2 ObjectivesIntroduce local governance and its present dynamics in terms of decentralisation and democratisation trends and processesProvide guidance on planning, selecting, adapting and implementing LG assessmentsBoth objectives should help you in taking several critical decisions around the development of a country specific strategy regarding local governance assessment and capacity development.In particular this session will address:How to ensure an inclusive process when conducting an Local Governance AssessmentHow to guarantee a minimum level of rigour in the methodology selectedHow to ensure policy uptake at various levelsThere will be an exercise that should help participants to decide whether or not to start a LG assessment exercise, and if so at what the scale and contours of such assessment should be.Note that this session addresses mainly the assessment side of Local Governance and not so much the Local Governance capacity development side.The person facilitating this session provides a framework and tools and makes participants aware of the consequences of their choices. The participants are the experts knowing the local situation, who know what is feasible, which means they need to take the related decisions.
3 Outline Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance Decentralisation and democracyMeasuring local governanceIssues to consider for carrying out LG assessmentsPractical application
4 1. Users’ guide to Measuring Local Governance Decentralisation and democracyMeasuring local governanceIssues to consider for carrying out LG assessmentsPractical application
5 1. Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance Purpose Compile existing knowledgeProvide a framework for understanding existing assessment tools.Highlight priority issues (for UNDP) for selecting tools or developing new measurement approaches:Inclusive processesAssessments reflect the concerns/rights/interests of vulnerable groupsRigorous and scientifically soundThe Guide was intended to respond to an increasing demand from UNDP Country Offices and a wide range of national stakeholders for guidance on the multiplicity of tools and methods that are being used to measure, assess and monitor governance at the local level.The Guide was created to meet three principal objectives:To compile existing knowledge on assessments and measurements of governance at the local level to serve as a resource for practitionersTo provide a framework for understanding existing assessment tools including providing information on each tools’ applicability, types and sources of data used, methodology used, key actors/stakeholders involved, the results reporting format, the gender and poverty focus (if it has one), strengths and weaknesses, the coverage, timeline, the assumptions in the method, contact details etc.To highlight particular priority issues (for UNDP) for selecting amongst existing tools or developing new measurement approaches-including:How to ensure an inclusive process in developing and implementing an assessmentHow to ensure that the concerns/rights/interests of vulnerable groups are reflected in the assessmentHow to ensure that the assessment is rigorous and scientifically sound
6 1. Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance Structure Understanding local governance and description of issues, concepts and priorities that assessment tools focus on‘Good practice’ for developing and implementing assessments of governance at the local levelCase StudiesThe Source Guide: Overview of 22 assessment toolsThe User’s Guide has two main parts. The first part outlines explains local governance and key related concepts, and also provides a framework of issues concerning the development and implementation of assessments. (Chapters 1-3 below). The second part is the Source Guide.Understanding local governance and description of issues, concepts and priorities that assessment tools focus on‘Good practice’ for developing and implementing assessments of governance at the local levelFour fictional Case Studies demonstrate key concepts and themes raised, each covering a different role-based challenge.Facilitating commitment and involvement – the role of an LG officialMoving from government to the concept of governance – the role of a civil society activistBalancing comparability with local relevance – the role of a representative from a local government associationEnsuring uptake of assessment findings in local policymaking – the role of a local elected government official.The Source Guide: Overview of 22 assessment tools. It is an inventory of existing assessment tools and methodologies. It is structured in a way to provide detailed information on each tool, including history, objectives, applicability, types and sources of data used, methodology used, key actors/stakesholders involved, results reporting format, gender and poverty focus (if there is one), strengths and weaknesses, coverage, timeline, assumptions in the method, contact details and any supplementary tools/guidelines related to the particular instrument.
7 1. Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance Provides guidance on How to deal with the preparation and launchHow to ensure the most inclusive processHow to ensure that the assessment methodology is rigorousWhat to do with the resultsHow to address problems of sustainability
8 Outline Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance Decentralisation and democracyMeasuring local governanceIssues to consider for carrying out LG assessmentsPractical application
9 2. Decentralization and democracy Why decentralize? Development rationale. Improved service delivery by increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of public servicesDemocracy and good governance rationale. Decentralisation has the 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.It is important to reflect on the question of why a (national) government decides to decentralise its service delivery. Decentralisation is the transfer of authority to lower level institutions of government. While the reasons for decentralising government are diverse, they can, broadly speaking, be clustered around three overarching rationales: development, democracy and good governance, and conflict management and peace building rationales.
