Public Governance Oecd


Published on

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Public Governance Oecd

  1. 1. Module C: Social contract, good local governance and public participation <ul><li>Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>1.1 Aim of module </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To increase understanding of the principles and practice of good local governance </li></ul></ul>
  2. 2. Introduction (cont) <ul><li>Explore implications of decentralization for central-local relations </li></ul><ul><li>Understand relationships between local government and other local actors </li></ul><ul><li>Understand concept of governance + principles of good local governance </li></ul><ul><li>Be aware of strategies and tools for strengthening citizen-local government relationship </li></ul>
  3. 3. Introduction (cont) <ul><li>1.2 Structure of the day </li></ul><ul><li>2. Formal representative politics: rhetoric, reality and potential </li></ul><ul><li>Widening political engagement – participation and accountability </li></ul><ul><li>Community development & local govt </li></ul><ul><li>5. Tools & sources of guidance </li></ul>
  4. 4. 2. Formal representative politics: rhetoric, reality and potential <ul><li>2.1 Introduction </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Purpose: to examine whether local democracy results in </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>more effective & responsive local government </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>voice for citizens, especially the poor </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. 2.2 Central-local relations <ul><li>Degree of autonomy related to </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Constitution and legal basis for local government </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Political motives of center + role and organization of local politics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Enhance local responsiveness + accountability </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Counterbalance central power </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>More effective & efficient service delivery </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Resource base </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. 2.2 Central-local relations (cont) <ul><li>Degrees of autonomy </li></ul><ul><ul><li>High – capacity to initiate + freedom from oversight </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Medium – either capacity to initiate + oversight or little power to initiate but little oversight </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Low – no capacity to initiate, strong central control </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. 2.2 Central-local relations (cont) <ul><li>Central government attitudes vary </li></ul><ul><li>Arguments for retaining central control e.g. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Universal provision + redistribution </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Universal standards or content </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Central backup/specialized services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Professional staff </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Achieving sectoral goals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Resources not evenly distributed </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. 2.3 When is DD effective & responsive to the poor? <ul><li>Has recent DD been developmentally effective + responsive to the poor? </li></ul><ul><li>In what circumstances? </li></ul><ul><li>With what characteristics? </li></ul><ul><li>Recent research comparing experience finds often not, but sometimes is – when and why? </li></ul>
  9. 9. 2.3 When is DD effective & responsive to the poor? (cont) <ul><li>Central government motivation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Build alliances + local elites – some powers, so may be effective, but unlikely to be pro-poor </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Circumvent local elites to achieve poverty reduction – pro-poor if central backing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fear local challenges so resists DD – limited powers, benefits mostly captured by local elites </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. 2.3 When is DD effective & responsive to the poor? (cont) <ul><li>Local socio-political structures </li></ul><ul><li>Elite capture common? </li></ul><ul><li>Increases voice of middle income </li></ul><ul><li>But </li></ul><ul><ul><li>elite capture not inevitable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Composition & interests of elite? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>e.g. compare Botswana and Cote d’Ivoire (Boxes 1 and 2) </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. 2.3 When is DD effective & responsive to the poor? (cont) <ul><li>The design of political arrangements for decentralization influences </li></ul><ul><li>Scope for political participation </li></ul><ul><li>Nature of representation </li></ul><ul><li>Likelihood of responsiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Accountability </li></ul><ul><li>Who holds power – individual, group, dispersed? </li></ul>
