Governance

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment
Contents
Chapter Title 1 2. 3. 4. 5. Preface Introduction GovernanceConceptsandApproaches FrameworkforassessingStateofGovernance IndicatorFramework Conclusion AnnexureAssessingGovernanceInternationalDiscourseandPractice Acknowledgments Bibliography/References Page
5 7 16 28 88 89 98 100
Preface
Governanceisatermthatiswidelyusedinpublicdebatethesedays.Itisgenerallyseenas an answer to many, if not all, the problems that beset the country. Yet, there is no commonlyagreeddefinitionofgovernance.Itcouldimplyanythingfromcorruption,inept administration to poor delivery of public services depending upon the context. While governanceisseenasanimportantvariabletomitigatemanyproblemsofthepublicsector system, the discussion becomes particularly vague, and ideological, when identifyingthe exactreformsthatarerequiredinimprovingthequalityofgovernance.Thekeyissuethat prohibitsaninformedapproachtogovernancereformsrelatestotheabsenceofobjective and measurable data on the quality of governance, particularly at the subnational level. There is an urgent need to develop a credible framework for assessing quality of governanceinvariousStatesthatcouldpossiblyprovideanagendaforgovernancereform. Suchanassessmentwouldcontributetopublicdebateandraiseconsciousness,whilealso helpingtoidentifyreformprioritiesandtomonitortheirprogress. Tobeeffective,however,theassessmentprocessshouldinvolvewidepublicconsultations, preferablyatnationallevel.Althoughthediscourseandpracticeongovernancehasbeen leadbyinternationaldonoragencies,itistooimportantanissuetobeleftonlytothemto defineanddetermine.Localstakeholdersmustbebroughtintoprovideacomplimentary and contrasting perspective. Only then is governance likely to become a concept that is relevant to the concerns of the people of the country. That is, while we may draw upon international experiences and knowledge from around the world, the process of assessment should be nationally owned and based on inputs from primary stakeholders andreliablesecondarydatabases. The role of users of governance indicators is vital because governance, or at least good governance,isessentiallydemanddriven:otherthingsbeingequal,thegovernedwillget thequalityofgovernancethattheydemand.Governancewillbedemocratic,responsiveto theneedsandinterestsofthegoverned,honest,transparentandaccountableif,andonlyif, citizens from all significant social groups demand that it be so. However, governance indicators have primarily been used at the international level by international donor organisations.Primaryusersofthegovernanceindicatorsarenotthegovernedwithin,but people and organizations from outside the countries concerned. If any governance assessment is to contribute directly to improved governance, the primary user group shouldbecitizensofthecountries.Thoseusersshouldrepresenttheentirespectrumofthe governed, including women and the poor. Governance, indicators therefore need to incorporateastrongroleforthegovernedintheirdesignanduse. Ifgovernanceisimportanttocitizens,itismoreimportantforthepooranddisadvantaged. Theinfluentialandthewelltodocananddofindtheirwayaroundpoorgovernance.It islikely thatthey are partofpoorgovernancesystemandbenefitfromit. It isthe poor who depend upon governance arrangements for primary medical care, education, transportandlivelihoodopportunities.Governancehastobeseenfromtheperspectiveof
thepoorandweak,womenandchildrenandminorities.Thiswillrequirechangesinboth thenatureofgovernanceindicators,andinthecapabilitiesofusers.Theobjectivesofgood governance can only be achieved if governance indicators are propoor and gender sensitive, as well as userfriendly and designed to meet the needs and match the capabilitiesofadiverserangeofusersamongthegoverned. The framework for assessing the state of governance presented in this volume is an attempt at developing a homegrown model that would find acceptance among the State GovernmentsasHumanDevelopmentReporthasintherecentpast.Basedoninternational discourse and practice on governance measurement and in consultations with leading expertsfromdifferentfields,acomprehensiveframeworkforassessinggovernanceatthe State level has been suggested. The framework contains detailed set of governance indicatorsthat arebasedonprimaryaswellassecondary data collection.This volumeis accompaniedbyadetailedStateofGovernanceToolkitintendedtoguidetheprocessof governanceassessmentattheStatelevel.Itisakindofhowtodomanualwhichcontains detailedstepsfordatacollectionincludingtheinstrumentsforsurvey. It is recognized that this is but the first step in the journey and the framework once implemented would be subject to serious scrutiny and debate and over a period of time becomemorerobustandrooted.Itishopedthattheframework,ifappliedandusedinthe rightletterandspirit,wouldeventuallyresultinimprovedqualityofgovernance.
Chapter 1 - Introduction
1.1 Background The idea that quality of governance contributes to improved human wellbeing and sustaineddevelopmenthasgainedwidespreadrecognition inthe pastdecadeandahalf. Whether or not there is a direct correlation between good governance and improved humanwellbeing,experienceshowsthatchronicpovertyisgenerallyassociatedwithpoor governance.Asamatteroffact,theconcernforqualityofgovernancearoseinthe1990sin thewakeofpersistentpovertywhichwasseentobearesultofinefficientandpooruseof publicfunds,endemiccorruptionandpoorservicedeliveryinmanythirdworldcountries. The concept of governance received greater attention as multilateral agencies such as the UNDP and the World Bank discovered that successful development required reforms in political and administrative regimes. While the way governance is defined by different institutionsandcountriesdiffer,theyallunderlinethecriticalimportanceofthequalityof institutionsandpublicmanagementinservicedelivery. There are three key realizations implicit in the governance approach. Firstly, it signals a conscious shift from technocratic and apolitical development paradigm to one which is dynamic and inherently political. Secondly, it recognizes that good governance is more than good government. It involves the articulation between the state (at all levels) and other stakeholders within the broader society. Thirdly, governance goes beyond the managementdoctrinebyattemptingtoaddressinstitutionalissues. InIndia,thequalityofgovernanceisreflectedinitsmanyremarkablesuccessesasinthe significant failures that it has had to contend with. The ability to forge unity despite its diversityandbuildafunctioning,vibrantandpluralisticdemocracyis,perhaps,thesingle most important achievement of democratic governance in India. The functioning of democratic institutions, a vibrant market economy, an active civil society and a fearless and independent media are other notable achievements. Simultaneously, India continues to make rapid strides in its fight against poverty; and access to basic services such as healthcare,primaryeducationandfoodsecurityistodayalmostuniversal. Atthesametime,therehavebeenmanyshortcomings.Developmentoutcomeshavebeen less than optimal and poverty eradication continuestobe acoredevelopment issuewith nearly a quarter of the Indian population living below the poverty line. Employment growth, particularly in the private organized sector, has been limited. Major fiscal imbalances, regional disparities in development and poor law and order are very important issues in many States. Delivery of public services remains inefficient and vulnerablesectionsofsocietyincludingwomen,children,schedulecastes,scheduletribes and minorities remain marginalized in many parts of the country. These aspects are all manifestationsofpoorgovernanceinpolitical,economicorpublicadministrationdomains.
The 10th Plan document has identified some manifestations attributable to poor governance,whichare: Poormanagementofeconomy,persistingfiscalimbalancesandregionaldisparities; Denialofbasicneedstoasubstantialproportionofthepopulation; Threattolifeandpersonalsecurity; Marginalisation and exclusion of people on account of social, religious, caste or even genderaffiliation; Lack of sensitivity, transparency and accountability in many facets of the working of Statemachinery; Delayedjustice; Existence of a significant number of voiceless poor with little opportunity for participatingingovernance;and Deteriorationofphysicalenvironment,particularlyinurbanareas.
Thesubsequent sectionsofthe reportoutline indetailtheapproachfor undertaking the project. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the governance concept and approaches used for measuring it. Chapter 3 details the suggested framework for assessingthequalityofgovernanceattheStatelevel.Chapter4providesthedetailed list of governance indicators. Finally, conclusion and the way forward are given in theend.Theinternationaldiscourseandpracticeisgivenintheannexe. Acknowledgements Centre for Good Governance, Hyderabad was involved in developing the strategic approachandtheindicatorframework.TheteamfromCGGalongwithACNielsonORG MARGconductedthesurveyandstatisticalanalysis.Ourgratitudeandspecialthanksare duetoeveryoneinvolvedfortheirvaluableinputs.
Chapter 2 Governance: Concepts and Approaches

2.1 TheRiseof`Governance Four sets of phenomena have combined to drive the explosive growth of interest in the quality of governance and with it the use of governance indicators in recent years (ChristianeArndtandCharlesOman,2006). a. The end of cold war brought about a change in attitude of developed countries and multilateralaidagenciestowardsdevelopingcountrygovernmentswhichtillthenwas colouredbythelatterspositioninbipolarworld.TheWorldBankhadalsoradically reverseditspolicyin1996byplacingtheacuteproblemofcorruptioninmanyofthe borrowingcountriesatthecentreofitslendingpolicy.Thenotionofgoodgovernance asanecessaryconditionorattheveryleast,asprovidinganenablingenvironmentfor sustainabledevelopmentandpovertyreductionhasgainedwidespreadcurrency. b. There has been a spectacular growth in international investment in developing countries in the last 15 years. The quality of governance in these countries assumed importanceinproportiontotheincreaseinassetsexposedtorisk.Competitionamong these countries to attract foreign investment prompted a shift in policy orientation towardsimprovinggovernance. c. The relative failure or inadequacy of policy reforms widely undertaken in 1980s and 1990s contributed to growing understanding and recognition that good governance wasneededforthesuccessofthemarketreforms. d. TheNewInstitutionalEconomicsspearheadedbyDouglasNorthhasdemonstratedthe importanceofacountryssystemofgovernanceitsformalandinformalinstitutions (the latter including its culture and unwritten values) and their interactions with the behaviour of economic and political entrepreneurs and organizations for the countrys success in terms of long term economic growth, enhancement of human welfareandsocietaldevelopment.Qualityofgovernancewasincreasinglyseenasthe outcomeoftheeffectivenessofasocietysinstitutions.(AzmatGaniandRonDuncan) The increasing interest in governance shown by international investors, aid donors and developmentanalystseventuallyledtoeffortsaimedatoperationalisationandmeasuring governancethroughquantitativeindicators.Byoneestimate,therearenowsome140user accessible sets of governance indicators comprising literally thousands of individual indicators.Theirproliferationhasinturnledtoproductionofseveralgovernanceindicator guides and inventories that provide valuable how to use; and where to find information on many of these indicators. UNDPs Governance Indicators: A Users Guide is one such guide to help nonspecialist user on where to find and how to use sources of governanceindicators.
2.2 WhatisGovernance? Althoughgovernancehasbeendefinedvariouslybydifferentpeopledependinguponthe contextandperspective,thereisagreementoverthebroadelementsofgovernance.While Websters Dictionary defines governance simply as the act of governing or exercising authority,otherdefinitionsaremoreelaborate.Someofthedefinitionsaregivenbelow: Governance relates to the management of all such processes that, in any society, define the environment which permits and enables individuals to raise their capability levels, on onehand,andprovideopportunitiestorealisetheirpotentialandenlargethesetofavailable choices,ontheother. TenthFiveYearPlan Human Governance is governance dedicated to securing human development. It must enable the State, civil society and the private sector to help build capacities, whichwillmeetthebasicneedsofallpeople,particularlywomen,childrenandthe poor. It requires effective participation of people in state, civil society and private sector activitiesthatareconducivetohumandevelopment. HDR Based on the recent analytical research, we define Governance as the process and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised. Specifically, governance is: (i)the process by which governments are selected, held accountable, monitored, and replaced; (ii) the capacity of governments to manage resources efficiently, and to formulate,implement,andenforcesoundpoliciesandregulations;and(iii)therespectfor theinstitutionsthatgoverneconomicandsocialinteractionsamongthem. Kaufmann,RecanatiniandBiletsky,WorldBank Governanceisasystemofvalues,policiesandinstitutionsbywhichasocietymanagesits economic,politicalandsocialaffairsthroughinteractionswithinandamongthestate,civil societyandprivatesector.Itisthewaysocietyorganizesitselftomakeandimplement decisionsachievingmutualunderstanding,agreementandaction.Itcomprisesthe mechanisms and processes for citizens and groups to articulate their interests, mediate theirdifferencesandexercisetheirlegalrightsandobligations.Itistherules,institutions and practices that set the limits and provide incentives for individuals, organizations andfirms. UNDP Governanceconcernsthestatesabilitytoservethecitizens.Itreferstorules,processes, resources and behaviors by which interests are articulated, resources are managed, and power is exercised in society. The way public functions are carried out, public resources are managed and public regulatory powers are exercised is the major issuetobeaddressedinthiscontext. EuropeanCommission CommunicationonGovernanceandDevelopment 9
Governanceisthemannerinwhichpowerisexercisedinthemanagementofacountrys socialandeconomicresourcesfordevelopment.Governancemeansthewaythosewith powerusethatpower. ADB Governancereferstothehandlingofrulesornormsthatguideeachstageorarena inthepoliticalprocess.Assuch,governanceisconnectedtorulesinusei.e.formal orinformalrulesthatapplytohowissuesemergeinthepublicandarehandledby thepoliticalsystem.Morespecifically,governanceisdefinedastheformationand stewardshipoftherulesthatregulatethepublicrealmthespacewherethestateas wellaseconomicandsocialactorsinteracttomakedecisions. WorldGovernanceSurvey UnitedNationsUniversity Governance refers to the process whereby elements in society wield power and authority, and influence and enact policies and decisions concerning public life, and economicandsocialdevelopment. TheGovernanceWorkingGroup oftheInternationalInstituteofAdministrativeSciences1996 Governanceistheprocesswherebysocietiesororganizationsmakeimportantdecisions, determinewhomtheyinvolveandhowtheyrenderaccount. InstituteonGovernance the view in the present report is of governance as the process by which the institutions charged with achieving development do their jobs. This includes non governmental organizations, civil society organizations, and private firms as well asthepublicsectororstate. TheStateofGovernanceinBangladesh2006 CentreforGovernanceStudies,BRACUniversityand BRACResearchandEvaluationDivision Atonelevel,it(governance)concernspoliticalandelectoralreform.Atanotherlevel, itconcernsinterfacebetweenadministrationandcitizens.Atanarrowerlevel,itmeans thelawandorderandjusticesystem.Governanceisdistinctfromgovernment,andis the process through which various stakeholders articulate their interests, exercise their rights,andmediatetheirdifferences. FromAgendaforGoodGovernanceed.BibekDebroy
10
Itmaybeseenfromtheabovedefinitionsofgovernancethattherearesomeelements thatarecommonacrossall/mostdefinitionsandthesecanbebroadlyorganizedunder thefollowingtwocategories: a. Exerciseofpowerandauthority process and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised, how governmentsareselected,heldaccountable,monitored,andreplaced; a system of values, policies and institutions by which a society manages its economic,politicalandsocialaffairsthroughinteractionswithinandamongthestate, civilsocietyandprivatesector the space where the state as well as economic and social actors interact to make decisions. the process whereby elements in society wield power and authority, and influence and enact policies and decisions concerning public life, and economic and social development
b.
Governmentsabilityandcapacitytoeffectivelyfulfilitsmandate thestatesabilitytoservethecitizens capacity of governments to manage resources efficiently and to formulate, implement, andenforcesoundpoliciesandregulations; government/statesabilitytoservethecitizensbyprovidingspeedyjustice,education, healthcareandsanitation,socialandphysicalinfrastructure,lawandorder,andsoon.
