Governance Assessment Methods and
Applications of Governance Data in Policy-Making
Cairo 1-4 June 2009
Assessing Local
Governance
Paul van Hoof
Senior advisor local governance Idasa
[email protected]
1
idasa
Objectives
1.
Introduction to the concept of local governance and its
present dynamics in relation to decentralisation and
democratisation trends
2.
An introduction to the emerging multitude of Local
Governance assessment tools, their relevance and
applicability
Both objectives should help you in taking several critical
decisions around the development of a country specific
strategy regarding local governance assessment and
capacity development.
2
idasa
Objectives
In particular we will address:
•
How to ensure an inclusive process when conducting
an Local Governance Assessment
•
How to guarantee a minimum level of rigorousness in
the methodology selected
•
How to ensure policy uptake at various levels
3
idasa
Local Governance Index
Core model
Participation
Accountability
Rule of Law
Equity
Effectiveness
SA local model
Internal control
Legal framework
Participation
Strategy
External
Accountability
Corruption
incidence
Community
involvement
Oversight role
Transparency
Citizens rights
and duties
Service delivery
standards
Community
Dialogue
4
Legal framework
Vision and plan
Access to Power
Financial
Management
Access to income
and services
HIVAIDS strategy
Community safety
strategy
Data
Decision-making
Satisfaction of
service delivery
Leadership
idasa
4
Average LGB Scores for 16 municipalities in SA
70
Scores
60
50
Councillors
40
Officials
30
CSOs
20
Overall
10
To
ta
l
Eq
ui
ty
Ac
co
un
ta
bi
l it
Pu
y
bl
ic
pa
rti
ci
pa
tio
n
ul
e
R
Ef
fe
ct
iv
en
es
s
of
la
w
0
Governance indicators
5
idasa
Findings from Local Governance Barometer SA
1.
There is a weak relationship between the Integrated
Development Plan, the annual budget and the Performance
Management System at Municipal level.
2.
Councillors (and often administrators as well) are not well
aware about their role and not properly equipped and trained
to fulfil their role effectively.
3.
Rule of law received the lowest overall score and is by Civil
Society seen as a big problem at municipal level.
4.
Information flow from Councils to its citizens regarding matters
that directly affect them is in general very poor.
5.
Participation of communities and citizens is limited to
compulsory consultation moments and not used for genuine
consultation: “we are informed about decisions already taken”.
6
idasa
Local Governance Barometer SA
1.
By comparing stakeholder scores, we were able to detect
differences in perception about e.g. what ideal participation
should look like. This created the starting point for dialogue
between the stakeholders as well as capacity development
identifying priorities and action plans with measurable
benchmarks.
2.
By comparing scores for different municipalities on the main
criteria we were able to unearth underlying capacity gaps and
establish peer relationships between municipalities.
3.
Practical policy advice to the department of Provincial and
Local Government regarding the improvement of public
participation and engagement  Idasa is now involved in a
policy revision process.
7
idasa
Conclusions Local Governance Barometer SA
Most of the Councils face a widening service delivery gap.
Partly explained by increased “consumeristic” behaviour of
citizens.
 Citizens are loosing their confidence in Local Government
as an institution that is able to respond effectively to the
challenges that they as citizens face
 Councils feel strangulated by the amount of regulations and
demands and are even less flexible and able to be responsive
to citizens’ needs.
 The sense that democracy does not work for the poor and
unemployed is growing.
8
idasa
Reasons for decentralisation
1.
Development rationale. Improved service delivery by
increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of public
services
2.
Democracy and good governance rationale.
Decentralization has a potential to promote transparency
and accountability in public administration and to promote
democracy, from both the ‘supply’ and the ‘demand’ side.
3.
Conflict management and peace building rationale.
If people have better development opportunities and their
voice is taken into account, they are less likely to resort to
violence to resolve their grievances.
9
idasa
Types of decentralisation
•
Deconcentration: Transferring responsibilities to field
and subordinate units of government (no distinct legal
entity).
•
Devolution: Transfer of competencies from the central
state to distinct legal entities at lower level. It
acknowledges the importance of local ownership and the
need to adjust planning and resources allocation to
specific local settings or priorities  potential for
downward accountability + active citizen engagement.