10 2. Decentralization and democracy Degrees of decentralization 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. Importance of local ownership and the need to adjust planning and resource allocation to specific local settings or priorities.Deconcentration aims at transferring responsibilities to field and subordinate units of government, while field units basically remain under the hierarchical authority of central state authorities and have no distinct legal existence from the central state.In contrast to this, devolution refers to a transfer of competencies from the central state to distinct legal entities, e.g. area-wide regional or functional authorities. They do not belong to the central state, which has no more hierarchical authority on them.Deconcentrated structures are in general preferred in political settings that are characterized by centralized (or top-down) planning and resource allocation systems and that mainly aim to achieve a higher level of efficiency in service delivery, while devolved structures acknowledge the importance of local ownership and the need to adjust planning and resources allocation to specific local settings or priorities (bottom-up processes).
11 2. Decentralization and democracy Local government orGovernment at local level?Based on these different degrees of decentralisation, we can speak about “local government” which is the elected body of citizen representatives and its administration that has a delegated mandate and that is to a certain extent autonomous from central government, and “government at local level” which consists of all service providing, administrative and regulatory institutions operating at local level but not necessarily accountable to the locally elected council.In any type of Local Governance assessment it is important to decide beforehand whether to include only the Local Government (the Council) and its services or all government institutions at local level. Note that ordinary citizens are in general not able to distinguish the two, which might affect their perception on service satisfaction and the quality of governance. In addition, the (lack of) coordination between LG and the local level offices of the line ministries is often an important factor in explaining lack of efficiency/effectiveness in service delivery.What to include in an assessment? Only the local government? Or all government institutions at the local level?
12 2. Decentralization and democracy Functional decentralisation 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.Regarding the functions that are delegated or transferred to the sub-national levels of government, a distinction is made between three types of decentralisation: political, administrative and fiscal decentralisation.Every “decentralised local government system” has its own specific contextualized arrangements regarding the above types and dimensions of decentralisation, while it is common (especially in Africa) that fiscal decentralisation usually lags behind in the decentralisation process. It is important to take the context specific situation for your country on these issues into account as this will define your reference framework.
13 2. Decentralization and democracy Trends in decentralisation From “decentralisation of government” to “decentralised 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 nowadays placed on government-citizen relationships, civil society engagement, public private partnerships, social accountability, etc.Recently, a new dimension has been added to these more classical ways of describing and classifying decentralised government systems. During the last decade, resulting from globalization processes, the need to improve government service delivery to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and a shift in thinking regarding the role of the state in development, a worldwide shift in focus has emerged: from “decentralization of government” towards “decentralized governance” or “democratic local governance”. As a result, more attention in the basic service delivery process is placed on government-citizen relationships, public private partnerships, social accountability, etc.Every “decentralised local government system” has its own specific contextualized arrangements regarding the above types and dimensions of decentralisation, while it is common (especially in Africa) that fiscal decentralisation usually lags behind in the decentralisation process. It is important to take the context specific situation for your country on these issues into account as this will define your reference framework.
14 2. Decentralization and democracy Why is the quality of governance important? It affects quality of service delivery (good governance as a means to improve livelihood)It affects legitimacy of the state (good governance as an end: building local democracy)Governance is the set of processes by which public policy decisions are made and implemented. It is the result of interactions, relationships and networks between the different sectors, namely government, public sector, private sector and civil society.The 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. It is the result of interactions, relationships and networks between the different sectors in society (government, public sector, private sector and civil society) and involves decisions, negotiation, and different power relations between stakeholders to determine who gets what, when and how. The relationships between government and different sectors of society determine how things are done, and how services are provided. Governance is therefore much more than government or ‘good government’ and shapes the way a service or set of services are planned, managed and regulated within a set of political social and economic systems..Every “decentralised local government system” has its own specific contextualized arrangements regarding the above types and dimensions of decentralisation, while it is common (especially in Africa) that fiscal decentralisation usually lags behind in the decentralisation process. It is important to take the context specific situation for your country on these issues into account as this will define your reference framework.