  12. 12. 2.3 When is DD effective & responsive to the poor? (cont) <ul><li>Admin & fiscal arrangements </li></ul><ul><li>Resourcing critical – stable, predictable central-local transfers + local revenue generation </li></ul><ul><li>Role of central government – control, supervision, staffing, technical support (balanced with autonomy) </li></ul><ul><li>Hierarchy of levels + clear allocation roles to </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensure resources + expertise available to local level </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sub-local units to increase responsiveness </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. 2.3 When is DD effective & responsive to the poor? (cont) <ul><li>Institutionalization </li></ul><ul><li>Stability over 10-15 years </li></ul><ul><li>Successive elections </li></ul><ul><li>Development of capacity </li></ul>
  14. 14. 2.4 The characteristics of local democratic politics <ul><li>Political structures & organization </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Electoral arrangements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Location of executive control </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accountability mechanisms </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Influence </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Scope for political participation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Responsiveness + effectiveness </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accountability </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. 2.4 The characteristics of local democratic politics (cont) <ul><li>Design of local electoral system </li></ul><ul><li>Election of representatives </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ward-based vs party list (see Boxes 1 & 2) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can and do all residents vote? Who is less likely to vote and why? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the basis for representation? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Exercise 1 – what do you understand by ‘representation’? </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. 2.4 The characteristics of local democratic politics (cont) <ul><ul><li>a) Election of representatives (cont) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can all citizens stand for political office? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Does the social composition of legislatures reflect city/district population? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>b) Rules on terms of office </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Single short term – encourages short termism </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Longer, multiple – encourage reform + longer term initiatives? </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. 2.4 The characteristics of local democratic politics (cont) <ul><li>Institutionalization </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Are elections held regularly? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is there a peaceful alternation of power? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are local elections independent of national elections? </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. 2.5 Issues of executive control and accountability <ul><li>Single or plural executive </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Plural – more councilors participate, may be indecisive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Single (e.g. elected mayor) – clearer leadership, fewer checks & balances </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Elected or appointed </li></ul><ul><li>Executive and/or managerial powers independent of legislature </li></ul><ul><li>Appointing senior staff - confidence appointments? </li></ul>
  19. 19. 2.5 Issues of executive control and accountability <ul><li>Accountability </li></ul><ul><li>Requirements for transparency? </li></ul><ul><li>Who should exercise scrutiny? </li></ul><ul><li>Who should be held to account? </li></ul><ul><li>By whom? </li></ul><ul><li>Reasons for accountability failure? </li></ul><ul><li>How can accountability be improved? </li></ul><ul><li>Issues? Procedures + finance, or + gender equity, social justice, environmental impact? </li></ul>
  20. 20. 2.5 Issues of executive control and accountability (cont) <ul><li>Transparency </li></ul><ul><li>Information available + timely + accurate </li></ul><ul><li>Between admin, executive & legislature </li></ul><ul><li>Between local govt & citizens </li></ul><ul><li>Right to Information legislation? </li></ul>
  21. 21. 2.5 Issues of executive control and accountability (cont) <ul><li>Accountability mechanisms </li></ul><ul><li>Internal (horizontal accountability) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rules and regulations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Internal reviews & audits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Central govt supervision </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Merit-based recruitment & reward </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. 2.5 Issues of executive control and accountability (cont) <ul><li>External (vertical) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Executive-based controls (admin to political executive) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Does the executive represent the interests of citizens or limited/personal interests? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Legislature-based controls (admin + exec to elected council/assembly) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Has it legal powers + political authority? </li></ul></ul>