10
idasa
Local government
Local government
Government at local level
11
idasa
Functional decentralisation
•
•
•
12
Political decentralisation. The transfer of political and
legislative power and authority to the sub-national level;
Administrative decentralisation. The transfer of
decision-making authority on functional responsibilities
(like planning, implementation, HRM) related to the
delivery of a select number of public services or functions
to the sub-national level;
Fiscal decentralisation. The transfer of funds and
resources as well as the revenue generating authority to
the sub-national level of government.
idasa
Recent trends in decentralisation
From “decentralization of government” to
“decentralized governance” or “democratic local
governance”: the art of governing communities in a
participatory, deliberative and collaborative way to
produce more just and broadly acceptable outcomes.
 more attention in basic service delivery process is
placed on government-citizen relationships, civil society
engagement, public private partnerships, social
accountability, etc.
13
idasa
Democracy challenges
1.
Consumer culture and privatisation
2.
Political disaffection and failures of representation
3.
Technocracy
14
idasa
Governance
Governance: The formation and stewardship of the rules
and institutions that regulate the public realm; the space
where state as well as economic and societal actors
interact to make decisions.
Quality of governance: is measured in terms of how
well various actors (i.e. not only government) handle the
rules and institutions that make up the basic dimensions
of the political regime.
15
idasa
16
idasa
Why is it important to address good governance?
“Good governance is the single most important factor in
eradicating poverty and promoting development”
Kofi Anan.
1.
Quality of governance affects quality of service delivery
(good governance as a means to improve livelihood)
2.
Quality of governance affects legitimacy of the state
(good governance as an end: building local democracy)
17
idasa
Essential characteristics of
“democratic local governance”
UN-Habitat Guidelines on Decentralisation
Strengthening of Local Authorities (April 2007):
and
the
•
Concerted efforts in capacity-building and institutional
reform  strengthening of local authorities.
•
Participation through inclusiveness and empowerment of
citizens shall be an underlying principle in decision-making,
implementation and follow-up at the local level.
•
Local authorities should recognize the different
constituencies within civil society and should strive to ensure
that all are involved in the progressive development of their
communities and neighbourhoods.
•
The principle of non-discrimination should apply to all
partners and to the collaboration between stakeholders.
18
idasa
Essential characteristics of
“democratic local governance” cont’d
•
Representation of citizens in the management of local
authority affairs should be stimulated, wherever practicable.
•
With a view to consolidating civil engagement, local
authorities should strive to adopt new forms of participation
such as neighbourhood councils, community councils, edemocracy, participatory budgeting, civil initiatives and
referendums.
•
Records and information should be maintained and in
principle made publicly available.
•
An increase in the functions allocated to local authorities
should be accompanied by measures to build up their
capacity to exercise those functions.
19
idasa
Why is it important to address good
governance at the local level?




At local level there is direct interaction between
government and citizens
More services are decentralized to the local level
An increasingly larger part of government budget is spend
at the local level
It is at this level where “consumerism” and citizen
dissatisfaction is most apparent on the one hand and
where on the other hand the government (or the state as
an institution) derives a large part of its legitimacy
If local government is not accountable to its citizens or not
responsive to their expressed needs, people will loose trust in
the processes that regulate interaction and ultimately in their
(local) government.
20
idasa
Reasons for
Local Governance Assessments
•
Diagnostic:
For identifying gaps and constraints in local policy
implementation; for identifying specific capacity-building
needs, for evidence based planning on local governance.
•
Monitoring and evaluation:
Monitoring results of capacity building efforts and changes
in governance and for providing an objective account of
achievements of local government, and thus building
accountability.
•
Dialogue and advocacy:
For creating a platform to involve civil society and citizens
in local governance and to empower stakeholders to
demand change based on evidence.
21
idasa
Starting a
Local Governance Assessment 1
1.
There is no use to conduct a comprehensive local
governance assessment if:
–
You know that the decentralised system is not functioning
according to certain minimum standards (i.e. if delivery
mechanisms, basic institutional procedures, planning and
budgeting, staffing, clearly delegated mandates, intergovernmental relations, etc.).  First get the basics in
order and than start addressing governance issues.