Thefirstsetdealswithhowpowerandauthorityareexercisedbydifferentsectionswithin thesociety.Thisdimensionisinclusiveinthesensethatitisaboutgovernanceinsocietyat large; it is the space various stakeholders viz. the state, citizens, civil society and the private sector give each other in managing their affairs and interests. In this sense, all of them not only have a stake in governance but they are also responsible for the state of governancebecausegovernanceisasmuchaboutenforcementandregulationasvoluntary compliancewithlaw.Thisdefinitionemphasizesonprocesses,rules andinstitutionsthat guide different groups in the society in articulating and mediating their interests. When oneoftheplayersexertsmoreauthorityattheexpenseoftheothers,itadverselyaffectsthe governance. The cases of the executive exercising authoritarian power and consequential effects on the governance are too well known to need elaboration. Similarly, the private enterprises wielding undue influence over the government policies could be equally damagingtothelargerpublicinterest. The second aspect of governance emphasizes the governments ability to deliver services within its purview. It is about the capacity of the State and its various organs and
11
instrumentalities in managing financial, human and natural resources in order that they provideeffectiveservicestothecitizens. Thus there are two basic aspects of governance that are clearly understood and acknowledgedbydifferentdefinitionsandmodelsandthismustbedulyrecognizedwhile developing the indicator framework. The efforts could, therefore, be directed towards betterunderstandingofinstitutionallinkagesbetweendifferentactorsontheonehandand enhancingpolicyimplementationontheother.Mostgovernancemodels,particularlythose promotedbydonoragencies,donotaddressthesecondissueadequately.Thegovernance framework proposed in this report seeks to redress this imbalance by according more emphasis on the states ability to serve the citizens, particularly those who are economicallyandsociallydisadvantaged. 2.3 GovernanceandDevelopment There is a general agreement that the quality of governance matters for development outcomes.Whilefewdenythesignificanceofgovernancevariable,itisnotclearastohow andwhengovernancemakesadifferencetothecountrysdevelopment. What is the relationship between quality of governance and growth? According to KaufmannandKraay,whilebettergovernancetendsclearlytopromoteeconomicgrowth, growth per se does not tend to promote better governance (Christine Arndt and Charles Oman,2006). Thereare some who arguethatstronglong termgrowth couldbe resultof powerfulvestedinterestgroupsbuildingupattheexpenseofgovernance.Asamatterof fact, countries with poor governance (rule of law, participation, etc.) such as China and dictatorships of southeast Asia had achieved spectacular economic growth in 1970s and 1980s. Based on the experiences such as above, some have argued that democratic governanceofteninhibitsgrowthasitdivertsresourcesfrominvestmenttoconsumption. There are others who cite examples of India and the US, both wellfunctioning democracies,topointoutthatdemocracyismoreconducivetolongtermgrowth. The connection between governance and poverty reduction is, however, somewhat tenuous. On the one hand, there is empirical evidence to suggest that weak governance reinforcespoverty.Ontheotherhand,thelinkbetweengovernanceandpovertyreduction isaccordedaprioristatusi.e.itissimplyassumedtobetrue.Intheabsenceofconclusive studies,wemighthavetoassumethatthelinkexistssometimesandattimesitdoesnot.It mayturnouttobethecasethatgoodgovernanceissometimescorrelatedwith,butisnot necessaryconditionfor,povertyreduction.(SuchitraPunyaratabandhu,2004) Itappearsthatpositivedevelopmentaloutcomesdependuponmanyfactorsoneofwhich isgoodgovernance, whichalsomay notalways be directlycorrelated. Atthesametime, one must recognize that some aspects of governance impact development more than others.Forexample,poorcapacityofthegovernment(intermsofnumberandcompetency of personnel)canconsiderablyslowdown development as has been seen in someStates. 12
Similarly,corruptionisknowntohaveenormousadverseimpactondevelopment.Besides hampering growth, corruption has also been shown to increase income inequality and poverty because it results in poor targeting of social programmes, unequal access to education,reduced socialspending, and higherinvestmentrisks forthe poor.Inarecent study,Kaufmannet al (1999)showthatcorruptionisassociatedwithanincreaseininfant mortality and a reduction in life expectancy and literacy. Similarly, the UNDPs Human Poverty Index (HPI) is negatively related to indices of governance and corruption, even after controlling for GDP per capita. Li et al examine the effects of corruption on income inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient. An increase of one standarddeviation in corruptionraisestheGinibyroughlyfivepoints. Theproblemseemstobethatthereareveryfewstudieswhichhaveactuallyattemptedto explore the various channels through which governance impacts development outcomes. While subjective indices demonstrate a causal link with development outcomes, the knowledgeofunderlyingmechanismsremainsweak.Forinstance,indicatorssuchasrule of law, corruption, and political instability are correlated with health, nutritional and educationaloutcomesbutthereislittleinsightonhowsuchoutcomesaregenerated.Itis very likely that such correlation between governance indicators and development outcomes operates through higher per capita incomes. It appears that our current knowledge has not gone much farther than simple associations and correlation. All we know is that countries with better governance also happen to be those with better social indicators.(AdeelMalik) 2.4 GovernanceandDemocracy There are several variables to measure sociopolitical instability viz. political assassinations, riots, revolutions, coups, demonstrations, etc. The studies using these variablesshowthatsociopoliticalinstabilityisharmfulforgrowthandinvestment.They point out that democracy promotes longterm economic growth and delivers better distributional outcomes. Although the evidence suggests that democracy influences growth through a variety of indirect channels, whether democracy promotes or hinders economicgrowthseemtodependpartlyonthelevelofincome. Democracy is associated with broad development gains. It is a human right and an essential ingredient for achieving better human development outcomes. Development is freedom, as Amartya Sen proclaims and participatory political systems are an excellent meanstoenlarginghumanchoices.Thisismoreorlessapartofconventionaldevelopment wisdomnow.Yet,wearestillfarawayfromproducingenoughsupportiveevidencetothis effect. Some are available, yet lot more evidence needs to be discovered, with clearly definedlinkages.Evidencefromthe1,500WorldBankfinancedprojectssuggeststhatcivil libertiesanimportantcomponentofthedemocracyvariableandcitizenparticipationwere found as important factors for project success (Adeel Malik). Successful democratization
13
tends to enhance the quality of governance, because there is a definite overlap between democracyandgovernance.(WGSDiscussionPaper10) Itshould,however,notbetakenforgrantedthatallaspectsofgovernancearepositivein thedemocracies.Itisseensometimesthatsomedemocraciesmaybefound
14
provideforjustandhumaneconditionsofwork; provideforfreeandcompulsoryeducationforchildren; promotetheeducationalandeconomicinterestsoftheweakersections; improvepublichealth;and protecttheenvironment.
The fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution have a direct bearing on the roles andresponsibilitiesoftheState.Theseinclude: RighttoLifeArticle21(wideinterpretation) PrincipleofEquality(Articles14,15and16) Genderequality(AirIndiav.NargeshMeerza1981) RightagainstStateArbitrariness(Articles14and22) Right against Exploitation (Articles 17, 23 and 24; Visakha v State of Rajasthan, 1997) FundamentalFreedom(Article19) RighttoEducation(Article21A) Right to corruptionfree governance (implied right guaranteed under Articles 14 and21)
Last but not the least, the 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Constitution mandate the institutionalization of a third tier of government (both rural and urban) and specify the modalitiesfordecentralisedgovernance. Keepingwiththetrendstheworldover,therehasbeenarenewedemphasisonimproving the quality of governance in the country. For the first time, the Government of India outlined a governance approach to development in the National Human Development Report2001.Governance,inthisapproach,isviewedasinvolvingacontinuousinterplay ofthreeelements,eachrepresentingaspecificsetofdeliberatearrangementsthatinclude: Institutionsadoptedorcreatedarrangements,bothformalandinformal,tobring about predictability, stability and efficiency in managing the social, economic or politicaltransactionsinanysociety; The Delivery Mechanism including the executive apparatus adopted or evolved by the institutions for implementing the agenda and the objectives for which the saidinstitutionshavebeencreated;and TheSupportiveandSubordinateFrameworkofLegislations,Rules,andProcedures formulatedfordeliveringandmeetingthestatedresponsibilitiesoftheconcerned institutions.
Theapproachalsoacknowledgestheroleofcivilsocietyandthemarketingovernanceas beingcriticalforsustaininghumandevelopment.WhiletheStateisresponsibleforcreating conducive political, legal and economic environment for building individual capabilities andencouragingprivateinitiative,themarketisexpectedtocreateeconomicopportunities 15
forpeopleandthecivilsocietyisexpectedtofacilitatethemobilisationofpublicopinion andpeoplesparticipationineconomic,socialandpoliticalactivities. A Model Code of Governance drafted by a Committee of Chief Secretaries provides the principlesofgoodgovernanceandseekstosetbenchmarksfortheStatestoevaluatetheir ownstatusonvariousspecificpointssuchas: Improvingservicedelivery; Developingprogramsforweakersectionsandbackwardareas; Technologyandsystemimprovement; Financialmanagementandbudgetsanctity; Accountabilityandtransparency; Publicservicemorale&anticorruptionmeasures;and Incentivisingreforms.
The Government has also examined major proposals and recommendations on various aspects of administrative reforms of four earlier Committees viz. Alagh Committee on Recruitment and Selection Procedures (2001), Yugandhar Committee on InService Training (2003), Surinder Nath Committee on Performance Appraisal, Promotion, Empanelment, and Placement for the All India Services (2003) and Hota Committee on CivilServiceReforms(2004). Simultaneously, the Government of India has undertaken a host of governance reform initiativescuttingacrossdifferentMinistriesandDepartmentswhichinclude: Simplificationofproceduresandprocesses; eGovernanceanduseofICTtools; Businessclimaterelatedreforms; ReformsinPoliceAdministration; JudicialReformsaimedatstreamliningcourtprocesses; Initiativesforeffectivedeliveryofbasicservicesandschemes;and Anticorruptioninitiatives.
16
Chapter 3 - Framework for Assessing State of Governance

3.1 FundamentalAspectsunderlyingtheAssessmentFramework Whileitiseasytounderstandgovernanceataconceptuallevelaseitherbeingthemanner inwhichthepowerisexercisedand/orasthestatesabilitytoprovidebasicservices,the difficultpartistobreakitdownintoitselementsthataremeasurable.Isgovernanceaset of values or principles? Or is it a sum of policies, processes and institutions? Or is it the rules, laws, etc. that guide the society? Does it lie in the perception of the people or is it someobjectivelyverifiablephenomenon?Isapositiveoutcomenecessarilyanindicationof goodgovernance?Isgovernancevaluedasanendinitselforisitameanstoanend? Itisseenthatthesimilaritiesindefinitionalaspectsdonoteasilylendthemselvestoeither understanding what constitutes governance or its measurement. This is evident in the different approaches adopted for deconstructing and measuring governance by various agenciesincludingmultilateralorganisations.Theapproachesadoptedbyvariousagencies differ markedly from each other while some are normative in nature, others are positivistic. Further, measuring issues of governance poses challenges that are not encounteredintheeconomicandsocialdevelopmentfields.Perhapsbecauseitisabroad and complicated concept, there exists no regular, systematic and cohesive data collection effortcentredontheconceptofgovernance.1 Keepingtheaboveinmind,itwasnecessarytoevolveaframeworkthatisfirmlyrootedin the Indian context and subscribes to the basic tenets of the Indian Constitution. Simultaneously, it would also draw upon the global discourse on governance and adapt thelessonsfromittosuittheIndiancontext.Thesuggestedframeworkattemptstodraw fromthebasicaspectsofthegovernancediscourseintheglobalarenaaswellasinIndia. There are five fundamental aspects that underpin the suggested `governance assessment frameworkandthesepertaintothefollowing:
1. GoodGovernanceYoucanmeasuretheformer(good)ifyouunderstandthelatter
(governance) `Governance by itself is a neutral term while `Good Governance implies positive attributes and values associated with the quality of governance. Most measurement frameworks tend to measure how good the quality of governance is without actually deconstructing governance into its various elements. Hence, most frameworks apply generic principles in assessing quality of governance while the content of governance remainslargelyunexamined.
AssessingGovernance:MethodologicalChallengesWorldGovernanceSurveyDiscussionPaper2(August2002) UnitedNationsUniversity
17
The fundamental limitation of such an approach is that it does not lead to actionable diagnosticsthatcanbeidentifiedandrelatedtospecificcountryinstitutions.Forexample, how does `government effectiveness relate to the administrative, economic and social spheres of governance? Or can observations on `regulatory quality be linked to legal, economicandadministrativeinstitutions? Thesuggestedframeworkisdifferentfromtheotherapproachesasit: a. Deconstructsgovernanceintoitsdifferentelementsandcomponents b. Appliesgenericgovernanceprinciplestothevariouscomponents Hence,eachprinciple(suchaseffectiveness,participation,accountabilityetc.)cantherefore berelatedtothefunctioningofthelegislature,judiciary,bureaucracyorotherinstitutions. 2. (Good/Ideal)Governanceshouldbecharacterisedbycoreprinciples The quality of governance has been the focus of governments and multilateral / donor agenciesacrosstheworld.Thishasledtomanyofthemdefiningqualitativestandardsof governanceintheformofcharacteristicsorprinciplesthat`governanceoughttoreflectfor it to be good or ideal. Some of the basic governance principles or attributes include the following: Accountabilitybothhorizontalandvertical Transparency Equity Performance(effectivenessandefficiency) Participation/voice RuleofLaw Strategicvision Lackofarbitrariness Ethicsandintegrity Predictability
Thesuggestedframeworkattemptstorelategovernanceindicatorstooneormoreofthese principles. 3. Governanceinvolvesmanydifferentstakeholders The concept of governance has evolved to encompass many different stakeholders in its fold.Typically,ithascategorisedstakeholdersintothreebroadcategoriesState,Market and Civil Society. While acknowledging this concept, it is also necessary to identify the importantstakeholderswithineachbroadcategory. i. The State includes the different organs of the government (Legislature, Judiciary andExecutive)andtheirinstrumentalities,independentaccountabilitymechanisms etc.andconsistsofdifferentsegmentsofactors(electedrepresentatives,political executive,bureaucracy/civilservantsatdifferentlevelsetc.) 18
ii.
The Market includes the private sector organised as well as unorganised that includes business firms ranging from large corporate houses to small scale industries/establishments. TheCivilSocietyisthemostdiverseandtypicallyincludesallgroupsnotincluded in (a) or (b). It includes NGOs/CSOs, media organisations/ associations, trade unions,religiousgroups,etc.
iii.
