PRIMER: LOCAL GOVERNMENT Content List

1. Introduction 2. Principles of Democratic Local Governance 3. Actors in Local Governance 4. Citizen Participation in Local Governance 5. Different Dimensions of Decentralization 6. Expectations of Local Governance & Decentralization 7. Important Patterns in Decentralization Reforms 8. Challenges to Decentralization 9. Measuring Local Governance Introduction Local governance describes a system in which public policy decisions are taken and implemented. It is not a normative concept (while democratic, good or better local governance is normative). As a process that addresses the needs and aspirations of whole communities, local governance comprises more than the local government. There is not just one universal definition for local governance, just as there are many forms of local governance applying to different parts of the world; nevertheless, we will consider for the purpose of this primer the definitions below which are broadly accepted: Local governance is a set of institutions, mechanisms and processes, through which citizens and their groups express their interests and needs, mediate their differences and exercise their rights and obligations at the local level. Governance at the local level includes not only the machinery of government, but also other actors and their interactions with local government institutions. Local government: A general term which encompasses counties, cities, municipal corporations, and other bodies that govern territorial areas smaller than the state. The authority of these governing bodies is limited to their territorial boundaries and to subjects of local concern, such as zoning, housing and building codes, service delivery, local economic development and sometimes community security. Local government includes two broad types: local state administrations and local representative bodies. Local Governance and Decentralization are two concepts that are often used interchangeably. If they are indeed related, they are however different.
Local Government Primer DG BRIDGE 2010 AEC V1 4 Jan 2011 DRAFT COPY: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION Page 1 of 18

Decentralization is the process of dispersing decision-making from the centre, closer to the point of service delivery or action. It is primarily a national political, legislative, institutional and/or fiscal process. It involves the transfer or power & resources from national to sub-national governments or from national to sub-national administrative units. A concept central to the notion of decentralization is that of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is an organizing principle saying that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. The central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. Decentralization, describes one of the forms that local governance can take. It is often considered that decentralization provides an opportunity to develop and strengthen local governance, since through decentralization, local governments gain the authority, resources and capacities to better respond to the needs of citizens and to operate effectively and accountably. But local governance may or may not be accompanied by decentralization, representative or participatory democratic processes, transparency, accountability or other defining characteristics of good local governance. The other key element in improving local governance is building local democracy or deepening democracy at the local level, enhancing democratic values and practices in political processes and structures, including political parties, civil society and media at the local level.

Building local democracy

The term decentralization is often seen as a generic term covering in fact different modalities and intensities in transfer of power: deconcentration, delegation & devolution.

Local Government Primer DG BRIDGE 2010 AEC V1 4 Jan 2011 DRAFT COPY: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

Page 2 of 18

Deconcentration: Transferring responsibilities to field and subordinate units of government (no distinct legal entity). It is the weakest form of decentralization, most frequently used in unitary states. It can merely shift responsibilities from central government officials in the capital city to those working in regions, provinces or districts, or it can create strong field administration or local administrative capacity under the supervision of central government ministries. Delegation is a more extensive form of decentralization in which central governments transfer responsibility for decision-making and administration of public functions to semiautonomous organizations not wholly controlled by the central government, but ultimately accountable to it (e.g. public enterprises or corporations, housing authorities, transportation authorities, semi-autonomous school districts, regional development corporations). Usually these organizations have a great deal of discretion in decisionmaking. They may be exempted from constraints on regular civil service personnel and may be able to charge users directly for services. Devolution is an arrangement or a process in public administration in which distinct bodies are created by law, separate from the central administration, and in which local representatives are given powers to decide on a range of public matters and gain access to resources which can be utilized at their discretion. Devolution exists if local entities have substantial authority to hire, fire, tax, contract, expend, invest, set priorities and delivery services. It is sometimes referred to as political decentralization (as political power is effectively devolved); however, devolution is broader than this. Also, decentralization is sometimes reduced to just the devolution type. In this primer, we consider that devolution is just one possible form of decentralization. A decentralized governance system in any given country will include a combination of the three models described above. Certain public matters can be fully devolved to local governments while others remain handled by deconcentrated services accountable to central government. Also, decentralization is not an alternative to centralization, both systems are needed to support better overall governance. In fact, successful decentralization needs effective piloting and strong support from the central level. Finally, in this introduction section, we need also to clarify as well that the ultimate goal of local governance and decentralization reforms should be to improve the lives of citizens especially the poor and vulnerable. UNDP speaks, for example, of decentralized governance for development. This brings in the important concept of local development: Local development (or Local economic development) essentially refers to a process by which a variety of local institutions and actors mobilise and work together to plan and implement sustainable local development strategies in a given territory. As we see from this introduction section, local governance and decentralization are complex phenomenons with different dimensions that will be pursued differently
Local Government Primer DG BRIDGE 2010 AEC V1 4 Jan 2011 DRAFT COPY: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION Page 3 of 18