15 2. Decentralization and democracy Democratic Local Governance Emphasizes the importance ofthe processin which decisions are made and implemented, as well asthe resultsin terms of improved services of the people in democratic local governance.If poverty is understood not only as lack of access to livelihood and basic necessities but also as exclusion from decision-making processes, improving the quality of governance at local level forms a vital element in combating the structural causes of poverty and inequality.Inadequate governance at the local level affects the poor in many ways, often enhancing exclusion. Lack of participation in decision-making processes means that the poor often do not have a choice in determining their own development needs and priorities.Bureaucratic, complex and non-transparent municipal administrative practices lead to lower revenues, which in turn results in less spending on social programmes to benefit the poor.Non-responsive allocation of resources can lead to a disproportionate spending on the priorities of the better-off rather than on those of the poor.Non-transparent land allocation practices push the poor to the urban periphery and hazardous areas prone to earthquakes, landslides and floods, depriving them of secure access to a major productive asset.Moreover, poor women are even more severely affected by these phenomena as they often shoulder the major burden of household responsibilities and are even more vulnerable to exploitation.Democratic local governance thus adds an extra dimension to the decentralisation debate, paying equal attention to the process in which decisions are made and implemented as well as the actual results in terms of improved services to the people. Democratic local governance is thus both a means and an end. It is a means to achieve the goals of human development and it is an end in itself – as values, policies and institutions that are governed by human rights principles, i.e. equality and non-discrimination, participation and inclusiveness, accountability and the rule of law, thus consolidating the legitimacy of the state in the eyes of its citizens.
16 2. Decentralization and democracy Universal priorities for local governance UN-Habitat Guidelines on Decentralisation and theStrengthening of Local Authorities (April 2007):1. Governance and democracy at the local levelAppropriate balance of representative and participatory democracy, and governance in accordance with principles of transparency, integrity and downward accountability2. Powers and responsibilities of local authoritiesPublic responsibilities should be executed by those elected authorities closest to citizens (subsidiarity), and incremental decentralisation combined with capacity developmentThere is growing interest among local authorities and international organizations in the definition of universal principles that serve as a reference for decentralisation and local governance reform on a worldwide scale.The approval by UN Habitat of the Guidelines on Decentralisation and the Strengthening of Local Authorities in April 2007 was a major step forward in this direction. These Guidelines recognize that sustainable development is made possible by “the effective decentralization of responsibilities, policy management, decision-making authority and sufficient resources, to local authorities, closest to, and most representative of, their constituencies.”The guidelines integrate notions of governance and democracy, representative democracy and participative democracy; they define the principles that govern the mandate of locally elected authorities and the powers and responsibilities of local authorities, based on the principle of subsidiarity.For the guidelines:
17 2. Decentralization and democracy Universal priorities for local governance 3. Administrative relations between local authorities and other spheres of governmentrecognition of the legal autonomy of local authorities, respect for the practice of autonomy, as legislatively defined, by higher levels, and provisions for legal recourse where such autonomy is unjustly infringed4. Financial resources and capacities of local authoritieslocal authorities should be supported by other spheres of government, as much as possible determine their own administrative structures and adapt them to local needs, and have the financial autonomy to carry out their responsibilities
18 2. Decentralization and democracy Exercise 1 In your setting…What are the big issues in governance at the local level?How do you define good local governance?This exercise can be done individually or in small groups. The aim is for participants to articulate their view of good local governance, which they can do in contrast with the UN Habitat guidelines. Ask participants to generate a list of their most important principles.See facilitation notes for ideas on reporting back.
