NHDRPaper_ogc11_0

Democratic Governance Indicators and UNDPHuman Development Reports

Abstract: This paper provides an overview of national human development reports that focus on democratic governance and that use governance indicators to underpin analysis. The publication presents ten case studies of human development reports from different regions that focus on different democratic governance dimensions and that adopt different methods, tools and approaches of measuring governance. The aim in presenting case studies is to illustrate to NHDR country teams that are preparing governance HDRs and other practitioners the diversity of governor indicator usage and data collection, as well as some of the strengths and weaknesses of these different approaches A major recommendation in the publication is to use the opportunity of NHDR preparation to support the strengthening of national capacities to monitor governance indicators on a sustainable and continual basis.

1

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper was developed by Joachim Nahem, Governance Specialist, UNDP Oslo Governance Centre and Alexandra Wilde. We would like to thank and acknowledge Thomas Roca, Paola Pagliani, Tim Scott (all from Human Development Report Office) and James Chalmers (UNDP Vietnam) for peer reviewing the paper. It was edited by Sarah Repucci.

DISCLAIMER The views expressed in this brief are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations, including UNDP, or UN Member States.

+

United Nations Development Programme Oslo Governance Centre Democratic Governance Group Bureau for Development Policy Inkognitogata 37gata 2B, Postboks 2881 Tøyen 0608 Oslo, Norway Phone +47 23 06 08 20 Fax +47 23 06 08 21 oslogovcentre@undp.org www.undp.org/oslocentre

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 2

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

CONTENTS CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 5 PHILIPPINES NHDR 2009:.............................................................................................. 9 INSTITUTIONS, POLITICS AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES ................................ 9 URUGUAY NHDR 2008: ................................................................................................ 12 POLITICS, POLICIES AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................. 12 EGYPT NHDR 2008: .................................................................................................... 14 EGYPT’S SOCIAL CONTRACT: THE ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY .................................................... 14 GHANA NHDR 2007: ................................................................................................... 17 TOWARDS A MORE INCLUSIVE SOCIETY ............................................................................. 17 PANAMA NHDR 2007: .................................................................................................. 19 INSTITUTIONS AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 19 KOSOVO NHDR 2004: .................................................................................................. 21 THE RISE OF THE CITIZEN: CHALLENGE AND CHOICES ............................................................ 21 BURKINA FASO NHDR 2003: ......................................................................................... 23 CORRUPTION AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 23 THAILAND NHDR 2003: ............................................................................................... 25 + COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ..................................................... 25 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNANCE-FROM INDIVIDUALS TO CITIZENS ........................... 27 COSTA RICA NHDR 2000: ............................................................................................ 29 STATE OF THE NATION REPORT ON SUSTAINABLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ................................. 29 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................... 31

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 3

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As of December 2009 there have been 649 National Human Development Reports (NHDRs) published in 135 countries (the first one published in 1992). Democratic Governance has been a thematic focus in an increasing number of NHDRs over the last decade.

A survey of NHDRs from 2000-2009 showed that there are approximately 63 NHDRs that focus on democratic governance and that use nationally generated data to inform its analysis. The most common governance themes include local governance, decentralisation, civil society and citizenship. Research is more often based on surveys, national administrative data (e.g. public service delivery or electoral data) and human development indicators (as proxies) to measure democratic governance.

Of the 63 NHDRs included in the survey, ten case studies have been selected to highlight how NHDRs make use of democratic governance indicators as well as some of the strengths and weakness of these different approaches. These include: 1.

Philippines NHDR 2009: Institutions, Politics and Human Development in the Philippines

2.

Uruguay NHDR 2008: Politics, Policies and Human Development

3.

Egypt NHDR 2008: Egypt’s Social Contract: The Role of Civil Society

4.

Ghana NHDR 2007: Towards a More Inclusive Society

5.

Panama NHDR 2007: Institutions and Human Development

6.

Kosovo NHDR 2004: The rise of the citizen: challenge and choices

7.

Burkina Faso NHDR 2003: Corruption and Human Development

8.

Thailand NHDR 2003: Community+Empowerment and Human Development

9.

Bulgaria NHDR 2001: Citizen Participation in Governance-From Individuals to Citizens

10. Costa Rica NHDR 2000: State of the Nation Report on Sustainable Human Development The case studies show the diversity of governance dimensions and phenomena that have been measured and the different tools and methods that have been employed. The cases are presented to provide NHDR country teams and those interested in governance measurement with inspiration and ideas on how to measure complex concepts, processes and institutions of democratic governance as well as to evaluate and choose among different measurement options, depending on data availability, analytical and advocacy objectives, technical and financial resources, time, and other constraints.

The NHDR framework, with its emphasis on policy relevance, has tremendous potential to produce governance indicators that are: poverty and gender focused, nationally owned and participatory, methodologically sound and influential in terms of policy advocacy.

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 4

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

INTRODUCTION One of the biggest challenges facing most countries is to create a system of democratic governance that promotes, supports and sustains human development -especially human development for poor and vulnerable groups. For UNDP, human development is about expanding capabilities and enlarging the choices people have in fulfilling their lives. From the evidence of a practice established by UNDP for over a decade, democratic governance is defined as comprising the mechanisms, processes and institutions that determine how power is exercised, how decisions are made on issues of public concern, and how citizens articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences.1 As noted in the 2002 Human Development Report “Deepening Democracy in a Fragmented World”, ppolitics matter for human development because people everywhere want to be free to determine their destinies, express their views and participate in the decisions that shape their lives. These capabilities are just as important for human development – for expanding people’s choices - as being able to read or enjoy good health. 2 There is wide consensus on the importance of democratic governance to human development and an emerging empirical foundation to support this consensus. However, while social and economic indicators are well used and institutionalised in their collection at the global and national levels, indicators of human rights, democracy and governance are relatively immature. It has only been in the last 10 years that there has been a body of experience and practice in democracy and governance measurement to draw on. Some of this experience is presented in the human development reports profiled in this publication. Most of the cataloguing of democratic governance measurement has been done by the UNDP Oslo Governance Centre and has been made available at their website: http://www.undp.org/oslocentre/flagship/democratic_governance_assessments.html The global Human Development Report most focused on democratic governance remains the 2002 “Deepening Democracy in a Fragmented World”3 which is devoted to an analysis of the + role played by democracy and governance in a country in the process of human development and social and economic growth. The report draws on national, regional and global democracy and governance indicators from a range of sources including international organisations, NGOs, and academic research. Regional human development reports have also made a valuable contribution in generating new or presenting existing democratic governance indicators. For example, the 2008 Asia Pacific Human Development Report on Corruption “Tackling Corruption, Transforming Lives: Accelerating Human Development in the Asia Pacific”4 presents comprehensive corruption indicators including (1) popular measures of corruption, (2) political economy conditions that could be linked to corruption, and (3) socio-economic factors. The 2004 Latin America regional report “Democracy in Latin America: Towards a Citizens' Democracy”5 includes two detailed indexes of democratic development in the region, as well as the results of public opinion surveys of close to 20,000 people in the 18 Latin American countries surveyed for the project. The 2004 Arab Human Development Report “Towards Freedom in the Arab World”6 also makes a valuable contribution in generating new governance indicators for Arab countries drawing on surveys on the pace of political change an extensive opinion poll of five Arab countries.

However, this publication is focused on national human development reports to illustrate the use of national democratic governance indicators and to stress that the process of producing a governance focused NHDR provides an excellent opportunity to develop governance indicators and generate national governance data for that country when in most cases such data is lacking. Furthermore, the NHDRs’ experience and capabilities of providing independent and objective analysis, statistics and other relevant data are tremendous assets for producing national 1 UNDP, Governance for Sustainable Human Development: A UNDP Policy Document (New York: UNDP, 1997).

2 http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2002/ . See page 15.

3 http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2002/ 4 http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/regionalreports/asiathepacific/name,10811,en.html 5 This is technically not a regional Human Development Report although its focus and approach are similar. http://democraciaparticipativa.net/documentos/Democracy_in_Latin_America_New.pdf 6 http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/regionalreports/arabstates/RBAS_ahdr2004_EN.pdf

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 5

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

governance indicators. While many HDRs do examine the governance dimensions of human development only a small (but increasing) proportion of NHDRs use national governance indicators to support the analysis and findings.

The main aim of this publication is therefore to illustrate the various ways and means that nationally specific governance indicators are produced and used to support analysis in national human development reports and to assess some of the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches. In most cases, this has involved specifically commissioned studies as part of the report’s overall research in which governance information has been collected systematically through the use of surveys, focus groups and other instruments. In this way, this publication serves as both a reference document and an inspiration for future governance focused NHDRs. While specifically commissioned governance research is expensive and can be costly it is a potentially much richer source of information than relying on globally produced indicators such as the Worldwide Governance Indicators7 or the Corruption Perceptions Index8 for example. This is because nationally generated indicators are more amenable to disaggregation to highlight issues at the sub-national level which is also an important focus for human development and Millennium Development Goals (MDG) data. That being said, the challenge of institutionalizing new data initiatives, focused on democratic governance, and within the national statistical system so that they may be sustained, is large.

As the UNDP Users’ Guide to Governance Indicators (2006) evidences,9 there is a plethora of governance indicators that are mostly used as country-ranking instruments intended for business investment, donor allocation, civil society advocacy or academic purposes. The majority of global governance indicators rank countries on a single aggregate numeric scale or on a few governance cluster scales. Although these indices simplify a complex subject into an easily understood rating, they are of very limited use to stakeholders in countries.

However, there are limitations to what can be achieved with this kind of cross-country, highly aggregated data which cannot substitute for in-depth, country-specific governance diagnostics + as a basis for policy advice to improve governance in a particular country. Furthermore, the most commonly used governance indicators, such as those produced by Freedom House, Transparency International and the Worldwide Governance Indictors for example, do not provide information on how marginalised and other groups in developing countries are faring. If democratic governance is to be a framework for human development and poverty reduction there clearly needs to be a pro-poor and gender sensitive emphasis on the measuring tools used for governance. That being said, there are some clear advantages to global country comparison governance indices especially in terms of research and advocacy

Overview of NHDRs and governance indicators case studies The purpose of this study is to review NHDRs that have a significant focus on the use of democratic governance indicators.10 The study examines 63 NHDRs that have been produced between 2000-200911 with a democratic governance thematic focus. A summary review table of these NHDRs is presented in Annex 1. The most prominent governance themes in the NHDRs reviewed include: corruption, decentralisation, local governance, civil society, and citizenship and participation in government. The main governance themes of the NHDR and the predominant measurement methodologies (i.e. the types of indicators/indexes that are used include perception based indicators, administrative data, explanation of questionnaires, etc.) are also identified for each case. Indicator samples are included to illustrate the analysis.