depending on a given countrys or localitys context. Political, administrative and budgetary considerations as well as broad and meaningful participation need all be considered in order to gain an effective understanding of Local Governance & Decentralization, what it might accomplish, what challenges and opportunities may exist through Local Governance & Decentralization programming, and how those programs might be measured. After you have read this primer and completed related training activities with peers and a qualified facilitator, you should have a better understanding of the following aspects of Local Governance & Decentralization: Principles Actors Participation Political, Administrative & Fiscal Dimensions Expectations Challenges Monitoring & Evaluation

Principles of Democratic Local Governance As said before, local governance, in its true meaning, is not a normative definition. It can apply to whole range of different situations. For example, local governance exists as well in a dictatorial centralized regime. The weight given to the different local actors and the types of processes involved in policy-making & implementation will just be diametrically different as to what it would be under a decentralized democratic system. This is why we need to add a qualifying adjective to local governance to guide reforms affecting local governance systems. Good local governance is a very common term; however, it has been described sometimes as too idealistic and vague. Speaking of Better local governance, gives a dynamic and goal-oriented dimension to the expression. Pragmatists speak of Good enough local governance, to express how ambitions in terms of improving a local governance system in a given country context should be measured and aim at modest achievable objectives first. In this primer, we propose to use the term of Democratic local governance, which has the value of making a strong link between democracy & local governance and in particular between local governance and the fundamental democratic values of equality, participation, inclusiveness and common good. Democratic local governance denotes:

Local Government Primer DG BRIDGE 2010 AEC V1 4 Jan 2011 DRAFT COPY: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

Page 4 of 18

Effective and efficient local government (elected democratically) and public service delivery, responsive, transparent and interactive with local community and other local & central actors Inclusive, transparent and accountable local public policy and decision-making procedures, safeguarding the participation of an empowered local community which has the capacity to articulate the needs of its members, to participate Democratic, human-rights based and gender sensitive exercise of power and authority.

Quote: [Democratic] Local Governance has a double political and technical dimension. In its political dimension it requires participation, decision-making and leadership. In its technical dimension it requires needs assessment, planning, the negotiation of contracts, accounting mechanisms, monitoring and impact assessment. Both dimensions require transparency and the appropriate training of the stakeholders involved. (from UN-HABITAT, International Guidelines on Decentralization and Access to Basic Services for All, 2009).

Actors in Local Governance Apart from local governments, local Governance stakeholders can include: Citizens & Residents Agencies and departments of the central government (e.g. deconcentrated offices, service providers such as agricultural extension workers, police & regulatory agencies) Central government bodies overseeing the action of and providing support to local governments (e.g. Ministry of Local Administration, Ministry of Interior, Directorate of Local Governance, etc.) Community Groups and Civil Society Organizations (e.g. professional associations, school committees, neighborhood development committees, charities, youth clubs, womens organizations, etc.)
Page 5 of 18

Local Government Primer DG BRIDGE 2010 AEC V1 4 Jan 2011 DRAFT COPY: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

Business & Investors Traditional holders of authority (e.g. religious, clan or tribal leaders) whose standing or authority in a community comes from a traditional source Political Parties Independent Government Authorities- Such as Electoral Management Bodies administrations and anti-corruption agencies The International Community Local tribunals & courts Local & national media

