1. Institutionalizing the Production of Country-Level Governance Data UNDP’s Global Programme on Democratic Governance Assessments Joachim Nahem Programme Manager

2. Outline 1.Why UNDP supports country led governance assessments 2.Lessons learned from Africa and elsewhere 3.Next steps and proposed collaboration

3. 908886 82 84969800020492940678 76 1974 Global governance indicators 08 80 CPIA Freedom in the World Commitment to Development Bertelsmann Transformation Index Global Accountability Report Index of Economic Freedom Journalists killed Open Budget Index Polity Opacity Index Integrity Index BEEPS Press Freedom Survey Political Terror Scale Global Competitiveness Index World Governance Assessment World Values Survey State Failure Dataset Women in Parliament Governance Matters Gender Empowerment Measure Index of Democracy World Democracy Audit Failed States Index Press Freedom Index Democracy Index Institutional Profiles Database Weberian Comparative State Project International Country Risk Guide Human Rights Indicators GAPS in Workers’ Rights Corruption Perceptions Index Bribe Payers Index Indicators of Local Democratic Governance CIRI Human Rights Databse Countries at the Crossroads Civil Society Index Economic Freedom of the World Global Corruption Barometer Rule of Law Index Governance and Democracy Processes Global Peace Index Index of Human Rights

4. Fragility & conflict indicators Bertelsmann Transformation Index Country Indicators for Foreign Policy Resource Allocation Index Failed States Index Index of State Weakness Peace and Conflict Instability Ledger State Fragility Index Worldwide Governance Indicators Global Peace Index Ibrahim Index Political Instability Index 9088868284969800020492940678 76 0880101972 74 Correlates of War Political Terror Scale Conflict Barometer CIRI Human Rights Databse Barometro Battle Deaths Data Major Episodes of Political Violence

5. Transparency International – Indice de perception de la corruption (2009) Freedom House – Liberté dans le monde (2009) Banque Mondiale – Controle de la corruption (2009) Global Integrity (2009) 1.Burkina Faso 2. Malawi 3.Senegal 4.Gambie 5.Algerie 6.Mali (111e) 7.Mozambique (130e) “libre”: 1.Mali “partiellement libres”: 2. Senegal 3. Mozambique 4. Burkina Faso 5. Malawi 6. Gambie “non libres”: 7. Algerie 1. Mozambique (41%) 2. Burkina Faso 3. Algerie 4. Malawi 5. Senegal 6. Gambie 7. Mali (29%) Moderee: Malawi Faible: Senegal Tres faible: Algerie Mozambique

6. Shortage of sound country-level governance data  use of global comparative indices BUT these indices are constituted by ‘weak data’ – Mainly expert perceptions informed by anecdotal experience/media headlines, etc. – Wide gaps observed between expert’ perceptions (e.g. CPI) and citizens’ actual experiences (e.g. Global Corruption Barometer) Bottom line: Expert perceptions cannot be used as a satisfactory proxy Dearth of country-level governance data in Africa

7. Dearth of country-level governance data in Africa Few countries have permanent monitoring systems that supply governance data Impetus for governance surveys tends to be external – at the ‘suggestion’ of a donor – when external funding is available – unlikely to be repeated over time Lack of time series data hinders govt efforts to implement good performance management

8. UNDP Supported Country Governance Assessments ● Mexico ● Nicaragua Barbados & ● Eastern Caribbean ● Senegal ● Nigeria ● Angola ● Malawi ● Egypt ● Djibouti ● Macedonia ● Tajikistan ● Mongolia ● Bhutan ● Indonesia ● Chile ● Iraq ● Rwanda ● Dom. Rep

9. 9 Ten features of an effective country-led governance assessment 1. Alignment to national political priorities and processes 2. Assessment is country contextualized 3. Methodology is rigorous 4. Selection of indicators is transparent and participatory 5. Results are stored in a public national database 6. Indicators are pro-poor and gender-sensitive 7. Capacity of national stakeholders is developed 8. Cost-effective and timely 9. The results are widely communicated 10. The assessment is repeated UNESCO/Loock F.

11. Users’ Guides to Measuring The series offers: A menu of indicators and tools ready to be used Guidance to comparative indices How-to conduct a country-led assessments Case studies and good practices Voices from the trenches

12. Africa Forum on Civil Society and Gov Assessments: “NSOs have an important [yet underappreciated] role to play” Africa Forum on Civil Society and Governance Assessments (Dakar, November 2011) – jointly organized by UNDP, Trust Africa, Civicus, the African Governance Institute, and Congad Forum highlighted the underutilized potential of African NSOs to help strengthen DG, by revealing the wishes of the public and empowering ‘voiceless’ sections of the population through the regular production of governance statistics Particularly important for NSOs to play this role in countries where civil society struggles to take part in policy discussions

13. A ‘natural’ responsibility for National Statistical Offices Value-added of NSOs for collecting governance data through public surveys: NSOs have technical expertise in household surveys; Such surveys allow for the collection of both objective (actual experiences) AND subjective (perception, opinion and satisfaction) data on governance; With relatively small random probability samples, NSOs can produce highly accurate and cost-effective results; Governance data + socio-economic characteristics (income, occupation, gender, age, ethnic group, etc.)  disparities & discrimination revealed

14. A ‘natural’ responsibility for National Statistical Offices Governance surveys serve a ‘public service mission’  therefore requires public funds [just like for the collection of socio-economic statistics] Production of time series made easy through inclusion of governance modules into national statistical data collection system Legitimacy and credibility of survey results in the eyes of government may be enhanced if data collected by NSOs (organs of the State vs. independent NGOs)  results more likely to be used by government

15. Proposed workshop in Dakar (follow-up to Nairobi) Co-organized by UNDP & Afrobarometer Oct. or Nov. 2012 For NSOs of West and Central Africa [+others if interested] and UNDP staff To strengthen the capacities of NSOs to collect governance data through statistical surveys To demonstrate the policy relevance of such data To demonstrate the ease of collection of such data

16. Proposed workshop in Dakar (follow-up to Nairobi) Framework for discussing opportunities & challenges for governance data collection by NSOs: 6 ‘best practices principles’ enshrined in the African Charter on Statistics PRINCIPLE 1: Professional independence How to counter public inhibition in the face of ‘state agents’ when enquiring about governance issues? PRINCIPLE 2: Quality What ‘traditional’ polling techniques are inappropriate for governance surveys, such as polling heads of households instead of the people who reside in them?

17. PRINCIPLE 3: Mandate for data collection & resources How to programme a governance survey so as to reduce additional costs as far as possible (in time, finances and human resources)? PRINCIPLE 4: Dissemination How can NSOs communicate governance statistics clearly to policymakers and other potential users – including parliamentarians, oversight institutions (e.g. national human rights commissions, anti-corruption commissions, etc.), civil society, think tanks, etc.? PRINCIPLE 5: Protection of individual data, info sources and respondents What measures are required to guarantee the protection of respondents, the confidentiality of the governance information provided, and the use of such information for strictly statistical purposes? PRINCIPLE 6: Coordination and cooperation What sort of collaborative arrangements should be established between data providers (households, ministries, etc.), NSOs, and data users?

18. Thank you! joachim.nahem@undp.org