A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

of design, implementation and dissemination of
results. This is usually enabled by regularly
informing all stakeholders on procedures,
indicators and measurement tools as well as by
involving the media throughout the process.
Indicators are more reliable when the methodology
used to devise them is transparent.
Data collection is another challenge. Weak statistical
capacity of municipalities (and even national
institutions) makes data collection timeconsuming.
Often the necessary data either does
not exist or is not well structured, disaggregated
and/or systematized. The capacity of local data
collectors is rarely adequate because the existing
organizations rarely possess the technical skills
and are not networked. This situation is particularly
problematic when assessments are being done in
more than one municipality (region) at the same
time. Therefore, it is sometimes more effective to
invest resources into training existing individuals
(researchers, officials or activists) or organizations
and so ensure more credible data collection
and analysis.
Good practice checklist
• Make your methodology as transparent as
possible.
• Identify data requirements in advance and
address data problems before they take place
by investing in capacity development or by
adjusting indicators.
• There will never be enough time, money and
people so be cost-efficient and adjust
ambitions to the capacities available.
2.3 Adapting tools to local contexts
Methodologies that are applied through rigid
procedures (in particular, global indexes that have
not or cannot be adapted to the local context)
usually result in “great measurement errors”and do
not give workable results. For this reason,
interviewees highlighted the importance of
continuous adjustments and improvements of
methodologies to the local context – even during
the implementation phase. Appropriate
methodologies are usually those that derive from
“localized solutions” which are based on
identification of well defined characteristics of
local governance that should be measured. For
instance, in the Local Governance Barometer (see
page 60 of the Source Guide), a “universal model”is
transformed into a “local model” on the basis of a
particular understanding of good local
governance by local stakeholders.
Another lesson learned is that the period of
preparation and design (or customization) of a
methodology should be sufficiently long. This
phase should be used as an opportunity for
learning and capacity development and it should
involve as many as possible of the stakeholders to
be later involved in its implementation.
Consultative workshops such as those applied in
the Local Democracy Assessment of International
IDEA (see page 66 of the Source Guide) are a good
method for facilitating design and incorporating
local contextual factors.
Good practice checklist
• Map existing assessment tools (such as those
included in the Source Guide) and select a
methodology that is suited to the purpose of
undertaking the assessment and the
normative foundation.
• Weight pros and cons of different approaches
to assessment regarding implementation
arrangements (external, peer review, selfassessment)
and decide which one is best suited.
• Never underestimate the need for customization
and localization. Give priority to ensuring
conceptual clarity and relevance of the
normative framework to the context-specific
local governance issues.
• Use more than one source of data and
combine various types of indicators (input,
output, process, outcome indicators). No one
kind of data is sufficient to give information on
such complex phenomena as local governance
so integrate objective and subjective
indicators from both primary and secondary
sources.
2.4 Managing a multiplicity of purposes
Identifying and ensuring consensus on the key
purpose of an assessment is a significant
challenge. Often there is a multitude of different
and sometime conflicting purposes due to the
variety of needs of the numerous stakeholders.
Groups consisting of representative of international
organizations, national governments, local
28 UNDP Oslo Governance Centre