governments and their
constituencies.
Finally, an assessment of local governance might
focus on a specific sector (health, education,
business environment) or on a specific theme
(human rights, corruption etc). Although these
assessments might not be holistic in covering the
full scope of local governance issues, many of the
good practice principles, in terms of method and
approaches outlined in this Guide, are still relevant.
1.6 Understanding the normative
foundation of assessments
A governance indicator is a measure that shows
the degree of alignment between the actual state
of governance at one point (baseline) and its
desired state at another point (target). In that
regard, indicators are used when there are two
things to compare: what is happening now and
what should be happening. Every governance
assessment is therefore based on certain
assumptions about what is good and what is bad.
This normative bias becomes clear after carefully
examining the emphasis the assessment puts on
different governance principles (e.g. equity,
transparency, accountability) over other
governance principles. .
13
Methodology for Measuring the Index of Responsibility, Transparency and Accountability at Local Level, UNDP Macedonia, 2009
(http://europeandcis.undp.org/governance/show/E0665B63-F203-1EE9-B2237737A3E4BC48)
A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance 9