UDM 712_6

Characteristics of Good
Governance
Urban Governance Indicators
 Urban Governance Index (UGI)

• A tool to measure progress in achieving good

urban governance

Global Campaign on Urban Governance

UN-HABITAT
P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya

E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.unhabitat.org/governance
 
 What do we mean by good urban
governance?

• Urban governance can be defined as the

sum of the many ways individuals and
institutions, public and private, plan and
manage the common affairs of the city.
• It is a continuing process through which
conflicting or diverse interests may be
accommodated and cooperative action
can be taken.
• It includes formal institutions as well as
informal arrangements and the social
capital of citizens.
• The Global Campaign on Urban
Governance proposes that good urban
governance is characterized by a series of
principles, which are interdependent and
mutually reinforcing.
• More information on the campaign can be
found at: http://www.unhabitat.org/
governance
 What is the purpose of the Urban
Governance Index?

• Within the framework of the Global

Campaign on Urban Governance, UN-
HABITAT is currently developing and
testing an index to measure the quality of
urban governance.
• The index has a two-fold purpose:
• At the global level, the index will be used to
demonstrate the importance of good urban
governance in achieving broad development
objectives, such as the Millennium Development
Goals and those in the Habitat Agenda.
• Research at the national level has demonstrated
that the good governance correlates with
positive development outcomes.
• The index will also permit the regional and global
comparison of cities based on the quality of their
urban governance.
• The process of comparison is designed to
catalyse specific action to improve the quality of
local governance.
• At the local level: the index is expected to
catalyse local action to improve the quality
of urban governance.
• Local indicators will be developed by cities
and their partners to respond directly to
their unique contexts and needs.
• The Urban Governance Index, therefore,
will be supported by tools, training guides
and an appendix of additional indicators to
help cities develop their own monitoring
systems
 What are the benefits of developing
urban governance indicators?
• Indicators are essential to assess the effectiveness of
policies (eg. decentralisation policy, gender policy)
• Indicators can help in monitoring if capacity building
efforts yield the expected results (Value for Money; Cost-
Benefit Analysis)
• The design of an indicators system can help creating a
platform to involve civil society and private sector in local
governance
• Indicators give us an objective set of data to feed the
review of urban governance strategies when necessary
• Monitoring through indicators can provide an objective
account of achievements of local elected leaders (for
instance at times of elections).
 What is the focus of the index?

• The Urban Governance Index and its constituent

indicators focus on the processes, institutions
and relationships at the local level.
• This should be seen as part of a wider range of
indicators, focusing on inputs, processes,
performance, perception, output, or outcome.
• For example, the following indicators all
measure different aspects of the “access to
water”.
• Input: Resources available for improvement of
basic services in a municipality ($)
• Performance: Average time required by
municipal authority to process a water
connection (# days)
• Process: Is civil society involved in a formal
participatory planning and budgeting process
before undertaking investment in basic services?
(Y/N – incremental steps)
• Perception: Satisfaction with transparency in
access to water (through report card/ survey
result)
• Output: Households with access to water within
200m of dwelling (%)
• Outcome: Under-Five Mortality Rate: of male
and female children who die before having
attained their 5th birthday (%)
• The structure of the index reflects four core
principles of good urban governance promoted
by the Campaign as the overall organising
framework for the Index: effectiveness, equity,
participation and accountability.
• The index can then be used to test for
correlation between the quality of urban
governance and issues such as urban poverty
reduction, quality of life, city competitiveness
and inclusiveness.
• Some of these issues are already captured by
other indices.
 How has the Index been developed?

