2. SEL1 Implementing an assessment – the Process Session IV Lusaka, January 20 2003 M. Gonzales de Asis and F. Recanatini, WBI www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance

3. SEL2 Why and when is important to think about the process? WHY? The type of implementing process can affect the other dimensions of the assessment – Conceptual, Empirical and Analytical WHEN? The type of process is key when the purpose of the assessment is policy reform and change

4. SEL3 Key questions Who should be involved in the assessments? Who should select the methodology, the tools and the sample? Who should complete the analysis? Who should retain the data?

5. SEL4 Possible actors that should be considered Government Civil society NGOs Universities International community Media

6. SEL5 Process and implementation Governance assessments can be implemented in different ways From the top down From the bottom up Fully participatory process

7. SEL6 Selecting the process The choice of implementing process is a function of the purpose of the assessment. For example: Cross-country data collection: top down Policy change and action planning: participatory and bottom up Research: top down and bottom up

8. SEL7 Challenges for policy changes in governance Potential lack of long-term commitment Comprehensiveness of the reforms needed Sensitivity of the issue Potential bias due to existing stereotypes Costs and timing of the reforms

9. SEL8 To overcome these challenges… Involve different stakeholders in the design and implementation of the assessment Involve different stakeholders in the analysis of the results and the identification of priorities Promote social auditing Participation

10. GENERAL METODOLOGY FOR A PARTICIPATORY STRATEGY Political Will Partnership b/w civil society and government Assessment and Action Plan Donors Institutional Reforms

11. SEL10 Participatory Governance Assessment Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods through focus groups, dialogue and workshops

12. SEL11 Key idea behind participation and bottom up approach Allowing “ beneficiaries ” to both inform the analysis and analyze themselves Fosters dialogue rather than extracts information Instrumental vs. transformative participation

13. SEL12 Governance assessments can… Help identify priorities in an objective way for the reform Help provide collective advice Help assess political will Facilitate depersonalization of the debate

14. SEL13 Example 1: Guatemala, 2002 Issues: Poor performance of the public administration Poor quality of public services High level of corruption Low level of investment and growth Lack of trust in the government

15. SEL14 Example 1: Guatemala, 2002 Objectives: To increase trust To improve efficiency and quality of the public administration To curb corruption To promote investment and private sector growth

16. SEL15 Example 1: Guatemala, 2002 Actions taken: Open, frank dialogue between government and civil society Organization of 2 national workshops to define jointly the governance assessment to use – method, sample, analysis Joint selection of consultants that implement the assessment Joint dissemination of the results Data publicly available for further analisis

17. Example 2: Venezuela, 1999 Survey of 1,000 public officials and users of service Objective: assess the impact of corruption on the provision of public services Findings: causes of corruption in one of the municipalities: Complexity and unpredictability of administrative procedures (time, number of steps, and number of agencies involved) Lack of disclosure of public information Lack of accountability

18. Example 2, cont. Follow-up workshop for policy design Fully participatory working groups created an Action Plan including: Identification of priorities for reform Actors for carrying the reforms Government Civil society Actions to take

19. Example 2, cont. Improving administrative procedures: Construction permits, Industrial and commerce and Certification of tax payments – Decreasing administrative steps – Standardizing processing times to create formal administrative routes – Improving coordination among the offices Finding mechanism to develop an information and accountable system: –Creating a participatory budgeting system –Establishing public information campaigns Developing a public complaint mechanism

20. Example 2, cont. Problem: Lack of information and accountability Solution developed through participatory workshops Institutionalized mechanism to develop an Information and Monitoring System Institutionalized a participatory budgeting system for programming public expenditures Computerized data system (municipal transactions, including public bidding, acquisitions, and execution of public works) Tripartite Auditing Commission for monitoring public budgetary

21. IMPACT AND LESSONS LEARNED Political Commitment is indispensable. Surveys are a useful method for raising awareness and designing monitoring and evaluating reforms. Participatory methodologies increased transparency, credibility and the capacity to address problems Citizens in this municipality: citizens understand that putting an end to bribery frees up financial resources (reallocation of services)

22. The consensus-building approach enhances the sustainability of the reforms. The experience demonstrates the powerful and beneficial effects of an innovative mix of local political will, the technical capacity to execute reforms, and a strong partnership with civil society in the drive to enhance efficiency, equity and transparency in a country. IMPACT AND LESSONS LEARNED

23. SEL22 1. Establishment of Steering Committee 2. Diagnostic surveys + analysis 3. Draft of the NAS 4. Public dissemination + discussion 5. Revision of the NAS 6. Implementation by Government 7. Monitoring and Evaluation of NAS Stages for Development of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy WBI Technical Assistance Key Partnership: Government + Civil Society Country Implemented