The suggested framework attempts to bring into its fold different stakeholders in the governanceprocess.Atthesametime,italsorecognisesthattheStateastheConstitutional authority for exercising power on behalf of the citizens has a primary role to play in the governanceprocess.Theframeworkalsorecognisesthatcitizensintheirownrightmust haveasayinthegovernanceprocess. 4. Governanceisaboutprocessesratherthanoutcomes Governancelargelyrelatestotheprocessesthroughwhichpowerisexercisedoutcomes, betterorworse,areusuallytheresultofhowtheprocessesaremanaged.Inotherwords, governance refers to the means through which either public policy is formulated and implemented or through which different stakeholders articulate and mediate their differences. However, in order to provide effective tools for policy formulation, and programme monitoring and evaluation, as well as lobbying and advocacy, governance indicatorsneedtodistinguishbetweeninputs,processes,outputs,outcomesandimpacts. Process indicators refer to the quality of governance in terms of how the outcomes are achieved. The challenge is how to measure governance processes cohesively and systematically in terms of critical processes. (Julius Court, Goran Hyden and Ken Mease, 2002) The framework is, therefore, tuned towards capturing the initial parameters and intermediateprocessesratherthandevelopmentoutcomes. 5. Governancemeasurementmustberelevanttorealitiesatsubnationallevels The suggested framework is firmly rooted in the realities of governance across States today. It recognises that while the macro concepts of the global discourse on governance have intrinsic value, it is ultimately the inclusion of specific aspects of governance at the subnationallevelinIndiathatwilllendstrengthandrelevance(andperhapsownership) totheframework. ItisafactthatgovernancerelatedreformsisnotunknowntomostStates.TheGovernment ofIndiahasoftensoughttoguideandassisttheStatestoundertakekeyreforms.Similarly, multilateral and bilateral agencies working in different States have also promoted governancereforms.ManyStateshaveinitiatedgovernancereformmeasuresontheirown. Theproposedframeworkseekstonotonlyenableassessmentofthequalityofgovernance inaparticularState,butitwouldalsohopefullyencourageStatestoinitiatespecificreform measuresthatimprovegovernance.
19
3.2 ConceptualConstructoftheGovernanceFramework a. Governancehasmanyfacets.Itisnotasingleeventoranact.Therearemultipleplayers andmultitudeofinteractionsamongthemwhichdeterminethequalityofgovernance.In ordertoassessgovernance,ithasbeenfirstdeconstructedintofivebroaddimensions. b. Each dimension is further broken down into components which are basically a group of interrelatedaspectswhichtogethermakeupthedimension. c. Component is the basic unit of governance that is sought to be assessed or measured. Accordingly,eachcomponenthasrelatedgovernanceindicatorsthatprovidethemeasure. Underlyingeveryindicatorisakeyprincipleofgovernance. 3.3 GovernanceDimensions Governance has been broken down into five dimensions viz. political, legal and judicial, administrative, economic and social & environmental dimensions, which are further explainedbelow. Figure3.1GovernanceDimensions
manage its human, financial and technological resources and deliver basic services to public The nature of political contestation, conduct of political players & institutions, use & abuse of political authority and citizens faith in the political system Political
Ability of the State to
Ability of the State to maintain law & order, safeguard human rights, enable access & delivery of justice Legal & Judicial
Administrative
3.4 PoliticalDimensionofGovernanceanditskeycomponents Thepoliticaldimensionisthemostessentialaspectofgovernance.Withoutthisdimension, otherdimensionswouldbemeaninglessbecauseitisthepoliticalprocessthatbringsinthe 20

Economic Ability of the State to create a conducive climate for business in all sectors and ensure macro-economic stability Social Ability of the State to take care of the vulnerable sections of the society; role & quality of the civil society & media & environmental governance
key governance values of participation, accountability and transparency. As the formal political arrangements such as eligibility to vote, political parties, legislatures, etc. often coexist with informal levers to control state power, it is important to go beyond these arrangements;onewayofdoingthisistogetafeelofthepeoplestrustintheseprocesses and institutions. Thisdimension accordinglylooksatthe quality of politicalcontestation, conductofindividualsandinstitutionsrepresentingthepeople,useandabuseofpolitical authority,decentralizationofpowersandcitizensfaithinthepoliticalsystembothfroma setofsecondarydataasalsofromthesubjectiveperceptionofdifferentsectionsofsociety. Thisdimensionhasbeenbrokendownintofourcomponents: a. Exerciseoffranchise:Thisisthedoorwaytodemocraticgovernancewhichestablishes legitimacy and accountability of the government by enabling participation by the citizens. It provides opportunity to the people to voice their concerns and issues and hold the rulers accountable. To be meaningful, this process should be widely participative,transparent,fairandhealthilycompetitive. b. Profile and Conduct of Political Representatives, Political Parties and the Political Executive:Whiletheprocessofelectoraldemocracyprovidesanenablingenvironment tothepracticeofdemocraticgovernance,itisthequality(evidentintermsofconduct, attitudesandvalues)ofthepeoplesrepresentatives,whichdetermineseffectivenessof accountability and participation in practice. As political representatives generally belongtopoliticalparties,byextensiontheconductofpoliticalpartiesinacompetitive democratic environment becomes an equally important aspect of the state of governance. Another key aspect of political governance pertains to the quality of functioningofthepoliticalexecutivethathasthedutyofsteeringthegovernment.The functioningoftheCouncilofMinistersaffectsthenatureofgovernance,bothdirectly andindirectly. c. FunctioningofLegislature:Theroleofthelegislatureiscriticaltothewaygovernance takesshapeinanyparticularState.Thetimespentondiscussingappropriationgrants andlegislationisaclearindicator,forinstance,ofeffectivenessoflegislature. d. Political Decentralisation: Last but not the least is the quality of decentralized governance thathastaken shapein theState.Thisnotonly reflectsthe willingnessof theStatetocomplywithconstitutionalimperatives,butalsoisanimportantindicator ofempowermentatthegrassrootslevel. 3.5 Legal&JudicialDimensionofGovernanceanditskeycomponents Thestateisvestedwithcoercivepowertomaintainlawandorder.Itisoneofitssovereign functions. Yet, this power is limited by citizens rights and freedoms. Ideally, the State should exercise its right to use force in an effective and judicious manner without overridingthefundamentalrightsofthecitizens.Anotherimportantresponsibilityofthe stateistoensurethateverybodyhasaccesstospeedyjustice.Bothoftheabovehaveavital implication for economic activity. When the general law and order is seen to be poor, 21
investors, businesses, etc. stay away from the State, thus affecting its ability to provide employmentopportunitiestoitspeople.Poorperformanceinensuringsecurity,protecting rights and providing speedy justice would give raise to parallel power centres, which undercutthegovernment.Thisdimensionseekstomeasurewhetherthestatesexerciseof power is within its boundaries as also its ability to effectively maintain law and order, safeguardhumanrightsandenableaccessto&deliveryofjustice.Thisdimensionhasbeen brokendownintofourbasiccomponents. a. Law&OrderandInternalSecurity:Thispertainstothebasicfunctionofthestateits raisondetretoensurethatlawandorderprevailsandcitizensliveinanenvironment whereintheirlivesandpropertyaregenerallysafeandsecure. b. Safeguardingofbasicrights:Thisaspectrelatestotheabilityofthestatetoprotectthe basicrightsofthecitizen,particularlythoseofpoor,womenandweakersections. c. Police Administration and Citizenfriendliness of the Police: The police force is an importantinstrumentalityofthestate.Itsroleistoprotecttheinnocentandpunishthe guilty.This isindeedthe cutting edge ofthegovernance asan ineptor/ and corrupt policeforcewouldfailgovernanceasnothingelsedoes.Effectivepolicefunctioningis influenced by different internal factors. This component takes a closer look at those factorsthatreflectthequalityofpoliceadministrationviz.sizeofpoliceforce,functions assigned,training&skilldevelopment,efficiencyinoperations,etc. d. Access to Justice and Judicial Accountability: Lastly, under this dimension, a significantindicatorofthequalityofgovernancerelatestotheaccesstoanddeliveryof justice which is reflected in its capacity to provide timely justice, judicial efficiency, judicialaccountabilityandcitizenperception. 3.6 AdministrativeDimensionofGovernanceanditskeycomponents The citizens, particularly the poor and disadvantaged among them, depend on the governmentforahostofservicesviz.primaryhealthcare,education,waterandsanitation, basic infrastructure, etc. The administrative dimension is a critical aspect of governance because it determines the ability of government to deliver basic services to citizens by efficiently managing the human and financial resources. The administrative dimension alsoincludesperformanceoftheStateonvigilanceandanticorruptionmattersaswellas responsivenessandtransparencyinadministration.Thisdimensionhasbeenbrokendown intofourcomponents: a. Citizen Interface and Engagement: This component indicates the citizencentricity of governmentagenciesintheirdaytodayfunctioningviz.accessibility,responsiveness, quality of grievance redressal /complaint handling, compliance with RTI Act provisions,etc. b. Managing Human, Financial and other resources: This aspect looks at how human resources in government are managed with particular focus on the profile of the staffing,recruitmentprocess,transparencyintransfersandpostings,trainingandskill 22
building,motivationlevelsamongemployees,performanceappraisal,etc.Akeyaspect of governance is effective financial management. This aspect examines the quality of financial management in terms of expenditure patterns, liabilities, outstanding loans andcompliancetobasicfinancialaccountabilitysystemslikeauditetc.Italsoassesses useofITingovernance. c. Basic Service Delivery: The cutting edge of administrative governance is the timely deliveryandthequalityofbasicservicessuchasprimaryhealthcareservices,primary schooling, drinking water, sanitation facilities, public distribution system, electricity, roads and transportation. For the majority of population, this reflects governance goodorotherwise. d. Corruption Perception, Vigilance & Enforcement: Lastly, this dimension also examinescorruption(intermsofcitizenperception)andvigilancemechanismsandthe willingness of the State to punish the defaulters, particularly those at the higher echelonsofadministration. 3.7 EconomicDimensionofGovernanceanditskeycomponents The economic dimension pertains to the ability of the state to ensure macroeconomic stability and create conducive climate for economic activity to take place across different sectors of the economy. Governance is also reflected in the states ability to provide support to the primary sector (agriculture & allied activities). This dimension has been brokendownintothreecomponents: a. Fiscal Governance: This aspect of economic governance relates to how the State has manageditsfinancesovertheshorttomediumterm.Thisisexaminedbothintermsof revenue mobilization indicators as well as indicators pertaining to expenditure management. b. Business Environment: This component pertains to those aspects of economic governance which affect the way businesses operate within the State and includes general investment climate, legal aspects, procedural issues, infrastructure and manpower,regulatorysystems,etc. c. SupporttothePrimarySector:Astheprimarysectoristhebackboneoftheeconomy withveryhighdependenceonitamongpoorersectionsofthepopulation,thequality of governance is also reflected in the State of the primary sector and how the State provides various services to support this sector through extension, input supply and marketinglinkages. 3.8 SocialDimensionofGovernanceanditskeycomponents The social dimension pertains to the ability of the state to take care of the vulnerable sections of the society. At the same time, given the importance of the civil society and media in the governance process, this dimension also seeks to assess governance by 23
examiningtheroleandqualityofthecivilsocietyandmedia.Environmentalmanagement asaseparatecomponentisalsoincludedduetoitsincreasingimportanceingovernance. Thisdimensionhasbeenbrokendownintothreebasiccomponents: a. Welfare of the Poor and Vulnerable: The changing emphasis of governance (both in expression and action) towards the welfare of the poor and the marginalized is well recognized. The test of governance in that sense lies in the state of the poor and the vulnerablesegmentssuchasthepoor,women,children,minorities,etc. b. RoleofCivilSocietyandMedia:Itisnotonlyimportantforthecivilsocietytoplaya watchdogroleingovernance,butalsoimportantforittobearesponsibleactor.Hence thisfacetofgovernancepertainstotwobasicaspects(a)thespaceandtherolethatcivil societygetstooccupyinthegovernanceprocessand(b)thequalityandcapacityofthe civilsocietyorganizationstotakeuptherolethattheyareexpectedofthem.Themass media,bothprintandaudiovisual,wieldsalotofinfluenceinshapingpublicopinion. Morethancivilsocietyorganizations,itisimportantforthemediatobearesponsible actorinthegovernanceprocesswhileenactingitstraditionalroleasaninstrumentof socialchangeandempowerment.Likecivilsociety,thispartofgovernancealsorelates to (a) the space and the role that the media occupies in the governance process and (b)thequalityandabilityofthemediatobethevoiceofthepeopleandplaytheroleof anindependent,unbiasedagency. c. Environmental Management: Lastly, this component seeks to examine governance fromtheperspectiveofthestateasthecustodianofnaturalresourcesanditsabilityto regulateandmanagenaturalresourcesforsustainabledevelopment.
24
Table3.1ConceptualConstructofFrameworkDimensionsandComponents
Dimensions Political 1.Exerciseof Franchise Legal/Judicial 1.Law&Order andInternal Security 2.Safeguardingof BasicRights Administrative 1.Citizen Interfaceand Engagement 2.Managing Human, Financialand other Resources Economic 1.Fiscal Governance Social/ Environmental 1.WelfareofthePoor &Vulnerable sections 2.RoleofCivilSociety andMedia
2.Profile& Conductof Political Representatives Partiesand Political Executive 3.Functioningof theLegislature
2.Business Environment
Components
3.Police Administration Citizen friendlinessof thePolice 4.Political 4.AccesstoJustice Decentralisation &Judicial Accountability
3.BasicService Delivery
3.Supporttothe PrimarySector
3.Environmental Management
4.Corruption Perception, Vigilance& Enforcement
3.9 IndicatorFramework A governance indicator is a measure that points out something about the state of governance in a country. Governance indicators are usually narrowed down to measure more specific areas of governance such as electoral systems, corruption, human rights, publicservicedelivery,civilsociety,andgenderequality. It is useful to remember that governance is essentially a qualitative phenomenon, the quantification of which would always be subject to considerable empirical limitations. Researches have so far attempted to use proxy indicators for measuring governance, a concept that purports to capture several complex and multifaceted dimensions (Adeel Malik). Therecanbeatleastfivedifferentwaystojudgetheefficacyofgovernanceindicators: Relation with particular institutions: This concerns the manner in which indicators implicateparticularinstitutions.Theseindicatorscanhelpidentifytheinstitutional channelthroughwhichgovernmentperformanceisaffected.
25
Relation with outcomes: Thisreferstothedegreeofspecificitywithwhichindicators relatetotheoutcomesofgoodgovernance(suchaspovertyreduction). Replicability and transparency: This relates to the ease with which indicators can be replicatedandtheirmethodologyandimplementationaccessed. Quality and accuracy of indicators:Thiscorrespondstoindicatorsthatmeasuremore accuratelytheunderlyingconceptandusehighqualitydata. Data coverage: this relates to coverage of the indicators over time and across countries.(Source:KnackandManning).
Asexplainedintheearliersection,undereachcomponentindicatorshavebeenidentified that would provide a measure of governance. These indicators, while pertaining to some aspectofgovernance,alsounderlieabasicprincipleofgoodgovernance. 3.10 TypesofIndicators Theindicatorframeworkconsistsoftwotypesofindicators: a. Qualitative indicators which provide a measure through peoples opinions and perceptions. b. Quantitative indicators which are based on numerical or statistical facts that are usedtomakesenseof,monitor,orevaluatesomephenomenon. Thedatasourcesfortheindicatorsarequitevaried.Theyconsistofthefollowing: 3.11 Primarysourceswhichincludesurveysamongcitizens,employees,businessfirms, civilsocietyandmedia. Secondarysourcessuchasofficialreports,governmentdocumentsetc.