• The Urban Governance Index has been

developed jointly by the Global Urban
Observatory and the Global Campaign on Urban
Governance, supported by selected cities as
well as key members of the Campaign’s Global
Steering Group.
• An internal UN-HABITAT Flex-Team was
established to prepare initial framework and
indicators in 2002.
• Initial indicators were developed based on Urban
Indicators Programme and in-house research.
• An Expert Group Meeting made
recommendations regarding the structure and
content of the index in November 2002.
• Field-testing was carried out in two stages with
a group comprising first 12 and later 24 large
and medium-size cities from different regions
• It is intended to expand this to a larger group
based on the Global Urban Observatory’s
monitoring programme and through the ongoing
city-based work of UN-HABITAT programmes.
• A long-list of indicators was selected for the
initial field test with partners.
• Based on the results, indicators that
demonstrated the strongest correlation to the
quality of governance have been selected for
inclusion in the Index.
• Opportunities for national adaptation of the
Index are being actively pursued, including in
Indonesia, Somalia and Sri Lanka.
• National (multi-city) application is already
underway in Zimbabwe and Mongolia.
• Discussions are ongoing with local authorities’
associations to develop a Good Governance
Hallmark or Award system for cities based on
the Index results.
• Cities which participated in the field tests
include, in alphabetical order: Amman, Bayamo,
Colombo, Dakar, Douala, Enugu, Guadalajara,
Ibadan, Ismailia, Kandy, Kano, Louga, Matale,
Montevideo, Montreal, Moratuwa, Naga City,
Negombo, Pristina, Quito, Santo Andre, Tanta,
Vancouver, Yaounde.
Which criteria are used to evaluate the
usefulness of indicators?
• A list of criteria was proposed for evaluating the
indicators that will make up the Index. The key
criteria include the following:
• Relevance for monitoring Urban Governance
Principles and Relationships
• Ease of collection including availability and/or
effort required to obtain data
• Credibility for Partners, Investors, Media,
Electorate
• Universality of use, at local, national, regional,
global levels
 How can a city design its own
governance indicator system?
• The following steps can serve as a guideline for
designed a local governance indicator system
for a particular city or group of cities.
• Step 1: Sensitize local leaders about the
importance of measuring progress in improved
urban governance
• Step 2: Develop locally appropriate indicators:
definition, selection criteria, linkages with other
indicators
• Step 3: Define benchmarks and targets
• Step 4: Assigning scoring and weighting to
the indicators and sub-indices and the
proposed formulae for the local adaptation
of the Urban Governance Index.
• Step 5: Field test in cities
• Step 6: Collect data on a periodic basis
• Step 7: Integrate findings in urban policy
development
 List of UGI Indicators

• The following list gives an overview of 25

indicators, which have been tested in 24 cities.
• Although some modifications are expected, this
list can serve as a starting point for cities, civil
society organisations, associations of local
government, Ministries of Local Government, or
coalitions of these key actors to start designing
their own urban governance indicators systems.
• Ideally, the data on the indicators should be collected
through a stakeholder meeting where all key urban
actors are present.
• The questionnaire is circulated in advance and the
information is discussed and agreed upon by all
stakeholders before being fed into the questionnaire.
• The UGI does not replace or substitute household
surveys, citizen’s report cards, statistical data or
perception surveys. It is a fact-based tool, which can
complement the findings of all the above.
• The UGI is not expensive to undertake.
• It involves some technical capacity building for a partner
organisation, which can facilitate the exercise, and the
organisation of a one-or-two day meeting for selected
stakeholder representatives.
• The Index is composed of four sub-
indices, namely: Participation sub-index;
Equity sub-index; Effectiveness sub-index;
and Accountability Sub-Index.
• These are based on core principles of
good urban governance, which are
accepted and promoted by UN-HABITAT
and other organisations working in the
field of governance.
 Effectiveness

• Local government revenue per capita

• Defined as the total local government revenue (income annually
collected, both capital and recurrent for the metropolitan area, in US
dollars) per capita (3 year average)
• Ratio of actual recurrent and capital budget
• Assessment of the distribution of local government budget sources.
Ratio of income derived on a regular basis (e.g. through taxes and
user charges) and that obtained from allocation of funds from
internal or external sources.
• Local government revenue transfers
• Percentage of local government revenue originating from higher
levels of government. This includes formula driven payments (such
as repatriation of income tax), other grant donations from higher
government levels including national or state governments and
other types of transfers.
• Ratio of mandated to actual tax collection
• Ratio of mandated tax collected to the actual tax collected. Tax
collection is one of the sources of income for the local government.
• Predictability of transfers in local government budget
• Does the local authority knows well in advance (2-3 years) about the
amount of budget and level of consistency/regularity in receiving
transfer from higher government?
• Published performance delivery standards
• Presence or absence of a formal publication by the local
government of performance standards for key services delivered by
the local authority.
• Consumer Satisfaction Survey
• Existence and frequency of a survey on consumers’ satisfaction with
the local authority's services.
• Existence of a vision statement
• The measure of local authorities commitment in articulating a vision
for the city’s progress. Does the local authority articulate a vision for
the city’s future through a participatory process?
 Equity