  23. 23. 2.5 Issues of executive control and accountability (cont) <ul><li>External accountability (cont) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Central govt regulation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is there an indep audit office? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Does central govt encourage good performance, collude with bad practice, or constrain local govt? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Electoral system </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is there wide & regular participation? </li></ul></ul>
  24. 24. 2.5 Issues of executive control and accountability (cont) <ul><li>External mechanisms (cont) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Is there ‘neighborhood level govt + resources (see the kebeles of Addis Ababa – Box 3) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ventilation of grievances (e.g. regular public hearings, ombudsman, complaints system, media publicity) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are there complaints systems & are they effective? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can all get redress for grievances? </li></ul></ul>
  25. 25. 2.5 Issues of executive control and accountability (cont) <ul><li>External mechanisms (cont) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Campaigning by civil society orgs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do GROs have wide membership? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can/do NGOs speak on behalf of the poor? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Judiciary-based controls </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Does court system have capacity? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can all citizens access the court system? </li></ul></ul>
  26. 26. Exercise 2: the strengths and weaknesses of local government <ul><li>What are the strengths of the local government system in which you work? </li></ul><ul><li>What are its weaknesses? </li></ul><ul><li>NB give most consideration to political aspects </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Relationships with central govt </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Local electoral system </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Composition & functioning of legislature </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Location & exercise of executive power </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Arrangements for ensuring accountability </li></ul></ul>
  27. 27. 2.6 The vicious and virtuous circles of ineffective/effective local govt <ul><li>Vicious circle of ineffective undemocratic local govt </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Little autonomy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Unresponsive and lacking capacity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Few benefits so limited political participation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Local politics left to the elite </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lost legitimacy, increased disillusionment </li></ul></ul>
  28. 28. The virtuous circle of effective & democratic local govt <ul><li>Local political processes + wide political participation </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunities for direct democracy </li></ul><ul><li>Accountability mechanisms </li></ul><ul><li>Capacity + autonomy </li></ul><ul><li>Significant tasks + sufficient resources </li></ul><ul><li>Central govt backing, good central-local relations </li></ul>
  29. 29. 2.7 Principles of local governance <ul><li>Government = political & admin apparatus of the state, which guides, controls, regulates, decides </li></ul><ul><li>Governance = governing through relationships between state/civil society, rulers/ruled </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interdependence, interaction + joint action </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Shared values and purpose which cannot be achieved by govt (or civil society, citizens) alone </li></ul></ul>
  30. 30. 2.7 Principles of local governance (cont) <ul><li>Democratization </li></ul><ul><li>Re-allocation roles & responsibilities </li></ul><ul><li>Resistance from some, but </li></ul><ul><li>Recognition of advantages: if they </li></ul><ul><ul><li>pass on appropriate tasks, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>concentrate on getting right the things that only public sector organizations can do, then </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>if improved service delivery results, increased legitimacy and support </li></ul></ul>
  31. 31. 2.8 Actors in the local political system <ul><li>Who are the key political actors? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Politicians + political parties </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Public sector agencies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Traditional authority structures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NGOs – variety of possible aims </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Trade unions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CSOs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Citizens </li></ul></ul>
  32. 32. 2.8 Actors in the local political system (cont) <ul><li>What are their political practices? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Voting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Debate, agenda setting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Decision making </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lobbying, demand-making </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Negotiation, bargaining </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Forming alliances, cooperation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Resistance, protest, non-compliance </li></ul></ul>