7

http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009 9 http://www.undp.org/oslocentre/docs07/undp_users_guide_online_version.pdf 10 This paper has not examined global or regional HDRs as these have relied on global governance indicator sources. Most notably, HDR 2002: Deepening Democracy in a Fragmented World (http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2002/en/) and the Arab HDR 2002: Freedom and Good Governance (http://www.rbas.undp.org/ahdr.cfm) which use several of the sources referred to in the introduction.

11 These NHDRs can be accessed from the UNDP HDR website at http://hdr.undp.org/en.

8

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 6

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

A regional overview of the democratic governance NHDRs is presented in Annex 2. This shows Eastern Europe and the CIS with 19 NHDRs, Africa with 17 NHDRs, Latin America and the Caribbean with 10 NHDRs, the Arab States region with 9 NHDRs, and Asia-Pacific with 9 NHDRs. Ten case studies are presented to highlight how NHDRs make use of governance indicators.

These studies include: 1.

Philippines NHDR 2009: Institutions, Politics and Human Development in the Philippines

2.

Uruguay NHDR 2008: Politics, Policies and Human Development

3.

Egypt NHDR 2008: Egypt’s Social Contract: The Role of Civil Society

4.

Ghana NHDR 2007: Towards a More Inclusive Society

5.

Panama NHDR 2007: Institutions and Human Development

6.

Kosovo NHDR 2004: The rise of the citizen: challenge and choices

7.

Burkina Faso NHDR 2003: Corruption and Human Development

8.

Thailand NHDR 2003: Community Empowerment and Human Development

9.

Bulgaria NHDR 2001: Citizen Participation in Governance-From Individuals to Citizens

10. Costa Rica NHDR 2000: State of the Nation Report on Sustainable Human Development The ten cases were selected to show the diversity of governance dimensions being measured and the different methods and tools that have been employed to collect governance data. The cases are analysed with particular factors in mind including in some cases whether the measurement method adopted is transparent and replicable, whether the indicators are policy relevant or especially innovative in that they measure the governance dimension in a new and un+ looks at whether the indicators used take into acconventional way. Additionally, the analysis count sub-national issues and disaggregate across different groups in society (e.g. the poor/non-poor, women/men etc, rural/urban etc).

The most common sources for the governance indicators used in the NHDRs include public statistics or administrative data (collected by governments) and survey data in hich samples of the population are interviewed. Other data sources include NGOs, international organisations and published global indices on governance (e.g. the World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators, Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index etc).

Common challenges in producing and using governance indicators Governance indicators should fulfill a certain number of criteria to be useful and usable for informing decision making, and should, among other things, be: Valid, in that they measure what they purport to measure. The aim should be to have the most direct indicator that measures exactly the attribute desired, and at the correct level. In many cases, it might be necessary to use a proxy measure.

Clear, in that those using the indicator can understand it. Is it clear to data collectors what data are needed and how to collect them? The effectiveness of governance indicators requires a clear idea about what will be observed and how.

Objective, in that anyone reviewing the indicator should reach the same conclusion about progress. Every indicator will have an underlying normative assumption and care must be taken to ensure that normative assumptions are valid. For example, if the indicator voter turnout is used as a measure of the quality of democracy, the assumption is that a higher turnout is better however, voter turnout is highest where voting is compulsory, such as in Cuba, Iraq and Australia.

Sensitive toward desired changes and specific groups. It is important to assess and monitor governance from the perspective of vulnerable and marginalized groups. For example, the poor might experience governance differently from the non-poor, and men might experience governance differently from women. Human Development Reports should be based on governance indicators that are more likely to lead to actionOGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 7

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

able insights and this means using disaggregated indicators by geography, and socioeconomic strata, among others.

Balanced, in that rarely will just one indicator be sufficient to measure an attribute of governance. For example, "access to justice" will require a number of indicators to assess and monitor whether it is improving for citizens of a country. When there exist multiple indicators for a specific attribute of governance, it is important to ensure that such indicators are balanced.

In terms of different methods and appproaches, several issues warrant highlighting:

National capacity development. The production and collection of governance data for specific human development reports presents an important opportunity to develop local capacities in this area as opposed to relying on existing global or regional democratic governance datasets. In particular, NHDR teams could collaborate with national statistical institutions or research centres to institutionalize governance indicators that could continue to after the NHDR publication.

Mixing qualitative and quantitative data.. Many of the HDRs in the study include a qualitative assessment of governance or at least a combination of quantitative and qualitative tools to add much needed context and depth to the country picture. Quantitative indicators provide a good snapshot but might not be as useful beyond that.

However, a drawback with qualitative assessments is that they can be bulky and hard to summarize. .

Subjective indicators. Given that often ‘hard data’ is difficult to get in measuring democracy and governance, there can be heavier use of subjective indicators. Several of the case studies presented include comprhensive opinion surveys on governance.

Subjective indicators are not necessarily inferior to objective indicators, for several reasons. First, subjective measures can potentially highlight differences between what happens in laws and what happens in practice; second, the perceptions of citizens matter in their own right, and third, some governance areas such as corruption leave no "paper trail," and it is difficult to come up with alternatives to perceptions data. In the area of corruption, a key problem with subjective indicators is that there usually is a time lag with perceptions versus reform. When using survey data, especially in the case of perception surveys, they+ should be complemented with focus groups or in depth interviews.

Innovative ways of integrating human development and democratic governance research. A future challenge for NHDR country teams is to explore additional ways and methods of integrating human development and democratic governance research at the national level. For example, use of poverty mapping is a tool that has been deployed in an increasing number of NHDRs to provide a spatial representation of poverty or human development derived from information from national census data or household surveys which is then represented geographically at various sub-national levels.12 These can be effective instruments for presenting regional disparities in human development together with democratic governance both at sub-national levels and allows a comparison of poverty indicators with data on perceptions on public service delivery, corruption or confidence in state institutions for example.

12

See the NHDRs for Albania 2002 and Egypt 2008 for example.

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 8

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

PHILIPPINES NHDR 2009: INSTITUTIONS, POLITICS AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES DG theme(s) Political institutions Political participation

Sources Administrative data from a wide range of public institutions Worldwide Governance Indicators Good Governance Index produced by the Philippines National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) Aassessments produced by the Asian Institute of Management for city level analysis.

The Philippines HDR for 2009 examines how the quality of public institutions matters in advancing human development. The main hypothesis of the report is that civil service requirements, enforcement of rules and budget allocations are the main factors influencing the performance of the Department of Education. The report’s main findings are that perverse incentives in the civil service, both monetary and nonmonetary, have taken their toll on the bureaucracy, indicated by a stagnant or decreasing trend in quality at all levels of the corps; that better (or poorer) quality of bureaucracy is associated with better (or poorer) agency performance which is determined by civil service rules and practices and finally that the budget, on the whole, is constraining rather than enabling of government agencies.

The report includes impressive analysis of the budget process as it affects the Department of Education. It notes that the budget is an important instrument for development (financing public goods and services) and for good governance (it assigns authorities and responsibilities to + government units to perform budgeted tasks) and it’s a performance measurement tool in that it exacts desired results from authorized expenditures. The government’s budget cycle has four stages: preparation, legislation, execution, and accountability. Each stage presents opportunities to optimize the use of government resources and exact results for development. The NHDR notes that such opportunities, however, are either not fully implemented or are passed up The influence of the budget process on the effectiveness of governance was measured along six dimensions or performance indicators: (1) accountability, (2) predictability, (3) participation, (4) transparency, (5) beneficiary reach/impact, and (6) compliance to laws. These indicators are based on factors that enhance decision-making toward desired governance outcomes.13 The budget process was tested on the degree by which decision-enhancing governance factors exist or are applied. The responses to questions were based on evidence, i.e., existence or nonexistence of documents that prove the validity of responses. A three-tier rating system was used: Excellent (E), Satisfactory (S), Poor (P).

Strengths: This NHDR includes a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of governance of public institutions (the department of education in particular) for human development through presenting usefully disaggregated and policy/reform relevant indicators.

Weaknesses: Dominant reliance on administrative data. It would have been useful to assess the effectiveness and quality of governance of key institutions through using survey data espe13

The measurement was adapted, with modification, from the World Bank/Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (2005) and the Budget Transparency Index of the Center for Budget Policy and Priorities, International Budget Project.

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 9

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

cially those of major stakeholders more often. For example, there is an indicator and data on public approval for the department of education but this kind of data could be used more.

Indicator examples BUDGET PREPARATION Performance Indicators Policy-based budgeting

Questions

Rating

Comments

1.

Is the budget faithful to the development plan and the fiscal plan?

Are projections on expenditure commitments updated annually and prepared prior to the budget season?

S

Synchronizing planning-budgeting system is being enhanced.

P

Expenditure projections (called forward estimates) are updated but data is unreliable. Projections were not available on time.

2.

Transparency

3.

Are policy and programs announced prior to the budget season?

P

Priority programs are announced but not in a consolidated way. They are announced during the President’s State of the Nation Address when the budget is almost already done.

Participation .

4.

Are nongovernment sectors consulted/involved during the budget preparation?

Is the budget document accompanied by easy-to read briefs + on the budget proposal?

P/S

Nongovernment sectors are represented in some policy making bodies (e.g., CARP, NAPC) but participation is limited.

Is the budget tied to clear performance targets by agencies?

Are updated standard costs used as basis for costing expenditures?

S

5.

Results orientation

6.

7.

P There is no simplified version of the budget

P/S

The Organizational Performance Indicator Framework (OPIF) was initially rolled out for BY 2007. However, it is not yet fully linked to the budget.

Some departments (e.g., DPWH, DOH, DepEd) use unit costs. These costs are not regularly updated.

Timeliness of budget submittal

8.

Is the budget proposal submitted within the prescribed time?

E

Submission of the proposed budget never missed the deadline.

Beneficiary reach

9.

Are responsibility assignments followed in crafting the budget?

S

While clear assignments of expenditure based on devolution policies are observed, budget items include devolved functions (local road construction, agriculture extension, subsidies to local hospitals,).

