A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

Voices from the Trenches
2
2.1 Choosing an appropriate assessment
framework
The most common issue raised by almost all of the
interviewees is the limited number of assessments
carried out to date and the associated lack of a
robust, comprehensive and tested methodology
for local governance assessment. There was a
consensus that the frameworks currently used for
local governance assessments are not really
normative systems for “good” or “democratic” local
governance. Instead, there are diverse and
sometimes weakly integrated “compilations of
preferences and values”. Despite an increasing
emphasis on democracy in the discourse on local
governance, there is still an absence of tested
indicators for the organization of political
parties and for mechanisms of accountability and
responsiveness at the local level. It is noteworthy
that most national associations of local
governments do not yet promote particular
normative frameworks that would serve as the
foundation for their development work at the
local level.
Good practice checklist
• Define the specific purpose, focus and expected
scope of the entire assessment process.
• Map key stakeholders and identify their needs,
preferences and interests in local governance
assessment.
• Ensure focus, while facilitating incorporation of
a holistic concept of governance (i.e. not only
formal structures and services, but also on
processes and relationships).
• Derive the assessment objectives from the
local development needs and the strategic
policy agenda.
• Ensure that there is a focus on the needs of the
poor, women, children and other disadvantaged
groups. Use all opportunities (and create new
ones) for integrating pro-poor and gendersensitive
measures – without which the
assessment will not serve as a basis for
equitable local development.
2.2 Dealing with complex methodologies
There was widespread concern amongst those
interviewed that there are “too many indicators
floating around” and “too many offers to local
authorities”. The proliferation of indicators created
a situation in which local stakeholders are flooded
with proposals for different assessments. Each time
there is an argument that a particular set of
indicators is the most important and that its
application should be prioritized over all other
governance assessments. Experts and international
organizations also often send mixed signals on
what the very notion of governance represents. As
a result, local stakeholders may find it difficult to
reconcile between different approaches and
derive meaningful conclusions for follow-up
actions and development strategies. The
multiplicity of sources of indicators and the relative
divergence of methodological approaches
sometimes lead to confusion, inefficient use of
scarce capacities and “fatigue” with governance
assessments.
Sometimes, when concepts related to governance
are explained in a too simplified manner there is a
danger that local stakeholders start to believe that
“almost anything can be assessed” (and, primarily,
by quantitative measures). The challenge of
agreeing on what to assess is also connected to the
complexity of the concept of governance. The
focus can be placed on outputs, relations,
perceptions, means and tools for service delivery.
Nevertheless, assessments often need to
incorporate a combination of different focuses. A
critical challenge is to agree on what dimensions
(or combination of dimensions) should be
considered relevant and prioritised.
The most successful methodologies are those that
have a high degree of transparency: in the process
A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance 27