Citizen Participation in Local Governance As noted above, participation is a basic principle of democratic local governance. Participation and participatory governance practices answer in general, the following goals: Encouraging and sustaining citizens' initiatives between elections Responding to citizen concerns regarding a lack of information or a lack of trust towards politicians Reaching out to marginalized groups, including women, the poor, and minorities Creating trust and confidence, or social capital, Preventing, managing and resolve disputes that can be arbitrated at the ballot box Strengthening the accountability of local governments towards citizens. A particularly interesting and crucial concept to understand the need for and value of participation is that of social capital, defined as being the basis of legitimacy of official government institutions. Without social capital, when trust and confidence are lacking, government efforts can be stymied; in the long run, communities without trust are dysfunctional and in the worst scenario violence among contending social forces can erupt. Creating social capital involves: (i) building linkages with civil society, (ii) strategic partnering with NGOs, (iii) connecting directly with citizens, (iv) creating mutual trust in government, civil society, and citizens. For participation to be a reality in the life of citizens, beyond a commitment from the State to allow and nurture participation, it needs mechanisms. Accessible and transparent elections for local government are an important participation mechanism. However, democratic local governance requires as well continuous opportunities for
Local Government Primer DG BRIDGE 2010 AEC V1 4 Jan 2011 DRAFT COPY: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION Page 6 of 18

meaningful & broad participation from diverse actors. This section discusses different opportunities for participation in local governance beyond elections, regrouped in 4 categories describing different levels of participation intensity: Information Gathering & Sharing Consultation Decision Making Dispute Resolution

Information Gathering and Sharing Such processes involve research and analysis, or the sharing of information with citizens and civic groups. Information-sharing processes often have a specific civic education function. Some examples include: Surveys & Polls, Community Forums & Participatory Research. Consultation Consultation features structured processes and events that systematically consult with constituencies - together or separately - on matters that affect them, in order to inform decisions taken by those officially mandated to represent citizens. Some examples include: Citizen Monitoring Programs, Participatory Appraisals & Beneficiary Assessments, Issue forums, Participatory Planning & Community Visioning Processes, Task Forces, Community Budgeting, Citizen Advisory Councils.

Decision-Making Here, the authority over the final resolution of the issue at hand is with the community members participating and cannot be overturned by elected officials or (ideally) by regional or national level governments. In decision-making processes, the key questions concern the legitimacy of those involved to represent their constituency, how decisions are made (e.g., by consensus or majority) and how issues can be resolved when is consensus is unattainable. Some examples include: Citizen Juries, Problem Solving Workshops, Elections/Referenda. Public Dispute Resolution It includes methods for preventing, managing, and settling public disputes through negotiation, mediation, or arbitration. These methods do not necessarily feature policyLocal Government Primer DG BRIDGE 2010 AEC V1 4 Jan 2011 DRAFT COPY: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION Page 7 of 18

making or implementation, but instead facilitation, problem solving, task forces, community mediation services, conciliation commissions, and the like. Some examples include: Grievance handling systems, mediation and arbitration centers, Crisis-related response committees for violence prevention and mitigation Different Dimensions of Decentralization As we have seen, decentralization involves multiple actors engaging in diverse and potentially complex processes. These processes are multi-faceted: there are political, administrative and fiscal considerations. Democratic local governance and decentralization efforts will in some way address all of them. Political Decentralization It refers to the processes, policy and legal framework that leads to and enables the transfer of some amount of political authority from the central government to subnational elected governments. These local governments are therefore downwardly accountable to citizens rather than to central government. Often the election of sub-national officials, as opposed to their appointment by the central government, is the first and most visible sign of political decentralization. However, there are other aspects of political decentralization as well. Referenda and plebiscites, dissemination of information on local government performance and decisions, opportunities for broad participation in planning & decision making [see Citizen Participation] and recalls, can all be important dimensions of political decentralization1. Political decentralization requires a constitutional, legal and regulatory framework to ensure accountability and transparency. It needs as well adapting public institutions to a politically-decentralized context as the role of central sector ministries is expected to shift after a political decentralization reform. Less involved in service delivery (taken over by local governments), their functions turn towards policy formulation, standard-setting, guidance and assistance and monitoring / supervision. Political decentralization reforms imply therefore important changes across the whole machinery of government, and not just at the level of local institutions. Administrative Decentralization It aims at transferring decision-making authority, resources & responsibilities for the delivery of certain public services, or functions, from central government to other (nonelected) levels of government, agencies or field offices of central government line agencies. Administrative decentralization is often equated with deconcentration only, however it covers as well delegation and divestment the latter relating to the privatization of functions and services formerly held by government.
1

USAID Democratic Decentralization Programming Handbook, June 2009.

