A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2 Local Governance Barometer (LGB) Producer Impact Alliance (including PACT; IDASA – The Institute for Democracy in Southern Africa; and SNV – Netherlands Development Organisation). History The Local Governance Barometer was initiated in 2005 during a Local Governance Laboratory in Pretoria, where the three partners active in capacity development for good governance and improved service delivery at the local level identified the need to develop an instrument which will assist them in assessing the state of governance at local level and in identifying capacity needs for improved governance. The initial tool was developed in 2006 and was tested in various countries and settings in Africa. Based on these experiences the tool was revised in 2007 and has since than been applied in more than 10 countries in partnership with local NGOs. Objectives The overall objective of the LGB is to describe, analyse and understand local governance situations, in order to develop the capacity of local actors to promote and sustain good governance and improved service delivery. By applying the instrument in a participatory manner, it is both an assessment and capacity building tool for local level democratic dialogue. In particular, the Local Governance Barometer aims to: • Arrive at quantitative measures for good governance indicators to enable a comparative analysis between different situations, an understanding of the evolution of factors of governance, and to evaluate the impact of interventions; and • Ensure the participation of principal actors during the design of governance models, as well as the collection, processing, and analysis of the information collected. Applicability The LGB can be used in any local governance context with or without reliable quantitative baseline and performance data, to assess (a) how the government delivers its services to the local population, and (b) how the local government relates to citizens and other service providers. It can be used as part of the process of localising the Millennium Development Goals. The universal governance model provided can easily be adapted to different situations and contexts. Types and sources of data used Input data can be qualitative and/or quantitative, subjective and objective, derived from multiple data sources (review of available primary or secondary data and reports, interviews and surveys with sectoral experts, persons well-informed on local and regional governance issues, focal group discussions and citizens at large – relying on a stratified random sample). Data collection is outsourced to local organizations that have the required skills and capacity. The criteria used should ideally provide a combination of criteria measuring the performance of formal mechanisms against national standards as well as criteria measuring the perception of the various stakeholders against their ideal definition of “good governance”. For example, a municipal government in South Africa might allocate itself a high score on “participation” since it has adhered the national guidelines to consult the population before adopting its Integrated Development Plan, while Civil Society might give the same municipal government a low score because the formal consultation exercise was a mere formality and didn’t influence the actual decision-making process. The LGB helps to facilitate a dialogue about the different interpretations of “meaningful participation” between stakeholders. 60 UNDP Oslo Governance Centre
Table 4: Local Governance Barometer: Criteria and sub-criteria Effectiveness 1 Existence of a clear vision and strategic/operational plans 2 Leadership 3 Good management of financial resources 4 Relevant decision-making process based on reliable information 5 Satisfaction of the population vis-à-vis the access and the quality of service delivery Accountability 10 Transparency: accessibility and availability of information related to service delivery, planning and utilisation of resources, achieved results 11 Checks and balances 12 Recourse (existence of objective audits) 13 Government’s responsiveness 14 Integrity Transparency and Rule of Law 6 The existence and application of an institutional legal framework 7 Citizen access to justice 8 The availability and access to information 9 Corruption incidence Participation and Civic Engagement 15 Institutional framework 16 Citizen engagement 17 Civic engagement Equity 18 The existence of a charter or a legal framework recognising the rights of whole citizens 19 Equal opportunity to basic services 20 Equal opportunity to power 21 Equal opportunity to resources 22 Equal opportunity to livelihoods Methodology The LGB introduces a “Universal Local Governance Model” that comprises 22 sub-criteria grouped under five main criteria of good governance: effectiveness, transparency and rule of law, accountability, participation and civic engagement, and equity (see Table 4). Specific indicators with a scoring scale are provided for each one of the 22 sub-criteria (see Table 5). Although this universal model remains valid in any country context, it is essential that it is transformed into a “specific/local model” reflecting the local context and local priorities. The development of the specific model is undertaken by local experts and local stakeholders during an initial workshop. The “local model” is organized like a tree. At the highest level is the Local Governance Index, followed by the 5 main criteria. Under each criterion are the sub-criteria. At the lowest level are the indicators. Depending on context specificities, the local models developed in different countries may vary in terms of the number of levels in the tree. Scores at the lowest level are calculated by comparing real values (data inputs) with reference values (norms, standards, local references). Scores at the higher levels are obtained by an arithmetic calculation of the scores at the lower level using weighing criteria. All scores have the same value range: 0 to 100. The following table presents two examples of indicators developed for the Anosy Region in Madagascar. A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance 61
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 65 and 66: Table 3: UGI sub-indices and indica
Page 67: Weaknesses • While the UGI helps
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?