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 citizen perspectives 12 CITIZEN REPORT CARDS (Public Affairs Centre, India) Quick, cheap and ‘indicative’ findings Both diagnostic and CD to facilitate engagement of citizens in governance processes Subjective sources Both: Facilitated by independent organization or by a representative consortium of stakeholders; report card is designed by both service providers and users; respondents are users of services (Potentially) both disaggregated and specific to the poor (Potentially) both disaggregated and gender specific Can be applied as Community Score Card as well using focal groups in stead of individuals cost reduction but less reliable Strengths: • Effective diagnostic tool to assess service satisfaction • In combination with UGI/LGB a very strong tool to assess local governance • Applied in many countries Weaknesses: • Assesses actual satisfaction against unknown individual benchmarks (if a publicly known service charter doesn’t exist 13 SOCIAL AUDIT OF LOCAL GOVERNANCE (Bosnia & Herzegovina) Longer, costlier and more detailed/ reliable findings Diagnostic Subjective sources External: Household survey conducted by independent organization No Both disaggregated and gender specific • Combines service satisfaction assessment and local governance assessment Strengths: • Good as diagnostic and monitoring tool Weaknesses: • Still in development (one country application) 14 SOCIAL AUDIT OF GOVERNENCE AND DELIVERY OF PUBLIC SERVICES (Pakistan) Longer, costlier and more detailed/ reliable findings Both diagnostic and CD to facilitate engagement of citizens in governance processes Mainly subjective sources, complemented by some objectives sources Both: Both government officials / service providers and citizens serve as facilitators of the audit and as respondents Both disaggregated and specific to the poor Both disaggregated and gender specific More or less similar to the above Strengths: • Good as diagnostic and monitoring tool • High level of accuracy Weaknesses: • Still in development (one country application) • Costs are very high 15 LOCAL GOVERNANCE SELF-ASSESSMENT (Bangladesh) Quick, cheap and ‘indicative’ findings Both diagnostic and CD to facilitate engagement of citizens in governance processes Mainly subjective Both: Facilitated by independent NGO, with participation by both local government and citizens Both disaggregated and specific to the poor Both disaggregated and gender specific • Narrative report • Mainly a dialogue and CD tool Strengths: • Action oriented Weaknesses: • No indexation – limited comparison possible 54 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 Self-assessments by local government institutions 16 GOVERNANCE FOR LOCAL- DEVELOPMENT INDEX – GOFORDEV Index (Philippines) 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: Facilitated by independent NGO, with participation by both local government and citizens No No Assesses service delivery performance and some aspects of governance (participation) • Indexation • One country only 17 ASSESSMENTS INFORMING PERFOMANCE BASED GRANT SYSTEMS (UNCDF) Longer, costlier and more detailed/ reliable findings Both diagnostic and CD to facilitate engagement of citizens in governance processes Mainly objective sources Either internal or external: assessment can be overseen by central government ministry, or by independent organization. Both disaggregated and specific to the poor Both disaggregated and gender specific • Measures actual performance against national standards. • Linked to grant system (better performance = more money) • Stimulates local accountability • Non participatory 18 LOCAL GOVERNANCE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (Philippines) Longer, costlier and more detailed/ reliable findings Diagnostic Objective sources Internal No Both disaggregated and gender specific • Self assessment tool for LGs • Non participatory • System + performance assessment • Can be used to inform citizens 19 INDEX OF RESPONSIBILITY, TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY (Macedonia) Longer, costlier and more detailed/ reliable findings Both diagnostic and CD to facilitate engagement of citizens in governance processes Objective sources Both: Participation of citizens in designing the instrument; application of instrument mainly by government actors No No • Corruption (resistance) measurement tool • Indexation • Includes service users information • Still in the design stage 20 STANDARDS OF MUNICIPAL TRANSPARENCY (Chile) Longer, costlier and more detailed/ reliable findings Diagnostic Objective sources Mainly internal No Disaggregated data only • Assesses access to information • Can be contextualised • Easy to apply • Does not differentiate for marginalised groups • Assesses presence of mechanisms not their valuation/ quality 21 LOCAL INTEGRITY INITIATIVE (Global Integrity) Longer, costlier and more detailed/ reliable findings Diagnostic Mainly objective sources External: Local country teams composed of well-known experts from national think tanks, universities, NGOs, and media Some indicators are specific to the poor Some indicators are gender specific • Corruption (integrity) measurement tool • Indexation for national level policy making • Tested in various countries • Country specific 22 METHODOLOGY FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CAPACITY OF MUNICIPALITIES IN TURKEY AND THE WESTERN BALKANS TO DELIVER SERVICES (UNDP) Longer, costlier and more detailed/ reliable findings Diagnostic Both subjective and objective sources Both: Steering group composed of both government and non-government actors; respondents mainly government actors Both disaggregated and specific to the poor Both disaggregated and gender specific • Assesses capacity gaps for service delivery at LG level • Self assessment tool, not participatory A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance 55
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 and 60: Summary matrix: Main features of to
Page 61: 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?