A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

Box 6.
Different stakeholder roles in the Local Governance Barometer (LGB)
A lead organisation is identified in the initial stages of the assessment process for implementing the Local Governance
Barometer (see page 60 of the Source Guide) which is a tool to assess the quality of local governance across five areas
(effectiveness, rule of law, participation/civic engagement, equity and accountability). This organisation plays a vital
role throughout the process, particularly in informing and involving various actors, and in processing the data. Other
stakeholders involved in this process include:
• The ‘client’ (i.e. the local government), also the chief beneficiary. The client defines the assessment’s objectives, and
is responsible for defining priorities as well as drafting the main questionnaire.
• The ‘technical partners’, local actors working in close collaboration with the lead organization. Their role is critical,
particularly in information collection, processing, and validation of results.
• Representatives of municipal officials, civil society, the public and private sectors, consultants, various other
agencies and community/traditional leaders, who are involved in the conceptualisation and development of
questionnaires.
On the basis of the LGB results, local actors are expected to start a participatory process of drafting the action plan and
capacity building designed to improve the quality of local governance.
with the media so that there is media coverage of
assessments is a useful way of informing the
public as is ensuring that the assessment report
and notifications and minutes of meetings are
accessible on the Internet.
What are the challenges of inclusive participation?
There can often be trade-offs between inclusive
and participative approaches, and minimizing
costs and time in getting the assessment
completed. However, inclusive and participative
approaches tend to generate more ownership and
buy-in amongst stakeholders as stakeholders feel
more invested in the results and the results can
also be more sustainable as they have potentially
been subjected to a more rigorous and contested
process.
The selection of stakeholders can also be
challenging. This is especially so when selecting
amongst different CSOs that might be perceived
with suspicion by other stakeholders, particularly
by government.
Given the large number and diversity of potential
stakeholders (in terms of capacities, interests and
mandates) it is recommended that priority is
given to mutually understanding stakeholders’
respective roles and expectations, and agreeing on
the ‘rules’ of stakeholder engagement, including
on such issues as information sharing, the agendas
of meetings, the allocation of roles for meeting
facilitation, the rules for the adoption of decisions
and timeframes for milestones. These measures
can mitigate the potential risk of local elites or
other stakeholder groups ‘capturing’ the
assessment process.
1.8 What kinds of indicators should be used?
Indicators can yield both quantitative and
qualitative data. Governance indicators can be
classified in many ways. Most researchers and
practitioners work with national governance
indicators that measure dimensions such as inputs,
outputs, processes, outcomes, and impact. The
same is true of local governance indicators.
The typical categories of indicators are: 15
• Input indicators measure the financial, human
and material resources required to produce
outputs, and the institutional environment in
which the organization functions.
• Process indicators include the procedures
adopted and actions undertaken in order to
15
UNDP:“Governance Indicators: A Users’Guide”, 2006; Fonseka:“Indicator Tools for Assessment and Analysis of City Governance”, 2000
A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance 13