Public Governance Oecd
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Public Governance Oecd

on

  • 1,426 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,426
Views on SlideShare
1,426
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
46
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Public Governance Oecd Public Governance Oecd Presentation Transcript

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