–
You are not able to tackle the issues raised and the
capacity needs of the stakeholders involved that emerge
from the exercise. This will only lead to frustration and
dissatisfaction. The drafting of a Capacity Development
plan and a related budget should be part of your strategy
from the start.
22
idasa
Starting a
Local Governance Assessment 2
2.
When we are dealing with Local Governance we need to be
aware that there is not one reality. We are dealing with
different stakeholders with different perspectives and
therefore different expectations
These expectations are often not explicit and sometimes not
realistic. This is why an assessment process is usually a
capacity building process at the same time and a start of a
dialogue process. Which is why it is extremely important to
make the assessment as inclusive as possible.
23
idasa
Starting a
Local Governance Assessment 3
You can’t just copy an assessment tool from other countries,
while you even might have to adjust your instrument to a
regional or local level depending on the geographical
diversity in your country.
3.
This depends amongst others on:
– The extend and level of institutionalisation of devolution
(i.e. local government’s mandate and level of autonomy);
– The existence and actual functioning of democratic
structures and processes (e.g. the extend of the invited
space for citizen participation);
– The capacity of local government in terms of staffing,
resource availability and resource mobilisation;
– The vibrancy and capacity of civil society (including the
media) and the voice of citizens.
24
idasa
Starting a
Local Governance Assessment 4
4.
Governance assessment is not the same as performance
measurement although it is related.
Making it part of a local government performance
management system could undermine the purpose of the
whole exercise to unearth deviances in governance as
municipalities involved will strive to obtain a high score and
not a real score;
5.
Who should own the methodology and the results of the
assessment? Is it a central government issue: curbing bad
governance, is it a Civil Society issue: holding government
accountable or is it a Local Government issue: improving its
own performance?
 who is the leading agent?
 neutral facilitator
25
idasa
Starting a
Local Governance Assessment 5
6.
The driver of the process of Local Governance Assessment
should have its own idea of what “democratic local
governance” ideally means in the specific country context as
this defines the framework and benchmarks against which
you assess the actual situation.
One should then either make clear at the start of the exercise
to all the stakeholders what that “ideal situation” is or include
a collective visioning exercise in the consultation process.
Balance local ownership with comparability.
7.
Be clear on the purpose of the exercise. Is it done to
influence policy making at national level? Is it mainly to
identify actual capacity gaps at local level or is it to initiate an
actual dialogue process at the local level. The purpose
should define the instrument, not the other way around.
26
idasa
Starting a
Local Governance Assessment 6
8.
Guiding question should be: “Why are services not as they
should be?” Revisit the starting question regularly.
9.
Selection of instrument: use resource persons/literature to
get an indicative idea of what the issues are (the instrument
should be able to address the hot issues).
10. Doing a LG assessment is a big investment (€ 10.000-30.000
per municipality) Invest a lot of time in proper design,
testing, initial consultation of stakeholders, etc.
11. Decide whether to focus on Local Government only or also
on ministries at local level  lack of coordination is often an
important bottle neck for efficient service delivery.
27
idasa
Starting a
Local Governance Assessment 7
12. Preparation at local level includes: political buy in, objective
data collection and analysis, stakeholder group selection.
13. Try to strike a balance between direct needs vs. structural
systemic issues (capacity to solve their own problems balanced
by immediate impact).
14. Ensure high level political support (administrators reluctant).
Convince local political leadership of potential win-win situation:
greater transparency, rule of law for everyone, reduced
corruption, better responsiveness, etc. will enhance the
legitimacy of the local government and politicians and likelihood
of re-election.
28
idasa
Starting a
Local Governance Assessment 8
15. Use as much as possible indicators that are actionable and
action worthy.
16. Be cautious with use of data. Most methodologies can’t stand
the test of scientific rigorousness. To achieve that would be too
costly. Always mention that you present the perceptions of
people regarding governance. The findings are however robust
enough to identify trends, to isolate the most important
governance areas that require attention and to establish
benchmarks for participating municipalities
17. Use Appreciative Inquiry techniques: the art and practice of
asking questions that strengthen a system’s capacity to
apprehend, anticipate, and heighten positive potential.
Appreciative Inquiry looks for what works in an organization and
strengthen that and not (only) for what goes wrong.
See http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/
29
idasa
Ensuring inclusiveness
1.
Treat local governance assessment as a collective learning
process to start understanding each other.
