A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

How to use the Source Guide
The following Guide includes 22 assessment methodologies for decentralised governance. These
methodologies have been compiled to provide users with a resource to draw on for developing new
assessment tools or for adapting existing assessment approaches to specific contexts. The sources are
grouped into three categories:
1 Comprehensive local governance assessment approaches based on multiple stakeholder perspectives
2 Local governance assessments based on citizen (or single stakeholder) perspectives
3 Local governance and performance self-assessments by local government institutions
The matrix below summarizes the main features of each tool, and can be used to narrow down a subset
of tools offering the best ‘fit’ for a given assessment context. This selection process can proceed in three
steps:
1 First, users need to clarify the scope of their assessment and select one of the three categories of tools
listed above. For instance, in settings with a poor functioning democracy at the local level or in a
context in which the decentralisation process has only recently started, users may want to focus on
the third category of tools assessing local government performance, instead of registering low scores
on almost all aspects of local democracy measured by tools of the first category.The point here is that
not all democratic governance deficits can be addressed simultaneously therefore it is important to
identify priority areas to focus on, and select a tool accordingly.
2 Second, users can refine their search within any of the three categories of tools by examining various
features of each tool (such as financial and time investments required, specific purpose served by the
tool, data sources used by the tool, main stakeholders involved, and poverty/gender focus). Based on
these features, users can identify the two or three tools which seem to be most appropriate to their
assessment needs and to the local context.
3 Users can then flip directly to the more detailed profiles of these shortlisted tools and make their final
selection.
The summary matrix has a column on “cost/benefit analysis” to help users select a tool that is
appropriate for the capacity level of local stakeholders and that matches the timeframe and financial
resources available for the assessment. Every instrument can be used more or less intensively including
more or less primary data collection, while more primary data collection might be required in “data-poor”
settings. Nevertheless certain methodologies will be more expensive and time consuming than
others (but likely to generate more reliable results), while others will be quicker and less costly (but
generating results that are more ‘indicative’.)
The purpose of the assessment will also influence the choice of instrument: is the objective of the
assessment to inform policy makers, or is it also (or mainly) meant to serve as a learning/capacity
development effort contributing to an improved dialogue between local government and citizens? The
summary matrix has a “purpose” column which distinguishes between 1) “diagnostic” to inform
policymaking and priority-setting, and 2) capacity development to facilitate engagement of citizens in
governance processes.
46 UNDP Oslo Governance Centre