BUDGET LEGISLATION Performance Indicators Policy-based budgeting

Questions

Rating

Comments

1.

Are congressional budget deliberations generally based on policy options?

P/S

Policy debates usually happen in the Senate. Some policy debates happen in the House, but debates are more often based on parochial interests.

2.

Is there a reasonably sufficient time for Congress to debate the budget (at least three months)?

E

Congress is given four months to debate the budget.

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 10

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

Participation

3.

Are nongovernment sectors consulted/involved during the budget preparation?

S

A group called Alternative Budget Initiative (ABI) advocating for MDG funding was heard by Congress and consulted on budget allocation. Other advocacy groups prepare position papers.

Results orientation

4.

Are performance targets discussed in the budget debate?

P

The OPIF book came out after the debate in the House was finished. The Senate did not use OPIF in the debate.

5.

Were agency performance discussed in the budget debate?

P

Records of Congress debate proceedings showed agency performance was asked intermittently but not adequately.

Performance-based costing

6.

Did Congress challenge the cost estimates in the budget proposals?

P

Records of proceedings show costings were not asked.

Timeliness of budget approval

7.

Is the budget approved prior to the onset of the budget year?

P

The budget approval was delayed for three months; thus, the 2007 budget was partly reenacted.

Transparency

8.

Was the approved budget widely disseminated and explained to the public?

P

Except for some news reports, the approved budget and its contents were not thoroughly explained to the public.

The GAA component is, however, published in the DBM website.

+

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 11

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

URUGUAY NHDR 2008: POLITICS, POLICIES AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT DG theme(s) Political institutions Political participation

14

Sources Use of regional data on democracy from different regional studies Separate national studies commissioned including two surveys of political and economic elites in Uruguay and the other of public opinion on democratic governance.

The 2008 NHDR focuses on how politics and policies are important for human development in Uruguay. It analyses the political institutions (Executive, Parliament and Justice System), as well as the development-models applied in Uruguay, in order to determine their contributions to the welfare of citizens. The main message of the report can be summarized as follows: “politics matter to human development”. According to the study, regionally high Uruguayan performance in human development cannot be understood without considering its political history, its policies, the institutions, the quality of democracy and the political culture which have served human development in Uruguay well.

The report is based on two primary surveys of business/political elites and a survey of the general public. The public opinion survey used a representative sample of the 18+ year old population in households in all locations with a population more than 3000 people. 900 interviews were conducted with individuals over 18 years.

The NHDR includes many indicators related to different political institutions and attitudes about those institutions. For example it examines Uruguayan public opinion to assess the management/performance of Parliament as well as the levels of confidence in it. It also uses administrative data and records to make comparisons over time. Some example indicators include: How well represented do you feel by the political party you voted for?

Do you have confidence in the parliament? What do you feel is the appropriate role of parliament Number of official requests for information to the executive from parliamentary representatives (to show that is exercising its oversight function) Perceptions on the independence of the judiciary (involvement of courts in political cases) and confidence in getting justice (fair treatment).

Policy/ideological orientations of Uruguayans: interest in politics and political preferences in terms of left/right wing Participation and support for political parties Participation in voluntary social/civil groups Levels of public support for democracy as a form of government Position of women in political wife (records in terms of female representation) Opinions (elite and public) on position of women in political life In addition, the report proposes prioritizing the political dimension in human development through the construction of a political development index (PDI) that would complement the human development index (HDI). This is measured along three dimensions: (1) the existence and stability of democratic institutions; (2) the existence of high participation in the exercise of political rights, elections, and (3) the existence of civic values which act as a support for the democratic institutions. The Index takes all Latin American countries and uses regional data

14

http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/nationalreports/latinamericathecaribbean/uruguay/name,15334,en.html (Spanish)

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 12

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

collected by Mainwaring (2000), Latinobarometer and International IDEA and UNDP’s Democracy in Latin America report.

Strengths: This NHDR is extremely comprehensive and uses indicators from a range of regional and national sources which allows extensive cross referencing and comparison for example between the views of the public and elites and between surveys and administrative data.

It consistently uses indicators that are cross temporal allowing comparisons over time.

Regional indicators are supplemented with national indicators providing a compelling picture of the governance situation.

Introduces an innovative regional index called the Political Development Index in recognition of the importance of democratic governance to human development.

Weaknesses: Limited sub-national comparisons i.e. experience of governance within different areas of Uruguay and amongst different populations. This information may have been collected but is not presented in the NHDR.

Indicator examples The Political Development Index: Components and Indicators

Components

Institutions: stable democratic election

A political community that values and makes use of these institutions

Indicator

Value in the chosen year's electoral democracy index (IDE) (UNDP 2007)

Voter turnout of the total eligible voters in the last 10 years (from Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance)

Index component

Stability Index electoral democracy (IEDE)

Index proposed

Political Development Index (PDI)

Number of years of democratic institutions in the past 50 years (data Mainwaring 2000 and UNDP 2004)

Average index values of support for democracy and satisfaction with democracy Latino barometer for the current year

Index measure of democracy election (IVDE)

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 13

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

EGYPT NHDR 2008: EGYPT’S SOCIAL CONTRACT: THE ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY DG theme(s) Civil society

15

Sources Used a combination of specific surveys on CSOs as well as application of internationally developed instruments e.g.

CSI and Arvin Framework

Egypt’s NHDR holds that to create and implement a system that delivers necessary social goods requires new roles and responsibilities for civil society as the ‘third pillar’ of the nation, complementing the state and the private sector. It states that the civil society sector has vast underutilized capacity and resources that can compensate for inadequate government or private sector capacity to fulfil social targets and programs. The NHDR argues that civil society and its organizations have a significant role to play in national development, in partnership with the state and the private sector, because of its experience in welfare and social development programs, its representation of diverse interest groups, and its ability to provide a voice for marginalized groups.

A variety of tools and instruments are used to assess the state of civil society in the country.

For example: A survey taken in 2007 by the Egypt General Federation of Associations collected information on the number of CSOs registered by sector (health, education, human rights etc) and function (advocacy, service delivery etc). 恰ϑ The survey also included indicators on geographical distribution of NGOs and the economic and social contributions of CSOs e.g. size of revenues and expenditures, foreign funding and employment.

A 2007 survey undertaken by the Arab Network for NGOs was conducted to monitor and analyze the features of good internal governance in CSOs. Two tools were designed, the first a forty-item questionnaire which covered the rule of law, the practice of democracy, transparency and accountability, partnership with other actors, the extent of performance evaluation, as well as other dimensions of good governance. The second tool used focus group discussions to allow participants the freedom to criticize and speak openly on sensitive issues not covered in the questionnaire.

The NHDR also used the Arvin Framework16 (see indicator examples below) for assessing the enabling environment for CSOs (focused in this case on the education sector) which focuses on CSO ability to achieve five desired outputs: (1) Association, or freedom of citizens to associate; (2) Resource mobilization; (3) Voice, or the ability to formulate and express voice; (4) Information, or access to official information; and (5) Negotiation, or the existence of spaces for negotiation.

Application of the Civil Society Index developed by CIVICUS in 2006 including indicators across four main dimensions: (i) structure of civil society, (ii) the environment, (iii) values and (iv) impact.

Qualitative analysis of the legal framework affecting CSOs including a comparison with international benchmarks for CSO legislation developed in the publication the International Guide to Non-Profit Law (Salamon).

15

http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/nationalreports/arabstates/egypt/name,3450,en.html (English and Arabic)

16

The Arvin Framework: A Way to Assess the Enabling Environment for Civic Engagement is an assessment

tool developed by the World Bank and applied in a number of countries, including Egypt, across all regions.

See http://go.worldbank.org/378AB9OH00 .

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 14

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

A chapter exists, but no indicators on access to official/public information.

There are some indicators on the media in Egypt that can be found in the NHDR background paper produced by Randa Fouad and there is reference to Egypt’s position on the World Pres Freedom Index and the Committee to Protect Journalists ‘attacks on journalists”.

Indicators on mobile telephone subscribers and internet access included and sourced http://www.itu.int/ITUD/icteye/Indicators/Indicators.aspx#

Strengths: Comprehensive assessment of civil society in Egypt including the application of a range of assessment instruments including surveys and administrative data.

Adopts an expansive definition of civil society (not just NGOs) to examine business associations and trade union s Informative use of disaggregated indicators (not just national level data)

Weaknesses: Limited use of temporal comparison i.e. no information on comparison across time

Indicator examples

Association

Resources

Legal and Regulatory Framework

Political and Governance Context

Socio-Cultural Characteristics

Economic Conditions

Freedom of Association

Recognition and accreditation policies and procedures

Social capital

Cost of legal registrations and accreditations

Illiteracy

Cost of convening meetings and forums

Government grants, private funds, contracting, other transferences

Social philanthropy (the culture of giving)

Size of and stresses in the economy

History of associational life, Self-help and gap-filling

Unemployment

Tax systems, fund raising and procurement regulations

Gender barriers

Impact of economy on contribution by members Infrastructure and cost of communications

Voice

Information

Freedom of expression.

Media and ICT related laws

Freedom of information.

Rights to access public information

Political control of public media.

Information disclosure policies and practices.

Ability to demystify public policy and budgets

Communication practices (use of media by different social groups)

Fees associated with expressing views in media (ads vs. op-ed)

Information networks,

Costs/fees for access to information

Illiteracy

Costs to present/publish/distribute views (petitions, newsletters, radio stations)

the use of word of mouth

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 15

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

Negotiation

Legally established dialogue spaces (referendums, lobby regulations, public forums, etc.)

Political will. Institutionalized dialogues and social accountability mechanisms

Social values and hierarchies that set who can speak on what subject in what context and when

Bargaining power Impact of economic constraints on autonomy and advocacy

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 16

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

GHANA NHDR 2007: TOWARDS A MORE INCLUSIVE SOCIETY

17

DG theme(s)

Sources

Political representation and participation;

Administrative records from the Ghana Electoral Commission; Administrative records from the Parliament

Citizenship; Access to justice

The focus of the Ghana NHDR is on social exclusion. Several factors such as poverty, globalization and certain social structures, systems and practices contribute to exclusion in Ghana. In addition, economic, political and legal drivers also influence exclusion and contribute to its severity. The report states that as a concept, social exclusion typically focuses on deprivation, a feature that it has in common with poverty. But beyond this the concept is more about the nature of relations that give rise to deprivation in broadly economic, political and social spheres.

