Governance assessments as a tool for enhancing social accountability

1
Governance 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)

2
Objectives 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

3
Service 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
5
Conclusions 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).

6
Conclusions 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

7
Governance 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.
8
Local 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

9
Reasons 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.

10
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
• ? potential for downward accountability active
  citizen engagement.
• Local Government ?? Government at local level ?
  what do you want to assess?

11
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.

12
Democracy 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.

13
Conclusion 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???

14
Why 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)

15
Measuring 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

16
Essential 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.

17
Essential 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)

18
Why 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.

19
Reasons 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.

20
Dos 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.

21
Dos 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.

22
Dos 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

23
Dos 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.

24
Ensuring 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

25
Ensuring 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)

26
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. 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.

27
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. 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

28
Idasas 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
29
Local 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

30
Local 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

31
Local 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
32
Citizen 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

33
Average LGB Scores for 16 municipalities in SA

34
Measure 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

35
Compare 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

36
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 the start of capacity
   development interventions by 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.

37
Conclusions

• 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

39
World café question What can we do to ensure
local ownership of and optimal participation in
governance assessments at the national and/or
local level?