19 Outline Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance Decentralisation and democracyMeasuring local governanceIssues to consider for carrying out LG assessmentsPractical application
20 3. Measuring local governance Why address and assess governance at the local level? It’s at the local level where:There is direct interaction between government and citizensMore services are decentralizedAn increasing part of government budget is spentCitizen dissatisfaction is most apparentThe state derives a large part of its legitimacyDemocratic governments are motivated to improve service delivery to their citizens, and to do this they need to address governance at the local level. This helps not only to improve service delivery but also create realistic expectations and to strengthen citizen agency for self help or social action. Studies by Idasa in various African countries reveal a positive relationship between the level of satisfaction of service delivery by citizens, and the quality of governance (at the local level). It’s important to address good governance at the local level for the reasons listed on the slide.In addition, assessments of decentralized governance importantIf governance is important, then measuring governance is also important, since the drivers of these processes need to know whether or not the objectives of improved governance are achieved, or whether adjustments need to be made.Assessments of decentralized governance are essential for objectively informing the specific policies and programmes at the sub-national level, for making judgements about patterns and trends, i.e., whether certain aspects of governance are better or worse than others in a particular district or town, whether the quality of governance is improving or deteriorating, and whether these trends are uniform across the country.It is important to understand that assessing decentralized governance is not simply a disaggregated form of national governance assessments. Assessments of decentralized governance provide important information on issues specific to the local level, such as decentralisation policies, participation and local accountability. One of the main differences between national and local governance assessment is the greater proximity to the real-world issues. Therefore, local assessments need to be more sensitive to the particular needs of groups of stakeholders and certain segments in the local community.If governance is important, then measuring governance is also important, to know if these objectives are being achieved, or whether adjustments are needed.Not simply a disaggregated national governance assessment!
21 3. Measuring local governance Reasons for assessing local governance 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.
22 3. Measuring local governance What kind of assessments are possible? Comprehensive local governance assessment approaches based on mutiple stakeholder perspectivesLocal Governance assessments based on citizen (or single stakeholder) perspectivesLocal Governance and performance self-assessments by local government institutions
23 3. Measuring local governance Normative foundations Governance indicators measure the relationship between the actual and desired state of governance.Critical step: valued principles measurable indicatorsPrinciples of democratic governance e.g. accountabilityOperational questions e.g. Does the local gov. announce and disclose the budget for public review?Specific indicators e.g. public review of the budget (quality scale)Profile of democratic governance It’s important to make these normative assumptions explicit so users of reports understand how ‘good’ or ‘democratic’ governance is being assessed.
24 3. Measuring local governance Exercise 2 Brainstorm Generate as many indicators as possible within the time allocated. Use the principles of good governance you discussed in the previous exercise, and, if helpful, the format below (with intervening indicator questions).PrincipleAccountabilityIndicatorPublic review of the budgetIndicator questionDoes the local government announce and disclose the budget for public review?This is a brainstorm activity that is best done in small groups.The object is for participants to generate as many indicators as possible within the time allocated (e.g. 7 minutes). They should base these on the principles of good governance discussed in the previous exercise. If helpful, they can develop the indicators using the diagram format (with intervening indicator questions). The indicators produced can be contrasted with those presented in the slides that follow.See facilitation notes for reporting back options.
25 3. Measuring local governance Example principles and indicators Effectiveness - LG revenue per capita - LG revenue transfers - Published performance standardsParticipation - elected council - voter turnout and representation by sex - public forum for women, youth and vulnerable groups - citizen capacity to engage in decision-makingEquity - citizen’s charter: right of access to basic services - percentage of women councillors - pro-poor pricing policy for water
26 3. Measuring local governance Example principles and indicators (2) Accountability - Formal publication of contracts, tenders, budget and accounts - codes of conduct - disclosure of income and assets - regular independent auditSecurity - facilities for citizen complaints - protection against crime and violence - security of land tenure and useInstitutional capacity - degree of professionalization or personnel and selection criteria - mechanisms for attention to citizens
27 3. Measuring local governance What kind of data sources? Use existing (secondary) data, and collect new (primary) dataAdministrative data: policy and legal documents, codes of conduct, organizational set-up and management systems, processes for decision-makingStatistical data and indexes: expenditure tracking and budgetary information, organisational audit reports, election data, census dataPerception and fact based evidence from individuals, households and private sector through surveys, report cards, focus groups