In terms of political and legal exclusion , the report argues that it is critical to examine how institutional arrangements affect the ways in which certain individuals or groups experience limited and inequitable access to political assets, political capabilities, and political voice. In this respect the report focuses on political participation indicators (for example representation of specific groups in political institutions and participation in elections) but also includes indicators related to lack of legal protections and legal (for example indicators on the cost of formal court processes and the geographic distribution of High Courts, Circuit Courts and District Courts in Ghana).

The use of political and legal indicators focused on women is comprehensive and includes not only representation indicators for major institutions but also their participation in important processes such as different parliamentary select committees thereby illustrating the sex/distribution of members across policy areas. There are also indicators on land holdings for men compared to women in different regions. The report explores the participation of women in traditional political institutions but does not include indicators.

Strengths: Excellent use of comparative data to show trends and patterns in political representation especially in terms of gender.

Illuminating presentation of a wide range of potential indicators including indicators related to the “exclusion” of children e.g. forced child marriage, domestic violence, female genital mutilation as well as the disabled as another vulnerable group e.g. indicators on rate of employment for disabled compared with rate of employment for general population). However there is limited data on these potential indicators in the report.

Weaknesses: In terms of the information presented on political exclusion, there is a predominant reliance on official statistics and administrative data. It would have been opportune and appropriate to also include data collection methods that provide a voice for the social-

17

http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/nationalreports/africa/ghana/name,3458,en.html

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 17

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

ly/politically excluded i.e. targeted and representational surveys, focus group interviews etc.

Limited data on political exclusion/inclusion of other groups e.g. disabled, the poor etc or people living in certain geographic areas.

Indicator examples Gender Representation on Parliamentary Select Committees Committee

Total number

Men%

Women %

Lands & Forestry

18

17 (94)

1 (6)

Agriculture

20

15 (75)

5 (25)

Food & Cocoa

20

17 (85)

3 (15)

Local Government & Rural Development

18

17 (94)

1 (6)

Constitutional, Legal & Parliamentary Affairs

18

18 (100)

0 (0)

Health

20

17 (85)

3 (15)

Communication

20

15 (83)

3 (17)

Roads & Transport

18

17 (94)

1 (6)

Defence & Interior

18

17 (94)

1 (6)

Foreign Affairs

20

17 (85)

3 (15)

Youth, Sports & Culture

18

17 (94)

1 (6)

Education

19

18 (95)

1 (5)

Mines & Energy

18

16 (89)

2 (11)

Environment, Science & Technology

18

17 (94)

1 (6)

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 18

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

PANAMA NHDR 2007: INSTITUTIONS AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT DG theme(s) Perceptions of state institutions

18

Sources Perception data based on a representative national survey19 Extensive survey data disaggregated by ethnicity, age, sex, educational levels, demography, political affiliation etc.

The Panama 2007 NHDR presents an analysis of institutional problems focused on the role played by formal and informal institutions in the country's human development. One aspect that is innovative in this NHDR is that it seeks to analyze the institutional problem from the voices, views and concerns of different groups and sectors that represent the complexity of Panamanian society. The report combines important survey data on the perceptions and views of citizens with the perceptions and views of a cross section of Panamanian leaders. Common themes and areas of concern emerged from these sources such as strong feelings of scepticism and lack of confidence in important political institutions.

The report is based on three main sources: 1. A survey at the national level with a sample of 1200 homes in all the provinces, with representativeness from urban and rural areas, the metropolitan region (Panama and Columbus) and the rest of the country. The tool included 98 questions that covered perceptions on the subject of Panamanian institutions. Indicators included: Confidence in state institutions Perceptions on corruption in different sectors Perceptions about the functioning of the rule of law in Panama Perceptions on citizens’ collective action Perceptions on types of authorities and leaders in Panama Perceptions on political parties and key political institutions such as the National Assembly in Panama Perceptions on the role of the state and society in national development Preferences on the criteria to be used for the allocation of public resources 2. A series of in-depth interviews with leading figures from politics, economics and culture in Panama. In total 40 interviews were conducted, 16 with politicians from all political parties, 10 with businessmen and 14 in other activities (academia, journalisms, religious leaders and other opinion leaders). To preserve objectivity, the interview process and analysis were conducted by international experts from other countries in the region. The aimed to identify perceptions about the current state of Panamanian society and to clarify the problems that people identified as sources of crisis in society and the country.

3. For the analysis of public institutions existing secondary studies prepared by the World Bank, IDB, Transparency International, Office of Administration, Pact for Justice, Ministry of Economy and Finance, Panama Strategic Development Plan 2004-2009 , among others were reviewed.

18

http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/nationalreports/latinamericathecaribbean/panama/name,14111,en.html (Spanish only) 19 The national survey was conducted among 1,161 respondents with a survey questionnaire developed by UNDP. The same questionnaire was distributed to 143 participants from citizen forums across 6 Bulgarian municipalities. The data from the forums was run against those of the national survey. http://www.undp.bg/user_files/en/documents/publications/nhdr/nhdr_2001/3%20english.doc

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 19

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

The report also draws on the Worldwide Governance Indicators for 2005 for a global comparison and draws on Latinobarometer for survey data on confidence in government institutions for 2006 for a regional comparison.

Strengths: The Panama NHDR is a hugely rich source of democratic governance indicators based primarily on subjective indicators. One of the most heated debates among users and producers of governance indicators is over the relative usefulness of subjective or perceptions-based measures of governance versus objective or fact-based measures. Many now agree that subjective indicators provide information when objective data may not be relevant or available and thus should be considered complementary rather a substitute to objective indicators. They are also useful in highlighting the views and opinions of different groups in society.

The indicators, based on the views of Panamanians, have strong policy relevance in that they can inform a national strategy for institutional reform that is more responsive to people.

Weaknesses: Limited temporal comparison for most indicators Limited disaggregation amongst citizen groups (for example the poor versus the nonpoor, the views of indigenous people etc).

Limited spatial disaggregation for the country’s regions and sub-national units

Indicator examples Citizen perceptions: Reasons to become a member of a political party

Percentage

To gain personal benefits

50.2%

For a specific use

30.5%

To support its ideals

6.3%

For tradition

5.8%

In order to participate in the decision making

5.3%

Because it is an obligation

1.9%

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 20

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

KOSOVO NHDR 2004: THE RISE OF THE CITIZEN: CHALLENGE AND CHOICES DG theme(s)

20

Sources

Civil society and civic engagement

Municipal Human Development Survey (perception indicators)21

Electoral systems

Social Capital Index22

Justice and security

Administrative data

Decentralization

The Kosovo report created a separate HDR survey due to existing poor data (especially at the municipal level), which includes several indicators relevant to governance. The report emphasizes the need to create a statistical baseline of indicators for Kosovo municipalities. The Social Capital Index (based on the HDR survey) attempts to measure people’s ability (disaggregated by municipality and ethnicity) to take part in and influence the decision-making process. The index ranking provides policy-makers with cues as to where civic participation needs to be strengthened. The ethnic disaggregation for most governance indicators serve to point out existing inequalities with regards to participation and public service delivery. The report includes innovative use of governance indicators such as “Distance from Health and Education Facilities and Likelihood of Political Activity” and “Relationship between Satisfaction and Participation”.

Strengths: Ӆ Strong policy recommendations to increase participation and representation that flowed from the governance indicator findings

Strong spatial and demographic disaggregation (data for all municipalities) Strong focus on the need for more national and sub-national statistics (e.g. capacity building of NSO and housing census to include governance data)

Weaknesses: Limited temporal comparison for most indicators Limited focus on accountability, transparency and rule of law indicators

Indicator examples Forms of civic participation % of population: Social Capital Index Took part in trade union activities (3.8%) Took part in public discussion (6.7%) Took part in citizen initiative (6.4%) Signed petition (6.1%) Participated in public protest (21.8%)

Trends in Satisfaction with Institutions in Kosovo

20 21 22

http://www.kosovo.undp.org/hdr-new/index.html 6,000 households across all 30 municipalities The Social Capital Index is calculated from the Human Development Survey.

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 21

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

UNMIK

SRSG

Government

Assembly

KFOR

Nov 2002

63.8

73.1

74.1

76.7

87.8

March 2003

51.9

64.1

74.9

71.9

85.5

July 2003

43.1

71.4

78.1

74.7

81.4

Nov 2003

28.4

43.1

68.5

65.3

77.6

March 2004

24.9

32.4

73.9

64.3

83.0

Distance from Health and Education Facilities and Likelihood of Political Activity Distance to nearest basic health and educational facilities

Member of household in local government orpolitical party (%)

Less than 1 km

52

From 1 to 3 km

35

From 3 to 5 km

9

From 5 to 10 km

3

Over 10 km

1.2

绀Г

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 22

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

BURKINA FASO NHDR 2003: CORRUPTION AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

23

DG theme(s) Anti-corruption Public administration

Sources Corruption questionnaire including perception surveys across seven target groups: General public)24 Economic actors Public administration experts Private sector experts Public institutions Opinion leaders Other experts

The Burkina Faso report’s use of national perception data for corruption is groundbreaking. The NHDRs (and HDRs) that have dealt with corruption rely on global indicators such as the Corruption Perception Index25. The national indicators allow for disaggregation and provide policy makers with information on where corruption is most prevalent (the global indicators simply provide a ranking based on business perception for the entire country).

For a government committed to combat corruption there are clear policy implications from this type of national survey. The surveys are important because they go beyond economic corruption and address corruption from other human development aspects such as health, education and governance. Ideally, the surveys would be conducted regularly to allow for time series analysis and methodological improvements Г such as expanding the sample and correcting the urban and male bias of survey respondents. The innovation and novelty of the survey, however, outweigh the methodological shortcomings of the report.

Strengths: First NHDR on corruption to use national surveys as a measurement tool Governance indicators in the report have clear policy implications (in-depth analysis based partly on indicator findings) Allows for some disaggregation

Weaknesses: •

Does not allow for temporal comparison and limited spatial disaggregation

•

Methodological concerns with using expert groups e.g. urban and male bias

•

Survey is not nationally representative

Indicator examples Survey data on corruption in various sectors - % of respondents answering ‘very corrupt’

23

http://www.pnud.bf/RAPDH2003.htm The general public survey is based on households of 5 villages and 10 cities. The survey does not purport to be nationally representative.