Local Government Primer DG BRIDGE 2010 AEC V1 4 Jan 2011 DRAFT COPY: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

Page 8 of 18

Administrative decentralization requires a clear set of rules regulating intergovernmental relations (between national / sub-national levels) and a strong investment in building capacities of local institutions. In many countries, particularly the poorest, the physical existence of the basic infrastructure that municipalities need to function is the first major hurdle to overcome for effective administrative decentralization. Fiscal Decentralization It refers to resource reallocation to sub-national levels of government, including the delegation of funds within sector ministries to the de-concentrated levels. Arrangements for resources allocation are often negotiated between central and local authorities based on several factors, including interregional equity, availability of resources at all levels of government and local fiscal management capacity. Fiscal decentralization covers as well the license given to sub-national governments to collect & generate their own tax & revenues (without passing through the Treasury) and decide upon their use as well as their capacity to borrow independently. Fiscal decentralization reforms have a major impact on policy areas such as: (i) economic efficiency, (ii) macroeconomic stability, (iii) income redistribution, and (iv) political efficiency. The link between decentralization models and dimensions is shown in the figure below2:

Deconcentration

Delegation

Administrativ e Decentralizat ion

Political Decentralizati on Fiscal Decentralizati on Devolution

Source: Supporting Decentralisation & Local Governance in Developing Countries, Europaid, 2007

Local Government Primer DG BRIDGE 2010 AEC V1 4 Jan 2011 DRAFT COPY: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

Page 9 of 18

Private & non-governmental sector

Divestment / Privatization

6. Expectations of Local Governance and Decentralization So why pursue Local Governance and Decentralization reforms? We have seen that it is complicated, with many stakeholders and dimensions; that it requires real political will backed by administrative, technical & financial capacity. Yet 80-95% of countries have or are currently engaged in some level of decentralization3 process. A universal expectation, which has motivated the dramatic increase in the number of countries embarking on decentralization reforms, is that sustainable development is made possible by the effective decentralization or responsibilities, policy management, decision-making authority and sufficient resources, to local authorities, closest to and most representative of, their constituencies.4 It is telling to see that decentralization, as a global reform process, has happened in concomitance with the generalization of Poverty Reduction Strategic Programs in 1990s. In short, decentralization has been seen by many as the means to end poverty. 6.1. Enhanced Local Democracy A primary reason that Local Governance & Decentralization programming continues to grow in prominence is that, when thoughtfully and carefully implemented, such reforms can lead to enhanced local participation. LGD can provide more and better opportunities for participation in the processes of government, particularly for minority and other under-represented groups which might otherwise struggle to be heard on a national stage. Moreover, the formation of local governments, closer to citizens, makes democracy more concrete for most. Members of local governments are usually long-term residents of communities they represent and are far more accessible to average citizens than representatives on national bodies or in national administrations are. In that sense, democratic local governance increases the downward accountability of the State.

3 4

Decentralization, Local Development & Social Cohesion: An Analytical Review, GSDRC, May 2009. European Charter of Local Self Government (1985).

Local Government Primer DG BRIDGE 2010 AEC V1 4 Jan 2011 DRAFT COPY: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

Page 10 of 18

Quote: Involvement in local affairs allows people to influence issues that affect their daily lives. Ideally, it improves decision-making, builds trust in government, reduces opportunities for corruption, encourages active engagement of citizens in local affairs, and strengthens the demand for accountability at the national level (from Decentralization Experience, USAID, 2009). Reforms for democratic local governance also have the crucial effect of strengthening institutions, others than local governments that contribute to local democracy. For example, the local civil society sector, seen as an indispensable channel to engineer and support citizen participation, will benefit from increased capacity building investments and a more liberal regulatory environment. Political parties will become more active and rooted at the local level when significant political power is devolved towards it. Similarly, local media gain experience and audience when issues that really affect peoples lives are debated at the local level because this is where they are decided upon. 6.2. Improved Service Delivery It is expected that decentralization can improve the efficiency and equity of basic services as follows:

Locally elected governments will be more responsive to their citizens preferences when designing service provision and allocating resources. Citizens will have a better system for articulating their needs and wants and will be able to hold officials to account over breaches in service. Extra finances will also be available to local government via local taxes. Central government will be willing to devolve full power and responsibility for services to local government. Central government will ensure that local governments have adequate financial resources to ensure excellent service provision. Local administrative capacity will be adequate to deliver improved services.