Factorsdeterminingchoiceofindicators The primary factors that determined the choice of indicators under the different governancecomponentspertainedtothefollowing. a. Impact, Outcome, Output, Process and Input variables: The framework seeks to differentiatebetweenthedifferenttypesofvariables.Governanceisseenprimarilyasa `processand`actionratherthanasanoutputoroutcome.Forexample,governancein (service delivery in) education or health relates to their accessibility to the poor, the accountability of the teachers / doctors to the citizens/users and so on. Hence, the choiceofindicatorsprimarilyfocusesonprocessvariablesand,toalimitedextent,on outputs. b. Development versus Governance: Better quality of governance leads to better development outcomes. However, better development outcomes cannot always be a surrogate measure of good governance. This is because of two reasons 26
(a)developmentoutcomesaretheresultofahostoffactors,oneofwhichmaypertain toqualityofgovernanceand(b)development outcomesareusuallylongtermresults and its linkages with governance may not be of immediate nature. For example, a certainliteracyrateorinfantmortalityrateisanoutcomethatisnotonlyinfluencedby factorsoutsidetheambitofgovernancebutitisalsoaresultofaccumulatedactionsof thepast;whereas,whethertheteacherintheprimaryschoolisregularlyavailableisan indicator of quality of governance. Using development outcomes as surrogate measures for quality of governance would, therefore, make it difficult to isolate the governance factors that influencedevelopment and, in turn,affectthe actionabilityof the findings. However, in some cases, the framework has adopted development outcomesassurrogatemeasureskeepinginviewtheirimportance. c. ResultorientedIndicators:Thechoiceofindicatorsisalsoinfluencedbyhowthefindings from each can lead to desirable action on behalf of particular stakeholders. In that sense,theindicatorsareappropriatelyspecificratherthanbeingambiguousorgeneric. Each indicator is contextualized within a particular governance dimension & componentaswellasrelatingtoparticularstakeholder(s). d. PertainingtoGovernancePrinciples:Eachgovernanceindicatorcharacterizesoneormore basic governance principle mentioned earlier in the report (accountability, transparency, equity etc.). However, as explained, instead of adopting generic measures which other governance models often resort to (voice & accountability, governmenteffectivenessetc.),thisframeworklocatesthegovernanceprincipleswithin governancedimensionsandcomponents,therebymakingitspecificandactionable. e. Judiciousmixofsubjective(primarydata)andobjective(secondarydata)indicators:Asurvey of governance assessments shows that the governance data is either based on some objectivesourcesuchastherecordsofsomeofficeoronsubjectiveperceptionsofsome persons.Theperceptionscouldbegatheredfromasmallnumberofcountry,sectorand regionalexpertstogenerateratings(asdonebyEconomistIntelligenceUnit,Freedom House, etc.) or public surveys of citizens and other stakeholders or survey involving WellInformedPersons(aswasdonebyUNUinWorldGovernanceSurvey). Ideallybothobjectiveandsubjectiveindicatorsshouldcomplementeachother.Tobank uponeitheronetypeofdatawouldplacesevereconstraintsonexaminingallfacetsof governance.Forexample,thenumberofpolicestationsinthestatemaynotreflecton thelaw andordersituation, which couldbebestcaptured by peoples perception. At thesametime,qualityofpublicfinancialmanagementcanbeaptlymeasuredthrough secondarysourcesratherthanthroughpeoplessurvey.Aframeworkbasedentirelyon secondary data parameters without addressing the demand side factors affecting governance would likely end up as a `numbers game. On the other hand, an assessment based entirely on subjective perceptions could have serious limitations particularly on tackling supply side governance constraints. Thus, the indicator
27
framework recommends a combination of objective data from secondary sources and subjectivedatafrompeoplessurvey. At the same time, the framework does not suggest or advocate use of expert group assessmentsforgovernancemeasurements(asusedbytheWGI)notonlybecausethey have minimum statistical relevance, but they could also be highly biased. Subjective perceptions of people have value when they are scientifically collated through robust samplingmethodologies. 3.12 ProcessofIndicatorFrameworkDevelopment The indicator framework was developed through an elaborate process that included secondaryresearch,interactionswithvariousstakeholdersandfieldtesting.Theinitialset of indicators was developed in consultation with different stakeholders which included subjectexperts,governmentofficials,civilsocietyrepresentatives,etc.Thissetofindicators was tested in two States. After subsequent modifications and changes based on the findingsfromthetwoStates,therevisedindicatorframeworkwasagainfieldtestedinone State. Based on the findings from the States and after discussions with various stakeholders,theindicatorframeworkwasfinalized.Thefinalindicatorframeworkisgivenin Chapter4. Based on the findings from the field testing and based on feedback from various stakeholders,thefollowingactionwastakenontheindicatorframework. Table3.2Actionstakenontheinitialindicatorframework
Governancedimension IntheInitialFramework Components Political Legal/Judicial Administrative Economic Social&Environmental Total 5 5 5 3 4 21 IntheFinalFramework Indicators Components Indicators 46 53 88 39 45 271 4 4 4 3 3 18 22 24 42 18 17 123
28
Chapter 4 - Indicator Framework

A total of 123 indicators have been included in the framework. This includes 22 indicators on political dimension, 24 on the legaljudicial dimension,42ontheadministrativedimension,18ontheeconomicdimensionand17onthesocialenvironmentaldimension.Outofthe123 indicators,48indicatorspertaintosecondarydataand75indicatorspertaintoprimarydata.
GovernanceDimensions Political C O M P O N E N T S 1. ExerciseofFranchise 2. Profileandconductof politicalrepresentatives, politicalparties& politicalexecutive 3. Functioningof Legislature 4. PoliticalDecentralisation *12/10/(22) LegalandJudicial 1. Law&Orderand InternalSecurity 2. SafeguardingofBasic Rights Administrative 1. CitizenInterfaceand Engagement 2. ManagingHuman, Financialandother resources Economic 1. Fiscal Governance 2. Business Environment 3. Supporttothe PrimarySector Social/Environmental 1. Welfareofthepoor andvulnerable 2. RoleofCivilSociety &Media 3. Environmental Management 4/14/(18) 2/15/(17)
3. PoliceAdministration& 3. BasicServiceDelivery Citizenfriendliness 4. AccesstoJustice& JudicialAccountability 15/9/(24)
4. CorruptionPerception, Vigilance& Enforcement 15/27/(42) 48/75/(123)
NumberofSecondary/Primary/(Totalindicators) 29
Governance Dimension
Component 1. ExerciseofFranchise 2. Profileandconductofpoliticalrepresentatives, politicalpartiesandpoliticalexecutive
TypesofIndicators Primary Secondary Total 3 2 5 4 1 2 10 3 3 4 12 7 4 6 22
Political
3. FunctioningofLegislature 4. PoliticalDecentralisation Total
30
PoliticalDimension
Sl No 1.1 Component Sl No Indicators Description Typeof Dataand Source Secondary Likelyeffecton Measurement qualityof governance Positive Tobescoredonafivepoint scaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned Lessthan40% :1(20%) 41%to50% :2(40%) 51%to60% :3(60%) 61%to75% :4(80%) Morethan75% :5 (100%) Negative Tobescoredonafivepoint scaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned Morethan40% :1(20%) 31%to40% :2(40%) 21%to30% :3(60%) 11%to20% :4(80%) Lessthan10% :5 (100%) Respondentsprovide responseonaYesNoscale Yes:1
ExerciseofFranchise 1.
Votingpercentage inassembly electionsinthe State
Votingpercentagein assemblyelectionsinthe State
2.
Exclusionfrom voterslist
Proportionofeligible citizenswhocouldnot exercisetheirfranchise duetonamemissingin theelectorallistduring lastassemblyelections
Primary (Citizens Survey)
3.
Useofillegal meanstoinfluence voting
Proportionofhouseholds (HH)influencedthrough coercivemeasuresor inducementsduringthe
Negative
31
Sl No Component Sl No Indicators Description Typeof Dataand Source Likelyeffecton qualityof governance Measurement
lastassemblyelections
No:2 Proportionofrespondents whomention`Yestobe scoredonafivepointscale andcorrespondingpercentage tobeassigned Morethan40% :1(20%) 31%to40% :2(40%) 21%to30% :3(60%) 11%to20% :4(80%) Lessthan10% :5 (100%)
4.
Extentofpoll relatedviolence
Proportionofassembly constituenciesreporting anypollrelatedviolence duringlastassembly elections
Secondary
Negative
Tobescoredonafivepoint scaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned Morethan20% :1(20%) 16%to20% :2(40%) 11%to15% :3(60%) 6%to10% :4(80%) Lessthan5% :5 (100%) Respondentsprovide responseonafivepointscale
5.
Faithinthe Proportionofrespondents democraticprocess whobelievethattheway theyvotecouldimprove
Positive
32
theirfuturewelfare
Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwould betheproportionof respondentswhorate`4or`5 (agreeorstronglyagree)
1.2
Profile&Conductof Political Representatives, PoliticalParties& PoliticalExecutive
6.
Criminalizationof politics
%ofelected representatives(MLAs) withseriouscriminal charges(chargeshaving minimumconvictionof twoyears)
Secondary
Negative
Tobescoredonafivepoint scaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned Morethan15% :1(20%) 11%to15% :2(40%) 6%to10% :3(60%) 1%to5% :4(80%) 0% :5 (100%) Tobescoredonafivepoint scaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned 15%orless :1(20%) 16%to20% :2(40%)
7.
Women Empowerment
%ofwomenelected representativesinthe Statelegislature
Secondary
Positive
33
21%to25% 26%to33% Morethan33% (100%) 8. Accessibilityof elected representatives Proportionofrespondents whofeltthattheirMLAis easilyaccessibletothe generalpublic Primary (Citizens Survey) Positive
:3(60%) :4(80%) :5
Respondentsprovide responseonafivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwould betheproportionof respondentswhorate`4or`5 (agreeorstronglyagree) Respondentsprovide responseonafivepointscale Extremelyhigh :5 High :4 Neitherhigh norlow :3 Low :2
9.
Perceptionabout corruptionamong legislators
Proportionofrespondents whofeelcorruption amonglegislatorsinthe Stateishigh
Negative
34
Extremelylow
:1
Finalscoretobeusedwould bethe100%minusproportion ofrespondentswhorate`4or `5(highorextremelyhigh) 10. Concernabout welfareofpeople amongpolitical parties Proportionofrespondents whofeelthatpolitical partiesintheStateare concernedaboutthe welfareofpeople, especiallythepoor Primary (Citizens Survey) Positive Respondentsprovide responseonafivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Notagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwould betheproportionof respondentswhorate`4or`5 (EffectiveorVeryEffective) Yes:1(0%) No:2(100%) Respondentsprovide responseonafivepointscale
11. PoliticalStability
Wasthereanymidterm electioninthelastfive years? Proportionofrespondents whofeelthatthe leadershipprovidedby
Secondary
Negative
12. QualityofTop Leadershipand PoliticalExecutive
Positive
35
theChiefMinisterand thecouncilofministersis effective
Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwould betheproportionof respondentswhorate`4or`5 (agreeorstronglyagree)
1.3
Functioningof Legislature
13. Functioningofthe StateAssembly Timedevotedto legislativematters
%oftimedevotedto Legislativemattersbythe StateAssembly
Secondary
Negative
Tobescoredonafivepoint scaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned 30%orless :1(20%) 31%to40% :2(40%) 41%to50% :3(60%) 51%to60% :4(80%) Morethan60% :5 (100%) Tobescoredonafivepoint scaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned Morethan40% :1(20%) 31%to40% :2(40%)
14. Proportionofbills passedwithout anydiscussionin last5years
No.ofbillspassed withoutanydiscussion outoftotalno.ofbills passedinthelast5years
Secondary
Negative
36
21%to30% 11%to20% 10%orless (100%) 15. Functioningofthe Legislature CitizenPerception Proportionofrespondents whoratethefunctioning oftheStatelegislatureas goodorverygood Primary (Citizens Survey) Positive
:3(60%) :4(80%) :5
Respondentsprovide responseonafivepointscale VeryGood :5 Good :4 Fair :3 Poor :2 VeryPoor :1 Finalscoretobeusedwould betheproportionof respondentswhorate`4or `5(agreeorstronglyagree) Scoretoberecordedonafive pointscaleand correspondingpercentageto beassigned Onlyonereport :1(20%) 2reports :2(40%) 3reports :3(60%) 4reports :4(80%) 5reports :5
16. Reviewofaudit reportsbyPublic Accounts Committee
Out ofthelast5CAG reports,howmanyhave beenexaminedbythe PublicAccounts Committee?
Secondary
Positive
37
Sl No Component Sl No Indicators Description Typeof Dataand Source Secondary Likelyeffecton qualityof governance Positive Measurement
(100%) 1.4 Political Decentralisation 17. Voterturnoutin localelections (Municipal& Panchayat) Voterturnoutinthelast localelections(Municipal &Panchayat) Tobescoredonafivepoint scaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned Lessthan40% :1(20%) 41%to50% :2(40%) 51%to60% :3(60%) 61%to75% :4(80%) Morethan75% :5 (100%) Tobescoredonafivepoint scaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned ToPRIs 10orless :1(20%) 11to15 :2(40%) 16to20 :3(60%) 21to25 :4(80%) Morethan25 :5 (100%) ToULBs Lessthan4 5to8 9to12 13to15 :1(20%) :2(40%) :3(60%) :4(80%)
18. Devolutionof FunctionstoPRIs &ULBs
Proportionoffunctions transferredoutofthe mandated29functionsto PRIsandoutofthe mandated18functionsto ULBs(alongwithactivity mapping)
Secondary
Positive
38
Morethan15 (100%)
:5
19. Devolutionof FinancestoPRIs
Percentageof`untied fundsdevolvedtoPRIs
Secondary
Positive
Takethesimpleaverageof both(PRIsandULBs)asthe resultantscore Tobescoredonafivepoint scaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned Lessthan20% :1(20%) 21%to40% :2(40%) 41%to60% :3(60%) 61%to80% :4(80%) Morethan80% :5 (100%) Tobescoredonafivepoint scaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned 30%orless :1(20%) 31%to40% :2(40%) 41%to50% :3(60%) 51%to65% :4(80%) Morethan65% :5 (100%) Respondentsprovide
20. Financialstrength ofULBs
Ownrevenue(Tax+non tax)revenueasa proportionoftotal revenueforULBs
Secondary
Positive
21. Qualityof
Proportionofrespondents
Primary
Positive
39
Sl No Component Sl No Indicators Description Typeof Dataand Source (Citizens Survey) Likelyeffecton qualityof governance Measurement
Functioningof GramPanchayat/ BlockPanchayat/ ULBs
whosaythatthe functioningofGram Panchayat/Block Panchayatisgoodorvery good(rural) Proportionofrespondents whosaythatthe functioningofthe municipalityisgoodor verygood(urban) Proportionofrespondents (rural)whosaythatthe functioningofGram Sabhaisgoodorvery good Proportionofrespondents (urban)whosaythatthe functioningofWard Sabhaisgoodorvery good
responseonafivepointscale VeryGood :5 Good :4 Fair :3 Poor :2 VeryPoor :1 Finalscoretobeusedwould betheproportionof respondentswhorate`4or `5(agreeorstronglyagree) Positive Respondentsprovide responseonafivepointscale VeryGood :5 Good :4 Fair :3 Poor :2 VeryPoor :1 Finalscoretobeusedwould betheproportionof respondentswhorate`4or `5(agreeorstronglyagree)
22. Qualityof Functioningof GramSabha
40
LegalandJudicialDimensionofGovernance MappingintoComponent,SubComponentsandIndicators Governance Dimension Components 1. Law&OrderandInternal Security 2. SafeguardingofBasicRights Legal&Judicial 3. PoliceAdministrationand CitizenfriendlinessofthePolice 4. AccesstoJustice&Judicial Accountability Total 4 2 9 5 5 15 9 7 24 TypesofIndicators Primary Secondary Total 2 2 4
41
Legal&JudicialDimension
Sl. No. 1.1 Component Law&Orderand InternalSecurity Sl. No. 1. Indicators Description TypeofData Source Secondary Likelyeffect onqualityof governance Negative Measurement Normalisedscores(by population)tobeconvertedtoa scoreonafivepointscaleand correspondingpercentagetobe assigned Morethan1.25 :1(20%) 1.06to1.25 :2(40%) 0.95to1.05 :3(60%) 0.8to0.94 :4(80%) Lessthan0.8 :5(100%) Normalisedscores(by population)tobeconvertedtoa scoreonafivepointscaleand correspondingpercentagetobe assigned Morethan1.25 :1(20%) 1.06to1.25 :2(40%) 0.95to1.05 :3(60%) 0.8to0.94 :4(80%) Lessthan0.8 :5(100%) Respondentsprovideresponse onafivepointscale
Proportionofserious Seriouscrimes committedinState crimesinStateoutof inlastthreeyears totalnumberofserious crimesincountryinlast year (normalisedby population)
2.