  33. 33. 2.8 Actors in the local political system (cont) <ul><li>What explains these political practices? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Values </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Understanding of political rights and system </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interests (personal and collective) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Opportunities + constraints provided by political system </li></ul></ul>
  34. 34. Exercise C.3: Stakeholder analysis of the local political system <ul><li>In a local political system with which group members are familiar </li></ul><ul><li>Identify the main political actors (powerful + marginalized) </li></ul><ul><li>Identify political interests of each actor </li></ul><ul><li>What influence do they have and why? </li></ul><ul><li>Which actors have most/least influence? </li></ul>
  35. 35. 3. Widening political engagement – participation & accountability <ul><li>3.1 Introduction: participation </li></ul><ul><li>Voting = passive citizenship </li></ul><ul><li>Participation = </li></ul><ul><ul><li>active citizenship </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>power sharing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>end or means </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>initiated from above or below </li></ul></ul>
  36. 36. 3.1 The ladder of participation <ul><li>Type of participation </li></ul><ul><li>Persuasion </li></ul><ul><li>Mobilization </li></ul><ul><li>Consultation </li></ul><ul><li>Participation </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>Collective action/self management </li></ul><ul><li>Action by government </li></ul><ul><li>On residents </li></ul><ul><li>for govt purposes </li></ul><ul><li>For/with citizens </li></ul><ul><li>For/with citizens </li></ul><ul><li>With citizens </li></ul><ul><li>Neglect or support </li></ul>
  37. 37. 3.2 Strengthening local democracy <ul><li>Local government – autonomy + elections </li></ul><ul><li>Role for central government </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Policy frameworks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Minimum standards for basic services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensuring equity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Exercising scrutiny to encourage good performance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Providing selected services </li></ul></ul>
  38. 38. 3.2 Strengthening local democracy (cont) <ul><li>Role for central govt (cont) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Legislation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reformed electoral rules, including elected executive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reserved seats (quotas) for under-represented groups (e.g. Uganda) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Non-govt reps in policy + oversight </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Requiring consultation + participation </li></ul></ul>
  39. 39. 3.2 Strengthening local democracy (cont) <ul><li>Effective representation </li></ul><ul><li>Civic education ) see Box </li></ul><ul><li>Political capacity building ) 7 </li></ul><ul><li>To </li></ul><ul><li>Encourage voting, especially by poor, women </li></ul><ul><li>Encourage citizens to stand for election </li></ul><ul><li>Build capacity to use office once elected </li></ul>
  40. 40. 3.2 Strengthening local democracy (cont) <ul><li>Budget analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Budgeting by local govt often unrelated to policy aims, poorly presented and secretive </li></ul><ul><li>Result – little useful role for legislature, no role for citizens (e.g. Uganda Box 8) </li></ul><ul><li>Actions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Improved budgetary practice (Module F) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Budget analysis by NGOs, citizens leading to pressure for gender awareness, equity, responsiveness to needs of poor </li></ul></ul>
  41. 41. Exercise C.4: Ways of strengthening local democracy – local needs & feasibility <ul><li>Approaches </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Local govt legislation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Civic education & capacity building </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Budget analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Are any of these approaches needed in your local situation? </li></ul><ul><li>Would that/those approaches be feasible? </li></ul>
  42. 42. 3.3 Strengthening accountability <ul><li>Possibilities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Government initiatives to improve internal and external accountability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Civil society initiatives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Joint initiatives </li></ul></ul>
  43. 43. 3.3 Strengthening accountability (cont) <ul><li>Claiming rights, addressing corruption </li></ul><ul><li>Educating the poor in their rights to basic services/regulations (Boxes 8 FOWODE and 9 Operation Firimbi, Kenya) </li></ul><ul><li>Supporting poor people when they approach or make claims from the bureaucracy (Box 9 Parivartan, Delhi) </li></ul><ul><li>Participatory corruption appraisal + action plan </li></ul>