28 3. Measuring local governance Selecting an assessment tool The tools profiled in the Source Guide are classified according to the following features:Cost benefit analysisPurposeInformation sourcesLead actors applying the toolUse of explicit poverty measuresUse of explicit gender measuresThe tools profiled in the Source Guide are classified according to the following features:Cost benefit analysisQuick and cheap methods that generate indicative findings, versus ones that are more time and resource intensive, but that produce more detailed and contextualised informationPurposeDiagnostic, to inform policy making and priority setting, or capacity development, to facilitate engagement of citizens in governance processesInformation sourcesObjective (fact-based) and/or subjective (perception-based)Lead actors applying the toolInternal to local government or external to local governmentUse of explicit poverty measuresDisaggregated by income groups and/or indicators specific to the poorUse of explicit gender measuresSex disaggregated and/or gender specific indicators
29 Outline Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance Decentralisation and democracyMeasuring local governanceIssues to consider for carrying out LG assessmentsPractical application
30 4. Issues to consider Are you ready to assess? Is the basic decentralised system functioning according to certain minimum standards?e.g. delivery mechanisms, basic institutional procedures, planning and budgeting, staffing, clearly delegated mandates, inter-governmental relationsAre you able to tackle the issues raised and the capacity needs of stakeholders that emerge from the exercise?Drafting a Capacity Development plan and budget should be part of your strategy from the start.There is no use to conduct a comprehensive local governance assessment if:You know already that the basic decentralised system is not functioning according to certain minimum standards (e.g. if delivery mechanisms, basic institutional procedures, planning and budgeting, staffing, clearly delegated mandates, inter-governmental relations, etc.)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.
31 4. Issues to consider Ownership Local government?Official legitimacy, but concerns for independence and validityCentral government?Supportive, but not a leadership roleCivil society/ research institutes?Greater autonomy and independence, but may need to achieve consensus with government to bring about reformWho is the leading agent in the process andhow can we guarantee neutral facilitation?A crucial question is which stakeholder should lead the process. Practical experiences indicate different answers. While most argued the central actor should be local government, some interviewed (for the Users’ Guide) thought it should not implement the assessment due to a conflict of interest. And while there was a consensus that civil society organisations must play a key role, some argued they should not conduct assessments without backing from the local government. There was also agreement that there should be a role for central government, but not a leadership role.
32 4. Issues to consider Managing multiple and conflicting purposes ChallengeGetting a shared understanding and purpose when there are different and conflicting purposes, and unrealistic expectations.Good practicesAssessment as part of a capacity building and inclusive dialogue processClear normative framework is agreed uponAssessment is purpose orientedDerive objectives from local development needs and the strategic policy agendaIdentifying and ensuring consensus on the key purpose of an assessment is a significant challenge. Often there is a multitude of different and sometimes conflicting purposes due to the variety of needs of the numerous stakeholders. Most practitioners and experts strongly promote the idea that an assessment is a development tool, and not merely a technocratic exercise in operationalising a set of indicators. In that sense, it should inform development plans and strategies, identify capacity gaps, and areas of governance reform, and set a factual baseline for policy analysis. It should also be used for social and resource mobilisation, raising awareness of stakeholders, advocacy and facilitating.
33 4. Issues to consider Political support and leadership Ensuring high level political support, and local level buy in Convincing local leadership of potential win-win situation: greater transparency, rule of law, reduced corruption, better responsiveness etc will enhance the legitimacy of the local government and politicians, and likelihood of re-electionIdentify ‘champions’ who create enthusiasm and drive the exercise, and who work with all different actors to keep them committed to the original purpose of the assessment.
34 4. Issues to consider Ensuring inclusiveness Starts at the definition and selection of stakeholder groupsIf you don’t include marginalised groups explicitly, they will not be heard (stakeholders, sub-indicators, segregated data)Avoid elite capture by working with groups individually (to stimulate the emergence of true opinions) and collectively (to stimulate dialogue)Use differences in perceptions and scores as a starting point for dialogueTreat the assessment as a collective learning process
35 4. Issues to consider The purpose should define the method Starts at the definition and selection of stakeholder groupsIf you don’t include marginalised groups explicitly, they will not be heard (stakeholders, sub-indicators, segregated data)Avoid elite capture by working with groups individually (to stimulate the emergence of true opinions) and collectively (to stimulate dialogue)Use differences in perceptions and scores as a starting point for dialogueTreat the assessment as a collective learning process
36 4. Issues to consider Deciding the scope Which government level to focus on?Local government only?Also Ministries at the local level?Lack of coordination is often an important bottleneck for efficient service deliveryOrdinary citizens are in general not able to distinguish the two, which might affect their view of governance problems and solutions
37 4. Issues to consider Adapting the tool to a local context Don’t just replicate a tool used in another countryMap out existing tools, and select a methodology that is suited to the purpose and the normative foundationInvest in proper design, testing and initial consultation of stakeholdersContinuous adjustments are important, even during implementation (Why are services not as they should be?)Adjust ambitions to capacities availableOn the issue of continuous adjustments to the assessment, it is useful to keep revisiting the original question: Why are services not as they should be?