Personskilledin incidentsof organisedviolence againsttheState suchasnaxal violence, insurgency, terrorismetc.
Proportionofpersons killedinincidentsof organisedviolencein Stateoutoftotalnumber killedincountryinthe previousyear (normalisedby population)
Secondary
Negative
3.
Police effectivenessin
Proportionof respondentswhobelieve
Primary (Citizens
Positive
42
Sl. No. Component Sl. No. Indicators enforcinglaw& order Description thepoliceiseffectivein enforcinglaw&order TypeofData Source Survey) Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree :1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(agreeor stronglyagree) Primary (Citizens Survey) Positive Respondentsprovideresponse onafivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree :1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(agreeor stronglyagree) Likelyeffect onqualityof governance Measurement
4.
Effectivenessof theStatein handlinggrave securitythreats
Proportionof respondentswhofeelthat theStateGovernmentis adequatelypreparedto prevent/handlegrave securitythreatslike extremism/militancy/ naxaliteviolence.
43
Sl. No. 1.2 Component Safeguardingof BasicRights Sl. No. 5. Indicators Description %ofrespondentswho believethattheirlifeand propertyaregenerally secure(acrossdifferent segments) TypeofData Source Primary (Citizens Survey) Likelyeffect onqualityof governance Positive Measurement Respondentsprovideresponse onafivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(agreeor stronglyagree) Normalisedscores(by population)tobeconvertedtoa scoreonafivepointscaleand correspondingpercentagetobe assigned Morethan1.25 :1(20%) 1.06to1.25 :2(40%) 0.95to1.05 :3(60%) 0.8to0.94 :4(80%) Lessthan0.8 :5(100%) Normalisedscores(by population)tobeconvertedtoa
SecurityofLife& Property
6.
Humanrights violations including custodialrapes anddeathsinlast threeyears
Proportionofhuman rightsviolationsinState outoftotalnumberof humanrightsviolations incountryinlastyear (normalisedby population)
Secondary
Negative
7.
Atrocities(crimes) againstwomen
Proportionofcrimes againstwomen&
Secondary
Negative
44
Sl. No. Component Sl. No. Indicators andchildren Description childreninState outof totalnumberofcrimes againstwomen& childrenincountryinlast year (normalisedby population) TypeofData Source Likelyeffect onqualityof governance Measurement scoreonafivepointscaleand correspondingpercentagetobe assigned Morethan1.25 :1(20%) 1.06to1.25 :2(40%) 0.95to1.05 :3(60%) 0.8to0.94 :4(80%) Lessthan0.8 :5(100%) Secondary Negative Normalisedscores(by population)tobeconvertedtoa scoreonafivepointscaleand correspondingpercentagetobe assigned Morethan1.25 :1(20%) 1.06to1.25 :2(40%) 0.95to1.05 :3(60%) 0.8to0.94 :4(80%) Lessthan0.8 :5(100%) Normalisedscores(to prescribednorms)tobe convertedtoascoreonafive pointscaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned Lessthan0.60 :1(20%)
8.
Atrocities(crimes) againstSC/STs
Proportionofcrimes againstSCs/STsinState outoftotalno.ofcrimes againstSCs/STsin countryinlastyear (normalisedby population)
1.3
Police Administration& citizenfriendliness
9.
Policepersonnelto No.ofpolicepersonnel populationratio per1,00,000population (comparedtoprescribed norms)
Secondary
Positive
45
Sl. No. Component Sl. No. Indicators Description TypeofData Source Likelyeffect onqualityof governance Measurement 0.60to0.79 0.80to0.89 0.90to0.99 1ormore 10. Policedeployment incorefunctions Proportionoftime(man days)spentbypolice forceoncorefunctions outoftotalavailable (mandays)inlastone month Secondary Positive :2(40%) :3(60%) :4(80%) :5(100%)
Basedonasamplesurveyof policestationsandpolice personnel(canalsobecollected throughdutyroster) Convertintopercentagebefore recordinginscalebelow Lessthan0.50 :1(20%) 0.51to0.60 :2(40%) 0.61to0.70 :3(60%) 0.71to0.80 :4(80%) Morethan0.80 :5(100%) PEBfunctional: 2(100%) PEBnotfunctional: 1(0%)
11. Transparencyin policetransfers, postings& promotions 12. Political interferencein police administration
PoliceEstablishment Board(PEB)constituted andfunctional Proportionofpolice personnelwhofeelthat thereisahigh/veryhigh degreeofpolitical interferenceinpolice administration
Secondary
Positive
Primary (Employees Survey)
Negative
Respondentsprovideresponse onafivepointscaleondegree ofpoliticalinterference VeryHigh :5 High :4
46
Sl. No. Component Sl. No. Indicators Description TypeofData Source Likelyeffect onqualityof governance Measurement Manageable :3 Low :2 Verylow :1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe the100%minusproportionof respondentswhorate`4or`5 (highorveryhigh) 13. Timelyfilingof chargesheets Proportionof chargesheetsfiledafter stipulatedtime(90days) Secondary (Sample Surveyof police stationsin case information notavailable) Secondary Negative Tobescoredonafivepoint scaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned Lessthan20% :1(20%) 21%to40% :2(40%) 41%to60% :3(60%) 61%to80% :4(80%) Morethan80% :5(100%) Tobescoredonafivepoint scaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned Lessthan10% :1(20%) 11%to20% :2(40%) 21%to30% :3(60%) 31%to40% :4(80%) Morethan40% :5(100%)
14. Convictionratefor Percentageofconvictions seriouscrimes securedincases involvingseriouscrimes inlastthreeyears
Positive
47
Sl. No. Component Sl. No. Indicators Description Proportionof respondentswhofeelthat thepoliceisresponsiveto theneedsofthecitizen TypeofData Source Primary (Citizens Survey) Likelyeffect onqualityof governance Positive Measurement Respondentsprovideresponse onafivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree :1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(agreeor stronglyagree) Respondentsprovideresponse onafivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree :1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(agreeor stronglyagree)
15. Police responsivenessto theneedsofthe citizen
16. Undueharassment Proportionof byPolice respondentswhofeelthat thepoliceunduly harassespeoplewhoseek theirhelp
Negative
48
Sl. No. Component Sl. No. Indicators Description Proportionof respondentswho mentionhavingpaid bribetopolicepersonnel inlastoneyear TypeofData Source Primary (Citizens Survey) Likelyeffect onqualityof governance Negative Measurement Respondentsprovideresponse onaYesNoscale Yes:1 No:2 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whomention`Yes Ratiotobescoredonafive pointscaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned Lessthan0.6 :1(20%) 0.6to0.74 :2(40%) 0.75to0.89 :3(60%) 0.90to0.99 :4(80%) 1ormore :5(100%) Normalisedscores(by population)tobeconvertedtoa scoreonafivepointscaleand correspondingpercentagetobe assigned Morethan1.25 :1(20%) 1.06to1.25 :2(40%) 0.95to1.05 :3(60%)
17. Incidenceof bribery
1.4
AccesstoJustice& Judicial Accountability
18. Averagenumber ofcasesdisposed perjudgein subordinatecourts
Ratioofaveragenumber ofcasesdisposedper judgeannuallyin subordinatecourtsand prescribednorm
Secondary
Positive
19. Casespendingin Subordinate Courts
Proportionofcases pendinginsubordinate courtsoutoftotalcases pendinginsubordinate courtinthecountry (normalisedby population)
Secondary
Negative
49
Sl. No. Component Sl. No. Indicators Description TypeofData Source Likelyeffect onqualityof governance Measurement 0.8to0.94 Lessthan0.8 20. Casesdisposed underSec.80CPC Proportionofcases disposedatthelevelof GovernmentwhenSec. 80CPCnoticearesentto theDepartmentbefore filingacourtcaseoutof totalcasesfiledagainst Governmentinlastone year Proportionof respondentswhohave high/veryhighdegreeof confidenceinthejudicial system Secondary Positive :4(80%) :5(100%)
Tobescoredonafivepoint scaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned Lessthan5% :1(20%) 6%to10% :2(40%) 11%to20% :3(60%) 21%to30% :4(80%) Morethan30% :5(100%) Respondentsprovideresponse onafivepointscale VeryHigh :5 High :4 Average :3 Low :2 VeryLow :1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(highorvery high) Respondentsprovideresponse onaYesNoscale
21. Confidenceinthe judicialsystem
Positive
22. Incidenceof briberyto influencejudicial
Proportionof respondentswhohave paidbribesinthelast3
Negative
50
Sl. No. Component Sl. No. Indicators process Description yearstoinfluencejudicial process. TypeofData Source Likelyeffect onqualityof governance Measurement Yes:1 No:2 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whomention`Yes Secondary Negative Averagescoretoberecorded onafivepointscaleand correspondingpercentagetobe assigned Morethan20% :1(20%) 10%to19% :2(40%) 5%to9% :3(60%) 2%to4% :4(80%) Lessthan2% :5(100%) TobeansweredonaYesNo scaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned Yes:1(100%) No:2(0%)
23. Complaints against subordinate judges
%ofsubordinatejudges againstwhomcomplaints havebeenfiled
24. Transparencyin judiciaryunder RTI
Whetherproactive disclosureunderSection 4(1)boftheRTIAct,2005 hasbeenmadebythe HighCourt
Secondary
Positive
51
AdministrativeDimensionofGovernance MappingintoComponent,SubComponentsandIndicators Governance Dimension Components 1. CitizenInterface 2. ManagingHuman,Financialand otherresources Administrative 3. BasicServiceDelivery 4. CorruptionPerception,Vigilance& Enforcement Total 5 16 2 27 9 1 4 15 14 17 6 42 TypesofIndicators Primary Secondary Total 4 1 5
52
AdministrativeDimension
Sl.No. Component Sl. No. Indicators Description TypeofData Source Likely effecton qualityof governance Positive Measurement
1.1 Citizen Interfaceand Engagement
1.
Responsivenessto theneedsofthe citizens
Proportionofrespondentswho saythatthegovernment functionariesareresponsiveto theneedsofthecitizens
Respondentsprovideresponseon afivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(agreeor stronglyagree) Respondentsratethequalityof grievanceredressalonafivepoint scale VeryGood :5 Good :4 Average :3 Poor :2 VeryPoor :1
2.
Qualityofgrievance Proportionofrespondentswho redressal/complaint saythatthequalityof grievanceredressal(complaint handling handling)bygovernment agenciesisgoodorverygood
Positive
53
Sl.No. Component Sl. No. Indicators Description TypeofData Source Likely effecton qualityof governance Measurement
Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(goodorvery good) 3. Awarenessofthe RTIAct Proportionofthepopulation awareoftheRTIAct Primary (Citizens Survey) Positive Respondentsprovideresponseon aYesNoscale Yes:1 No:2 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whomention`Yes Scoretoberecordedonafive pointscaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned Lessthan60% :1(20%) 60%to69% :2(40%) 70%to79% :3(60%) 80%to89% :4(80%) Morethan90% :5(100%) Respondentsprovideresponseon afivepointscale Stronglyagree :5
4.
Disposalofrequests forinformation underRTIAct
Proportionof RTIrequests whereinformationwas providedasperprovisionsof theAct
Secondary (If information isnot available,a sample surveyof departments maybedone) Primary (Citizens Survey)
Positive
5.
Citizenengagement ingovernance
Proportionofcitizenswhofeel theycaninfluencepolicyor programmesatthenational, Stateorlocallevel
Positive
54
Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(agreeor stronglyagree) 1.2 Managing Human, Financialand other resources 6. Managerialprofile ofgovernment ProportionofClassI&II employeesoutoftotalnumber ofgovernmentemployees Secondary Positive Scoretoberecordedonafive pointscaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned Lessthan10% :1(20%) 10%to19% :2(40%) 20%to29% :3(60%) 30%to39% :4(80%) 40%orMore :5(100%) Scoretoberecordedonafive pointscaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned Lessthan10% :1(20%) 10%to19% :2(40%) 20%to25% :3(60%)
7.
Proportionofwomenin Womenin GovernmentService governmentservice
Secondary
Positive
55
26%to33% Morethan33% 8. Regularityin recruitment No.oftimesrecruitmentswere donetoStateCivilServicesin lastfiveyearsbytheState PublicServiceCommission Secondary Positive
:4(80%) :5(100%)
Scoretoberecordedonafive pointscaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned Onceorless :1(20%) 2times :2(40%) 3times :3(60%) 4times :4(80%) 5timesormore :5(100%) Scoretobeusedwouldbethe actualproportionasreported. Lessthan20% :1(20%) 20%to39% :2(40%) 40%to69% :3(60%) 70%to89% :4(80%) Morethan90%:5(100%) Respondentsprovideresponseon afivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3
9.
