1. FOUR PROPOSITIONS ON GENDER-SENSITIVE AND PRO-POOR INDICATORS OF GOOD GOVERNANCE Christopher Scott London School of Economics April 2005

2. THE PROPOSITIONS 1.Indicator selection is itself a governance process. 2.Three generations of indicators may be distinguished. 3.Use specific governance processes as units of analysis to identify certain indicators. 4.‘Gender-sensitivity’ has (at least) four different meanings.

3. INDICATOR SELECTION IS A GOVERNANCE PROCESS Competent, transparent and participatory IS intrinsic to good governance. Not an exclusively technical exercise, nor a once-off set of decisions. Ensure IS process strengthens and supports existing democratic political institutions rather than bypasses them, eg. importance of Parliamentary involvement.

4. DISTINGUISH THREE GENERATIONS OF INDICATORS 1st generation indicators (G1) –can be used now –may suffer from methodological weaknesses wrt relevance,coverage,etc. 2nd generation indicators (G2) –not currently available. –could be produced within (say) 3 years –promise to be methodologically superior to some G1 indicators.

5. 3rd generation indicators (G3) –experimental indicators outside official monitoring system. –often pioneered by civil society organisations. –after due process of appraisal, some G3 indicators may evolve into G2. DISTINGUISH THREE GENERATIONS OF INDICATORS

6. Mapping specific governance processes provides a tool for identifying certain pro- poor and gender-sensitive indicators Suggest hierarchy of ‘governance’ → service lines/practice areas → processes → indicators. Process ≡ detailed sequence of chronological steps in a single political, administrative or legal procedure which is embedded in a set of institutions. USE GOVERNANCE PROCESSES AS UNITS OF ANALYSIS

7. Examples –Regulatory process for registering a firm (required for movement from urban informal to formal sector) –Criminal justice process: application in Honduras produced 10 indicators. –In some countries (Mongolia), it is likely that a majority of both perpetrators and victims of certain types of recorded crime (such as theft) come from low-income households. USE GOVERNANCE PROCESSES AS UNITS OF ANALYSIS

8. 1.Gender disaggregated –eg. % of Parliamentarians who are female –How far to disaggregate ? Large differences in indicator X (propensity to vote) may exist between separate subgroups of either men or women (by age group, income, ethnic group). –Implies average gender differential wrt indicator X may hide large variance across subgroups of the same gender. May be relevant to policy. IDENTIFY FOUR TYPES OF GENDER- SENSITIVE INDICATORS

9. 2.Gender specific –eg. number of reported rape cases prosecuted in courts (victims almost exclusively female) –eg. incidence of domestic violence (victims predominantly female) –relevant for measuring dimensions of welfare which are female-specific. IDENTIFY FOUR TYPES OF GENDER- SENSITIVE INDICATORS

10. 3.Implicitly gendered: –eg. distance from nearest health and education facilities (defined as a governance indicator in Kosovo HDR). –If it is women rather than men who take children to health clinics and accompany them to/from school, this indicator is implicitly gendered. –Importance of obtaining information on time-use by (poor) men and women. IDENTIFY FOUR TYPES OF GENDER- SENSITIVE INDICATORS

11. 4.Chosen by women rather than men –need not refer to gender at all. –such indicators reflect differences in preferences/priorities as between men and women regarding different dimensions of governance. IDENTIFY FOUR TYPES OF GENDER- SENSITIVE INDICATORS