Tj workshop session indonesia

Session 5
External assessment methodologies:
Participatory Corruption Appraisals (PCAs)
in Indonesia
Marie Laberge, UNDP Oslo Governance Centre

Overview
Why use PCAs?
Methodology
Findings
Follow-up action

1. Why use PCA?
Few policy makers actually know the effects of corruption on the poor
The poor lack voice in the political system and are afraid to speak out
Surveys are useful for collecting info that can be easily quantified (%)
But we need a different method to capture more qualitative info:
How does corruption affect people?
How do people cope with and respond to corrupt practices affecting their daily life?
What are their suggestions for curbing corruption?
Especially useful for capturing the experiences of minority/vulnerable groups (otherwise lost in ’average numbers’)

3 components

2. MethodologyStep 1: Preparations
Identify an organization that has the confidence of the traget group (NGO? Local community organization?)
2. Train the facilitators in participatory focus group discussions

Introductory meeting – telling stories, wealth classification, community mapping, listing the poor people
First FGD – with cards identify the places on the map where bribes have been paid in the last year, Make up a matrix from that information.
Second FGD - Identify the 3 most troublesome bribes. Then the most troublesome. Using cards , identify causes of bribing, then causes of those causes, finally effects of such bribes. Make matrix.
Third FGD - Using “Cause and Effect” matrix, ask “What can we, what can others, do to change this situation?”
2. MethodologyStep 2: Focus Group Discussions: 30-40 poor men & women (10 days)

2. MethodologyStep 3: Case interviews
Interviewers talk to 30 people identified from the FGDs to learn their stories about how corruption has affected their lives
Essential to have their trust and preserve their confidentiality
Alternatively, people may feel more comfortable using a ‘corruption diary’ (for anonymous written inputs)
These stories were written up in a journalistic style
Describes the very important influence corruption has on the lives of the poor

2. MethodologyStep 4: Report back to the community
Present to the community all the material collected (maps, matrices, charts) always emphasizing that it is their information. Further discuss, perhaps add.
Discuss follow-up actions
If the community agrees, hold a public meeting in which the findings are presented to a larger audience (local government officials, local NGOs, local traditional leaders, local journalists)
Objective: Amplify the community’s voice, and seek others’ involvement.

3. Findings: The ‘costs’ of corruption for the poor
Financial cost
Share of bribe payments out of total income of the poor, compared to ‘average population’, per ‘risk area’
Reducing human capital
Corruption affects poor people’s physical well-being and their skills
Social cost: reducing social capital
Corruption erodes relationships of trust within a community
Moral decay
Lack of role models / Erodes the rule of law
Cost of not bribing
Exclusion from or lower quality of services

4. Follow-up action: Ownership is key
Discussion of findings of PCAs with local communities, NGOs and media attracted a lot of attention (incl. Media coverage)
The Poor Speak Out, a set of 17 journalistic picese recording stories of poor people
Publication on the methodology
Establishment of a network of NGOs, universities & professional organizations to take action againts corruption: popular theatre, comunity-based eductaion, media campaign, comic strips,
Corruption monitoring grousp established at community level

Tj workshop session indonesia

by Governance Asssessment Portal

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics