Title: Governance assessments as a tool for enhancing social accountability
1Governance assessments as a tool for enhancing
social accountability
Gothenburg 1 Sept 2011
- Ingvild Oia
- Programme Specialist UNDP
- Ingvild.oia_at_undp.org
- (Drawing on previous presentation by Paul van
Hoof for UNDP, Namibia 2009)
2Objectives and structure of the session
- Introduction to the concept of local governance
and its present dynamics in relation to
decentralisation and democratisation trends - Local governance assessments and how to optimize
citizen participation and local ownership - How this can be done in practice
- example of the Local Governance Barometer
- After presentation
- Practice governance have a meaningful
conversation between people of equal standing but
diverse views
3Service delivery protests South Africa
- At first glance strange
- People protest against a government they
overwhelmingly elected into office only three
months earlier - Objectively seen the Gov of SA has achieved a
lot over the last 15 years in terms of improved
services - Government aims to establish developmental
democracy ? optimal participation
4"We are burning stuff because those who are our
mayors took money for themselves" Resident of
Shakile near Johannesburg
5Conclusions Idasa action research
- Protests are about decreasing service delivery
and the erosion of governance and democratic
structures (nepotism, clientelism corruption). - Due to non-existing/non-functional communication
structures between LG and citizens, people resort
to violent protests in order to be heard. - Citizens loose confidence in Local Government as
an institution that is able to respond
effectively to the challenges that they as
citizens face. - The sense that democracy does not work for the
poor and unemployed is growing. - Government wants to respond but doesnt know
where to start ? resort to state-centered
measures like more internal control but not
addressing the core of the matter
(inter-relationship state ??citizens).
6Conclusions regarding local governance
- Strong link between the quality of service
delivery and the quality of governance the what
and the how are related - The complex problems we face in society nowadays
cannot be solved without government, but
government cant solve them on their own - In order to be able to address governance at
local level we need to make it tangible,
measurable, debatable - We need tools that are
- Diagnostic to identify gaps in capacities or
systemic defects - Can be used for monitoring to improve
accountability - Will help to restore communication and dialogue
between state and citizens
7Governance definition
The way in which services and public goods are
allocated and delivered and the interaction
between public, economic and social actors in
society related to the allocation of public
goods.
8Local governance context
- The Legitimacy crises of many democratic
governments is for a large part a reflection of
poor governance at the level where state and
citizens interact the local level - The structure and functioning of government at
local level is mainly defined by - The way in which decentralisation is designed and
functioning - Democratic challenges governments are facing in
the relationship with their citizens
9Reasons for decentralisation
- Development rationale. Bringing services closer
to the people should lead to improved and context
relevant service delivery and increased
efficiency and effectiveness in public service
delivery - 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. - 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.
10Types 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 - ? potential for downward accountability active
citizen engagement. - Local Government ?? Government at local level ?
what do you want to assess?
11Recent 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.
12Democracy challenges
- Consumer culture (culture of grievance)
- Rights based approaches, western individualistic
definitions of democracy and expansion of
consumer culture - ? relation between citizen and state is reduced
to one of consumer ? ? provider of services.
Citizens responsibilities and agency for social
action/self help are lost. - Political disaffection and failures of
representation - Loss of legitimacy of representative democracy
and public institutions ? people alienate from
politics ? we against them instead of together
we can solve. - Technocratic management
- Solutions by government are symptomatic and
introduced top-down, ignoring local knowledge and
local assets ? civic disablement.
13Conclusion for (Local) Governance assessment
- In order to improve governance (which deals to a
large extend with the quality of citizen-state
interaction) we have to work on both the demand
and supply side (a more engaged civil society on
the one hand and a more responsive and
accountable government on the other side). - This requires us to re-think our notion of
participation and citizenship which should focus
more on agency and on citizens as shapers and
makers than as users and choosers and on the
state as catalyst and facilitator and co-creator
rather than provider. - ? How to integrate such notion in our assessment
tools???
14Why is it important to address good governance?
- Good governance is the single most important
factor in eradicating poverty and promoting
development - Kofi Anan.
- Quality of governance affects quality of service
delivery (good governance as a means to improve
livelihood) - Quality of governance affects legitimacy of the
state (good governance as an end building
local democracy)
15Measuring Governance
- You need to define the ideal situation (if you
dont know where you want to be, you can never be
sure how good you are doing at the moment) - You need a tool to asses the reality against the
ideal - Defining the ideal
- Universal definition/criteria
- Define good (local) governance within the
specific context in a participatory manner ?
consensus
16Essential characteristics of democratic local
governance
- UN-Habitat Guidelines on Decentralisation and
the Strengthening of Local Authorities (April
2007) - An increase in functions of local authorities
should be accompanied by measures to build their
capacity. - Participation through inclusiveness and
empowerment of citizens shall be an underlying
principle of decision-making, implementation and
follow-up at the local level. - All different constituencies within civil society
should be involved in the development of their
communities. - The principle of non-discrimination should apply
to all partners and to the collaboration between
stakeholders.
17Essential characteristics of democratic local
governance contd
- Representation of citizens in the management of
local authority affairs should be stimulated,
wherever practicable. - Local authorities should promote civil engagement
and new forms of participation like community
councils, e-democracy, participatory budgeting,
civil initiatives and referendums. - Records and information should be maintained and
made publicly available. - ? Democratic local governance pays equal
attention to the process of decision-making as to
the actual results (improved services)
18Why is it important to address good governance at
the local level?
- Direct interaction between government and its
citizens. - More services are decentralized to the local
level and 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 and
where government (or the state as institution)
derives a large part of its legitimacy. - Poverty exclusion from decision-making.
Structurally resolving poverty requires a change
in decision-making processes - 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 in their (local)
government.
19Reasons for Local Governance Assessments
- If good governance is important than measuring
governance is equally important. - Diagnostic
- For identifying gaps and constraints in local
policy implementation for unearthing systemic
deficits, 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.
20Dos and donts of Local Governance Assessment
- 1. When dealing with 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.
21Dos and donts of Local Governance Assessment
- 2. You cant 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. - This depends amongst others on
- The extend and level of institutionalisation of
devolution (i.e. local governments 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.
22Dos and donts of Local Governance Assessment
- 3. 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 - 4. 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
23Dos and donts of Local Governance Assessment
- 5. 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. - 6. 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.
24Ensuring inclusiveness
- Optimal participation the best possible form
of participation in a certain context - Conceptual considerations
- How does society define democracy?
- What is ideal participation in terms of
- Active participation in the selection of
methodology - Participation in defining what good governance
means in the local context - Equal representation of views in the assessment
- Equal say in selecting priority areas for action
- Dissemination of outcomes
- Practical Considerations
- Purpose of assessment
- Cost-benefit considerations
25Ensuring inclusiveness
- 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. - If you dont include marginalised groups or
issues of exclusion explicitly they will not be
heard (stakeholder, sub-indicators, segregated
data) - Participation is also dissemination of findings.
- Aim to do so as broad as possible (local radio)
26How to ensure that findings are used 1
- Capacity development should be issue based. This
requires intensive tailor made support. - Ensure high level political support and buy-in to
ensure that the more systemic issues that emerge
are addressed. - Ensure on forehand that there is a budget and
technical support available to address capacity
needs identified at local level. - 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.
27How 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. Build on the strengths that are identified
during the assessment and dont focus on the
shortcomings only (appreciative enquiry). - Provide capacity development and backstopping to
civil society to enable them to hold government
to account on the agreed upon agenda
28Idasas Local Governance approach
0. Introduction to municipality and reference
group local contact person
2. Citizen Report Card
3. CSO and Media performance ass.
4. Local Government performance (using existing
data)
1. Interview local resource persons ?
identification of issues
5. Municipal service profile
Preparation
6. Local Governance Barometer exercise
CSOs media
Assessment
Government Staff
7. State of governance report and collective
Governance improvement statement
Councillors
Private sector
9. LG Governance Capacity Assessment
8. CSO and media Gov. capacity assessment
10. CSO and media Capacity Development. Plan
11. LG Capacity Development. Plan (councillors
staff)
Capacity development
29Local Governance Barometer
- Core question addressed
- Why are the services provided not as they should
be? - The LGB measures the perception of the quality
of governance at local level from different
stakeholder perspectives. - The strength of the methodology, compared to
similar tools, is that it combines
standardisation with local adaptation by
translating universal complex criteria in locally
specific, measurable and easy to understand
indicators ? context specific but comparisons are
possible. - Universal criteria
- 1. Effectiveness
- 2. Transparency and rule of law
- 3. Accountability
- 4. Participation and civic engagement
- 5. Equity and fairness
30Local Governance Barometer
- Advantages
-
- It stimulate consensus building around good
governance as all stakeholders are involved in
defining the standards per criteria and
indicator. - It stimulates dialogue as stakeholder
perspectives are presented individually and used
for collective reflection. - It is action oriented as it indicates areas of
below standard performance and identifies
capacity gaps, while outcome can be used to lobby
for change. - It raises consciousness about the importance of
good governance - Disadvantage
- Local models need to be designed which requires
in-depth context knowledge
31Local Governance Index
Core model
Rule of Law and transparency
Accountability
Equity
Effectiveness and efficiency
Participation and agency
SA local model
Legal framework
Vision and plan
Community Dialogue
Legal framework
Internal control
Financial Management
Access to Power
Corruption incidence
Participation Strategy
External Accountability
Access to income and services
Decision-making
Community involvement
Oversight role
Transparency
Satisfaction of service delivery
HIVAIDS strategy
Service delivery standards
Citizens rights and duties
Community safety strategy
Leadership
31
32Citizen participation in Local Governance
Barometer process
- Perspective of un-organised citizens on service
delivery and governance ? Citizen Report Card - Participation in the definition of good
governance and benchmarking - Sub-criteria National Steering Committee
- Indicators and benchmarks Provincial/local level
- Stakeholder groups score individually and discuss
collectively but separately (openness) and meet
plenary (start of dialogue) - Collective agreement on governance statement and
agenda - Start of dialogue platform and practice of mutual
accountability - Assist media/CSOs to disseminate results follow
up
33Average LGB Scores for 16 municipalities in SA
34Measure change/impact
- Governance improved from 40 to 49 between
2004-2008 - Rule of law improved most (24 to 50)
- Public participation decreased ? needs attention
in next period
35Compare situations
- Overall score almost the same
- A could learn from B how to improve on
accountability - B could learn from A how to improve on
effectiveness and equity
36Local Governance Barometer SA
- 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 the start of capacity
development interventions by identifying
priorities and action plans with measurable
benchmarks. - By comparing scores for different municipalities
on the main criteria we were able to unearth
underlying capacity gaps and establish peer
relationships between municipalities. - 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.
37Conclusions
- By conducting Local Governance assessments we
are able to assess the quality of governance at
local level in such a way that - 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.
38- For more information on local governance
assessments - http//www.gaportal.org/
- For more information on the Local Governance
Barometer - http//www.pact.mg/lgb/lgb/interface/
- Thank you
39World café question What can we do to ensure
local ownership of and optimal participation in
governance assessments at the national and/or
local level?