 Work with groups individually (to stimulate the emergence of
true opinions): collect scores, motivation and issues
 and work with them collectively (to stimulate dialogue). Use
differences in perceptions and scores as a starting point for
dialogue and collective prioritisation.
2.
Inclusiveness starts at the definition and selection of
stakeholder groups. Many of the instruments give you the
freedom to select stakeholder groups.
3.
If you don’t include marginalised groups explicitly they will not
be heard (stakeholder, sub-indicators, segregated data)
4.
Dissemination of findings as broad as possible (local radio)
30
idasa
How to ensure that findings are used 1
1.
Capacity development should be issue based. This requires
intensive tailor made support.
2.
Ensure high level political support and buy-in to ensure that the
more systemic issues that emerge are addressed.
3.
As mentioned earlier, ensure on forehand that there is a budget
and technical support available to address capacity needs
identified at local level.
4.
Ensure that your methodology is rigorous, i.e. that the results
are accepted by all stakeholders. One way to do so is to
triangulate your methodologies.
31
idasa
How to ensure that findings are used 2
5.
Apply the principle of “good enough Governance”: select what is
really critical and prioritise with all stakeholders. Address direct
capacity needs of all stakeholders and tackle systemic issues at
the same time (requires high level government commitment).
6.
Isolate those aspects of democracy, which Local Government
authorities can address on their own and those that require the
involvement of other stakeholders (such as national or regional
officials).
7.
Build on the strengths that are identified during the assessment
and don’t focus on the shortcomings only.
8.
Separate problems that require major institutional change,
those that involve personalities or individuals, and those than
can be addressed through policy change.
32
idasa
Practical next steps
1.
Is the basic decentralised institutional infrastructure in place and
functioning? If not, get that in order first.
Decide on ownership of LG assessment.
Depending on where ownership resides: involve the right
partners.
Decide on purpose: (Egypt) Diagnostic + monitoring = policy
informing  how to get local buy in?
Decide on scope: Include all LGs or only a selected number (if
to design a national capacity development support programme
a limited number of 20-30 LGs might be sufficient). If limited,
selection criteria.
Clarify budget: for exercise + for follow up support (LGs only or
LGs and CSO?)
Assess what secondary data are ready available
Select instrument
Adjust instrument to country setting + specific requirements
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
33
idasa
Exercise 1
Describe the contours of a local governance assessment
framework for Egypt (or your country) addressing:
Is the timing right (are basic delivery systems in place and
operational)? If not, what needs to be done first?
If yes, which category of tools (1-3) or which combination of tools
would be most applicable?
Using the matrix, which tool could be your guiding tool? Take into
consideration:
1.
2.
3.
–
–
–
–
–
–
34
Can it be made country specific (but also applied country wide)?
Do the objectives address both local development needs and
strategic policy agenda?
(for Egypt) Can it unveil the hidden costs of bad governance  base
for evidence based strategy to enhance good governance at local
level?
(for Egypt) Can it promotes the emergence or strengthening of Social
Contracts at local level?
Is it poverty and gender sensitive?
Can it be based on the right combination of ready available secondary
data (in a minimal setting) and primary (perception) data?
idasa
Exercise 2
In your setting (i.e. supporting government policies regarding
decentralisation, civic engagement, etc.), which sub indicators that
are actionable and action worthy might be useful to assess the
present state of governance and capacity gaps at local level?
Select from:
Participation: “invited space”
Participation: “claimed space”
Accountability: “internal”
Accountability: “external”
Efficiency: “value for money”
Transparency: “access to information”
Rule of Law: “extent of corruption”
Equity: “equal accesses to resources”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
35
idasa
Conclusions
By conducting Local Governance assessments we are able to
assess the quality of governance at local level in such a way that:
1.
Governance becomes measurable and thus discussible at local
and national level;
We can detect capacity building needs amongst all stakeholders
that if addressed properly can strengthen governance;
We are able to prioritize, plan and budget for related capacity
building activities;
We can (based on a sufficient number of assessments) provide
evidence based policy advice to central government.
Start to create emerging social contracts between government
and civil society by showing that they work towards the same
objective albeit with different instruments and that win-win
solutions to governance problems are possible.
2.
3.
4.
5.
36
idasa