Local Government - Primer - 4 Jan 2011

8/3/2019 Local Government - Primer - 4 Jan 2011

1/18

PRIMER: LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Content List

1. Introduction

2. Principles of Democratic Local Governance

3. Actors in Local Governance

4. Citizen Participation in Local Governance

5. Different Dimensions of Decentralization

6. Expectations of Local Governance & Decentralization

7. Important Patterns in Decentralization Reforms

8. Challenges to Decentralization

9. Measuring Local Governance

Introduction

Local governance describes a system in which public policy decisions are taken and

implemented. It is not a normative concept (while democratic, good or better local

governance is normative). As a process that addresses the needs and aspirations of

whole communities, local governance comprises more than the local government.

There is not just one universal definition for local governance, just as there are manyforms of local governance applying to different parts of the world; nevertheless, we will

consider for the purpose of this primer the definitions below which are broadly accepted:

Local governance is a set of institutions, mechanisms and processes, through which

citizens and their groups express their interests and needs, mediate their differences

and exercise their rights and obligations at the local level. Governance at the local level

includes not only the machinery of government, but also other actors and their

interactions with local government institutions.

Local government: A general term which encompasses counties, cities, municipal

corporations, and other bodies that govern territorial areas smaller than the state. Theauthority of these governing bodies is limited to their territorial boundaries and to

subjects of local concern, such as zoning, housing and building codes, service delivery,

local economic development and sometimes community security. Local government

includes two broad types: local state administrations and local representative bodies.

Local Governance and Decentralization are two concepts that are often used

interchangeably. If they are indeed related, they are however different.

Local Government PrimerDG BRIDGE 2010 AEC V1 4 Jan 2011 Page 1 of 18DRAFT COPY: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION


2/18

Decentralization is the process of dispersing decision-making from the centre, closer to

the point of service delivery or action. It is primarily a national political, legislative,

institutional and/or fiscal process. It involves the transfer or power & resources from

national to sub-national governments or from national to sub-national administrative

units. A concept central to the notion of decentralization is that of subsidiarity.

Subsidiarity is an organizing principle saying that matters ought to be handled by the

smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. The central authority should

have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed

effectively at a more immediate or local level.

Decentralization, describes one of the forms that local governance can take. It is often

considered that decentralization provides an opportunity to develop and strengthen local

governance, since through decentralization, local governments gain the authority,

resources and capacities to better respond to the needs of citizens and to operate

effectively and accountably. But local governance may or may not be accompanied by

decentralization, representative or participatory democratic processes, transparency,accountability or other defining characteristics of good local governance. The other key

element in improving local governance is building local democracy or deepening

democracy at the local level, enhancing democratic values and practices in political

processes and structures, including political parties, civil society and media at the local

level.

The term decentralization is often seen as a generic term covering in fact different

modalities and intensities in transfer of power: deconcentration, delegation & devolution.


Building local democracy


3/18

Deconcentration: Transferring responsibilities to field and subordinate units of

government (no distinct legal entity). It is the weakest form of decentralization, most

frequently used in unitary states. It can merely shift responsibilities from central

government officials in the capital city to those working in regions, provinces or districts,

or it can create strong field administration or local administrative capacity under the

supervision of central government ministries.

Delegation is a more extensive form of decentralization in which central governments

transfer responsibility for decision-making and administration of public functions to semi-

autonomous organizations not wholly controlled by the central government, but

ultimately accountable to it (e.g. public enterprises or corporations, housing authorities,

transportation authorities, semi-autonomous school districts, regional development

corporations). Usually these organizations have a great deal of discretion in decision-

making. They may be exempted from constraints on regular civil service personnel and

may be able to charge users directly for services.

Devolution is an arrangement or a process in public administration in which distinctbodies are created by law, separate from the central administration, and in which local

representatives are given powers to decide on a range of public matters and gain access

to resources which can be utilized at their discretion. Devolution exists if local entities

have substantial authority to hire, fire, tax, contract, expend, invest, set priorities and

delivery services. It is sometimes referred to as political decentralization (as political

power is effectively devolved); however, devolution is broader than this. Also,

decentralization is sometimes reduced to just the devolution type. In this primer, we

consider that devolution is just one possible form of decentralization.

