Disaggregating Governance Indicators Local Governance Why Local Governance is important and how it can be measured Shipra Narang UN-HABITAT

The imperative of measuring governance  Increasing focus on governance issues over the last decade  Relationship of governance with poverty: “Good Governance is perhaps the single most important factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development” – Kofi Annan  Need to develop objective, measurable indicators to assess the quality of governance  Existing governance indicators either holistic/aggregate (e.g. HDI), or extremely narrow (e.g. CPI)

Key issues in measuring governance  Input, output, outcome, performance, perception, process and many other indicators? Governance indicators are more about process than anything else  Credible and robust indicators?  Universality or contextualisation? Universality hold the key to comparability, while contextualisation captures specific local conditions

Key issues in measuring governance  Ownership Participatory processes must be integral to indicator development, collection and analysis, in order to ensure ownership  Global, national, regional or local?  Integer or profile? Disaggregation holds the key to meaningful utilisation of governance data

Disaggregation at sub-national and local levels  Governance data at national level is not, by itself, a good enough measure of the quality of governance in a country  Issues such as participation, accountability and efficiency often reflected more accurately at the local level  Local governance indicators can point towards the need for reform at the national level  Sub-national and local governance indicators can also help in identifying instances of poor application of good policies, or issues related to capacity constraints

Disaggregation by issues or principles  Can such a complex and multi-dimensional issue as governance be expressed through a single summary measure?  Five UN principles norms or principles of good urban governance Effectiveness Equity Accountability Participation Security  Disaggregation enables the identification of precise gaps for policy reform, formulation of change plans, or capacity building

Disaggregation by population  Governance data must reflect the characteristics of different sections of the population  Disaggregation can be based on Gender Income and social characteristics Ethnicity and origin, etc.  Disaggregation by population can help to direct attention and policies towards specific groups usually excluded from governance processes

The Urban Governance Index (UGI): Objectives  Global level: To demonstrate the importance of good urban governance in achieving broad development goals, facilitate comparison of cities  Local level: Catalyse local action to improve the quality of local governance

The UGI: Selection of indicators  Two expert group meetings  Two field tests in 24 cities  Five sub-indices reduced to four  Criteria for indicator selection: Consistency with governance principles Ease of collection Credibility Comparability across countries

What does the UGI reveal?  Governance processes at the local level (complements national indicators as well input, output, perception etc. indicators)  Four dimensions of local governance Effectiveness Equity Participation Accountability

UGI Sub-Indices Comparison - Six Sri Lankan cities

Universality of the UGI  Core indicators – universally applicable  Satellite indicators – context- specific

Building ownership  Participatory methodology  Focuses on involvement of stakeholders and discussion of governance issues  Aims to build broad ownership not only of indicators, data and Index results, but also the policy reforms and capacity building efforts that follow

Applications of the UGI  A mechanism for initiating stakeholder engagement  A self-assessment tool for cities  A tool for national comparison  A tool to establish correlation between poverty and governance

Outcomes and impact of UGI in SL and Zimbabwe  Greater Participation: Issues such as amount of tax collected against the budgeted amount, what the taxes are being used for etc. discussed with citizens for the first time. Created an opening for the people to learn about and participate in the municipal resource management process.  A commitment to transparency: For instance, the municipality of Kandy has put up a board with UGI data for public view in the City Hall, and committed to updating it on a regular basis

Outcomes and impact of UGI in SL and Zimbabwe …[2]  Increased awareness: Citizens now more conscious of the issues of transparency, accountability and responsiveness. Debate on pro- poor water policies, informal sector, citizen’s charter etc. initiated for the first time in Zimbabwean cities.  Policy change: For instance, women’s entry into the mainstream of local politics is being encouraged. On International Women's Day, the Sri Lankan President highlighted this issue in her address.  A voice to the poor: The demand from the underserved for better or the right of access to basic services increased with the opportunity given for them to participate in city activities.

Lessons from UGI application  Global values, Local Appeal: Indicators need to be made clearer and more contextually relevant to politicians, policy-makers and stakeholders – translation, training, capacity building go a long way  Coordination, not Overlap: Local authorities are often overburdened with collecting data for various indicators and reports (e.g. HDRs, local poverty mapping, report cards etc.) – these need to be coordinated  An agenda for local government associations: LGAs can play an important role in scaling up the pilot efforts, collating information, building LG capacities

Application of the UGI: The Way Forward  Global: Discussions are ongoing with UCLG and CLGF to develop a Good Governance Hallmark or Award system based on the Index results cities database planned in partnership with DFID/WB.  Regional/ national: Building partnerships to apply the Index in selected regions and countries. National application underway in Somalia, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Madagascar etc.  National/local: To be extended to six more countries in 2005 in partnership with UNDP. Local (individual city) application encouraged as a self- assessment measure.

Please visit for more information on the Urban Governance Index Thank you!