Local Economic Development As we saw, decentralization and poverty reduction strategies have been unrolled handin-hand in many countries. The common assumption underpinning such process has been that decentralization is good for economic development for the following reasons:

Local Government Primer DG BRIDGE 2010 AEC V1 4 Jan 2011 DRAFT COPY: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

Page 11 of 18

Decentralisation will increase public sector efficiency therefore improving service delivery and regulation. This will create a more conducive business environment and greater incentives for investors.

Local officials will have better local knowledge and business contacts making them more able to make locally relevant, appropriate decisions Decentralisation can reduce the opportunities for corruption, particularly large

scale corruption. This has a beneficial effect on national economic growth. Social Cohesion & Peace-building The commonly accepted theory is that decentralization presents opportunities for mitigating conflict and strengthening social cohesion and peaceful coexistence in communities5. This is because groups have a formal, enshrined, non-violent method of participating in political processes. With increased political participation, they are better able to effectively articulate their needs to the State and build relationships with other social groups. In that sense, the social capital building effect of decentralization would be mirrored by an increase in social cohesion. However, there are also conflicting views saying that decentralization can be a conflict exacerbating factor. In fact, there is a dearth of research on the potential positive and negative impacts of decentralization reforms on social cohesion and peace-building. Decentralization is an inherently political area of endeavor and has the ability to impact and effect a broad swath of daily life in a given community. Careful consideration must be given to specific local contexts when designing and implementing local governance and decentralization reforms so as not to facilitate elite captures of local government, dominance by one ethnic, religious or tribal group, or other forms of corruption. Failure to do so can subvert the potential local governance and decentralization programs hold for improving social cohesion, and can even exacerbate some problems.6 Important Patterns in Decentralization Reforms We have seen that the past two decades have witnessed far-reaching decentralization of fiscal, political and administrative responsibilities to lower-level governments (and the private sector). The most important driving forces of decentralization have been:
5 6

Social Cohesion: Bonds or social networks that bring people together across a nation state, particularly in the context of high cultural diversity.

Increasing the effectiveness of public action

The potential for positive impacts on social cohesion from decentralization has been particularly noted in areas which enjoy an ethnically, politically or religiously diverse population. USAID Decentralization Handbook, 2009 & Decentralization, Local Development and Social Cohesion: An Analytical Review, GSDRC, 2009.

Local Government Primer DG BRIDGE 2010 AEC V1 4 Jan 2011 DRAFT COPY: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

Page 12 of 18

Democratization Economics Demographic factors Globalization Conflict resolution Pressure from international agencies

In many countries, decentralization has been driven mostly by internal political realities and external pressures rather than by sound economic arguments and local level democratic demand. The figure below presents a spectrum of ideological underpinnings of decentralization Degree of systemic change required7 Lower Higher

Administrative Program effectiveness, breaking through bureaucracy

Fiscal Efficiency, responsiveness to local preferences

Political

Market

Holding failing states Bypassing the together State Promoting ethnic Reducing harmony government size Enabling Reducing public democratization spending Empowering the grassroots, civil society The basic elements of any decentralization reform will of course include the form(s) of decentralization followed (deconcentration, delegation, devolution) and the importance given to each of its dimension (political, administrative & fiscal). Each decentralization reform is unique in the sense that it will be produce a specific combination of decentralization models with varying intensity levels in the three core dimensions. It is important to maintain a comprehensive approach when designing a decentralization reform which should be rooted in the political, social, economical and cultural specificities of the context at stake. There is no blueprint reform or one-size-fits-all
7

Adapted from Fritzen, S., Lim, P. 2006, Problems & Prospects of Decentralization in Developing Countries, National University of Singapore.

Local Government Primer DG BRIDGE 2010 AEC V1 4 Jan 2011 DRAFT COPY: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

Page 13 of 18

reform that can be transposed from one country to the next though this was the mistake done in the early days of decentralization. Decentralization reforms in fragile states not will be the same as in stable environments; also, it will have usually far more limited scope in authoritarian regimes than in democratic states. When designing decentralization reform, some important patterns need to be considered:

Single or multiple tier: many systems have two or more tiers of sub-national governments. They may be linked by a hierarchical relationship or not (in which case they are both linked to the central level directly). In certain cases, governorate or provincial governments have the duty as well of supporting lower-level governments as they develop their capacities to assume fully their mandate. Having strong links between different layers of local governments is particularly important in countries with limited resources to devolve directly to the grassroots level. Large or small units: large units offer the possibilities of economies of scale in service delivery; however, smaller units make local governments closer to the people. More and more, countries around the world with smaller units of local governments develop specific statutory measures to allow them to group for the delivery of certain services. Urban and rural authorities: in certain countries, there are different local government systems for urban and rural areas, with different powers & functions. Sometimes, local governments are mostly based in urban centers and include rural hinterlands, but this has the potential to marginalize the interests of rural populations.

Given the complexity of decentralization processes, and the major capacity building effort that they imply for local-level institutions, it is also important in a decentralization reform to decide the approach followed in the link between decentralization and capacity:

1) Traditional approach: capacity development precedes decentralization.

Responsibilities and revenues are transferred, as per the model set forth by the Law, once a certain level of administrative and technical capacity has been developed. 2) Dynamic approach: involves building capacities while the shift of responsibility is taking place (learning by doing). This approach is now gaining precedence over the traditional approach, as concrete decentralization itself is the best incentive for local institutions to change and improve their performance.

Local Government Primer DG BRIDGE 2010 AEC V1 4 Jan 2011 DRAFT COPY: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

Page 14 of 18

7. Challenges to Decentralization Recent research shows that there is a vast chasm between the benefits that decentralization is supposed to bring (see Expectations of Decentralization) and the reality. In particular, it has generally been found that:

Decentralization has not delivered service delivery improvements in most countries where it has been implemented, whether in quantity, quality or equity in access; There is no clearly demonstrated correlation between decentralization and economic growth. There are as many examples where decentralization has exacerbated conflicts as examples where it has soothed some.

Looking at the overall goal of poverty reduction often associated with decentralization, a recent study by the OECD8 has shown that only in a minority of countries where decentralization reforms have been implemented, did it have a positive impact on reducing poverty. In others, it had marginal or no impact or worse, it actually increased poverty. The best performing countries were those that were: less indebted, with a high literacy rate and considered as largely democratic. So, why does decentralization seem to be working and delivering the expected benefits in some countries and not others? Is it just a matter of reform design or is the implementation context a stronger determinant than the reform content itself? The following three factors are the most commonly cited throughout the literature to explain the mixed results of decentralization reforms: Lack of political will The primary factor influencing how decentralization impacts on service delivery is the political context in which reforms are made, both at central and local levels. It is naive to assume that central government officials benignly devolve power and responsibility to lower levels of government. If they do so, the motives are usually elsewhere than a genuine search for an improvement of service delivery. It could be a political strategy to expand power base and please external pressure (that comes with funding) or just to offload responsibility for basic services that the central level is not able to manage anymore. At the local level, political analysis also fundamentally questions the assumption that a local politician will be more responsible and accountable to his/her electorate than a geographically distant central government official. The danger of elite
8

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/19/33648213.pdf

Local Government Primer DG BRIDGE 2010 AEC V1 4 Jan 2011 DRAFT COPY: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