A decentralized governance system in any given country will include a combination of

the three models described above. Certain public matters can be fully devolved to local

governments while others remain handled by deconcentrated services accountable to

central government. Also, decentralization is not an alternative to centralization, both

systems are needed to support better overall governance. In fact, successful

decentralization needs effective piloting and strong support from the central level.

Finally, in this introduction section, we need also to clarify as well that the ultimate goal

of local governance and decentralization reforms should be to improve the lives of

citizens especially the poor and vulnerable. UNDP speaks, for example, of

decentralized governance for development. This brings in the important concept of local

development:

Local development (or Local economic development) essentially refers to a process by

which a variety of local institutions and actors mobilise and work together to plan and

implement sustainable local development strategies in a given territory.

As we see from this introduction section, local governance and decentralization are

complex phenomenons with different dimensions that will be pursued differently



4/18

depending on a given countrys or localitys context. Political, administrative and

budgetary considerations as well as broad and meaningful participation need all be

considered in order to gain an effective understanding of Local Governance &

Decentralization, what it might accomplish, what challenges and opportunities may exist

through Local Governance & Decentralization programming, and how those programs

might be measured. After you have read this primer and completed related trainingactivities with peers and a qualified facilitator, you should have a better understanding of

the following aspects of Local Governance & Decentralization:

Principles

Actors

Participation

Political, Administrative & Fiscal Dimensions

Expectations

Challenges

Monitoring & Evaluation

Principles of Democratic Local Governance

As said before, local governance, in its true meaning, is not a normative definition. It

can apply to whole range of different situations. For example, local governance exists as

well in a dictatorial centralized regime. The weight given to the different local actors andthe types of processes involved in policy-making & implementation will just be

diametrically different as to what it would be under a decentralized democratic system.

This is why we need to add a qualifying adjective to local governance to guide reforms

affecting local governance systems. Good local governance is a very common term;

however, it has been described sometimes as too idealistic and vague. Speaking of

Better local governance, gives a dynamic and goal-oriented dimension to the

expression. Pragmatists speak of Good enough local governance, to express how

ambitions in terms of improving a local governance system in a given country context

should be measured and aim at modest achievable objectives first. In this primer, we

propose to use the term of Democratic local governance, which has the value of

making a strong link between democracy & local governance and in particular between

local governance and the fundamental democratic values of equality, participation,

inclusiveness and common good.

Democratic local governance denotes:



5/18

Quote: [Democratic] Local Governance has a double political and technicaldimension. In its political dimension it requires participation, decision-makingand leadership. In its technical dimension it requires needs assessment,planning, the negotiation of contracts, accounting mechanisms, monitoring andimpact assessment. Both dimensions require transparency and the appropriate

training of the stakeholders involved. (from UN-HABITAT, InternationalGuidelines on Decentralization and Access to Basic Services for All, 2009).

Effective and efficient local government (elected democratically) and public

service delivery, responsive, transparent and interactive with local community

and other local & central actors

Inclusive, transparent and accountable local public policy and decision-making

procedures, safeguarding the participation of an empowered local communitywhich has the capacity to articulate the needs of its members, to participate

Democratic, human-rights based and gender sensitive exercise of power and

authority.

Actors in Local Governance

Apart from local governments, local Governance stakeholders can include:

Citizens & Residents

Agencies and departments of the central government (e.g. deconcentrated

offices, service providers such as agricultural extension workers, police &

regulatory agencies)

Central government bodies overseeing the action of and providing support to

local governments (e.g. Ministry of Local Administration, Ministry of Interior,

Directorate of Local Governance, etc.)

Community Groups and Civil Society Organizations (e.g. professional

associations, school committees, neighborhood development committees,

charities, youth clubs, womens organizations, etc.)



6/18

Business & Investors

Traditional holders of authority (e.g. religious, clan or tribal leaders) whose

standing or authority in a community comes from a traditional source

Political Parties

Independent Government Authorities- Such as Electoral Management Bodies

administrations and anti-corruption agencies

The International Community

Local tribunals & courts

Local & national media

Citizen Participation in Local Governance

As noted above, participation is a basic principle of democratic local governance.

