UNDP Governance Assessment ‘Toolbox’ for Education and Health MDGs Workshop on Indicators for the Right to Education London, July 2010
Eitan Felner Consultant UNDP Oslo Governance Centre
Introduction • WHAT FOR? To help analyze the multiple types of governance obstacles that affect specific MDG-related outcomes. • FOR WHOM? - National policymakers as a policy tool; - National oversight institutions and civil society actors (NGOs, media, etc) as an accountability tool to monitor the efforts of governments in following through on their MDGs FLEXIBLE TOOLBOX - allowing those carrying out governance assessment to determine which dimensions of governance to focus on and which specific methods to use (based on particular purposes of the assessment and specific circumstances of the particular country where the assessment is undertaken) • WORK IN PROGRESS – 1st draft; current discussions ab/scope, content and format
Integrating human rights into a governance assessment methodology •A global normative framework for ‘good governance’ •A focus on abuse of power •A focus on accountability •A Focus on Participation •A focus on inequality and the most disadvantaged people •Giving concrete content to some governance dimensions
3-step Methodological framework Methodological steps
Effect
1 Shortfalls in the MDGs
2 Barriers to social services
Cause
3a
Governance vulnerabilities
Institutional weaknesses
3b
Unequal Power relations
Guiding questions around key dimensions of governance that affect education
Illustrative question #1 Accountability – Complaint mechanisms Guiding questions
Data collection methods
Comments
- Are there clear and easily accessible complaint mechanisms to denounce any problem with the delivery of education services (staff absenteeism, corruption, bad quality of service, etc)? - What are the most common problems in the functioning of these mechanisms?
- Interview with Ministry officials and managers of frontline service facilities (to learn about de jure procedures); - Review of relevant docs about these mechanism (obtained from Ministry officials) - on-site visits to schools, focus groups or interviews with relevant stakeholders (NGOs and journalists focusing on education) to cross-check information obtained from education officials and learn about de facto practice.
Common problems in complaintmechanisms: 1) problems of access to complaint mechanism (due to language barriers, lack of affordability, geographic inaccessibility, etc) 2) lack of appropriate independence of accountability mechanism 3) lack of effective enforcement of accountability measures
Illustrative question #2 Transparency Guiding questions
Data collection methods
Comments
Are there objective, transparent and easily accessible criteria for allocating resources in education system (e.g. in allocation of scholarships to poor children, deployment of teachers, constructions of new schools, reparation of existing schools, distribution of textbooks, etc)?
-Interview
The evidence indicates that simple, explicit, transparent funding formulas increase the chances that allocated resources will actually reach the intended recipients, whereas those allocated at the discretion of civil servants (discretionary grants) are often conducive to corruption, inequitable allocation of resources or clientelistic practices.
with relevant government officials (to learn what the criteria for distribution are de jure) -Review
of relevant government publications and website (to assess if the criteria are transparent and easily accessible to the public) - Review of the distribution of government budget for the sector, sub-sector or specific issue across regions, districts or frontline service facilities (to assess whether the distribution of resources is de facto equitable)
Examples of objective criteria: 1) number of people served by that frontline facility (i.e. capitation grants); 2) levels of relevant development deprivations (e.g. poverty levels, child mortality rates, school dropouts, etc)
Illustrative question #3 – Political Will Guiding questions
Data collection methods
Comments
Does the government shows in concrete ways its political will to address a specific problem that the country is facing with regards to education (e.g. yawning disparities between girls and boys in primary completion rates, chronic teacher’s absenteeism, very poor quality of education, etc)?
The following features indicate that high political priority has been assigned to a given human development issue and could serve as a guide to assess the extent to which a government has the political will to address it:
Political will or commitment towards an issue means the willingness of political leaders to pay sustainable attention to that issue and back up that attention with the provision of financial, human, and technical resources commensurate with the severity of the problem.
1. Presence of ‘policy champions’ for the issue 2. Frequency and prominence of public pronouncements from the political leadership on the issue. 3. Demand for information about the issue from political leaders 4. Government’s willingness to mobilize support within the country for the issue 5. Concrete policy steps 6. Allocating resources commensurate with the problem’s gravity 7. Resoluteness of government officials to enforce accountability/redress mechanisms
Patterns of power abuse
Ex #1 - Political patronage or clientelism
•
Perception Surveys - data about people’s own encounter of specific clientelist practices •Surveys/Interviews with civil servants - assess the extent to which entrance to the civil service system or promotion within it, is based on a meritocratic or clientelist logic •Analysis of patterns of patronage in the provision of education or health services •Skewed spending patterns and budget priorities
Ex #2 - State capture by economic elites •Economic elites buy politicians or civil servants to obtain benefits for their own companies (e.g. get licenses and contracts, obtain state subsidies or condone arrears for their companies). •Economic elites use their wealth to shape laws and manipulate political institutions to their benefit (tax code that favors the wealthy or an agricultural subsidy program that goes to the largest farmers) •Issues ab/state capture to analyze: - overall level of taxes - Composition of tax revenue (regressive taxation) - Scarce resources available for education skewed towards services that disproportionally benefit non-poor (i.e. universities) - Direct resistance of universal schooling by wealthy elites (due to fear of reducing the possibility of getting cheap labor and political mobilization that education may bring to the poor)
UNDP Governance Assessment ‘Toolbox’ for MDG-based Planning and Implementation Workshop on Indicators for the Right to Education London, July 2010 End of Presentation Eitan Felner Consultant UNDP Oslo Governance Centre