• Citizens’ Charter: right of access to basic services

• Presence or absence of a signed, published statement (charter)
from the local authority which acknowledges citizens’ right of access
to basic services.
• 10. & 11. Percentage of women councillors in local authorities
• 10. Women councillors as a percentage of the total number of
councillors in a local authority (in the last election).
• 11. Percentage of women councillors in key positions
• 12. Pro-poor pricing policies for water
• Presence or absence of a pricing policy for water which takes into
account the needs of the poor households, translated into lower
rates for them compared to other groups and prices applied to
business/industrial consumption.
• 13. Incentives for informal businesses
• 13a.Presence of particular areas in the central
retail areas of the city where small scale
(informal) street vending is not allowed (or
submitted to particular restrictions).
• 13b. Also measures the existence of incentives
for informal businesses e.g. street vending,
informal public markets, and municipal fairs.
 Participation

• 14. Elected council

• The indicator measures whether the local governing council is elected
through a democratic process or not.
• 15. Selection of Mayor
• The indicator measures how the Mayor is selected, whether directly elected,
elected from amongst the councillors or directly appointed.
• 16. Voter turnout
• Total voter turnout (both male and female) in percentage in the last election
• 17. Public forum
• The public forum could include people's council, city consultation,
neighbourhood advisory committees, town hall meetings etc.
• Civic Associations per 10,000 population
• Measured as the number of civic associations (registered) per 10,000
people within the local authority's jurisdiction.
• Accountability
 Accountability

• Formal publication (contracts and tenders; budgets

and accounts)
• Existence of a formal publication (to be accessible) by
the local government that consists of contracts, tenders
and budgets and accounts.
• Control by higher levels of government
• Measures the control of the higher levels of government
(National, State /provincial) for closing the local
government and removing councillors from office.
• Codes of Conduct
• Existence of a signed published statement of the
standards of conduct that citizens are entitled to from
their elected officials and local government staff.
• Facility for citizen complaints
• The existence of a facility established within the local
authority to respond to complaints and a local facility to
receive complaints and information on corruption.
• Anti-corruption Commission
• Existence of a local agency to investigate and report
cases of corruption.
• Disclosure of Income/Assets
• Are locally elected officials required to publicly disclose
their income and assets (and those of their immediate
family) prior to taking office?
• Independent audit
• Is there a regular independent audit of municipal
accounts, the results of which are widely disseminated?
• The Campaign is developing indicators of good
urban governance with two principle aims. 
• First and foremost, to help cities identify key
urban governance issues and assess their
progress towards the quality of city-life. 
• Cities will be given tools to help them assess the
state of urban governance in their city. 
• Cities can then set targets for measuring
performance on key issues. 
• The Campaign and its partners will provide
selected cities with capacity-building support to
achieve their objectives.
•  
• A secondary aim will be to develop a
global Good Urban Governance Index. 
• The index will draw on available urban
indicators to assess the state of urban
governance in the world. 
• The results of the index will be made
available in the UN-HABITAT State of the
World's Cities Report and the Global
Report on Human Settlements.
• The Urban Governance Index was first tested in
12 cities in early 2003.
• The indicators were evaluated based on findings
from the field test results, responses from the
participating cities and feedback from the
stakeholders meeting held during the 19th
session of the UN-HABITAT Governing Council
in May 2003.
• The objectives of the second field test are: (a) to
refine the indicators and (b) to build a credible
basis for launching the Index in mid-2004.
• The documents related to the second field test
are included below
• The Urban Governance Index: A tool to assist
cities in improving local governance
• The Urban Governance Index is an advocacy
and capacity-building tool to assist cities and
countries in monitoring the quality of urban
governance.
• Envisaged to be a measure of good governance
and inclusiveness in cities, the Index has been
field tested in 24 cities across the world.
• The results of the field test are summarised in
the
Urban Governance Index Conceptual Foundatio
n and Field Test Report
, which was released in early 2005.
• This publication discusses some key issues
related to measuring urban governance and
describes the various possible frameworks for
the index and indicators.
• It summarises the process of identifying and
shortlisting indicators, evaluates sub-indices on
the basis of the field test in 24 cities, and
presents a tentative strategy for UGI
dissemination and data collection.
• The rigorous methodological framework as well
as case studies of application of the Index can
assist Habitat Agenda partners at various levels
in developing more inclusive cities.
• The Index is being adapted and applied in
several countries, including Somalia, Sri Lanka,
Zimbabwe and Mongolia.
• In Zimbabwe, the Index is being applied in five
cities in partnership with the Commonwealth
Local Government Forum (CLGF) and the Urban
Councils Association of Zimbabwe (UCAZ).
• In Mongolia, the UGI has been applied in
Ulaanbaatar in collaboration with the ICNRD5
Follow-up project of UNDP.
• An agreement has also been reached with
UNDP’s Oslo Governance Centre to jointly
explore the integration of its national governance
indicators and UN-HABITAT’s locally orientated
Index in three pilot countries.