25 http://www.icgg.org/corruption.cpi_2004.html 24

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 23

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

Police

58%

Customs

78%

Justice

52%

Local administration/Mayor’s office

46%

Health

21%

Education

21%

Media

13%

Knowledge of government agencies tasked to combat corruption - % of respondents not familiar with the agency Inspector general of finance

74%

Coordination office for combating poverty

74%

Inspector general

86%

Court on account auditing

74%

National committee on ethics

72%

High commissioner on anti-corruption

62%

Г

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 24

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

THAILAND NHDR 2003: COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT26 DG theme(s) Decentralization and local governance Public administration reform Civil society and participation

Sources Human Achievement Index (HAI) uses mostly HDI indicators with some additional governance indicators such as a Participation Index, a Family and Community Life Index and a Transportation and Communication Index27

Access to information

The Thailand NHDR is a good example of how governance indicators can be adapted to fit the national and sub-national context. The Human Achievement Index (HAI) expands the human development framework by adding governance data such as political participation and public service-delivery indicators. The proposed studies on “Community-level Well-being Indicators” and “Happiness Indicators” are very interesting with regard to making cultural-specific governance indicators. Although there is no data available for these indexes they illustrate how measurement tools intended for policy-making need to take national and regional culture into consideration. The high level of participation and ownership of the report is also reflected in the strong geographical disaggregation of the indicators (data available for all provinces). The ranking of provinces (top five and bottom five) is a useful tool to highlight geographical inequalities in, for example, service delivery of public goods. The ranking is also an effective tool to elicit debate regarding decentralization and local governance. Г

Strengths: •

Innovative use of human development and governance indicators

•

Strong policy relevance: the inter-province ranking can guide decision-makers to priority-attention areas

•

Good spatial disaggregation: data available for all provinces and regions

Weaknesses: •

No data collected for Community-level well-being Indicators and the Happiness indicators.

•

Several methodological questions/concerns on how to develop such indicators

•

No qualitative indicators

Indicator examples28 Housing and living conditions index: Top 5 and Bottom 5 provinces

26

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/view_reports.cfm?year=2003&country=C234&region=0&type=0&theme=0 The HDI methodology used in HDRs is also applied to the HAI. The additional HAI components are labelled governance indicators as they go beyond the standard HDI. 28 The data for these indicator samples can be found in the NHDR Annex (http://www.undp.or.th/publications/NHDR03/7-Data_Tables.pdf) 27

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 25

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

Houses with permanent materials (%) Urban Households in slum (%) Households with refrigerator (%) Households with cooking gas or electric stove (%) Transportation and communication Index: Top 5 and Bottom 5 provinces Villages with convenient access to nearest district (%) Population per telephone (persons) Population with access to internet (%) Participation Index Political participation: Voter turnout (%) Civil society participation: Community groups (per 100,000) Households participate in local groups (%) Households participate in social service (%) Other governance indicators of interest: Violent crimes reported by province (per 100,000) Drug-related arrests (per 100,000) Working children aged 15-17 by province (%) Households with debt by province (%) Social security by province (%)

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 26

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

BULGARIA NHDR 2001: CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNANCE-FROM INDIVIDUALS TO CITIZENS 29

DG theme(s)

Sources

Participation (civic and political participation)

Perception data based on a representative national survey30

Civil society

Survey data run against citizen forums’ responses to same questionnaire 88 indicator questions along disaggregated matrix: ethnicity, age, sex, educational levels, demography, political affiliation etc.

The Bulgaria NHDR 2001 demonstrates how democratic governance indicators can be helpful to address policy issues through a human development and democratic governance framework.

This report is one of the NHDRs that uses governance indicators (at least perception indicators) most comprehensively.

The disaggregation and innovative indicator questions allow for in-depth findings and analysis.

The emphasis on participation and empowerment is backed up by statistical evidence to highlight to what degree citizens feel they are able to participate and influence public policy. The policy recommendations in the NHDR are based on governance indicators that represent national opinion (disaggregated by ethnicity, social-econ status, political affiliation etc.) rather than international/national experts. 葰ψ The high level of disaggregation also allows policy-makers and other stakeholders to determine what areas (both issues and geographically) deserve priority attention. The strength of this report, however, depends on the follow-up of surveys and further data collection, which would enable monitoring progress/regress in the various areas.

Strengths: Indicator questions address wide spectre of governance issues Broad participation (national survey and focus groups using same questionnaire) Strong demographic and geographic disaggregation Questions are specific to regional/national and sub-national context Survey is nationally representative

Weaknesses: Does not allow for comparison across time (one-off survey) Lack of non-perception governance indicators

29

http://www.undp.bg/en/publications.php?content=yes&ID=35 The national survey was conducted among 1,161 respondents with a survey questionnaire developed by UNDP. The same questionnaire was distributed to 143 participants from citizen forums across 6 Bulgarian municipalities. The data from the forums was run against those of the national survey. http://www.undp.bg/user_files/en/documents/publications/nhdr/nhdr_2001/3%20english.doc 30

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 27

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

Indicator examples Ways to influence the Municipality and the Government [Average values according to a 1-3 scale] Municipality

Government

A representative survey

2.23

2.29

To provide the possibility for a certain minimum of people (for instance, 7000) to submit a draft law to the National Assembly

2.14

2.26

Referendum

2.48

2.61

Protests

2.03

2.02

Elections

2.55

2.62

Public meetings

2.23

2.18

To present my opinion personally

1.86

1.76

Act trough an NGO

2.34

1.80

淀К

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 28

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

COSTA RICA NHDR 2000: STATE OF THE NATION REPORT ON SUSTAINABLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 31

DG theme(s) Electoral system Public administration

Sources Participatory method using limited but targeted surveying and administrative data.

Decentralisation Political institutions

The Costa Rica NHDR 2001 is the sixth in an annual series of such reports assessing and informing citizen views on the country’s development. It addresses social, economic, environmental and political development, providing specific indicators at the national and local levels. An extensive statistical compendium compiled from 32 official sources includes some limited data disaggregated by sex or region. The basic conclusion of the report is that Costa Rica is a country with many accomplishments, but that there is concern that such standards might not be upheld in the future.

The report’s methodology emphasizes ownership and legitimacy through participatory processes, including focus groups to determine themes, a consultative council comprised of prominent and informed individuals including government, and consultative workshops with academics and civil society. Thus the content of the report is largely shaped by its potential users. The fact that it appears annually allows for detailed updates and specific monitoring. 淀К A key aspect of human development in Costa Rica is the strengthening of democracy. The report notes clear advances in political management, especially in terms of realizing infrastructure investment and employment security, but it says that efforts have failed to meet citizen demands for better governance as reflected in indicators on trust in electoral processes and in elected officials. Qualitative information on democracy and good governance is informed by a Citizens’ Audit on the Quality of Democracy as well as various data from governmental accountability bodies and some external sources. The Citizens’ Audit in particular is an extensive and disaggregated survey of public and official views on a range of topics such as participation, political representation, accountability, etc.

Strengths: Emphasis on participatory method for topical focus, data collection and review give report strong policy relevance and local ownership.

Regional disaggregation provides a more complete governance picture and allows for targeted reforms.

Weaknesses: Results from Citizens’ Audit on the Quality of Democracy are not tabulated.

Data are not disaggregated among citizen groups (e.g. the poor or other underprivileged groups).

Limited disaggregation by gender.

31

http://www.estadonacion.or.cr/Info2000/nacion6/indice.html

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 29

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

Indicator examples Perception of the leadership of President Rodriguez Opinions

September 1998

January 1999

May 1999

September 1999

January 2000

Good, good

37.3

21.1

29.6

26.6

30.8

38.0

40.5

33.8

42.0

40.6

very

20.4

34.7

34.6

29.4

27.3

Differential*

16.9

-13.6

-5.0

-8.3

3.5

very

Normal Poor. poor

Differential = good. very good opinions minus poor. very poor opinion

淀К

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 30

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The case studies illustrate both strong and weak governance indicator use. The most recurring issues in the case studies include the balance of administrative data and survey data, the importance of spatial and demographic disaggregation for policy relevance and the use (or lack) of comparative time data to show trends (which is not so common given that NHDR theme changes every year). At the heart of most of these concerns are data collection challenges.

The disaggregated data challenge is probably the most critical for NHDRs. Disaggregated data is important for two principal reasons: 1) To make information "actionable" and 2) to identify vulnerable and marginalized groups. “Actionability” implies greater clarity on the steps that governments can take to improve performance. An actionable indicator is one in which data allow disaggregation to pinpoint bottlenecks and inefficiencies within the public administration and wider systems of accountability. In addition, data should be able to correctly attribute change to policy initiatives and tell to what extent observed changes are the results of government actions or caused by external factors. Yet as Daniel Kaufmann cautions, an excessively narrow emphasis on "actionable" indicators detailing specific policy interventions immediately under the control of governments can divert attention from equally-important discussions of which of the indicators are "action-worthy" in the sense of significantly impacting on outcomes of interest.32 Identification of vulnerable groups requires data that can be disaggregated by income, gender and other markers such as region, age, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability and so on, depending on the scope, country context and objective of the assessment. This may require surveys with sample sizes large enough to allow extensive disaggregation of the results or individualized questionnaires targeted toward vulnerable groups. Qualitative research techniques such as focus groups, consultations and interviews may offer insights for formulating questionnaires and interpreting results, as well as more in-depth information about social groups.

Both “actionability” and a focus on vulnerable groups, means governance indicators need to be 淀К not be sufficient) and the need to secure primary country contextualized (global datasets will data produced within countries.

There are two global governance indices that are referred to often in NHDRs and these are the Worldwide Governance Indicators33 and the Corruption Perceptions Index34. These can be helpful for comparing countries but do not provide the country specific disaggregated information that human development reports have come to be known for. What is needed therefore, is an investment in national data collection efforts to conduct surveys and help improve the collation of governance related administrative data and statistics. Furthermore, there is an important and underutilised opportunity in the preparation of governance focused NHDRs to support projects that assist national institutions’ regular monitoring of democratic governance indicators.isaggregated data is important for two principal reasons: 1) To make in-

formation "actionable" and 2) to identify vulnerable and marginalized groups.