Participation and participatory governance practices answer in general, the following

goals:

Encouraging and sustaining citizens' initiatives between elections

Responding to citizen concerns regarding a lack of information or a lack

of trust towards politicians

Reaching out to marginalized groups, including women, the poor, and

minorities

Creating trust and confidence, or social capital,

Preventing, managing and resolve disputes that can be arbitrated at the

ballot box

Strengthening the accountability of local governments towards citizens.

A particularly interesting and crucial concept to understand the need for and value of

participation is that of social capital,defined as being the basis of legitimacy of official

government institutions. Without social capital, when trust and confidence are lacking,

government efforts can be stymied; in the long run, communities without trust are

dysfunctional and in the worst scenario violence among contending social forces can

erupt. Creating social capital involves: (i) building linkages with civil society, (ii) strategicpartnering with NGOs, (iii) connecting directly with citizens, (iv) creating mutual trust in

government, civil society, and citizens.

For participation to be a reality in the life of citizens, beyond a commitment from the

State to allow and nurture participation, it needs mechanisms. Accessible and

transparent elections for local government are an important participation mechanism.

However, democratic local governance requires as well continuous opportunities for



7/18

meaningful & broad participation from diverse actors. This section discusses different

opportunities for participation in local governance beyond elections, regrouped in 4

categories describing different levels of participation intensity:

Information Gathering & Sharing

Consultation

Decision Making

Dispute Resolution

Information Gathering and Sharing

Such processes involve research and analysis, or the sharing of information with citizens

and civic groups. Information-sharing processes often have a specific civic education

function. Some examples include: Surveys & Polls, Community Forums & ParticipatoryResearch.

Consultation

Consultation features structured processes and events that systematically consult with

constituencies - together or separately - on matters that affect them, in order to inform

decisions taken by those officially mandated to represent citizens. Some examples

include: Citizen Monitoring Programs, Participatory Appraisals & Beneficiary

Assessments, Issue forums, Participatory Planning & Community Visioning Processes,

Task Forces, Community Budgeting, Citizen Advisory Councils.

Decision-Making

Here, the authority over the final resolution of the issue at hand is with the community

members participating and cannot be overturned by elected officials or (ideally) by

regional or national level governments. In decision-making processes, the key questions

concern the legitimacy of those involved to represent their constituency, how decisions

are made (e.g., by consensus or majority) and how issues can be resolved when isconsensus is unattainable. Some examples include: Citizen Juries, Problem Solving

Workshops, Elections/Referenda.

Public Dispute Resolution

It includes methods for preventing, managing, and settling public disputes through

negotiation, mediation, or arbitration. These methods do not necessarily feature policy-



8/18

making or implementation, but instead facilitation, problem solving, task forces,

community mediation services, conciliation commissions, and the like. Some examples

include: Grievance handling systems, mediation and arbitration centers, Crisis-related

response committees for violence prevention and mitigation

Different Dimensions of Decentralization

As we have seen, decentralization involves multiple actors engaging in diverse and

potentially complex processes. These processes are multi-faceted: there are political,

administrative and fiscal considerations. Democratic local governance and

decentralization efforts will in some way address all of them.

Political Decentralization

It refers to the processes, policy and legal framework that leads to and enables the

transfer of some amount of political authority from the central government to sub-

national elected governments. These local governments are therefore downwardlyaccountable to citizens rather than to central government.

Often the election of sub-national officials, as opposed to their appointment by the

central government, is the first and most visible sign of political decentralization.

However, there are other aspects of political decentralization as well. Referenda and

plebiscites, dissemination of information on local government performance and

decisions, opportunities for broad participation in planning & decision making [see

Citizen Participation] and recalls, can all be important dimensions of political

decentralization1.

Political decentralization requires a constitutional, legal and regulatory framework toensure accountability and transparency. It needs as well adapting public institutions to a

politically-decentralized context as the role of central sector ministries is expected to shift

after a political decentralization reform. Less involved in service delivery (taken over by

local governments), their functions turn towards policy formulation, standard-setting,

guidance and assistance and monitoring / supervision. Political decentralization reforms

imply therefore important changes across the whole machinery of government, and not

just at the level of local institutions.