  44. 44. 3.3 Strengthening accountability (cont) <ul><li>Assessing user satisfaction </li></ul><ul><li>Quantitative opinion surveys (Box 11 Report cards) </li></ul><ul><li>Qualitative user surveys </li></ul><ul><li>‘ naming and shaming’ </li></ul><ul><li>Pressure through publicity, lobbying, dialogue </li></ul><ul><li>Response? </li></ul>
  45. 45. 3.3 Strengthening accountability (cont) <ul><li>Monitoring and auditing local government performance </li></ul><ul><li>Monitoring govt expenditure – role for NGOs, external scrutiny body + citizen reps </li></ul><ul><li>Monitoring delivery – role for users, residents’ groups (e.g. Uganda – Box 8) </li></ul><ul><li>Auditing quality – role for residents, technically qualified volunteers </li></ul><ul><li>Response? </li></ul>
  46. 46. Exercise C.5: Applicability of approaches to strengthening accountability to the local situation <ul><li>Approaches to </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reducing effects of corruption on the poor </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assessing user satisfaction to improve service delivery </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Monitoring local govt performance </li></ul></ul><ul><li>In your local situation, which of these would be </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Applicable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Feasible </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Identify 1-2 alternative approaches </li></ul>
  47. 47. 3.4 Participatory decision making <ul><li>See examples from St Louis, Senegal & Nakuru, Kenya in Boxes 13 & 14 </li></ul><ul><li>Is the city/district strategic development planning process effective? </li></ul><ul><li>Plan to which all public agencies committed? </li></ul><ul><li>Known to other development actors? </li></ul><ul><li>Being implemented by dev’t control + allocation funds? </li></ul>
  48. 48. 3.4 Participatory decision making (cont) <ul><li>Under regular review for updating? </li></ul><ul><li>Prepared & reviewed through consultative or participatory processes? </li></ul><ul><li>Participatory budgeting in Brazil (see also Box 8 on Uganda) </li></ul><ul><li>Kenya’s new Local Authority Transfer Fund (Box 15) </li></ul>
  49. 49. Exercise C.6 Analyzing a case study of participatory decision making <ul><li>Participatory budgeting in Brazil </li></ul><ul><li>1.         Who participates? </li></ul><ul><li>2.         In what are they able to participate? </li></ul><ul><li>3.          How do citizens participate? </li></ul><ul><li>4.         Could participatory budgeting on the Brazilian model by used locally? If not, why not? </li></ul><ul><li>5.         What alternative method of increasing participation in budgeting might be feasible? </li></ul>
  50. 50. Exercise C.6 Analyzing a case study of participatory decision making <ul><li>PB in Brazil – contextual factors explaining success </li></ul><ul><li>Political history </li></ul><ul><li>Workers’ Party + pro-poor political ideology </li></ul><ul><li>Participatory culture </li></ul><ul><li>Growing confidence of the poor + women </li></ul><ul><li>Decentralization + improved financing of local govt </li></ul>
  51. 51. 3.4 Participatory decision making (cont) <ul><li>Factors explaining successful participation </li></ul><ul><li>Initiative from politicians or citizens </li></ul><ul><li>Attitude of local govt – citizens not beneficiaries </li></ul><ul><li>Commitment of local govt + institutionalized into procedures </li></ul><ul><li>Multi-party political system (but not polarized) </li></ul><ul><li>Enabling environment: DD + tradition of self-help </li></ul><ul><li>Presence of a change agent </li></ul><ul><li>Clear benefits for all participants </li></ul><ul><li>Capacity building for all actors </li></ul>
  52. 52. 4. Community development and local government <ul><li>Exercise C.7 What does ‘community’ mean? </li></ul>
  53. 53. 4.1 Introduction: the concept of ‘community’ <ul><li>Issues to be considered in local government -community cooperation for development </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Does administrative subdivision or informal settlement have homogeneous population with common interests? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Does area have a CBO (or more than one)? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is there a need for new organizations? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Who are the community leaders & are they representative and accountable? </li></ul></ul>
  54. 54. 4.1 Introduction: the concept of ‘community’ (cont) <ul><li>Forms of community participation </li></ul><ul><li>Better educated residents ‘represent’ area </li></ul><ul><li>Resident local govt officials ‘represent’ area </li></ul><ul><li>Consultation – do all have a voice? </li></ul><ul><li>Area reps sit on board, committee – are they influential? </li></ul><ul><li>Community (or its leaders) asked to develop project jointly with external agency </li></ul><ul><li>Residents take initiative, seek external support </li></ul>
  55. 55. Exercise C.8: Resolving conflict <ul><li>Task of local councilor: to resolve conflict between formal shopkeepers and informal street vendors </li></ul>
  56. 56. Exercise C.8: Resolving conflict – questions for discussion <ul><li>What were the views of the formal shopkeepers & why were they in conflict with the vendors? </li></ul><ul><li>What were the views of the vendors? </li></ul><ul><li>What solutions were you able to come up with? </li></ul><ul><li>What were the difficulties you experienced in finding a win-win solution? </li></ul>