· Actionability implies greater clarity on the steps that governments can take to improve their scores on an indicator. The trend toward more actionable indicators can be seen both at global and national levels, which emphasizes the demand for better national-level data also from global indicator producers. An actionable indicator is one in which data allow disaggregation to pinpoint bottlenecks and inefficiencies within the public administration and wider systems of accountability. In addition, data should be able to correctly attribute change to policy initiatives and tell to what extent observed changes are the results of government actions or caused by external factors. ·

Identification of vulnerable groups requires data that can be disaggre-

32

See “Governance Indicators: Where Are We, Where Should We Be Going?” Daniel Kaufmann and Aart Kraay. The World Bank October 2007. http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/GovernanceIndicatorsSurvey.pdf 33 http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp 34 http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 31

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

gated by income, gender and other markers such as region, age, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability and so on, depending on the scope, country context and objective of the assessment. This requires household surveys with sample sizes large enough to allow extensive disaggregation of the results. It also may require individualized questionnaires targeted toward vulnerable groups, such as a women's questionnaire. Qualitative research techniques such as focus groups, consultations and interviews may offer insights for formulating questionnaires and interpreting results, as well as more in-depth information about social groups.

贀З

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 32

Annex 1: Overview of NHDRs and description of governance indicators used (2000-2009) Country/Title

Year

Governance Theme

Relevant Chapter

Description of indicators and data sources

Burundi: Bonne gouvernance et developpement durable Chile: La Manera de hacer las Cosas

2009

Electoral system. political institutions. participation

2009

Good governance in general

All chapters. especially Part 6: ¿Que aprendimos de las practicas?

Human Development Survey of public opinion was carried out as part of the report Qualitative information was gathered from focus groups and interviews with workers

Nepal: State Transformation and Human Development

2009

Political parties. electoral system

Chapter 4: Political Inclusion and Human Development

Representation of caste/ethnic groups and gender in the FPTP electoral system of the Constituent Assembly (CA) Number of seats of political parties in CA election Representation of different caste/ethnic groups and gender in the house of representatives Representation of caste and ethnicity in different sectors of society

No specific governance indicators in summary report; full report not yet publicly available.

Representation of caste and ethnicity in state organs Participation of caste and ethnic groups in the leadership positions of judiciary. executive. legislature and constitutional bodies Participation of caste and ethnic groups in the central level committee/bureau Participation of caste and ethnic groups in the leadership positions of civil society organizations Quotas for excluded caste and ethnic groups and region in the Constituent Assembly Women’s representation in the CA Women’s representation in local government Women’s representation in civil service by class and level Philippines: Institutions.

Politics and Human Development in the Philippines

2009

The quality of governance institutions for improving human development focusing on public sector reforms. budget process. and accountability mechanisms in government.

Chapter 1: Institutions. politics and human development

The National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB has constructed a Good Governance Index at the provincial level based on administrative data. The index is an aggregate of many measures. including per capita spending on social services. crime solution rate. and per capita revenue index. The Asian Institute of Management (AIM). in its City Competitiveness Program. has also generated what may be considered measures of governance quality at the city level.

These measures are based on scores given by “experts.” Among these measures are: need for bribes to secure business permits in local government offices; honesty and transparency of local government; conduciveness of regulatory environment for business; simplicity and efficiency of securing a business permit; local government has online services The influence of the budget process on the effectiveness of governance was measured along six dimensions or performance indicators: accountability. predictability. participation. transparency. beneficiary reach/impact. and compliance to laws

Uruguay: Politics. Policies and Human Development

2008

Political institutions; political participation

Part 1: Democracy and human development in Uruguay. Part 3: The political institutions and human development. political culture and quality of democracy in Uruguay:

Use of regional data on democracy from different regional studies Separate national studies commissioned which have generated data including two surveys: 1. of political and economic elites in Uruguay and the other of public opinion on democratic governance in Uruguay.

Lebanon: Toward a Citizen's State

2008

Citizenship

Chapter 3: Political Citizenship and the Sectarian State; Chapter 5: Culture and the Question of Citizenship; Chapter 6 : Toward a Citizen's State

Use of citizen surveys through a series of polls conducted by the Lebanese Opinion Poll Committee www.lebaneseopinion.org on attitudes towards democracy and governance focused on political systems (e.g. attitudes towards multi party vs. one party systems. power sharing arrangements in terms of sectarianism vs. national unity. and views on the place of religion in politics and the separation of religion and state) Also administrative data such as data collected by government relating to NGO registration including sectarian affiliation. geographic distribution and provision of services.

A project “101 Stories to Tell“ that recorded citizenship initiatives in public life.

33

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

Indicators on honor crimes: this study is based on a sample of 66 cases of women murdered by a relative or an associate in the 6 mohafazat of Lebanon. While not entirely representative they give an indication of the general trends in honor crimes in the country Civil and political indicators came from two distinct sources: the NHDR survey on education and citizenship that covered 3111 9th grade students in 113 private and public schools in the 6 Mohafazat of Lebanon. and studies and opinion polls on identity and belonging issues. undertaken by reputable private institutions. These highlight the paradoxes of difference and belonging in a multi-cultural and multi-religious setting as the one in Lebanon and their impact on civic values and behavior A NHDR/Ministry of Education survey on education and citizenship that assessed the concepts. knowledge. attitudes. and actions of ninth grade students on citizenship and democracy including 3.111 students in 113 public and private schools. It also included questionnaires for school principals and civic education teachers. Indicators included: − Expectations of Future Political Participation

Egypt: Egypt’s Social Contract: The Role of Civil Society

2008

Civil society

Chapter 3: A Mapping of Civil Society in Egypt; Chapter 4: Civil Society in Egypt: External and Internal Obstacles; and Chapter 11: The Role of Information. Communication and the Media

− −

Culture of Law Trust in Institutions

−

Public roles of women

General Federation of Associations (GFA) Survey taken in 2007 which collected information on number of CSOs registered by sector (health. education. human rights etc) and function (advocacy. service delivery etc). Also indicators on geographical distribution of NGO and the economic and social contributions of CSOs e.g. size of revenues and expenditures. foreign funding and employment. : A 2007 survey undertaken by the Arab Network for NGOs was conducted on behalf of the EHDR 2008 to monitor and analyze the features of good internal governance in civil society organizations. Two tools were designed. the first a forty-item questionnaire which covered the rule of law. the practice of democracy. transparency and accountability. partnership with other actors. the extent of performance evaluation. as well as other dimensions of good governance.

The second tool used focus group discussions to allow participants the freedom to criticize and speak openly on sensitive issues not covered in the questionnaire.

Application of the Arvin Framework for assessing the enabling environment for CSOs (in this case the education sector) which focuses on CSO ability to achieve five desired outputs: (1) Association – or freedom of citizens to associate; (2) Resource mobilization; (3) Voice – or ability to formulate and express voice; (4) Information – or access to official information; and (5) Negotiation – or the existence of spaces for negotiation.

Application of the Civil Society Index developed by CIVICUS in 2006 including indicators across four main dimension: structure of civil society. the environment. values and impact.

Qualitative analysis of the legal framework affecting CSOs including a comparison with international benchmarks for CSO legislation developed in the publication the International Guide to Non-Profit Law (Salamon).

Ѝ

A chapter exists. but no indicators on access to official/public information.

There are some indicators on the media in Egypt that can be found in the NHDR background paper produced by Randa Fouad and reference to Egypt’s position on the World Pres Freedom Index and the Committee to Protect Journalists ‘attacks on journalists”.

Indicators on mobile telephone subscribers and internet access included and sourced http://www.itu.int/ITUD/icteye/Indicators/Indicators.aspx# Chile: Institutional Reforms and Subjective Perceptions

2008

Citizen satisfaction of governance in rural Chile

All chapters

Opinion polls dealing with subjective perceptions of life’s opportunities and satisfaction in Chile. comparing the results of similar surveys from 1999 and 2008 to identify trends and analyse how Chile has changed in the last ten years.

Other elements to measure the status of human development in the country include indicators

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 34

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

regarding the performance of public institutions. the private sector and the daily life (such as domestic violence).

Methods included six focus groups with people in rural locations. on various themes and contexts related to the subject and the environment of rural life.

Along with this an opinion poll was conducted of rural elites. From the view of a panel of experts identified a structural sample of 240 cases of members of local elites and provincial of rural areas of the country.

Benin: Social Responsibility. Corruption and Sustainable Human Development

2008

Corruption

Chapter 3: Companies: Between Corruption and Social Responsibility

Presents data from Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index.

Presents a range of indicators from national survey tools including indicators on: − − − − − − − −

Incidence of corruption by government department (as claimed by respondents in a survey) Incidence of corruption on the level of the companies (frequency of the bribes offered) Incidence of corruption according to the legal form of the companies Incidence of corruption according to the turnover of the companies Incidence of corruption according to the educational level of the head of the company Survey of non-Benin companies on perceptions of corruption in Benin Number of companies that state they have a policy against corruption Perceptions of non-Benin companies on whether government has taken appropriate measures against corruption

Sierra Leone: Empowering Local Government For Sustainable Human Development And Poverty Reduction

2007

Empowering local government

Chapter 4: Status of Socio-Economic Indicators; Chapter 6: Decentralization in Sierra Leone

Good descriptions for conditions for successful decentralization including policy and legislative environment but no indicators or data for Sierra Leone on this.

Qualitative examination of the decentralization/devolution of power to different local government institutions and their capacities by sector (education and sector) but no comprehensive indicators on this.

Provided indicators on the participation of women in politics i.e. seats in parliament and women in government at ministerial level.

Panama: Institutions and Human Development

2007

Perceptions of state institutions

Chapter 3: Institutional Change in Panama

A national representative survey with indicators on:

Ghana: Towards a More Inclusive Society

−

Confidence in state institutions Perceptions on corruption in different sectors Perceptions about the functioning of the rules in Panama Perceptions on citizens’ collective action Perceptions on types of authorities and leaders in Panama Perceptions on political parties and key political institutions such as the National Assembly in Panama Perceptions on the role of the state and society in national development

−

Preferences on the criteria to be used for the allocation of public resources

− − − − − −

2007

Political representation and Chapter 5: Social Exclusion: The Political and participation; citizenship; ac-嶰Ў Legal Dimension cess to justice

Data on women’s seats in parliament and district level assembly as a measure for women’s political participation (compares data between 2000 and 2004) Data on number and percentage of women candidates and proportion elected (across different regions of Ghana) Data on gender representation in parliamentary select committees Data on gender representation in membership on public boards Data on gender representation in senior positions in central ministries Data on distribution of High Courts. Circuit Courts and District Courts in Ghana by Region for 2005 Data on distribution of Juvenile Courts by Region for 2006

Bolivia: State of the State

2007

Government effectiveness

All chapters

Public data from the monthly surveys on the current situation and perspectives of the Bolivian public opinion on key policy issues.