Administrative Decentralization

It aims at transferring decision-making authority, resources & responsibilities for thedelivery of certain public services, or functions, from central government to other (non-

elected) levels of government, agencies or field offices of central government line

agencies. Administrative decentralization is often equated with deconcentration only,

however it covers as well delegation and divestment the latter relating to the

privatization of functions and services formerly held by government.

1USAID Democratic Decentralization Programming Handbook, June 2009.



9/18

Administrative decentralization requires a clear set of rules regulating intergovernmental

relations (between national / sub-national levels) and a strong investment in building

capacities of local institutions. In many countries, particularly the poorest, the physical

existence of the basic infrastructure that municipalities need to function is the first major

hurdle to overcome for effective administrative decentralization.

Fiscal Decentralization

It refers to resource reallocation to sub-national levels of government, including the

delegation of funds within sector ministries to the de-concentrated levels. Arrangements

for resources allocation are often negotiated between central and local authorities based

on several factors, including interregional equity, availability of resources at all levels of

government and local fiscal management capacity. Fiscal decentralization covers as well

the license given to sub-national governments to collect & generate their own tax &

revenues (without passing through the Treasury) and decide upon their use as well as

their capacity to borrow independently.

Fiscal decentralization reforms have a major impact on policy areas such as: (i)

economic efficiency, (ii) macroeconomic stability, (iii) income redistribution, and (iv)

political efficiency.

The link between decentralization models and dimensions is shown in the figure below2:

2Source: Supporting Decentralisation & Local Governance in Developing Countries, Europaid, 2007


Administrative

Decentralization

Political

Decentralization

FiscalDecentralizati

on

Devolutio

Deconcentration

Delegation


10/18

6.Expectations of Local Governance and Decentralization

So why pursue Local Governance and Decentralization reforms? We have seen that it is

complicated, with many stakeholders and dimensions; that it requires real political will

backed by administrative, technical & financial capacity. Yet 80-95% of countries have or

are currently engaged in some level of decentralization3 process.

A universal expectation, which has motivated the dramatic increase in the number of

countries embarking on decentralization reforms, is that sustainable development is

made possible by the effective decentralization or responsibilities, policy management,

decision-making authority and sufficient resources, to local authorities, closest to and

most representative of, their constituencies.4 It is telling to see that decentralization, as

a global reform process, has happened in concomitance with the generalization of

Poverty Reduction Strategic Programs in 1990s. In short, decentralization has been

seen by many as the means to end poverty.

6.1. Enhanced Local Democracy

A primary reason that Local Governance & Decentralization programming continues to

grow in prominence is that, when thoughtfully and carefully implemented, such reforms

can lead to enhanced local participation. LGD can provide more and better opportunities

for participation in the processes of government, particularly for minority and other

under-represented groups which might otherwise struggle to be heard on a national

stage.

Moreover, the formation of local governments, closer to citizens, makes democracy

more concrete for most. Members of local governments are usually long-term residents

of communities they represent and are far more accessible to average citizens than

representatives on national bodies or in national administrations are. In that sense,

democratic local governance increases the downward accountability of the State.

3Decentralization, Local Development & Social Cohesion: An Analytical Review, GSDRC, May 2009.

4European Charter of Local Self Government (1985).


Private & non-governmental sectorDivestment /

Privatization


11/18

Quote: Involvement in local affairs allows people to influence issues that affecttheir daily lives. Ideally, it improves decision-making, builds trust in government,reduces opportunities for corruption, encourages active engagement of citizensin local affairs, and strengthens the demand for accountability at the nationallevel (from Decentralization Experience, USAID, 2009).

Reforms for democratic local governance also have the crucial effect of strengthening

institutions, others than local governments that contribute to local democracy. For

example, the local civil society sector, seen as an indispensable channel to engineer and

support citizen participation, will benefit from increased capacity building investments

and a more liberal regulatory environment. Political parties will become more active and

rooted at the local level when significant political power is devolved towards it. Similarly,

local media gain experience and audience when issues that really affect peoples lives

are debated at the local level because this is where they are decided upon.