  57. 57. 4.2 Community participation in decision making & service delivery – romantic or realistic? <ul><li>Factors resulting in success </li></ul><ul><li>Strong + committed leadership for the initiative </li></ul><ul><li>Tradition of participation </li></ul><ul><li>Developed with not for groups </li></ul><ul><li>Larger proportion of population participating </li></ul><ul><li>Long time frame </li></ul><ul><li>Sustainability considered from beginning </li></ul><ul><li>Minimizing time involvement of poor + providing incentives </li></ul>
  58. 58. 4.2 Community participation in decision making & service delivery – romantic or realistic? (cont) <ul><li>Motives for participation </li></ul><ul><li>Forced to participate ) outcome unlikely </li></ul><ul><li>Paid to participate ) to be successful </li></ul><ul><li>Incited to participate ) </li></ul><ul><li>(by reward or sanctions) </li></ul><ul><li>Participate voluntarily ) outcome likely to </li></ul><ul><li>Initiate participation ) be successful </li></ul>
  59. 59. 4.2 Community participation in decision making & service delivery – romantic or realistic? (cont) <ul><li>Obstacles to participation (+ solutions) </li></ul><ul><li>Within an agency </li></ul><ul><li>Centralization - decentralize </li></ul><ul><li>Attitudes: recipients not citizens, resist power sharing, use technical language, don’t value people’s knowledge – develop new attitudes </li></ul><ul><li>Internal systems which don’t reward it – reward working with communities </li></ul><ul><li>Frequent transfer of staff – recognize time needed to build relationships with communities </li></ul>
  60. 60. 4.2 Community participation in decision making & service delivery – romantic or realistic? (cont) <ul><li>Obstacles within a ‘community’ </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of organization – local govt or NGO community workers facilitate organization </li></ul><ul><li>Leaders lack skills – capacity building </li></ul><ul><li>Factionalism – processes to build consensus (where impossible working + groups that don’t threaten powerful interests/leaders e.g. women) </li></ul><ul><li>Powerful secure benefits – make info available to all residents </li></ul>
  61. 61. 4.2 Community participation in decision making & service delivery – romantic or realistic? (cont) <ul><li>Obstacles within society </li></ul><ul><li>CBOs seen as a political threat – negotiate with political actors </li></ul><ul><li>Legal hindrances – ensure all residents can participate </li></ul><ul><li>Centralization – decentralize, so scope for local decision making </li></ul><ul><li>External funders hinder – change practices & requirements </li></ul>
  62. 62. 4.2 Community participation in decision making & service delivery – romantic or realistic? (cont) <ul><li>Some examples </li></ul><ul><li>C.14 Participatory ward development planning in S Africa </li></ul><ul><li>C.15 Local management of PHC in Senegal </li></ul><ul><li>C.16/17 Communities & municipalities working together in Dar es Salaam, Dondo (Mozambique) & Burkina Faso </li></ul><ul><li>C.18 Community participation in watsan delivery in Luanda </li></ul>
  63. 63. 4.2 Community participation in decision making & service delivery – romantic or realistic? (cont) <ul><li>Elements of good practice </li></ul><ul><li>Motivation + attitudes – </li></ul><ul><ul><li>respect on the part of local govt and communities for skills, views & knowledge of the other </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Willingness to listen </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Recognition of social diversity + inclusion women, disadvantaged groups, minorities </li></ul><ul><li>Free flows of information </li></ul>
  64. 64. 4.3 Supporting community participation and development <ul><li>Support to communities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Access to financial resources e.g. local development funds </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Capacity building </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Support to local authorities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Capacity building </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Autonomy, range of functions, adequate resources </li></ul></ul>
  65. 65. Exercise C.9: Approaches to participation in community decision making & service delivery <ul><li>Approaches </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Participatory community planning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Participatory service delivery </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Support to communities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Which approaches are relevant to your local situation? </li></ul><ul><li>Which approaches are feasible? </li></ul><ul><li>Rank them from most to least useful </li></ul>
  66. 66. 5. Conclusion <ul><li>Readings </li></ul><ul><li>Tools for participation + sources of guidance </li></ul><ul><li>Summary of the day – revisit objectives </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Examination of relations citizens-local govt </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Obstacles to democratic local govt </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Principles + requirements for good local governance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New ways of working together – strengthening democracy, accountability and participation </li></ul></ul>
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.