Page 15 of 18

capture is real with local government. If service delivery, for example, is devolved in an environment of political patronage, then decisions that could benefit efficiency and equity will be corrupted and rather be made in favor of a few elites. More generally, it is the absence of real political will of those who decide on decentralization reforms to really implement these in a way that maximize the chances of success which remains a fundamental challenge in the way of decentralization. Financial Constraints Local governments often have to operate in severely resource constrained environments, which hinders their ability to improve services or to assume any significant leadership functions on local development. In many developing countries, local taxation still remains marginal as the tax base is so weak or just too difficult to tap into. The lack of predictable, transparent (i.e. not politically-driven) and sufficient fiscal transfers from central government, limits severely the long-term impact of organizational capacity development investments made towards local governments. Limited administrative capacity The administrative capacity at local levels in many countries undergoing broad-ranging decentralization process ranges from poor to very poor. Some weaknesses can be attributed to low levels of education and training, but often central government fails as well to invest sufficiently in recruiting suitable staff for local authorities and training them for their job. The administrative capacity of local authorities is constrained by: (i) inadequate devolution of power, particularly over finance and staff, (ii) vague / inappropriate systems & procedures, (iii) inadequately qualified, underpaid and unmotivated staff, (iv) political interference, corruption and abuse of power, (v) lack of downward accountability.

8.1. Insufficient social capital

Social capital is essential for the effectiveness of the fundamental premise saying of participatory governance on which decentralization reforms are built. Social capital is stronger in stable and peaceful environments and is strengthened by sufficient downward accountability of local authorities. Countries in transition, especially countries coming out of open conflicts, usually demonstrate low levels of social capital which in turn limits the democracy-building effect of decentralization reforms. Measuring Local Governance & Decentralization More and more countries implementing decentralization reforms are investing in measuring the quality of their local governance as it is a powerful tool to take corrective actions guaranteeing success of such reform. One of the main differences between a national and local governance assessment is the greater proximity to the real-world issues. Therefore, local governance assessments need to be much more sensitive to the particular needs of groups of stakeholders and certain segments in the local community.
Local Government Primer DG BRIDGE 2010 AEC V1 4 Jan 2011 DRAFT COPY: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION Page 16 of 18

Measuring local governance can serve one or more of the following purposes: To identify potential gaps and constraints in local policy implementation; To identify specific capacity development needs and to monitor the results of capacity development efforts; To formulate change plans and solicit donor or peer assistance for improving specific aspects of local governance; To engage civil society and private sector in local governance; To provide an objective account of achievements of local elected leaders (especially at times of re-elections), and thus building accountability. To provide comparative data between municipalities (at the level of a country or across countries), and act as a driver and incentive for municipalities to outperform each other and pool know-how and learning.

Local governance assessments may focus on the whole spectrum of local governance or on specific areas such as the progress of a decentralization reform, local democracy or local government performance. The latter is Example of normative foundation the most common focus of local governance for measuring local governance assessments around the world. There are no standard methods to assess local Development Index (Indonesia) governance or standard indicators that fit all 1. Representation 2. Participation situations. Local governance assessments 3. Accountability usually mix qualitative and quantitative methods 4. Transparency and use questionnaires, checklists and indicators. 5. Effectiveness Indicators help answer the following question: 6. Security 7. Equity How close to democratic or good local 9 governance is the area assessed? The criteria used to describe the notion of democratic or good governance must be defined locally with the participation of users of the assessment results. These indicators are also grounded in the legal and regulatory framework organizing local governance in the area considered. Local governance indicators, contrarily to human development indicators, for example, use a broad range of indicator types: inputs (e.g. resources & rules), outputs (e.g. services & goods), process (e.g. quality of decision-making), perception (e.g. citizens views on service delivery) & impact (e.g. poverty reduction). Local governance indicators should also capture the perspectives, needs and rights of poorer and vulnerable groups in society, including women, in order to inform local policy-making and to promote equity, enhancing participation and building greater inclusiveness at the local level. Past experiences in measuring local governance have given the important lessons learned to guarantee the success of future assessment initiatives:
9

Good Governance for Local

E.g. municipality, district, governorate

Local Government Primer DG BRIDGE 2010 AEC V1 4 Jan 2011 DRAFT COPY: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

Page 17 of 18

Keep your assessment action-focused. Try to recount an insiders perspective with a sense of balance. Create space for critical reflection by stakeholders of the assessment Ensure a broad multi-stakeholder participation by those who are being evaluated Build a method that allow some degree of comparability between locations

To know more on measuring local governance, consult http://www.gaportal.org/areas-ofgovernance/local-governance-and-decentralization

Local Government Primer DG BRIDGE 2010 AEC V1 4 Jan 2011 DRAFT COPY: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

Page 18 of 18