6.2. Improved Service Delivery

It is expected that decentralization can improve the efficiency and equity of basic

services as follows:

Locally elected governments will be more responsive to their citizens preferences

when designing service provision and allocating resources.

Citizens will have a better system for articulating their needs and wants and will be

able to hold officials to account over breaches in service.

Extra finances will also be available to local government via local taxes.

Central government will be willing to devolve full power and responsibility for services

to local government.

Central government will ensure that local governments have adequate financial

resources to ensure excellent service provision.

Local administrative capacity will be adequate to deliver improved services.

Local Economic Development

As we saw, decentralization and poverty reduction strategies have been unrolled hand-

in-hand in many countries. The common assumption underpinning such process has

been that decentralization is good for economic development for the following reasons:



12/18

Decentralisation will increase public sector efficiency therefore improving service

delivery and regulation. This will create a more conducive business environment and

greater incentives for investors.

Local officials will have better local knowledge and business contacts making

them more able to make locally relevant, appropriate decisions

Decentralisation can reduce the opportunities for corruption, particularly large

scale corruption. This has a beneficial effect on national economic growth.

Social Cohesion & Peace-building

The commonly accepted theory is that decentralization

presents opportunities for mitigating conflict and strengthening

social cohesion and peaceful coexistence in communities5.

This is because groups have a formal, enshrined, non-violentmethod of participating in political processes. With increased

political participation, they are better able to effectively

articulate their needs to the State and build relationships with

other social groups. In that sense, the social capital building

effect of decentralization would be mirrored by an increase in social cohesion.

However, there are also conflicting views saying that decentralization can be a conflict

exacerbating factor. In fact, there is a dearth of research on the potential positive and

negative impacts of decentralization reforms on social cohesion and peace-building.

Decentralization is an inherently political area of endeavor and has the ability to impactand effect a broad swath of daily life in a given community. Careful consideration must

be given to specific local contexts when designing and implementing local governance

and decentralization reforms so as not to facilitate elite captures of local government,

dominance by one ethnic, religious or tribal group, or other forms of corruption. Failure to

do so can subvert the potential local governance and decentralization programs hold for

improving social cohesion, and can even exacerbate some problems.6

Important Patterns in Decentralization Reforms

We have seen that the past two decades have witnessed far-reaching decentralization of

fiscal, political and administrative responsibilities to lower-level governments (and theprivate sector). The most important driving forces of decentralization have been:

Increasing the effectiveness of public action

5The potential for positive impacts on social cohesion from decentralization has been particularly noted in areas which

enjoy an ethnically, politically or religiously diverse population.6

USAID Decentralization Handbook, 2009 & Decentralization, Local Development and Social Cohesion: An Analytical

Review, GSDRC, 2009.


Social Cohesion:Bonds or socialnetworks that bringpeople together

across a nationstate, particularly inthe context of highcultural diversity.


13/18

Democratization

Economics

Demographic factors

Globalization

Conflict resolution

Pressure from international agencies

In many countries, decentralization has been driven mostly by internal political realities

and external pressures rather than by sound economic arguments and local level

democratic demand.

The figure below presents a spectrum of ideological underpinnings of decentralization

Degree of systemic change required7

Lower Higher

Administrative Fiscal Political Market

The basic elements of any decentralization reform will of course include the form(s) of

decentralization followed (deconcentration, delegation, devolution) and the importance

given to each of its dimension (political, administrative & fiscal). Each decentralization

reform is unique in the sense that it will be produce a specific combination of

decentralization models with varying intensity levels in the three core dimensions. It is

important to maintain a comprehensive approach when designing a decentralization

reform which should be rooted in the political, social, economical and cultural

specificities of the context at stake. There is no blueprint reform or one-size-fits-all

7Adapted from Fritzen, S., Lim, P. 2006, Problems & Prospects of Decentralization in Developing Countries, National

University of Singapore.


Programeffectiveness,

breaking

through

bureaucracy

Efficiency,responsiveness to

local preferences

Holding failing statestogether

Promoting ethnic

harmony

Enabling

democratization

Empowering the

grassroots, civil society

Bypassing theState

Reducing

government size

Reducing public

spending


14/18

reform that can be transposed from one country to the next though this was the

mistake done in the early days of decentralization. Decentralization reforms in fragile

states not will be the same as in stable environments; also, it will have usually far more

limited scope in authoritarian regimes than in democratic states.

