A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance
A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance
A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Summary matrix: Main features of <strong>to</strong>ols profiled in the Source <strong>Guide</strong> (continued)<br />
Tool<br />
Cost-benefit<br />
analysis<br />
Purpose<br />
Information<br />
sources<br />
Lead ac<strong>to</strong>r(s)<br />
applying the <strong>to</strong>ol<br />
Explicit poverty<br />
measures<br />
Explicit gender<br />
measures<br />
Remarks<br />
Approaches based on multiple stakeholder perspectives<br />
1<br />
URBAN<br />
GOVERNANCE<br />
INDEX<br />
(UN-HABITAT)<br />
Quick, cheap and<br />
‘indicative’ findings<br />
(a two-day<br />
workshop can<br />
generate most of<br />
questionnaire<br />
responses)<br />
Both diagnostic and<br />
CD <strong>to</strong> facilitate<br />
engagement of<br />
citizens in<br />
governance<br />
processes<br />
Mainly objective<br />
sources<br />
Both: Internal<br />
municipal staff<br />
(self-assessment),<br />
typically facilitated<br />
by a local<br />
government<br />
association<br />
Both disaggregated<br />
and specific <strong>to</strong> the<br />
poor<br />
Both disaggregated<br />
and gender specific<br />
• Indexation<br />
• Looks more at<br />
institutional aspects<br />
of governance (are<br />
democratic<br />
governance systems<br />
in place?)<br />
• Requires a datarich<br />
setting (urban)<br />
Strengths:<br />
• Universal criteria<br />
(comparability high)<br />
• Quickly identifies<br />
areas of weakness for<br />
further investigation<br />
• Can be applied by<br />
municipality<br />
independently<br />
Weaknesses:<br />
• Not context<br />
specific<br />
• No scores per<br />
stakeholder group<br />
• No perception<br />
data (no quality<br />
statements)<br />
2<br />
LOCAL<br />
GOVERNANCE<br />
BAROMETER<br />
(Impact Alliance)<br />
Either (can be more<br />
or less rigorous &<br />
costly, depending<br />
on resources<br />
available – approx.<br />
3-5 weeks)<br />
Both diagnostic and<br />
CD <strong>to</strong> facilitate<br />
engagement of<br />
citizens in<br />
governance<br />
processes<br />
Both objective and<br />
subjective sources<br />
Both: independent<br />
organisation<br />
facilitating the<br />
assessment, in<br />
collaboration with<br />
local stakeholders<br />
(state and<br />
non-state) and<br />
technical partners<br />
Both disaggregated<br />
and specific <strong>to</strong> the<br />
poor<br />
Both disaggregated<br />
and gender specific<br />
• Indexation<br />
• Looks at<br />
institutional and<br />
relational aspects<br />
(are systems in place<br />
and valuation)<br />
• Can be used in<br />
“data-poor” setting<br />
Strengths:<br />
• Qualitative and<br />
quantitative data<br />
combined<br />
• Context specific<br />
and universal<br />
• Stakeholder<br />
perspective explicit<br />
dialogue<br />
• Web-based<br />
instant scoring<br />
• Weighing of<br />
indica<strong>to</strong>rs and<br />
criteria possible<br />
Weaknesses:<br />
• Requires a lead<br />
agent, trained in<br />
methodology<br />
• Requires minimal<br />
technical<br />
backs<strong>to</strong>pping<br />
• More expensive<br />
than UGI<br />
50 UNDP Oslo <strong>Governance</strong> Centre