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 35

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

National survey (rural and urban areas) of 2000 people as well as more in-depth interviews of around 800 people.

Data from a national urban survey conducted by the staff of the Human Development Report of UNDP and International IDEA. This survey aimed to analyze the perceptions. attitudes and values of the Bolivian population on the existing constitutional order and its principles and on the main institutions that ensure compliance and to guide discussions and work reform proposals in the Constituent Assembly.

Peru: Towards a Decentralization with Citizenship

2006

Decentralization

Chapter 5: Voices of the citizens in the regions

Limited indicators even with extensive narrative on citizenship and local government.

Kenya: Human Security and Human Development: A Deliberate Choice

2006

Political security i.e. basic human rights and freedoms: trust in the Government; Government capacity involvement; Involvement in politics; Perceptions of corruption.

Chapter 3: Initiatives in response to Human Security

No national governance data on political security presented in the report

Guinea Bissau: Political reform for the MDGs

2006

Quality of governance

Chapter 3: Reasons for Poor Human Development in Guinea-Bissau

Uses Worldwide Governance Indicators for Guinea-Bissau comparing data for 2000 with 2004

Congo: Governance. Cohesion and Social Development

2006

Good governance including corruption

Chapter 3: Characteristics of Governance in Congo

Worldwide Governance Indicators for Congo for 2005 Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index for Congo for 2005

Includes indicators on revenues and expenditures by government department and costs executed per capita by government levels. according to department Sources and distribution of royalties and other transferable resources

Specific study on corruption commissioned by the Anti Corruption authority which included surveys capturing citizens’ perceptions on: − The sectors of activity most touched by corruption e.g. customs the taxes the police force. the courts. school system employees etc and perceptions on those institutions that are viewed as least affected −

Perceptions on who is personally gaining from corruption e.g. agents using their office for personal gain

− Perceptions on causes of corruption Indicators related to the governance of private and public companies including staff turnover in larger state enterprises Serbia: The strength of diversity

2005

Underrepresented groups

Uzbekistan: Decentralisation and Human Development

2005

Local governance

Romania: Local Governance and Human Development

2005

捠Ў Local governance

All chapters.

Several locally implemented surveys of sociocultural information. especially the Standard of Living survey by the statistical office

Chapter 4: Public Administration Reform for Human Development

Limited national democratic governance data/indicators presented

Chapter 2: Local Governance in Romania; Chapter 4: Local Governance. Decentralization and Citizen Participation

Size of Local Government Expenditure as Share of Total Public Expenditure and of GDP (19932002) Breakdown of Expenditure in Local Government Budgets in Romania

Number of Managerial Personnel in State Management Bodies Number of civil servants in public and economic governance bodies

Share of Personal Income Tax for Local Governments Share of Personal Income Tax for Local Governments Survey on whether Romanian citizens identity more with local community. region. country. Europe Representative survey on the question of how satisfied local residents were towards the way the local administration delivers services and views on what organizations in their communities could do a better job in delivering services.

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 36

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

Survey of residents on attendance at local council meetings and whether they knew they could attend council meetings.

Survey on whether residents (rural and urban) had seen the budget for their municipality. or were made aware of it being made public. before being submitted for adoption by the local council.

Citizens' input in the budgetary process Citizens’ awareness of the Romanian Freedom of Information Act and their confidence in government responding to requests for information Rate of Participation in the Local Elections of 2004 by County Survey questions to residents on candidates in local elections changing party affiliation Philippines: Peace. Human Security and Human Development in the Philippines

2005

Human security (which includes political security i.e. electoral integrity. corruption. accountability. responsiveness and transparency of local government/institutions and capacities of local bodies to deliver social services). respect for human rights by the. military and security forces.

Chapter 1: Human Security and Armed Conflict

Limited governance data but does include survey data on discrimination against Muslims

Kyrgyzstan: The Influence of Civil Society on the Human Development Process in Kyrgyzstan

2005

Civil society

Chapter 2: Independent Kyrgyzstan: Creating and Developing Civil Society

Detailed studies were undertaken for the NHDR on the role of CSOs in policy making (including surveys and focus group discussions)

Bosnia and Herzegovina: Better Local Governance in Bosnia and Herzegovina

2005

Egypt: Choosing Decentralisation for good governance

2004

Decentralisation. accountability. participation

All chapters. with focus on accountability in Chapter 4: Fiscal autonomy and accountability in local government; focus on participation in Chapter 10: Role of participation and collaboration

HD indicators by local governorate Development participation indicators A survey carried out by the Cairo Demographic Center identified the opinions and attitudes of both staff and management of the local administration units on the current application of decentralization. the constraints thereto. the extent to which decentralization can contribute to enhancing performance. and the variations between sectors in this regard.

Various indicators of local fiscal accountability Performance indicators for micro-finance institutions

Nepal: Empowerment and Poverty Reduction

2004

Electoral system

Chapter 3: Barriers to Empowerment

Human Empowerment Index: Political Empowerment indicators: 1) Voter turnout and 2) candidacy per seat in local election Quantitative indicators available for political empowerment.. Technical annex not available

Extensive use of the database of the Counterpart Consortium which includes range of NGO indicators Number of non-government organizations officially registered in the Kyrgyz Republic Growth in CSOs in terms of numbers employed by CSOs Financial resources allocated to CSOs (international donor agencies) Indicators on number of CSOs by function/focus Data on financing of business associations by membership fees Data on “women’s NGOs’: number and function Percentage of women occupying top positions and running public organizations (by region) Data on emergence of political parties Local governance and local democracy

Chapter 3: Building a responsive and accountable local governance system

⌠Ж

Very limited governance/democracy data and indicators presented. Exceptions include: Voter turn out rates Revenue Source Shares for Municipalities Indicators on access to local services (health and education. sanitation related services and other utilities)

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 37

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

Kosovo: The Rise of the Citizen: Challenge and Choices

2004

Macedonia: Decentralization for Human Development

2004

Kenya: Participatory Governance for Human Development

2004

Jordan: Building Sustainable Livelihoods

Electoral system. decentralization. justice. public administration

Chapter 2: Taking A Closer Look: Disaggregating Kosovo Human Development Indicators; Chapter 3: Taking A Closer Look: Disaggregating Kosovo Human Development Indicators; Chapter 4 : Taking A Closer Look: Disaggregating Kosovo Human Development Indicators; Chapter 5: Silent Majority

Decentralization and local governance

Chapter 1: Decentralized government and local development in Macedonia; Chapter 4: The social sector and the challenges of decentralization

Forms of civic participation (e.g. % of population that participated in public protests) Voter turnout and election data Trends in satisfaction with institutions (government and international) Data on composition of Kosovo police service

Administrative data on: − −

Gender disaggregation (GEM and beyond) Food security

−

Access to information and communication

−

Environmental degradation

Democratic governance including corruption

Chapter 3: Democratic Pluralism and Participatory Governance; Chapter 4: Governance. Resource Mobilization and Management; Chapter 6: Linking Participatory Governance to Human Development

No national governance data/indicators presented

2004

Local governance

Chapter 8: Local Development. Participation and Governance

Governance focus but no governance indicators or data presented

Moldova: Good Governance and Human Development

2003

All chapters

Ukraine: The Power of Decentralization

2003

Good governance in general and including civil society. public administration reform. rule of law. political parties. etc.

Decentralisation

Selected HD indicators at local level Discussion of performance on Worldwide Governance Indicators and Corruption Perceptions Index Public Opinion Barometer Survey carried out by the NGO Institute for Public Policy Survey: Decentralization and Human Development: People’s Perceptions of the Quality of Governance and Social Services Delivery. conducted by the Social Monitoring Center

Thailand: Community Empowerment and Human Development

2003

Decentralization. public admin

Tajikistan: Water Resources and Sustainable Human Development

2003

Morocco: Governance and Accelerated Local Human Development

2003

Egypt: Human Development Report

2003

Burkina Faso: Corruption

2003

All chapters. especially for survey results Chapter 1: Human development trends in Ukraine.

Chapter 3: Decentralization and people's development. Chapter 4: Decentralization and people's living environment. Chapter 5: Moving forward through decentralization - an action program for human development.

Chapter 5: Human Development Indices

Uses Worldwide Governance Indicators 1999 data for Kenya.

Index of Human Deprivation Human Achievement Index (HAI); 9 components.

Governance data on participation (voter turnout and results). socio-econ survey provides some governance info across 9 components. also crime statistics

Water governance

Chapter 3: Legacy of the centralized Soviet water management system for the current situation

Participatory and qualitative research that considers the experiences and opinions of the water consumers themselves Mostly HD indicators. public service delivery. especially water

Chapter 2: Institutional framework for local human development; Chapter 3: Decentralization for better governance and local human development; Chapter 4: Devolution for better governance and local human development; Chapter 5: General conclusions

Local government expenditures

All chapters

Voter turnout Media indicators

Chapter 2: Perception of Corruption; Chapter 3:

Measured by surveys: the burkinabé perception of corruption; 7 expert groups. including gen-

Ж Local governance; decentralization

Public administration and anti-

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 38

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

and Human Development

corruption

analysis of relation b/w corruption & economic governance Chapter 4: analysis of relation b/w corruption & democratic governance (corruption’s negative impact on the state of democratic governance)

eral public. male and urban bias among respondents

Chapter 3

Public perceptions of policies Mostly economic/farming subsidies public policy perceptions Helpful “policy recommendation-suggested measurement” matrix. but no data available

Bulgaria: Rural Regions

2003

Decentralization etc.

Libya Arab Jamahiriya: National Human Development Report. Decentralization.

Slovak Republic

2002

Report not publicly available. thus complete information could not be included.

