- Количество слайдов: 16
UNDP’s Programme on Country. Led Governance Assessments John Samuel UNDP Oslo Governance Centre 1
Global governance indicators Global Accountability Index of Report. Democracy Index World Human Governance Democracy Rights Assessment Audit Indicators Governance Gender and State Weberian Empowerment Democracy Failure Comparative Measure Processes Dataset State Project Institutional Women in Press Profiles Parliament Freedom Database Index of Economic BEEPS Countries at the Freedom Crossroads CIRI Commitment to Human Rights Failed Databse Development States Index Bertelsmann Open Journalists Governance Transformation Budget killed Matters Opacity Index World Integrity Index Corruption Bribe Values Global Perceptions Payers Survey GAPS in Peace Index Workers’ Rights Political Terror Scale Global Competitiveness Polity Index International CPIA Country Risk Press Freedom in Guide Freedom the World Survey 1974 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08
Who Measures Governance and For What Purposes? Plethora of governance indicators used by: governments development agencies/Donors civil society media academic institutions private sector Indicators used for: policy decisions , aid allocation Advocacy research business investment
Global Programme on Governance Assessments 1. Enhance national ownership of governance assessments through multistakeholder approaches 2. Support capacity development (including training) for defining, selecting and using governance indicators 3. Increase the policy relevancy of governance indicators (disaggregation) 4. Produce research and knowledge products 5. Establish and maintain a high quality and dynamic depository (portal) of knowledge on governance indicators and governance assessment for access and use by national and international organisations 6. Raise understanding and build support amongst partners for nationally driven governance assessment and measurement initiatives.
Principles of Democratic Governance Assessments 1) Agency- and ownership: Who owns the process is important 2) Context specific approach: Priorities, methodology and choice of indicators 3) Multi-stakeholder process 4) Capacity development at the national and local levels 5) Alignment with national policy process and development plans 6) Balance between supply-side( government) and demand-side ( Citizens) 7) Participation of citizens and civil society in the process
What are “country-led assessments”? • Undertaken by a country on its own initiative • Can be initiated by government, civil society, research institutes • Range in focus (comprehensive or sectoral) • Active participation of state and non-state actors • Results feed into policy-making processes 6
Represents a shift in thinking from: – Other assessment to self-assessment • Accountability to donors to accountability to citizens • Cross-country comparison to a national measure of progress over time • Alignment to international measuring needs, to alignment to national policy processes, political issues and country context • Using international consultants to being led by national stakeholders and researchers (country-led) – A management tool to being a citizens’ tool • A technocratic approach to an approach of political mobilization • A focus on measuring government efficiency to a focus on measuring empowerment of citizens • Actionable indicators to action-oriented
Key steps in conducting a country-led governance assessment Identify key stakeholders Decide on sampling Analyse results Establish a steering committee Decide on how to collect data Disseminate results Identify national institution or civil society organisation as ‘coordinator’ Decide on indicators Conduct multistakeholder consultation Raise funds Decide on assessment framework Develop policy recommen dations Conduct multistakeholder dialogue on governance priorities Select type of assessment Implement policy reform or advocate for reform Decide on who will do the research Institutionalize the assessment and repeat at regular intervals
Ten features of an effective country-led governance assessment 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Alignment to national political priorities and processes Assessment is country contextualized Methodology is rigorous Selection of indicators is transparent and participatory Results are stored in a public national database Indicators are pro-poor and gender-sensitive Capacity of national stakeholders is developed Cost-effective and timely The results are widely communicated The assessment is repeated 9 UNESCO/Loock F.
National governance assessment framework Data collection and sharing Development of indicators and indicator systems What data exists (official vs other)? What data is needed (disaggregation etc)? Is a survey of existing indicators needed? Qualitative mapping Competing indicators (CSOs vs official indicator system)? Is a rationalisation needed? Can data be shared – interoperable / connecting databases What are the capacity needs esp. the NSO and the bureaucracy? (information systems, resources) Are they good i. e. useful and meaningful or bad indicators? (Users Guide) Are they pro-poor, gender sensitive, rights based – what is the framework? What is the method for producing indicators? CSO engagement? Ownership Indicator usage Are indicators being used by policy makers to inform policy? What kind of training / capacity development is needed? Is a survey of ‘indicator usage’ needed? Can / are the indicators being used to track reform over time?
Increasing uptake Data Producers • Statisticians • Officials • Researchers Data Users Need to improve dialogue • Policy Makers • Parliament • Political Parties • Civil society Getting appropriate Buy-in Reliable and trustworthy evidence Effective Improving dissemination “usability” of evidence Wide Access Incentives to use evidence
Mongolia’s experience • Follow-up to ICNRD (2003): establish mechanism to monitor progress of democratic development • Requested support from UNDP • Adapted IDEA’s State of Democracy assessment framework • Led by national team of researchers; national consultations throughout • Quantitative sources: national survey; MP survey; expert survey; admin stats • Qualitative sources: focus groups discussions, ‘free dialogues’, narratives • Elicited views of 1200 citizens + + • Core (117) vs. satellite indicators (14) • Results presented & debated at national conference 12
Mongolia’s experience • 2005: Parliament adopted “MDG 9” on Democratic Governance, Human Rights & Zero-Tolerance to Corruption (to facilitate institutionalization of DG assessments) • Phase 2: Refining 131 DGIs into a more ‘manageable’ set for annual reporting on MDG 9 to Parliament • Consultations btw govt & parliament, NGOs, NSO • Public survey component institutionalized via periodic household survey implemented by NSO • Advocacy: “Network of NGOs in support of MDG 9” (20 NGOs on gender & assistance to vulnerable groups) • Phase 3: Piloting of sector-specific DG assessment tools (mining, education)
MDG 9 indicators Table: MDG 9 Goal – targets, indicators and responsible agencies Target Indicators Responsible agency Target 22: Fully respect and uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ensure the freedom of media, and provide the public with free access to information 1. Human Development Index UNDP 2. Expert evaluation of conformity of Mongolian laws and regulations with international human rights treaties and conventions NHRCM 3. Percentage of implementation/enforcement of judicial decisions MOJHA 4. Number of attorneys that provide services to poor citizens MOJHA 5. Public perception of political, economic, and financial independence of mass media NSO 6. Number of state organizations that regularly place reports of their budgets and expenditures on their websites MOF 1. Public perception of activities of state organizations NSO 2. Number of civil society organizations that have officially participated and expressed their views in the process of developing and approving the state budget MOF 3. Percentage of voters that have participated in nominating governors of soums and baghs Cabinet Secretariat 1. Index of corruption IAAC 2. Perception of corruption in political organizations, judicial and law enforcement institutions IAAC 3. Public perception of corruption in public administration and public services NSO Target 23: Mainstream democratic principles and practices into life Target 24: Develop a zero-tolerance environment to corruption in all spheres of society
M&E mechanism for MDG 9 indicators
www. gaportal. or g www. gaportal. or