A Users' Guide to Measuring Local Governance

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5 Indicators of Local Democratic Governance Producer Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative of the Open Society Institute, in partnership with the Tocqueville Research Center History The Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative (LGI), and the Tocqueville Research Center (T-RC), Budapest initiated a project titled “Indicators of Local Democratic Governance” in 2000. The project aims to help decision-makers and researchers to assess and explain the state of local democracy in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, which have adopted new local government structures since the fall of communism in 1989-90. Objectives The Project aims to help decision-makers and researchers assess and explain local government performance.The overarching goal of the Project is to develop a set of operational, flexible, and adaptable indicators based on internationally recognized definitions of local democracy and governance. It is a monitoring programme that offers comprehensive, longitudinal and crossnationally comparable information on local democratic governance in Central and Eastern Europe. Specifically, the Project aims to: • generate original survey data and collect other relevant statistical data; • regularly report on the state of local democracy in Central and Eastern Europe; • disseminate results and standardized datasets to inform developmental and policy reform initiatives. Applicability The Indicators of Local Democratic Governance have mainly been developed for use by countries of Central and Eastern Europe, but can in fact be used by any country in transition.They can be used to compare the progress of local democratic governance within the same country, or amongst different countries. Types and sources of data used Data are collected using three types of surveys, which use both objective and subjective information: the Local Government Survey (LGS), the Local Representative Survey (LRS), and the citizen survey. The questionnaires were developed on the basis of the paper “The Indicators of Local Democratic Governance Project: Concepts and Hypothesis” (see supplementary tools/guidelines). The LGS collects factual information about the activities of local government and the organisation of civil society. The survey includes questions related to the administrative staff, the budget, the decision-making process, polices, democratic activities and local governments, local parties, local civil society, local media, local social life, etc. The LRS survey focuses on elected representatives’ perceptions on local government performance. It provides an assessment of the relationship between local government and the citizens. The LRS investigates relations of trust and power within the political elite, party and NGO membership, as well as the respect of democratic values. The citizen survey address almost all issues examined in the two other surveys. Methodology The project uses a wide variety of variables to gauge the variance of local governance performance on the one hand, and its roots in economic, political, legal, cultural and social factors on the other: 74 UNDP Oslo Governance Centre
Local governance performance measurements include the following 5 aspects: 1 Policy-Making Performance: Informed and Coordinated Decisions 2 Democratic Performance: Openness and Fairness 3 Policy Implementation: Effectiveness 4 Responsive Performance: Satisfaction and Goal Congruence 5 The Level of Service Provision as a Performance Measurement Explanatory variables for local governance include the following: 1 Characteristics of the local government system (budget, etc.) 2 Local institutions (media, civil society, political parties) 3 Local political culture (citizen participation in politics, representatives’ political culture, etc.) 4 Characteristics of the municipality (size, inequalities, socioeconomic development, etc.) Local governance performance 2: Democratic Performance: Openness and Fairness Measures: 1 The transparency of the budget (the specification of some significant items, e.g. the costs of a teaching program; ordinal scale) 2 The existence and transparency of the rules of public purchases. 3 The existence and sophistication of rules regulating public access to local government documents 4 The number and comprehensiveness of local government meetings, hearings and forums and the method of their announcement 5 The existence and power of citizens’ consultative committees that are organized or recognized by the local government 6 Number of copies of free bulletins issued by the local government per 1000 inhabitants 7 Citizens’ answers to survey questions about the importance of good connections and bribery in local government offices 8 Citizens’ answers to survey questions about discrimination (e.g. ethnic) 9 Citizens’ answers to survey questions about the fair-mindedness and helpfulness of local government bureaucrats (All of them are on an ordinal scale) Table 8: Report Outlines – State of Local Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe The State of Local Democracy in Central Europe, 2006 (Bulgaria, Estonia and Slovakia) 1 Introduction (the local government system, formation / structure of local government, project indicators) 2 Autonomous local government (legal, fiscal and political autonomy 3 Constitutional Local Government (civil and political rights, rule of law) 4 Transparent and Accountable Local Government (transparency, corruption, horizontal accountability) 5 Effective local Government (resource control, decision-making capability, output control) 6 Local Elections and Referenda (electoral system, process, results and turnout) 7 Local Parties and Factions (political parties, nomination and endorsement, party activity, factions) 8 Local Representatives (demographic features, political background, social capital, political culture) 9 Responsive Local Government (inclusive decision-making, accessibility of local representatives) 10 Local Media (availability, independence and representation, media in local political life) 11 Local Civil Society Organisations (legal status, CSO in local public life, contacts with local government) 12 Citizens’ Political Culture (political interest and knowledge, local political participation, political efficacy) Each local governance performance variable and each explanatory variable is assessed with several “measures”. For instance, the variable on “democratic performance” is assessed based on the following measures: The data is collected through surveys (administered face-to-face and through mail) targeted at local administrators, elected representatives and citizens. The currently available international database contains the responses of approximately 5,000 local councillors and mayors of the surveyed countries. The Tocqueville Research Center was responsible for the collection of data and generation of results, in collaboration with polling institutions in each country. A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance 75
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 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: Poverty focus Not explicit. The onl
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?