A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

for union parishads (UPs) comprise a range of
governance indicators, as shown in Table 1.
However, more commonly MCAs can be matched
with performance measurements (PMs) as a twin
element in tying funding to performance. Rather
than determining absolute access, PMs determine
supplements to (or subtractions from) the basic
allocation amount, based on more qualitative
measures of past performance. UNCDF experience
has shown that the use of PMs can provide a
powerful incentive for building LG capacity and
improving LG performance. A good example is
Uganda, where a transparent formula, based on
eight performance measurement themes (such as
“Communication and Accountability Performance”,
“Gender Mainstreaming Performance”, “Procurement
Performance”, etc.) comprising 24 indicators was
used to allocate central government grants to local
governments. Performance on each set of
indicators is scored and used to determine
whether the local government is eligible for
a 20% top-up, a 20% reduction, or simply the basic
allocation derived from the formula (see page 124
of the Source Guide).
The measurement of governance performance
also helps to identify deficiencies in the internal
management of local government. Such measures
provide a practical means to identify those local
governments in need of special assistance in
capacity building. In many countries central
government support for capacity-building in local
governance is limited by shortage of financial and
human resources. Such measures enable training
bodies to allocate these limited resources in a
more efficient manner by concentrating efforts on
the poorer performing local governments. Such
assessments also provide evidence to identify
those high-performing local governments, which
may play a supportive role in ‘knowledge
transfer’ and technical assistance to their weaker
counterparts.
1.13 Institutional opportunities for policy
uptake
Irrespective of the particular area for which the
results of an assessment may be used, reformers
face a major challenge to ensure that policy uptake
actually occurs and that it is sustained. They must
ensure that the political space is secured for these
new policy initiatives, that they are not seen as
threatening to powerful stakeholders, so that they
can be endorsed. UN-HABITAT 22 has identified a
range of institutional mechanisms that strengthen
local governance by promoting transparency and
accountability. Some of these provide convenient
‘entry points’ by which the assessment results of
local governance performance can be fed into the
policy-making arena. These include:
Public meetings and public hearings: In some
countries, especially in Latin America, the local
government executive head is required by law to
convene open public meetings as a mechanism to
improve downward accountability. Regular public
meetings tend to focus on budgetary concerns
while public hearings may be convened to debate
issues for which controversy exists, such as new
municipal investment projects. As well as
Table 1:
Minimum Conditions of Access (MCA) in Bangladesh
Minimum Conditions of Access
Indicators
Transparency, Accountability & Fulfilment of Basic Functions • UP meetings held in UP offices (not chairperson’s house!)
• Past FY accounts inspected and approved
• Minimum effort at local tax collection
Involvement of Elected Women Members • Women members invited to UP meetings and involved in
UP committees – LG circular
Project-Specific Conditions • Establishment of ward & union development committees to
widen public input into UP planning, budgeting and monitoring
Source: Shotton (2005) Delivering the goods: Building local government capacity to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.
A practitioner’s guide from UNCDF experience in least developed countries.
22 UNDP Oslo Governance Centre