38 4. Issues to consider Selecting the indicators Balance direct needs with systemic issues (immediate vs long term impact)Combine input and output/outcome based indicators to show discrepancies between change in law and change in practiceUse indicators that are actionable but also action-worthyIntegrate poverty and gender sensitive measures, to provide a basis for local equitable development (in addition to disaggregating data by sex, income etc..)Be cautious with use of data, scores are not absolute because they are based on perceptions.See Communication Package for further explanation of change in law/in practice, of actionable and action-worthy indicators, and of poverty and gender sensitive indicators.
39 4. Issues to consider Ensuring findings are used Ensure high level political support to so that more systemic issues that emerge are addressedEnsure there is a budget and technical support to address capacity needs identifiedBreakdown problems into priorities and according to the type of solution they requireCraft concrete recommendations that help to address these in terms of immediate, medium and long-term objectivesBuild on strengthsCommunicate research in a useful and accessible form, to an audience that is as wide and diverse as possibleBreaking down problems: identify urgent priorities; isolate aspects that city authorities and administrators can address on their own, from ones that require stakeholder involvement; separate problems that require major institutional change, those that involve personalities, and ones that can be addressed through policy change.
40 Outline Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance Decentralisation and democracyMeasuring local governanceIssues to consider for carrying out LG assessmentsPractical application
41 5. Practical application Getting started checklist Decide on ownership of LG assessmentDepending on where ownership resides, involve the right partners and generate buy in from above and locallyDecide on purposeDecide on scopeClarify budgetAssess what secondary data are ready availableSelect instrumentAdjust instrument to country setting and specific requirements
42 5. Practical application Exercise 3 Describe the contours of a local governance assessmentframework for your country addressing:Which category of tools (assessment by whom?) or which combination of tools would be most applicable?Using the matrix, which tool could be your guiding tool?
43 5. Practical application Exercise 3 (selecting a tool) Take into consideration the following:Can it be made country specific (but also applied country wide)?Do the objectives address both local development needs and strategic policy agenda?Can it provide evidence for a strategy to enhance good governance at local level?Can the process itself help to promote desired objectives? (e.g. capacity development, dialogue, transparency)Is it poverty and gender sensitive?Does it combine measures of performance in practice as well as in law?
44 5. Practical application Exercise 4 Choose the case that is of most interest to youFacilitating commitment and involvement: The role of a local government officialMoving from government to the concept of governance:The role of a civil society activistBalancing comparability with local relevance: The role of a representative from a local government associationEnsuring uptake of assessment findings in local policymaking The role of a local elected government officialChapter 3 of the Users’ Guide contains four case studies, but for the purpose of this exercise, use the cases in the back of the communication package, which include questions.Form small groups on the basis of interest – some cases may be popular, requiring several groups, while others may not be of interest.Each case is given to the individuals of the groups in instalments. Individuals read about a problem, then come to a question which they should discuss with their group members before moving on to the next instalment.Reporting back is optional, though the person facilitating this session may wish to debrief drawing attention to themes that were of interest or that link the cases.
45 In conclusion:Governance becomes measurable and thus discussible at local and national levelWe can detect capacity building needs amongst all stakeholders that if addressed properly can strengthen governanceWe can prioritize, plan and budget for related capacity buildingWe can provide evidence based policy advice to central government.It is possible to create emerging “social contracts” between government and civil society by showing that they work towards the same objective and that win-win solutions to governance problems are possible.