TenuralSecurity
ProportionofDistrict CollectorsandSPswhohave completedatleasttwoyearsin onepostinthelast3years
10. Fairness& transparencyin transfers&postings
Proportionofrespondentswho saythattransfers/postingsare usuallymadethroughafair& transparentprocess
Secondary (Ifinfonot available,a sample surveymay be undertaken) Primary (Employees Survey)
Positive
Positive
56
Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(agreeor stronglyagree) 11. Qualityof performance appraisalprocess Proportionofrespondentswho ratetheperformanceappraisal systemasbeingfairand objective Primary (Employees Survey) Positive Respondentsprovideresponseon afivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(agreeor stronglyagree) Respondentsprovideresponseon afivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4
12. Motivationfor performingwell
Proportionofrespondentswho saythattheyaremotivatedfor performingwellontheirjobs
Primary (Employees Survey)
Positive
57
Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(agreeor stronglyagree) 13. Adequacyof knowledge&skills Proportionofemployeeswho saytheyarewellequippedto meettherequirements/ challengesoftheirjob Primary (Employees Survey) Positive Respondentsprovideresponseon afivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(agreeor stronglyagree) Scoretoberecordedonafive pointscaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned
14. Budgetutilisation forsocialand economicservices
Unspentgrant(Budget Actual)asproportionoftotal budgetonsocial&economic
Secondary
Negative
58
Sl.No. Component Sl. No. Indicators Description TypeofData Source Likely effecton qualityof governance Morethan10% 8%to10% 5%to7% 3%to4% 2%orLess 15. Extentof`March Rush Percentofexpenditure incurredinlastquarter(Janto March)tototalexpenditure Secondary Negative :1(20%) :2(40%) :3(60%) :4(80%) :5(100%) Measurement
services
Scoretoberecordedonafive pointscaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned Morethan60% :1(20%) 51%to60% :2(40%) 41%to50% :3(60%) 31%to40% :4(80%) 30%orless :5(100%) Scoretoberecordedonafive pointscaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned Morethan20% :1(20%) 16%to19% :2(40%) 11%to15% :3(60%) 6%to10% :4(80%) 5%orless :5(100%) Scoretoberecordedonafive pointscaleandcorresponding
16. Pendencyof AbstractContingent Bills
PercentvalueofAbstract Contingent(AC)Billspending settlementformorethan3 yearsoutoftotalpendingAC Bills
Secondary
Negative
17. PendencyofAudit observations
PercentofCAGsaudit observationspending
Secondary
Negative
59
complianceformorethan3 years
percentagetobeassigned Morethan50% :1(20%) 41%to50% :2(40%) 31%to40% :3(60%) 21%to30% :4(80%) 20%orless :5(100%) Positive Respondentsprovideresponseon afivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(agreeor stronglyagree) Ratingtobedoneonthefivepoint scaleonwhichstatesareclassified (givenbelow)andcorresponding percentagetobeassigned
18. Qualityoffinancial managementin government
Primary Proportionofrespondentswho saythatthequalityoffinancial (Employees Survey managementingovernmentin Management) good
19. UseofITin Governance
eReadinessIndex(NCAER)
Secondary
Positive
60
Leaders :5(100%) AspiringLeaders :4(80%) Expectant :3(60%) Average :2(40%) BelowAverage :1(20%) 1.3 BasicService Delivery %ofuserswhosaythatthe 20. Accessibilityofthe primary/communityhealth nearest primary/community centreiseasilyaccessible healthcentre Primary (Citizens Survey) Positive Respondentsprovideresponseon afivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(agreeor stronglyagree) Respondentsprovideresponseon aYesNoscale Yes:1 No:2 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe
21. Visitbycommunity healthworker (ANM)
%ofusers(women)reporting atleastonevisitbycommunity healthworker(ANM)totheir householdsduringthelast threemonths
Positive
61
theproportionofrespondents whomention`Yes 22. Qualityof healthcareservices providedbythe primary/community healthcentre %ofuserswhosaytheyare satisfiedorverysatisfiedwith thehealthcareservices providedbytheprimary/ communityhealthcentre Primary (Citizens Survey) Positive Respondentsprovideresponseon afivepointscale VerySatisfied :5 Satisfied :4 Neithersatisfied nordissatisfied:3 Dissatisfied :2 StronglyDissatisfied :1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(agreeor stronglyagree) Respondentsprovideresponseon afivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1
23. Accessibilityof nearbygovernment primaryschool
%ofusers(parents)whosay thattheprimaryschoolis easilyaccessible
Positive
62
Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(agreeor stronglyagree) 24. Availabilityof teacheratthe government primaryschool %ofusers(parents)whosay thattheteacherattheprimary schoolisusuallyavailable Primary (Citizens Survey) Positive Respondentsprovideresponseon afivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragreenordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(agreeor stronglyagree) Respondentsprovideresponseon afivepointscale VerySatisfied :5 Satisfied :4 Neithersatisfiednordissatisfied:3 Dissatisfied :2 StronglyDissatisfied :1
25. Qualityofmidday mealsatthe government primaryschool
%ofusers(parents)who mentiontheyaresatisfiedor verysatisfiedwiththequality ofmiddaymealsprovidedin primaryschools
Positive
63
Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(agreeor stronglyagree) 26. Qualityofteaching providedatthe government primaryschool %ofusers(parents)who mentiontheyaresatisfiedor verysatisfiedwiththequality ofteachingprovidedatthe primaryschool Primary (Citizens Survey) Positive Respondentsprovideresponseon afivepointscale VerySatisfied :5 Satisfied :4 Neithersatisfiednordissatisfied:3 Dissatisfied :2 StronglyDissatisfied :1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(agreeor stronglyagree) Ratingtobedoneonthefivepoint scalebasedonrankingoftheState andbyassigningcorresponding percentage RankamongallStates Top20percentile :5(100%) 2140percentile :4(80%) 4160percentile :3(60%)
27. Overall performancein education
EducationDevelopmentIndex compiledbyMHRDthrough NUEPA
Secondary
Positive
64
28. Accesstopiped drinkingwater
%ofHHhavingaccessto pipeddrinkingwater
Positive
6190percentile :2(40%) 91%andabove:1(20%) Respondentsprovideresponseon aYesNoscale Yes:1 No:2 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whomention`Yes Respondentsprovideresponseon aYesNoscale Yes:1 No:2 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whomention`Yes Respondentsprovideresponseon aYesNoscale Yes:1 No:2
29. Accesstobasic sanitationfacilities
%ofHHhavingaccessto public/individualsanitation facilities
Positive
30. Disposalofgarbage (Urban)
%ofHHmentioningthatthere isaneffectivegarbagedisposal systemintheirlocality
Positive
65
Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whomention`Yes 31. Existenceof drainagefacility (Urban) %ofHHmentioningthatthere isaneffectivedrainagesystem intheirlocality Primary (Citizens Survey) Positive Respondentsprovideresponseon aYesNoscale Yes:1 No:2 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whomention`Yes Respondentsprovideresponseon afivepointscale Always :5 Usually :4 Sometimes :3 Rarely :2 Never :1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(usuallyor always)
32. Gettingmonthly entitlementsoffood grainsthroughthe publicdistribution system(PDS)
%ofusersmentioningthat theyusuallyoralwaysgettheir monthlyentitlementoffood grainsatrationshops/fairprice shops
Positive
66
Sl.No. Component Sl. No. Indicators Description TypeofData Source Likely effecton qualityof governance Positive Measurement
33. AccesstoElectricity
%ofhouseholdshaving electricityconnection
Respondentsprovideresponseon aYesNoscale Yes:1 No:2 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whomention`Yes Respondentsprovideresponseon afivepointscale VerySatisfied :5 Satisfied :4 Neithersatisfiednordissatisfied:3 Dissatisfied :2 StronglyDissatisfied :1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(agreeor stronglyagree) Respondentsprovideresponseon afivepointscale VerySatisfied :5
34. Regularityof electricsupply
%ofhouseholdsreporting satisfactionontheregularityof electricsupply
Positive
35. Availabilityofroads a. connectivity (ruralareas) b. Conditionof
%ofpeople(urban) reportingsatisfactiononthe qualityofroadsintheirtown
Positive
67
roads(urban areas)
%ofpeople(rural)reporting satisfactiononthequalityof roadsconnectingtheirvillage tonearesttown
Satisfied :4 Neithersatisfiednordissatisfied:3 Dissatisfied :2 StronglyDissatisfied :1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(agreeor stronglyagree) Primary (Citizens Survey) Positive Respondentsprovideresponseon afivepointscale VerySatisfied :5 Satisfied :4 Neithersatisfied nordissatisfied:3 Dissatisfied :2 StronglyDissatisfied :1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbe theproportionofrespondents whorate`4or`5(agreeor stronglyagree) Respondentsprovideresponseona YesNoscale
36. Availabilityof transportfacilities
a.
%ofpeoplereporting satisfactiononthe availabilityof transportationfacilitiesfor localtravel(urban)
b. %ofpeoplereporting satisfactiononthe availabilityof transportationfacilitiesfor traveloutofvillage(rural)
1.4 Corruption
Perception, Vigilance&
37. Incidenceofbribery Proportionofrespondentswho mentiontheyhavepaidbribe involving governmentofficials togovernmentofficialsforany
Negative
68
Enforcement
servicereceivedinthelastone year
Yes:1 No:2 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe 100%minusproportionof respondentswhomention`Yes
38. Corruptiontrends
Proportionofrespondentswho mentionthatoverthelastthree yearscorruptionhasreduced
Positive
Respondentsprovideresponseona YesNoscale Yes:1 No:2 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswho mention`Yes Scoretobeusedwouldbethe100% minusactualproportionas reported Scoretoberecordedonafive pointscaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned Lessthan10% :1(20%) 10%to19% :2(40%) 20%to29% :3(60%)
39. EfficacyoftheState Vigilance Commission 40. Convictionrateof AntiCorruption Bureau
ProportionofcaseswhereState Governmentdidnotaccept recommendationsoftheState VigilanceCommission Proportionofcasesinwhich convictionwassecuredby AntiCorruptionBureau
Secondary
Negative
Secondary
Positive
69
30%to39% 40%ormore 41. Profileof prosecutionsby AntiCorruption Bureau Proportionofprosecutions pertainingtoAllIndiaService Officers&Headsof Departments(HoDs)outof totalnumberofprosecutions duringlast3years Secondary Positive
:4(80%) :5(100%)
Scoretoberecordedonafive pointscaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned Lessthan10% :1(20%) 10%to19% :2(40%) 20%to29% :3(60%) 30%to39% :4(80%) 40%ormore :5(100%) Scoretoberecordedonafive pointscaleandcorresponding percentagetobeassigned Lessthan20% :1(20%) 20%to39% :2(40%) 40%to59% :3(60%) 60%to79% :4(80%) 80%ormore :5(100%)
42. Disposalrateof departmental enquirieson corruption
Averagedisposalrate(%)of departmentalenquirieson corruptionpertainingtoClassI officersduringthelastthree years(Totalcasesinitiatedin lastthreeyearsminustotal casesdisposed)
Secondary (If information isnot available,a sample surveyof departments maybedone)
Positive
70
EconomicDimensionofGovernance MappingintoComponent,SubComponentsandIndicators Governance Dimensions Component FiscalGovernance 8 BusinessEnvironment Economic SupporttothePrimarySector Total 5 14 0 4 5 18 0 8 Typesofindicators Primary Secondary Total 1 4
71
EconomicDimension
Sl. Component No . 1.1 Fiscal Governance Sl. No . 1. Indicators Description TypeofData Source Secondary Likelyeffect onqualityof governance Positive Measurement
FiscalDependency
Owntaxrevenueasa proportionofGSDP
Scoretoberecordedonafivepoint scaleandcorrespondingpercentage tobeassigned Lessthan5% :1(20%) 5%to7.5% :2(40%) 7.6%to10% :3(60%) 10%to12.5% :4(80%) Morethan12.5% :5(100%) Scoretoberecordedonafivepoint scaleandcorrespondingpercentage tobeassigned Lessthan10% :1(20%) 10%to12.5% :2(40%) 12.6%to15% :3(60%) 15%to17.5% :4(80%) Morethan17.5% :5(100%) Scoretoberecordedonafivepoint scaleandcorrespondingpercentage tobeassigned Morethan46% :1(20%) 36%to45% :2(40%)
2.
Development Expenditure
Developmentexpenditureas proportionofGSDP
Secondary
Positive
3.
Expenditureon WagesandSalaries
Wages&salariesasa proportionoftotalrevenue expenditure
Secondary
Negative
72
Sl. No . Component Sl. No . Indicators Description TypeofData Source Likelyeffect onqualityof governance Measurement
26%to35% 16%to25% Lessthan15% 4. DebtLiability DebtasaproportionofGSDP Secondary Negative
:3(60%) :4(80%) :5(100%)
Scoretoberecordedonafivepoint scaleandcorrespondingpercentage tobeassigned Morethan50% :1(20%) 41%to50% :2(40%) 31%to40% :3(60%) 21%to30% :4(80%) Lessthan20% :5(100%) Respondentsprovideresponseona fivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswhorate `4or`5(agreeorstronglyagree) Respondentsratetheinvestment climateonafivepointscale
5.
Qualityoffiscal governance
Proportionofrespondents whobelievethatthe governmenthasmanagedthe financesoftheStateina propermanner
Positive
1.2
Business Environment
6.
Investmentclimate
Proportionofrespondents whoratetheinvestment
Primary (Business
Positive
73
Sl. No . Component Sl. No . Indicators Description TypeofData Source Survey) Excellent Good Fair Poor VeryPoor :5 :4 :3 :2 :1 Likelyeffect onqualityof governance Measurement
climateinthe State asgoodor excellent
Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswhorate `4or`5(agreeorstronglyagree) 7. Singlewindow facilityforinvestors Proportionofrespondents whoratethequalityof functioningofthesingle windowfacilityasgoodor verygood Primary (Business Survey) Positive Respondentsratethesinglewindow facilityonafivepointscale VeryGood :5 Good :4 Fair :3 Poor :2 VeryPoor :1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswhorate `4or`5(agreeorstronglyagree) Statenothavingsinglewindow facilitygetzero(nomarks) 8. Easeofregisteringa business Proportionofrespondents whosayitiseasytoregistera businessintheState Primary (Business Survey) Positive Respondentsprovideresponseona fivepointscale
74
Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswhorate `4or`5(agreeorstronglyagree) 9. Availabilityof skilledlabour Proportionofrespondents whosaythereisadequate availabilityofskilledlabour Primary (Business Survey) Positive Respondentsprovideresponseona fivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswhorate `4or`5(agreeorstronglyagree) Respondentsprovideresponseona fivepointscale Stronglyagree :5
10. Accesstocredit
Proportionofrespondents whosayitiseasytoaccess creditintheState
Primary (Business Survey)
Positive
75
Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswhorate `4or`5(agreeorstronglyagree) 11. Qualityofphysical infrastructure Proportionofrespondents whosaythequalityof physicalinfrastructure provided(suchaselectricity, water,transport, communicationetc.)isgood Primary (Business Survey) Positive Respondentsprovideresponseona fivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswhorate `4or`5(agreeorstronglyagree) Respondentsprovideresponseona fivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4
12. Qualityof Procurementprocess forbusiness contracts
Proportionofrespondents whosaytheprocessof procurementforbusiness contractsisfairand transparent
Primary (Business Survey)
Positive
76
Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswhorate `4or`5(agreeorstronglyagree) 13. Incidenceofbribery forbusiness purposes Proportionofrespondents whosaytheyhadtopay bribestogovernmentofficials forbusinesspurposesinthe lastoneyear Primary (Business Survey) Negative Respondentsprovideresponseona YesNoscale Yes:1 No:2 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe 100%minusproportionof respondentswhomention`Yes Scoretoberecordedonafivepoint scaleandcorrespondingpercentage tobeassigned Morethan60% :1(20%) 51%to60% :2(40%) 41%to50% :3(60%) 31%to40% :4(80%) Lessthan30% :5(100%) Respondentsratethequalityof
1.3
Supporttothe Primarysector
14. Ruralindebtedness
Proportionofsmall& marginalfarmerhouseholds (owningupto2hectares) whoareindebted
Primary (Citizens Survey Farmers)
Negative
15. Qualityofextension
Proportionofrespondents
Primary
Positive
77
Sl. No . Component Sl. No . Indicators Description TypeofData Source (Citizens Survey Farmers) Likelyeffect onqualityof governance Measurement
andmarketing services
whosaythequalityof marketing&extension servicesprovidedby governmentisgoodorvery good
extensionservicesonafivepoint scale VeryGood :5 Good :4 Fair :3 Poor :2 VeryPoor :1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswhorate `4or`5(goodorverygood) Positive Respondentsratethequalityof agriculturalinputsonafivepoint scale VeryGood :5 Good :4 Fair :3 Poor :2 VeryPoor :1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswhorate `4or`5(goodorverygood) Respondentsratethequalityof irrigationfacilitiesonafivepoint
16. Qualityof agriculturalinputs
Proportionofrespondents whosaythequalityof agriculturalinputsprovided bythegovernmentisgoodor verygood
17. Qualityofirrigation facilities/water
Proportionofrespondents whosaythequalityof
Primary (Citizens
Positive
78
Sl. No . Component Sl. No . Indicators Description TypeofData Source Survey Farmers) Likelyeffect onqualityof governance Measurement
availabilityfor farming
irrigationfacilities provided bythegovernmentisgoodor verygood
scale VeryGood :5 Good :4 Fair :3 Poor :2 VeryPoor :1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswhorate `4or`5(goodorverygood) Positive Respondentsratethequalityof creditfacilityonafivepointscale VeryGood :5 Good :4 Fair :3 Poor :2 VeryPoor :1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswhorate `4or`5(goodorverygood)
18. Qualityofcredit facility
Proportionofrespondents whosaythequalityofcredit facilityextendedbythe governmentinstitutionsand banksisgoodorverygood
79
SocialDimensionofGovernance MappingintoComponent,SubComponentsandIndicators Governance Dimension TypesofIndicators Components Primary 1. WelfareofthePoor&Vulnerable 2. RoleofCivilSocietyandMedia Social 3. EnvironmentalManagement Total 1 15 1 2 2 17 6 8 Secondary 1 0 Total 7 8
80
SocialDimension
Sl. No. Component Sl. No. 1. Indicators Description Typeof DataSource Primary (Citizens Survey BPL) Likelyeffect onqualityof governance Positive Measurement
1.1 Welfareofthe Poor& Vulnerable sections
Addressingthe needsofthepoor
Proportionofrespondents (BPL)whofeltthatthe governmenthasadequately addressedtheneedsofthe poor
Respondentsprovideresponseona fivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswhorate `4or`5(agreeorstronglyagree) Scoretoberecordedonafivepoint scaleandcorrespondingpercentage tobeassigned Morethan40%% :1(20%) 31%to40% :2(40%) 21%to30% :3(60%) 11%to20% :4(80%) 10%orless :5(100%) Respondentsprovideresponseona YesNoscale(Tobeverified
2.
