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 (continued) 6 METHODOLOGI- CAL GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL GOVERNANCE ANALYSIS (UNDP) Longer, costlier and more detailed/ reliable findings Both diagnostic and CD to facilitate engagement of citizens in governance processes Both subjective and objective sources Both: Assessment facilitated by UNDP, in collaboration with local stakeholders (both citizens and local authorities) No No • Indexation • Assesses more the requirements for good governance than the state of governance. In set up similar to LGB Strengths: • Action oriented • Self assessment (no eternal facilitation required) • Can be applied in a “data-poor” environment Weaknesses: • Rather costly 7 GOVERNANCE INDEX (Kemitraan – Partnership) Longer, costlier and more detailed/ reliable findings Both diagnostic and CD to facilitate engagement of citizens in governance processes Both subjective and objective sources Both: Assessment facilitated by an independent research organization, with participation by both state and nonstate stakeholders No Disaggregated data only • Requires country adaptation, as several indicators refer to institutions and practices specific to Indonesia Strengths: • Very comprehensive methodology combining both objective and subjective data sources • Detailed instructions for users and ready-made data collection instruments 8 MEASURING MUNICIPAL PEFORMANCE – MIDAMOS (Paraguay) Longer, costlier and more detailed/ reliable findings Both diagnostic and CD to facilitate engagement of citizens in governance processes Mainly objective sources, potentially complemented with subjective sources Both: Assessment facilitated by an independent organization, with participation by both state and non-state stakeholders No Both disaggregated and gender specific Strength: • Drawing mainly from objective indicators (with precise scoring criteria), makes results “indisputable”. Weakness: • Essentially assessing the existence of municipal mechanisms, legislations or quotas, with limited opportunities for also evaluating the quality of local governance mechanisms 52 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) 9 OBSERVATORY OF DEMOCRACY IN CENTRAL AMERICA (Centro de Estudios para el Futuro) Longer, costlier and more detailed/ reliable findings Diagnostic Objective sources Both: Assessment facilitated by a national research institution, in collaboration with a national steering committee composed of key government representatives No No • Unique in its three-pronged assessment focus on substantive rights (existence of proper legal provision), procedural rights (existence of effective mechanisms to implement these rights) and systemic rights (interactions between legal provisions and other systemic factors such as public budgets, proper institutions and public officials) 10 DESDE Lo Local – Strategic Decentralization for Local Development (Mexico) Longer, costlier and more detailed/ reliable findings Diagnostic Objective sources Mainly internal municipal staff (self-assessment), plus a neutral body to verify the results Both disaggregated and specific to the poor Both disaggregated and gender specific Strength: • The three-color code for presenting results focuses attention on weaker areas within a municipality, and downplays inter-municipality comparisons Weakness: • Relies exclusively on objective data assessing the existence of mechanisms for local governance, but fails to assess the quality of these mechanisms 11 COUNCIL OF EUROPES’S GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING WELL BEING / PROGRESS INDICATORS WITH CITIZENS – APPLICATION OF THE GOVERNANCE MODULE IN TIMISOARA (Romania) Longer, costlier and more detailed/ reliable findings Mainly CD to facilitate engagement of citizens in governance processes Both subjective and objective sources External: multi-stakeholder consultations (with different groups of citizens) facilitated by independent researchers Both disaggregated and specific to the poor Both disaggregated and gender specific • Addresses more social cohesion and “well-being” than underlying governance issues A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance 53
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 and 58: Summary matrix: Main features of to
Page 59: 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?