A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Summary matrix: Main features of tools profiled in the Source Guide (continued) Tool Cost-benefit analysis Purpose Information sources Lead actor(s) applying the tool Explicit poverty measures Explicit gender measures Remarks Approaches based on multiple stakeholder perspectives 1 URBAN GOVERNANCE INDEX (UN-HABITAT) Quick, cheap and ‘indicative’ findings (a two-day workshop can generate most of questionnaire responses) Both diagnostic and CD to facilitate engagement of citizens in governance processes Mainly objective sources Both: Internal municipal staff (self-assessment), typically facilitated by a local government association Both disaggregated and specific to the poor Both disaggregated and gender specific • Indexation • Looks more at institutional aspects of governance (are democratic governance systems in place?) • Requires a datarich setting (urban) Strengths: • Universal criteria (comparability high) • Quickly identifies areas of weakness for further investigation • Can be applied by municipality independently Weaknesses: • Not context specific • No scores per stakeholder group • No perception data (no quality statements) 2 LOCAL GOVERNANCE BAROMETER (Impact Alliance) Either (can be more or less rigorous & costly, depending on resources available – approx. 3-5 weeks) Both diagnostic and CD to facilitate engagement of citizens in governance processes Both objective and subjective sources Both: independent organisation facilitating the assessment, in collaboration with local stakeholders (state and non-state) and technical partners Both disaggregated and specific to the poor Both disaggregated and gender specific • Indexation • Looks at institutional and relational aspects (are systems in place and valuation) • Can be used in “data-poor” setting Strengths: • Qualitative and quantitative data combined • Context specific and universal • Stakeholder perspective explicit dialogue • Web-based instant scoring • Weighing of indicators and criteria possible Weaknesses: • Requires a lead agent, trained in methodology • Requires minimal technical backstopping • More expensive than UGI 50 UNDP Oslo Governance Centre
Summary matrix: Main features of tools profiled in the Source Guide (continued) Tool Cost-benefit analysis Purpose Information sources Lead actor(s) applying the tool Explicit poverty measures Explicit gender measures Remarks Approaches based on multiple stakeholder perspectives (continued) 3 GOOD GOVERNANCE FOR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT – GOFORGOLD Index (Afghanistan) Quick, cheap and ‘indicative’ findings (suitable to data scarce/post-conflict settings, using readily available sources of objective data) Both diagnostic and CD to facilitate engagement of citizens in governance processes Objective sources Both: municipal representatives, CSOs, private sector Both disaggregated and specific to the poor Both disaggregated and gender specific • Indexation • Applicable in countries emerging from conflicts • Looks more at institutional aspects of governance (are systems in place) Strengths: • Looks more at institutional aspects of governance • User friendly formats Weaknesses: • Still under development 4 LOCAL DEMOCRACY ASSESSMENT GUIDE (International IDEA) Longer, costlier and more detailed/ reliable findings Both diagnostic and CD to facilitate engagement of citizens in governance processes Both objective and subjective sources Both: Assessment teams typically consist of representatives from the national association of local municipalities, the local authority, academia, and civil society Disaggregated data only Both disaggregated and gender specific • Narrative (no indexation) Strengths: • Guiding questions can be integrated into other assessments Weaknesses: • Addresses democracy architecture not really governance • Narrative report, no index no comparison • Requires highly skilled people to analyse 5 INDICATORS OF LOCAL DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE (Tocqueville Research Centre & OSI) Longer, costlier and more detailed/ reliable findings (incl. 3 surveys, one for local government, one for local representatives, and one for citizens) Diagnostic Both subjective and objective sources External: The Toqueville Research Centre in collaboration with a polling company No No • Mainly for countries in transition (Eastern Europe) • Indexation Strengths: • Comprehensive covering various perspectives (cross validation) Weaknesses: • Takes a lot of time and costly • Requires a specialist agent to implement • Difficult for ordinary citizens to be involved (rather technical) A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance 51