NutritionStatus
Underweightratesamong 03yearoldchildren
Secondary
Negative
3.
BPLhouseholds owningBPLcards
Proportionofrespondents (BPL)whoownBPLcards
Primary (Citizens
Positive
81
Sl. No. Component Sl. No. Indicators Description Typeof DataSource Survey BPL) Likelyeffect onqualityof governance Measurement
forPDS entitlements
forsubsidisedfood grains throughrationshops
physically) Yes:1 No:2 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswho mention`Yes Positive Respondentsprovideresponseona YesNoscale(Tobeverified physically) Yes:1 No:2 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswho mention`Yes Respondentsprovideresponseona fivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1
4.
Oldage&widow pensionsbenefits
%oftargetBPLbeneficiaries gettingoldage&widow pensionsbenefits
Primary (Citizens Survey BPL)
5.
Addressingthe welfareneedsof women&children
Proportionofrespondents whofeltthatthegovernment hasadequatelyaddressedthe welfareneedsofwomen& children
Primary (Citizens Survey Women)
Positive
82
Sl. No. Component Sl. No. Indicators Description Typeof DataSource Likelyeffect onqualityof governance Measurement
Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswhorate `4or`5(agreeorstronglyagree) 6. Freedomtopractice Proportionofrespondents onesreligion whosaytheyhavethe freedomtopracticetheir religion Primary (Citizens Survey) Positive Respondentsprovideresponseona fivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswhorate `4or`5(agreeorstronglyagree) Respondentsprovideresponseona fivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1
7.
AbsenceofSocial Discrimination
Proportionofrespondents whosaytheydonotface discriminationinsociallife duetotheirreligious,social orculturalidentity
Positive
83
Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswhorate `4or`5(agreeorstronglyagree) 1.2 RoleofCivil Society& Media 8. CivilSociety involvementin policyformulation %ofCSOs/NGOswhoreport thatthegovernmentmakes consistentefforttoinvolve NGOsinpolicyformulation Primary (NGO Survey) Positive Respondentsprovideresponseona fivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswhorate `4or`5(agreeorstronglyagree) Respondentsprovideresponseona fivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragree nordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe
9.
CSOs/NGOs involvementin programme implementationor monitoring& evaluationof programmes
%ofCSOs/NGOswhoreport thatthegovernmentmakes consistentefforttoinvolve NGOsinprogramme implementationor monitoring&evaluationof programmes
Primary (NGO Survey)
Positive
84
proportionofrespondentswhorate `4or`5(agreeorstronglyagree) 10. Political/ Bureaucratic interferenceinthe functioningof CSOs/NGOsby elected representatives ProportionofCSOs/NGOs whofeelthereislessorvery lesspolitical/bureaucratic interferenceinthe functioningofNGOs Primary (NGO Survey) Negative Respondentsprovideresponseona fivepointscale VeryHigh :5 High :4 Average :3 Less :2 VeryLess :1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswhorate `1or`2(loworverylow) Respondentsprovideresponseona YesNoscale Yes:1 No:2 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe 100%minusproportionof respondentswhomention`Yes Respondentsprovideresponseona fivepointscale Stronglyagree :5
11. Incidenceofbribes paidby CSOs/NGOs
%ofCSOs/NGOsreported givingbribestopoliticians/ administratorsinlastone year
Primary (NGO Survey)
Negative
12. Independent functioningof media
Proportionofrespondents whofeelthatthegovernment allowsthemediatofunction independently
Primary (Media Survey)
Positive
85
Agree :4 Neitheragreenordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswhorate `4or`5(agreeorstronglyagree) 13. Political/ bureaucratic interferenceinthe functioningofthe media Proportionofrespondents whofeelthereislessorvery lesspolitical/bureaucratic interferenceinthe functioningofthemedia Primary (Media Survey) Negative Respondentsprovideresponseona fivepointscale VeryHigh :5 High :4 Average :3 Less :2 VeryLess :1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswhorate `1or`2(loworverylow) Respondentsprovideresponseona fivepointscale VeryHigh :5 High :4 Average :3 Less :2
14. Extentoffreedom frombusiness interests
Proportionofmedia respondentswhofeelthatthe influenceofbusiness interestsonthemediaisless orveryless
Primary (Media Survey)
Positive
86
VeryLess
:1
Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswhorate `1or`2(loworverylow) 15. RoleofMediaas watchdog Proportionofrespondents whofeelthatthemediaplays itsroleaswatchdogina responsibleandaccountable manner Primary (Citizens Survey) Positive Respondentsprovideresponseona fivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4 Neitheragreenordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswhorate `4or`5(agreeorstronglyagree) Scoretobeusedwouldbethe environmentalgovernancescore reportedfortheState
1.3 Environmental 16. Environmental Management Governance
17. Government effectivenessinthe protectionofthe environment
EnvironmentalGovernance Score(Source:Environmental SustainabilityIndexforIndia States) Proportionofrespondents whosaythatthegovernment hastakenmanymeasuresfor theprotectionofthe environment
Secondary
Positive
Positive
Respondentsprovideresponseona fivepointscale Stronglyagree :5 Agree :4
87
Neitheragreenordisagree :3 Disagree :2 Stronglydisagree:1 Finalscoretobeusedwouldbethe proportionofrespondentswhorate `4or`5(agreeorstronglyagree)
88
Conclusion
Economic growth is about increasing the size of the pie, while equity ensures that everybody has a piece of it. The quality of governance can affect both these outcomes, positively or adversely. For governance to result in positive development outcomes, it is necessary to understand how it works in different spheres political, legaljudicial, administrative,economicandsocialenvironmental.Hencetheneedtomeasureit. There has been an explosive growth in governance assessments. A host of organizations routinely rank countries on various governance parameters based on a given set of indicators. The methodology followed for assessing governance varies from subjective perceptionsofexpertsontheoneextremetoharddataontheother.Thelimitationsofnot onlytheindicatorsthemselvesbutalsothemethodologiesarewellrecognized. It is a challenge to come up with a new framework for assessing governance given the complexityandcontroversyinvolvingthesubject.Theframeworksuggestedinthisreport triestoprovideasoundconceptualbasisfordeconstructinggovernanceandtheindicators to measure it based on international and our own experience. It adopts a rights based approachenshrinedinIndiasConstitutionandisavowedlyfromtheperspectiveofpoor andweakersectionsofsociety. Duetolimitationsoftheprojectdesign,samplesizehadtobesmall.However,whenthisis undertakenbyaState,thesamplesizescanbesufficientlylargetoprovideamoregranular pictureofgovernanceasseenbypoor,weakersectionsorminorities.Thereareproblems in gathering secondary data, especially those that are considered sensitive. It must be recognized that there will initially be problems with data as there may be no system of recording some data presently. However, with time State organizations would find incentivesorbeforcedtokeepsuchdata.Iftheassessmenthighlightstheabsenceofdata insomecriticalareas,thatitselfwouldoneofitssignificantoutcomes. It is hoped that State Governments come forward to adopt and use the framework, not with a view to make political capital of it but to understand weaknesses and constraints thatunderminethequalityofgovernanceinaparticularsphere.Whiledoingso,theState Governmentmustaccordhighestimportancetotransparencyandfairnessinthedesignof the study, in data collection & analysis and in reporting. The use of competent, independentandwellreputedagenciesissuggested.Ultimately,theuseofthisframework willbethefirsttestofqualityofgovernanceintheState.
89
Annexure:AssessinggovernanceInternationalDiscourseandPractice Governanceassessmentinvolvesinamajorityofcasesmeasuringagivenconcept(slice)of governance.Forexample,InternationalCountryRiskGuide(ICRG)measurescorruption, law and order and bureaucratic quality; Business Environmental Risk Intelligence (BERI) measures bureaucratic delays, contract enforceability and policy stability; Heritage Foundation assesses property rights, black market and regulation; World Development Report evaluates policy unpredictability, quality of government services, corruption and red tape; Freedom House measures political freedoms and civil liberties. There are very fewcaseswhichmeasuregovernancealongallitsdimensions.Themostfamousamongthe governance assessmentataggregatelevelistheWorldBank InstitutesKaufmann, Kraay andZoidoLobaton(popularlyreferredtoasKKZ)whichusestheindividualgovernance indicator scores generated by different organizations and statistically aggregates them. There are other attempts at measuring governance comprehensively which are discussed below.
InternationalCountryRiskGuide: Started in 1980, it is one of the most important governance indicators for international investors. ICRG rankingisdesignedtoassessfinancial,economicandpoliticalrisksincountries,andtocomparethembetween countries [in order to] to meet the needs of clients for an analysis of the potential risks to international business operations. While financial and economic risk indicators are based entirely on objective measurement(e.g.ratiosofforeigndebttoGDP,currentaccountbalancetoexports),thepoliticalrisksare basedinexpertssubjectiveinterpretationofprespecifiedriskcomponentssuchasgovernmentsapparent abilitytostayinoffice,politicalviolenceandconflict,etc.Itprovidesratingsfor140countriesonamonthly basisandoffersoneyearandfiveyearassessmentswithprojectionsframedinbestcaseandworstcase scenarios. FreedomHouse Freedom House provides annual ratings of political rights and civil liberties in 192 countries which are widely used by journalists, academics and analysts. The ratings are based on experts answers to a set of questions. The political rights checklist comprises ten questions divided into three categories: the electoral process; political pluralism; and participation. The checklist on civil liberties comprises 15 questions in four categories:thefreedomofexpressionandbelief;peoplesrightstoassociateandorganize;theruleoflaw;andpersonal autonomyandindividualrights. TransparencyInternational Thebestknowngovernanceindicatorofall,TIsCorruptionPerceptionIndicator(CPI)availablesince1995 isusedbyinvestors,donors,analystsandacademics.TheCPIisbasedonsurveysofperceptionofresidents, nonresident business people and expert assessments. The 2005 CPI ranked 159 countries based on the results if 16 surveys and expert assessments undertaken by 10 different organizations between 2003 and 2005.
90
TheWorldBank The World Bank produces Country Policy and Institutions Assessments (CPIAs). The CPIAs comprise 16 criteriaadividedintofourclusters: Cluster EconomicManagement: StructuralPolicies: Socialinclusionandequity: Publicsectormanagement andInstitutions: Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Macroeconomicmanagement Fiscalpolicy Debtpolicy Tradepolicies, Financialsectorpolicies Businessregulatoryenvironment Genderequality Equityofpublicresourceuse Buildinghumanresource Socialprotectionandlabour Policiesandinstitutionsforenvironmentalsustainability Propertyrightsandrulebasedgovernance, Qualityofbudgetaryandfinancialmanagement Efficiencyofrevenuemobilization, Qualityofpublicadministration Transparencyaccountabilitycorruptioninthepublicsector
TheratingsaregivenbytheWorldBankscountryteamonscaleof1to6oneachofthecriteriawitheach clusterhavingsameweight(thoughthecriteriahavedifferentweights). WorldGovernanceIndicators(WGI)WorldBankInstitute ThemostwellknowninitiativeisbytheWorldBankInstitutewhichmeasuresgovernancebyaggregating datafromdiversesecondarysourcesfrommorethan160countriesaroundsixaspectsofgovernance: 1. Voiceandaccountability,theextenttowhichacountryscitizensareabletoparticipateinselectingtheir government,aswellasfreedomofexpression,freedomofassociation,andafreemedia 2. Political stability and absence of violence, perceptions of the likelihood that the government will be destabilized or overthrown by unconstitutional or violent means, including domestic violence and terrorism 3. Governmenteffectiveness,thequalityofpublicservices,thequalityofthecivilserviceandthedegreeofits independence from political pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibilityofthegovernmentscommitmenttosuchpolicies 4. Regulatory quality, the ability of the government to formulate and implement sound policies and regulationsthatpermitandpromoteprivatesectordevelopment 5. Rule of law, the extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, the police, and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crimeandviolence 6. Controlofcorruption,theextenttowhichpublicpowerisexercisedforprivategain,includingbothpetty andgrandformsofcorruption,aswellascaptureofthestatebyelitesandprivateinterests
91
Themodelalsousesadifferentsetofattributes(hypotheticaldeterminantsofgovernance)foraggregation using the methodology of unobserved components such as transparency, quality of rules, enforcement, meritocracy,politicization,wagesatisfaction,voice,mission,serviceperformance,serviceaccess,resources and audit. The WGI indicators are composite indicators in the sense that they are constructed from hundredsofexistingperceptionindicatorsderivedfrom37differentdatasourcesproducedby31different organizations. UnitedNationsUniversityWorldGovernanceSurvey Most governance assessments are based on subjective (perceptions) impressions of governance by a small number of country, sector, and regional experts (e.g. Freedom House, Economist Intelligence Unit, etc.) Someothersundertakecrosscountrysurveysofcitizens(GallupInternationalandWorldEconomicForum). While expert opinions are prone to be biased by ideological agenda of the rating organization, public surveys of citizens have the disadvantage of a) being highly context specific which make cross country comparisonsdifficultandb)citizensingeneralmaynotbeabletogivecredibleanswersforlackofindepth knowledgeorunderstandingofspecificgovernanceissues.TheWGSusesacrosssectionoflocalexpertsor WellInformedPersons(WIPs)inthecountry. WGSdisaggregatesthepoliticalprocess(governance)intothefollowingsixstagesorarenas: CivilSociety,wherecitizensbecomeawareofandmayraiseissuesfortheattentionofpoliticalauthorities; PoliticalSociety,whereissuesareaggregatedbypoliticalpartiesandlegislatures; Government,wherestewardshipofthesystemasawholetendstolie; Bureaucracy,wherepoliciesarepreparedandimplemented; EconomicSociety,whererelationsbetweenstateandthemarketaredetermined; Judiciary,wheredisputesaresettled. These are treated as functional categories that can be found in any political system. Drawing on the governance literature and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the following six principles that are closesttouniversalvalueshavebeenidentified: Participation Fairness Decency Accountability Transparency Efficiency The last three principles refer specifically to how the officials behave in public office and the first three principlestothewaytheyinteractwithcitizens. InternationalInstituteofDemocracyandElectoralAssistance(IDEA)Framework TheIDEAstateofDemocracyframeworkisfoundedontwofundamentaldemocraticprinciplesviz. a)popularcontroloverpublicdecisionmakinganddecisionmakers, b)equalityofrespectandvoicebetweencitizensintheexerciseofthatcontrol Thesetwoprinciplesarethenexpressedthroughthefollowingsevenmediatingvalues: i)participation;
92
ii)authorisation; iii)representation; iv)accountability; v)transparency; vi)responsiveness; vii)solidarity Theachievementofthesemediatingvaluesinturnreliesonaseriesofrequirementsandinstitutionalmeans withwhichtorealisethem.Thecombinationofprinciplesandvaluesyieldsfourmainpillarsofassessment eachwithadditionalsubcategoriesofanalysis,whichareusedtoorienttheentireassessmentproject. MainPillarsofDemocracyAssessment MainPillars Citizenship,Law,andRights Representativeand AccountableGovernment CivilSocietyandPopularParticipation DemocracyBeyondtheState FijisGovernanceIndex Theappropriatenessandeffectivenessofacountrysinstitutionsanditsgovernanceoutcomescanbeargued to be reflected in various ways including political participation, voter awareness, transparency in government accounts, media attention, and corruption. Given that governance outcomes are wide and varied, such governance dimensions have been chosen that largely reflect the definitions of governance as proposed by Kaufmann et al (2003), Kaufmann et al (1999), Neumayer (2002) and Polidano (2000). Using thesedefinitionsasaguide,fourcoregovernancedimensionswereformulated:theruleoflaw,government effectiveness, regulatory quality, and social development. The dimensions of governance were expanded to includeaspectsofsocietalwelfareadimensionthathasnotbeencapturedbypreviousstudiesdeveloping measures of governance. Each of the four dimensions of governance has subdimensions; and indicator variablesthatarebelievedtodirectlyorindirectlycaptureorreflectthesesubdimensionsofgovernanceare usedintheirmeasurement.Thegovernanceindexdevelopedismostlybasedonharddataandsothechoice of core dimensions, subdimensions and variables is dictated largely by the regular availability of data. It wasfeltthatwhileargumentsmaybemadeforotherindicatorsofgovernance,theywouldbeofnouseif appropriatedatawereunavailable.