When designing decentralization reform, some important patterns need to beconsidered:

Single or multiple tier: many systems have two or more tiers of sub-national

governments. They may be linked by a hierarchical relationship or not (in which case

they are both linked to the central level directly). In certain cases, governorate or

provincial governments have the duty as well of supporting lower-level governments

as they develop their capacities to assume fully their mandate. Having strong links

between different layers of local governments is particularly important in countries

with limited resources to devolve directly to the grassroots level.

Large or small units: large units offer the possibilities of economies of scale inservice delivery; however, smaller units make local governments closer to the

people. More and more, countries around the world with smaller units of local

governments develop specific statutory measures to allow them to group for the

delivery of certain services.

Urban and rural authorities: in certain countries, there are different local government

systems for urban and rural areas, with different powers & functions. Sometimes,

local governments are mostly based in urban centers and include rural hinterlands,

but this has the potential to marginalize the interests of rural populations.

Given the complexity of decentralization processes, and the major capacity building

effort that they imply for local-level institutions, it is also important in a decentralization

reform to decide the approach followed in the link between decentralization and

capacity:

1) Traditional approach: capacity development precedes decentralization.

Responsibilities and revenues are transferred, as per the model set forth by the Law,

once a certain level of administrative and technical capacity has been developed.

2) Dynamic approach: involves building capacities while the shift of responsibility is

taking place (learning by doing). This approach is now gaining precedence over thetraditional approach, as concrete decentralization itself is the best incentive for local

institutions to change and improve their performance.



15/18

7. Challenges to Decentralization

Recent research shows that there is a vast chasm between the benefits that

decentralization is supposed to bring (see Expectations of Decentralization) and the

reality. In particular, it has generally been found that:

Decentralization has not delivered service delivery improvements in most countries

where it has been implemented, whether in quantity, quality or equity in access;

There is no clearly demonstrated correlation between decentralization and economic

growth.

There are as many examples where decentralization has exacerbated conflicts asexamples where it has soothed some.

Looking at the overall goal of poverty reduction often associated with decentralization, a

recent study by the OECD8 has shown that only in a minority of countries where

decentralization reforms have been implemented, did it have a positive impact on

reducing poverty. In others, it had marginal or no impact or worse, it actually increased

poverty. The best performing countries were those that were: less indebted, with a high

literacy rate and considered as largely democratic.

So, why does decentralization seem to be working and delivering the expected benefits

in some countries and not others? Is it just a matter of reform design or is theimplementation context a stronger determinant than the reform content itself? The

following three factors are the most commonly cited throughout the literature to explain

the mixed results of decentralization reforms:

Lack of political will

The primary factor influencing how decentralization impacts on service delivery is the

political context in which reforms are made, both at central and local levels. It is naive to

assume that central government officials benignly devolve power and responsibility to

lower levels of government. If they do so, the motives are usually elsewhere than a

genuine search for an improvement of service delivery. It could be a political strategy toexpand power base and please external pressure (that comes with funding) or just to off-

load responsibility for basic services that the central level is not able to manage

anymore. At the local level, political analysis also fundamentally questions the

assumption that a local politician will be more responsible and accountable to his/her

electorate than a geographically distant central government official. The danger of elite

8http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/19/33648213.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/19/33648213.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/19/33648213.pdf


16/18

capture is real with local government. If service delivery, for example, is devolved in an

environment of political patronage, then decisions that could benefit efficiency and equity

will be corrupted and rather be made in favor of a few elites. More generally, it is the

absence of real political will of those who decide on decentralization reforms to really

implement these in a way that maximize the chances of success which remains a

fundamental challenge in the way of decentralization.

Financial Constraints

Local governments often have to operate in severely resource constrained

environments, which hinders their ability to improve services or to assume any

significant leadership functions on local development. In many developing countries,

local taxation still remains marginal as the tax base is so weak or just too difficult to tap

into. The lack of predictable, transparent (i.e. not politically-driven) and sufficient fiscal

transfers from central government, limits severely the long-term impact of organizational

capacity development investments made towards local governments.