2002

Political participation. political governance

Chapter 2: The state of human development

Public opinion surveys by various local groups on attitudes towards democracy and other issues

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Palestine Human Development Report

2002

Decentralization

Chapter 2: The human development environment in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; Chapter 3: Community participation in local government and development

Limited indicators on civic participation and political representation

Haiti: Governance for Human Development: A Major Challenge for Sustainable Development in Haiti

2002

Political governance

Chapter 3: Governance Actors in the Human Development Perspective; Chapter 4: Administrative and Economic Governance Deficits

Overall limited data and use of indicators. some interesting examples such as constitution framework using indicators to highlight progress and setbacks. not much disaggregation. some governance policy recommendations

Bolivia: Political capabilities for Human Development

2002

Political and socio-economic governance

Chapter 3: State transformations and political institutions; Chapter 4: Mass media and deliberative democracy; Chapter 6: Perceptions and outlooks of the poor: In search of lost trust and dignity; Chapter 7: Capabilities and political potential of the people

No real governance indicators or data

Albania: Challenges of Local Governance and Regional Development

2002

Local governance; decentralization; civil society participation

Chapter 3: Centralised Decentralisation

No quantitative indicators on local governance but qualitative assessment of the levels of compliance with the basic provisions of the European Charter of Local Self-Government. Other decentralisation related indicators include: − Expenditures and revues by sector

Institution confidence survey (one-off survey) Legislative numbers Some justice indicators. e.g. case backlog Public administration data

恰ϑ Senegal: Governance and Human Development

2001

Comoros: Governance.

Poverty and Social Capital

2001

Somalia: Human Rights and Governance

2001

Political institutions. corruption. public administration. civil society. press freedom. electoral system. political parties Report not publicly available. thus complete information could not be included.

State formation and political governance. civil society. security and rule of law. human

− −

Local government expenditures compared to state budget Allocation from the national budget to the districts

Chapter 1: Developpement humain et bonne gouvernance: instruments de mesure. Chapter 2: Fonctionnement et dysfonctionnements institutionelles: les enjeux d'une bonne gouvernance

potential indicators for a range of governance issues are discussed but not calculated selected statistics on political institutions

Chapter 1: Trends in human development.

Chapter 4: Human rights and governance

only HD indicators

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 39

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

rights. media Decentralisation. political institutions. participation

Nepal: Poverty Reduction and Governance

2001

Kyrgyzstan: Democratic Governance: Alternative Approaches to Kyrgyzstan's Future Development Indonesia: Towards a New Consensus: Democracy and Human Development

2001

Decentralisation. participation. civil society

2001

Democratic institutions. political parties. electoral system. decentralisation

Lebanon: Globalisation: Towards a Lebanese Agenda

2001

Human rights and justice

Bulgaria: Citizens Participation in Governance

2001

Georgia: Access to social rights. especially health care and education Benin: Human Development Report on Governance

2000

Human rights. press freedom

Chapter 1: Life. Liberty. and Security of Person

Human rights reporting from public defender's office macroeconomic and socioeconomic data from governmental sources

2000

Chapter 2: La gouvernance politique. Chapter 3: La gouvernance administrative et locale

selected statistics on political institutions

Congo. Dem. Rep.: Governance for Human Development Gambia: Promoting Good Governance for Human Development And Poverty Eradication Madagascar: The Role of Governance and Decentralization in poverty reduction Zimbabwe: Human Development Report on Governance

2000

Political institutions. electoral system. civil society. press freedom. political parties. public administration. decentralisation Report not publicly available. thus complete information could not be included.

Good governance. political institutions. decentralisation. civil society

Chapter 1: Background. Chapter 3: Governance in the Gambia

no governance indicators. but a variety of poverty and health indicators developed by the national statistical office

2000

Decentralisation and local governance. rule of law. participation

All chapters

HD indicators at local level

2000

Chapter 3: The political and institutional dimensions of governance. Chapter 4: Local governance and participation. Chapter 6: Civil society. human development and governance

Opinion survey of users of government services

Mongolia: Reorienting the state Kyrgyzstan: Democratic Governance for Human Development Colombia: Human Rights and Human Development Costa Rica: State of the Nation Report on Sustain-

2000

Electoral system. political instiЖ tutions. political parties. participation. corruption. local governance and decentralisation. civil society Public administration. decentralisation. civil society Public administration. participation. civil society. media. decentralisation Participation

Chapter 6: A new state of mind

No specific governance indicators Public opinion survey on living conditions. Ministry of Health and Social Wefare HD indicators at local level

Participation in governance

Chapter 3: Policies and programmes for poverty reduction. Chapter 6: Decentralized governance.

Chapter 7: Mobilizing people Chapter 2: Democratic governance and the decentralization of power. Chapter 3: Agents of democratic governance: the broadening of community participation Chapter 2: Consolidating Indonesia's democracy.

Chapter 5: Putting people first: A compact for regional decentralization Chapter 8. Human Rights Rule of Law and the Renewal of the State

All chapters

HD indicators at local level Public opinion survey on service delivery HD indicators at local level focus group survey with NGO representatives focus group on information sources (media) HD indicators at local level

Justice and human rights Treaty ratifications World Conference on human rights indicators Perception data. based on a representative national survey Survey data run against citizen forums’ (6 municipalities) responses to same questionnaire 88 indicator questions along disaggregated matrix

2000

2000

2000 2000

Electoral system. public administration. decentralisation. po-

Chapter 3: Preventive development: A new approach for social progress. Chapter 4: Regional policy and human development Chapter 5: La participacion como derecho colectivo y su relacion con el desarrollo humano Chapter 5: Fortalecimiento de la democracia

HD indicators at local level Auditoria Ciudadana sobre la Calidad de la Democracia [Citizens' audit on the quality of democracy]

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 40

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

able Human Development Armenia: Human Rights and Human Development

litical institutions 2000

indicators of strength of democracy compendium of political statistics

Human rights and justice

All chapters

Administrative data used as indicators/proxies for various human rights: − − − − − −

Crime Stats Laws in effect relative to hr Judges disaggregated by gender/ nr of yrs experience Newspaper circulation Employment data as proxy for right to work Proxies on cultural rights

Household surveys of vulnerable groups: poor households and refugees: − Social indicators − Flows of aid sources Global indicators of select countries:

Romania

2000

Chapter 2: Good Governance: the Backbone of the Process of European Union Accession

−

Transparency International’s Corruption Index

−

Freedom House Survey of Freedom

Voter participation “Political opinions and attitudes of the Romanian Electorate” (national sample survey) Violence and crime stats

恰ϑ

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 41

Annex 2: Overview of NHDRs focused on democratic governance by region (2000-2009) Region

Africa

Country

Year

1.

Burundi: Bonne gouvernance et developpement durable

2009

2.

Benin: Social Responsibility. Corruption and Sustainable Human Development

2008

3.

Ghana: Towards a More Inclusive Society

2007

4.

Sierra Leone: Empowering Local Government For Sustainable Human Development And Poverty Reduction

2007

5.

Congo: governance. cohesion and social development

2006

6.

Guinea Bissau: Political reform for the MDGs

2006

7.

Kenya: Human Security and Human Development: A Deliberate Choice

2006

8.

Kenya: Participatory Governance for Human Development

2004

9.

Burkina Faso: Corruption and Human Development

2003

10. Senegal: Governance and Human Development

2001

11. Comoros: Governance. Poverty and Social Capital

2001

12. Somalia: Human Rights and Governance

2001

13. Benin: Human Development Report on Governance

2000

14. Congo. Dem. Rep.: Governance for Human Development

2000

15. Gambia: Promoting Good Governance for Human Development And Poverty Eradication 16. Madagascar: The Role of Governance and Decentralization in poverty reduction

Arab States

Asia/Pacific

Europe

42

2000 2000

17. Zimbabwe: Human Development Report on Governance

2000

1.

Egypt: Egypt’s Social Contract: The Role of Civil Society

2008

2.

Lebanon: Toward a Citizen's state

2008

3.

Egypt: Choosing Decentralisation for good governance

2004

4.

Jordan: Building Sustainable Livelihoods

2004

5.

Egypt: Human Development Report

2003

6.

Morocco: Gouvernance et AccĂŠleration

2003

7.

Libya Arab Jamahiriya: National Human Development Report. Decentralization

2002

8.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Palestine Human Development Report

2002

9.

Lebanon: Globalization

2001

1.

Nepal: State Transformation and Human Development

2009

2.

Philippines: Institutions. Politics and Human Development in the Philippines

2009

3.

Philippines: Peace. Human Security and Human Development in the Philippines.

2005

4.

Nepal: Empowerment and Poverty Reduction

2004

5.

Thailand: Community Empowerment and Human Development

2003

6.

Nepal: Poverty Reduction and Governance

2001

7.

Indonesia: Towards a New Consensus: Democracy and Human Development

2001

8.

Mongolia: Reorienting the state

2000

1.

Serbia: The strength of diversity

2005

2.

Bosnia and Herzegovina: Better Local Governance in Bosnia and Herzegovina

2005

DG INDICATORS AND UNDP NHDR’S

Latin America

3.

Kyrgyzstan: The Influence of Civil Society on the Human Development Process in Kyrgyzstan

2005

4.

Romania: Local Governance and Human Development

2005

5.

Uzbekistan: Decentralisation and Human Development

2005

6.

Macedonia: Decentralization for Human Development

2004

7.

Kosovo: The Rise of the Citizen: Challenge and Choices

2004

8.

Moldova: Good Governance and Human Development

2003

9.

Ukraine: The Power of Decentralization

2003

10. Bulgaria: Rural Regions

2003

11. Tajikistan: Water Resources and Sustainable Human Development

2003

12. Slovak Republic

2002

13. Albania: Challenges of Local Governance and Regional Development

2002

14. Kyrgyzstan: Democratic Governance: Alternative Approaches to Kyrgyzstan's Future Development

2001

15. Bulgaria: Citizens Participation in Governance

2001

16. Georgia: Access to social rights. especially health care and education

2000

17. Armenia: Human Rights and Human Development

2000

18. Romania

2000

19. Kyrgyzstan: Democratic Governance for Human Development

2000

1.

Chile: La Manera de hacer las Cosas

2009

2.

Chile: Institutional Reforms and Subjective Perceptions

2008

3.

Uruguay: Politics. Policies and Human Development

2008

贀З

4.

Bolivia: State of the State

2007

5.

Panama: institutions and human development

2007

6.

Peru: Towards a decentralization with citizenship

2006

7.

Bolivia: Political capabilities for Human Development

2002

8.

Haiti: Governance for Human Development: A Major Challenge for Sustainable Development in Haiti

2002

9.

Colombia: Human Rights and Human Development

2000

10. Costa Rica: State of the Nation Report on Sustainable Human Development

2000

OGC FRAMEWORK PAPER 3 –MARCH 2010 – PAGE 43