Page 1:
A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local
Page 5 and 6:
Contents Acknowledgements Acronyms
Page 7 and 8: Acknowledgements AUTHORS Alexandra
Page 9 and 10: Introduction This Guide is intended
Page 11: 1 Assessments of Local Governance
Page 14 and 15: Decentralized governance for develo
Page 16 and 17: and local specificity. In order to
Page 18 and 19: A critical step in developing an as
Page 20 and 21: Box 5. Key phases in a governance a
Page 22 and 23: achieve the results. These can incl
Page 24 and 25: Gender-sensitivity in governance is
Page 26 and 27: 1.11 Key contextual factors influen
Page 28 and 29: findings of the assessment in ways
Page 30 and 31: for union parishads (UPs) comprise
Page 32 and 33: Box 14. Short-, Medium- and Long-Te
Page 35 and 36: Voices from the Trenches 2 2.1 Choo
Page 37 and 38: governments, and representatives of
Page 39: the assessment - in terms of social
Page 43 and 44: Case Studies 3 The following four f
Page 45 and 46: Case Study 2: Moving from governmen
Page 47 and 48: Case Study 3: Balancing comparabili
Page 49 and 50: Case Study 4: Ensuring uptake of as
Page 51 and 52: References • Aberbach, J.D. and R
Page 53 and 54: Source Guide
Page 55 and 56: The summary matrix also indicates w
Page 57: Summary matrix: Main features of to
Page 61 and 62: Summary matrix: Main features of to
Page 63 and 64: Summary matrix: Main features of to
Page 65 and 66: Table 3: UGI sub-indices and indica
Page 67 and 68: Weaknesses • While the UGI helps
Page 69 and 70: Table 4: Local Governance Barometer
Page 71 and 72: Table 5: Scale to assess local gove
Page 73 and 74: Jean-Michel Dufils, PACT (Madagasca
Page 75 and 76: Table 6: Principles and indicators
Page 77 and 78: Where to find it The initiative is
Page 79 and 80: Table 7: Local Democracy Assessment
Page 81 and 82: Poverty focus Not explicit. The onl
Page 83 and 84: Local governance performance measur
Page 85 and 86: Europe. They have first been used i
Page 87 and 88: Table 9: Methodological Guidelines
Page 89 and 90: 7 Governance Index (Indonesia) Prod
Page 91 and 92: Table 12: Example of form for colle
Page 93 and 94: Where to find it The initiative is
Page 95 and 96: Table 15: MIDAMOS’s themes, indic
Page 97 and 98: Table 17: Grading System Qualificat
Page 99 and 100: Table 18: Framework of module on
Page 101 and 102: Key actors/stakeholders The initial
Page 103 and 104: Table 20: Indicators belonging to t
Page 105 and 106: y the State and the municipality as
Page 107 and 108: 11 Council of Europe’s Guide to D
Page 109 and 110:
Table 25: Evaluation and comments f
Page 111 and 112:
12 Citizen Report Cards (CRC) Produ
Page 113 and 114:
Box 5: Citizen Report Card applicat
Page 115 and 116:
13 Social Audit of Local Governance
Page 117 and 118:
Box 7: Sample indicators for Social
Page 119 and 120:
14 Social Audit of Governance and D
Page 121 and 122:
Box 8: Report extract - The Social
Page 123 and 124:
Table 26: Themes and issues analyse
Page 125 and 126:
15 Local Governance Self-Assessment
Page 127 and 128:
Table 27: EXAMPLES OF KEY ISSUES FR
Page 129 and 130:
16 Governance for Local Development
Page 131 and 132:
Coverage Following the pilot testin
Page 133 and 134:
Table 32: PBGS in Uganda, Tanzania
Page 135 and 136:
Table 34: Nepal - Summary of the st
Page 137 and 138:
Manual for assessment of Minimum Co
Page 139 and 140:
Table 35: LGPMS - perfofrmance them
Page 141 and 142:
Coverage The LGPMS was field-tested
Page 143 and 144:
19 Index of Responsibility, Transpa
Page 145 and 146:
Gender focus Not explicit. Poverty
Page 147 and 148:
Table 39: Dimensions for the standa
Page 149 and 150:
21 Local Integrity Initiative Produ
Page 151 and 152:
Table 42: Integrity Indicator score
Page 153 and 154:
Figure 6: 2008 Scorecard Summary: L
Page 155 and 156:
Table 43: Two examples of questions
Page 157:
Where to find it Users’ Guide & s
show all

A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?