Limited administrative capacity

The administrative capacity at local levels in many countries undergoing broad-ranging

decentralization process ranges from poor to very poor. Some weaknesses can be

attributed to low levels of education and training, but often central government fails

as well to invest sufficiently in recruiting suitable staff for local authorities and

training them for their job. The administrative capacity of local authorities is

constrained by: (i) inadequate devolution of power, particularly over finance and

staff, (ii) vague / inappropriate systems & procedures, (iii) inadequately qualified,

underpaid and unmotivated staff, (iv) political interference, corruption and abuse of

power, (v) lack of downward accountability.

8.1. Insufficient social capital

Social capital is essential for the effectiveness of the fundamental premise saying of

participatory governance on which decentralization reforms are built. Social capital is

stronger in stable and peaceful environments and is strengthened by sufficient

downward accountability of local authorities. Countries in transition, especially countries

coming out of open conflicts, usually demonstrate low levels of social capital which in

turn limits the democracy-building effect of decentralization reforms.

Measuring Local Governance & Decentralization

More and more countries implementing decentralization reforms are investing in

measuring the quality of their local governance as it is a powerful tool to take corrective

actions guaranteeing success of such reform. One of the main differences between a

national and local governance assessment is the greater proximity to the real-world

issues. Therefore, local governance assessments need to be much more sensitive to the

particular needs of groups of stakeholders and certain segments in the local community.



17/18

Measuring local governance can serve one or more of the following purposes:

To identify potential gaps and constraints in local policy implementation;

To identify specific capacity development needs and to monitor the results of

capacity development efforts;

To formulate change plans and solicit donor or peer assistance for improvingspecific aspects of local governance;

To engage civil society and private sector in local governance;

To provide an objective account of achievements of local elected leaders

(especially at times of re-elections), and thus building accountability.

To provide comparative data between municipalities (at the level of a country or

across countries), and act as a driver and incentive for municipalities to

outperform each other and pool know-how and learning.

Local governance assessments may focus on the whole spectrum of local governance

or on specific areas such as the progress of a decentralization reform, local democracy

or local government performance. The latter is

the most common focus of local governance

assessments around the world.

There are no standard methods to assess local

governance or standard indicators that fit all

situations. Local governance assessments

usually mix qualitative and quantitative methods

and use questionnaires, checklists and indicators.

Indicators help answer the following question:

How close to democratic or good localgovernance is the area9 assessed?The criteria

used to describe the notion of democratic or good governance must be defined locally

with the participation of users of the assessment results. These indicators are also

grounded in the legal and regulatory framework organizing local governance in the area

considered.

Local governance indicators, contrarily to human development indicators, for example,

use a broad range of indicator types: inputs (e.g. resources & rules), outputs (e.g.

services & goods), process (e.g. quality of decision-making), perception (e.g. citizens

views on service delivery) & impact (e.g. poverty reduction). Local governance indicators

should also capture the perspectives, needs and rights of poorer and vulnerable groupsin society, including women, in order to inform local policy-making and to promote equity,

enhancing participation and building greater inclusiveness at the local level.

Past experiences in measuring local governance have given the important lessons

learned to guarantee the success of future assessment initiatives:

9E.g. municipality, district, governorate


Example of normative foundationfor measuring local governance

Good Governance for LocalDevelopment Index (Indonesia)

1. Representation2. Participation3. Accountability4. Transparency5. Effectiveness6. Security7. Equity


18/18

Keep your assessment action-focused.

Try to recount an insiders perspective with a sense of balance.

Create space for critical reflection by stakeholders of the assessment

Ensure a broad multi-stakeholder participation by those who are being evaluated

Build a method that allow some degree of comparability between locations

To know more on measuring local governance, consult http://www.gaportal.org/areas-of-

governance/local-governance-and-decentralization

http://www.gaportal.org/areas-of-governance/local-governance-and-decentralizationhttp://www.gaportal.org/areas-of-governance/local-governance-and-decentralizationhttp://www.gaportal.org/areas-of-governance/local-governance-and-decentralizationhttp://www.gaportal.org/areas-of-governance/local-governance-and-decentralization

Documents

Local Government - Primer - 4 Jan 2011