SubCategories Nationhoodandcitizenship Theruleoflawandaccesstojustice Civilandpoliticalrights Economicandsocialrights Freeandfairelections Democraticroleofpoliticalparties Governmenteffectivenessandaccountability Civiliancontrolofthemilitaryandpolice Minimizingcorruption Mediainademocraticsociety Politicalparticipation Governmentresponsiveness Decentralization Internationaldimensionsofdemocracy
93
Four core dimensions were chosen but this set is arbitrary. As previously mentioned, the choice of dimensions was largely dictated by the availability of hard data. (Azmat Gani and Ron Duncan, Fijis GovernanceIndex) DemocraticGovernanceIndicatorsExperienceofMongolia AsimilarexerciseinMongolia(2006)donewiththeassistanceofUNDPandInternationalIDEAmeasured governancethroughqualitativeandqualitativeapproachesincludedthefollowingaspects: PerceptionandEvaluationofDemocracy Citizenship,Law,andRights RepresentativeandAccountableGovernment CivilSocietyandPopularParticipation DemocracybeyondtheState SocialEconomicBackgroundVariables
USAID(1998)seekstomeasuregovernancealongthefollowingdimensions: Ruleoflaw; ElectionsandPoliticalProcesses; CivilSociety;and Transparency&Accountability
(Source:DimensionsofGovernanceCoveredbyUNDPGovernanceIndicatorsUsersGuide)
Briefcritiqueofexistingmodelsofgovernanceassessment From the various frameworks used for measuring governance detailed above, it is observedthat a. alltheframeworksdeconstructthegovernanceconceptintosmallerelementswhichare calledbydifferentnamesviz.clusters,aspects,arenas,stages,pillars,dimensions,etc. b. Thenumberofthebrokendownelementsvaryfromfourtoseven. c. Broadly,thedimensionsofgovernanceareseentobe: Government effectiveness public sector management and institutions, public administration,bureaucracy,controlofcorruption,etc. Political governance Voice and accountability, political stability, representative andaccountablegovernment,electionsandpoliticalprocesses,etc. Socialgovernancesocialinclusion,civilsocietyandpopularparticipation,social development,socialprotection,etc. Legal and Judicial governance Rule of law, regulatory quality, justice or judiciary,etc. EconomicgovernanceEconomicmanagement
d. Themethodofassessmentvariesfromcasetocase,butislargelybasedonsubjective assessment. If it is done by country team in case of World Bank, it is done through a 94
cross section of experts and well informed persons in case of WGS. On one extreme Bangladeshgovernanceassessmentisbasedonstudiesbyresearchscholarsandonthe extremethecompleteassessmentisbasedonharddataincaseofFijisindex.
Framework Governance Their Elementsare Number referredas Clusters Four Particulars Assessment
WorldBank CountryPolicy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) WorldBank Institute (WGI)
Aspects
Six
UnitedNations University World Government Survey International IDEA Framework
Stages Arenas
or Six
Pillars
Four
Fijis Governance Index
Dimensions
Four
USAID
Dimension
Four
a. EconomicManagement b. StructuralPolicies c. Socialinclusionand equity d. Publicsector managementand institutions a. Voiceand Accountability b. PoliticalStabilityand absenceofviolence c. Government effectiveness d. Regulatoryquality e. Ruleoflaw f. Controlofcorruption a. CivilSociety b. PoliticalSociety c. Government d. Bureaucracy e. EconomicSociety f. Judiciary a. Citizenship,lawand rights b. Representativeand accountable government c. CivilSocietyand PopularParticipation d. DemocracyBeyondthe state a. RuleofLaw b. Government effectiveness c. Regulatoryquality d. Socialdevelopment a. RuleofLaw b. ElectionsandPolitical Processes c. CivilSociety d. Transparencyand Accountability
ByWBcountryteamona scaleof16
Constructedfromexisting perceptionindicators derivedfrom37different datasourcesproducedby 31differentorganizations
Byacrosssectionoflocal expertsorwellinformed persons(WIPs)
SecondaryData
95
Framework Governance Their Elementsare Number referredas Dimension Seven Particulars Assessment
Stateof Governancein Bangladesh 2006
a. PoliticalGovernance b. Macroeconomic Governance c. PublicAdministration d. Justice e. Localgovernance f. CivilSociety g. SocialProtection
ByResearchScholars
Althoughthegovernanceassessmentmodelsdiscussedaboveprovideareasonablygood framework,theyhavecertainlimitations. i. Most governance models do not provide a clear differentiation between governance dimensions and governance characteristics / principles i.e. they fail to differentiate between whatgovernanceiscomposedofand whatitshouldbecharacterizedby. In otherwords,nodistinctionismadebetweenperformanceindictorsthatrefertoquality of governance in terms of a normative outcome (e.g. level of literacy) and process indicators that refer to quality of governance in terms of how the outcomes are achieved (e.g. whether the process of recruitment ensured equity and transparency). Moreover, some of them (e.g. USAID) includes what are governance principles (transparencyandaccountability)asadimensionofgovernance. Toillustrate,`conductofelectionsisacriticalcomponentofpoliticalgovernancebutit shouldbecharacterisedby`fairness,`participationand`ruleoflaw.Inotherwords, the mere conduct of elections does not necessarily indicate good governance if they have been conducted without fairness and transparency. As observed by Eva Poluha and Mona Rosendahl (This) western promotion of democracy has been rather uniform and ethnocentric, almost exclusively emphasizing multiparty elections. Too often, however, the western concern has ended once the elections have been carried through.Thuselectionresults,withoutanycompetitionbetweenindividualsandwith opposition groups being prevented from participation, have been accepted without comment. This report suggests an approach that differentiates between the two and also integratesthemintoaholisticframework.Theadvantagesthatensuearetwofold: Firstly,ithelpsprovidespecificandactionableinputsbyhelpingidentifybasic governanceareaswhichrequirefocussedattention;and Secondly,itcanbeeasilyrelatedtoinstitutionalnodesandgovernanceagencies responsibleforspecificfunctions
ii.
Mostapproaches reflecta gapinlinkingthemeasurementdimensionstospecificinstitutional nodes.TheWGSapproachscoresoverotherapproachesinthisregard.
96
iii.
Mostapproachesprovidecrosscountryassessmentsandhencethereareinherentlimitationsin applyingthesameatasubnationallevel. Crosscountryassessmentsdoprovideawideumbrellaofparameters,butareusually hampered by the depth (specificities) of information required. Even incountry assessments, particularly in an Indian context, are likely to differ markedly at the federal and state levels. Governance assessments at the state level must allow for greater localised content which, apart from enabling comparative analysis, would providegreaterdiagnosticvalue.
iv.
Approachestoevolveaconstructofgovernancebyvariousmultilateralorganisations aretoacertainextentinfluencedbytheirrespectiveorganisationalmandates.Notonly are they dictated by the concerns of these organizations, their methodological approaches are not always rigorous enough. While most of them are based on good and reasonable time series data and are updated annually, some of them lack transparency in coding, and have ideological biases. Transparency International and PoliticalRiskServicesdataarebasedonanunrepresentativesampleofopinion.Some like the World Bank Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) that measures policy quality is based on assessments by the Bank staff; they are hardly impartial,externalobservers.2 As can be seen there are differences in definitions as well choice of indicators. They reflect, among other things, the different interests and mandates of the agencies. The UN, USAID, DFID and the EC emphasize the social and political aspects of governance, highlighting the processes of participation and responsiveness (to the needsofthepeople),democracyandhumanrightsconcerns.Thebanksandfinancial institutions focus more on economic governance, prioritizing transparency, accountabilityand(publicsector) efficiencyandeffectiveness.Althoughtransparency andaccountabilityarecommonconcernsforall,corruption,publicsectormanagement andtheruleoflawtendtofeaturemorestronglyinthegovernanceprogrammesofthe financialinstitutions. TheUNDPGovernanceIndicatorsUsersGuide2004presentsanoverviewofcurrently available governance indicators and data sources. More than half of the sources provided at least some political indicators, ten provided some social indicators, ten provided some economic indicators, most related explicitly to the interests of the private sector and several focused primarily on corruption, four provided some judicial indicators and six, including four specialist sources, provided media indicators.Onlyfivesourcesprovideindicatorsrelatedtogender.
v.
CommitmenttoGoodGovernance,Development,andPovertyReduction:MethodologicalIssuesinthe evaluationofprogressatnationalandlocallevelsApaperbySuchitraPunyaratabandhu,2004
97
Dimension Political Social Economic Business Judicial Media Description Politicalrights,developmentcommitment,EUissues, democracy,voiceandaccountability,government effectiveness,politicalterror,statefailure,parliament Genderdiscrimination/womensparticipation,workers rights,humanrights,security,roleofcivilsociety,NGOs, sociocultural corruption,businessandfinance,economicgrowth, competitiveness,regulatoryquality Justice,ruleoflaw freedomofthemedia,journalistskilled,mediastaffkilled orimprisoned Numberofsources providingindicators
19/34 10/34 10/34 4/34 6/34
Inordertodevelopindicatorsthatreflectthedifferentsituationandexperienceofpoor people,dataandindicatorsneedtobedisaggregatedintermsofothersocioeconomic variablesthatreflectordefinepovertyorvulnerability.Povertyreductionisaprinciple objective of development policy and good governance. Propoor indicators will provide valuable input to policy formulation and programme management, monitoring and evaluation, as well as facilitating the participation of the poor in the processesofgovernance.(LorraineCorner)
98
Acknowledgments Governance and its measurement is as complex a subject as it is contentious. Although `governanceasasubjectindevelopmentdiscourseisofarelativelyneworigin,thereisa vastamountofliteratureavailableinternationallyonthissubject,bothatconceptual(asto what it signifies) and practical (as to how to measure it) levels. The core study team comprised Mr. A Srinivas Kumar, Team Leader and Mr. Vivek Misra, Programme Coordinator from Centre for Good Governance (CGG), Hyderabad and Dr. CVS Prasad, Mr.TathagataDasguptaandMs.PallaviKarnikfromACNielsenORGMARG.Whilethe team from CGG was involved in developing the strategic approach, the indicator framework and its theoretical underpinnings, ACNielsenORGMARG conducted the surveyandstatisticalanalysis.TheTeamworkedundertheoverallguidanceofDr.Rajiv Sharma,IAS,DirectorGeneral,CentreforGoodGovernance. Shri Prithviraj Chavan, Minister of State for Prime Ministers Office, Personnel, Public Grievancesandpensionsprovidedoverallguidanceandencouragementforthestudy. OursincerethanksareduetoMrs.RajniRajdan,IAS,formerSecretarytoGovernmentof India, Mr. Ramesh. C. Misra, Secretary to Government of India, Mr D V Singh, Special SecretaryandMrPKJha,JointSecretary,DepartmentofAdministrativeReforms&Public Grievances(DAR&PG)forprovidingthedirectionandfocustotheproject.Wewouldlike to acknowledge with gratitude the inputs of Mrs.Mamta Saxena, Director, Ministry of StatisticsandProgrammeImplementation,forfinetuningthemethodologyandstatistical analysis. We are also extremely thankful to Mr. C. R. Kamalanathan, IAS (Retd.) and ex SecretarytoGovernmentofIndiaforhisinputsontheindicatorframework. WearegratefultoMr.JMLyngdoh,FormerChiefElectionCommissioner,Mr.V.N.Kaul, Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Mr.Jayaprakash Narayan, Member, NationalAdvisoryCommittee,GoIforsharingtheirviews.WearealsogratefultoProf.M. SridharandhiscolleaguesfromNALSARUniversityofLaw,Hyderabadforprovidingkey inputsonlegalandjudicialdimensionofgovernance. The draft indicator framework and proposed methodology was discussed in a workshop which was attended by eminent persons and representatives from government organisations,academiaandcivilsociety.Wearegratefultofollowingparticipantsofthe workshopfortheirvaluableinputs:MrKYNarasimhan,Consultant,DAR&PG,Mr.P.K. Gera, Commissioner of Training, & Director General, SPIPA, General Administration Department, Government of Gujarat, Mr. R. J. Shah, Joint Director, Monitoring Commissionerate of Rural Development, Government of Gujarat, Dr. V. Vijayakumar, Registrar & Professor of Law, National Law School University (NLSU), Bangalore, Prof. Trilochan Sastry, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, Prof. Debi Misra, IRMA, Anand,Mr.DurgaPrasad,Consultant,AdamSmithInternational,MrGautamPingleand Mr Mohammed A. Abid, Head & Asst. Professor respectively at Centre for Public Policy and Governance, Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad, MrSatyanarayana 99
and Mr Prasanth V. Regy from BASIX and MrAvinash Samal from Byrraju Foundation, Hyderabad. ThefinalStateofGovernanceframeworkwasdiscussedinanationalworkshopwhichwas moderatedbyProfBibekDebroy,whohasdoneextensiveworkinthisarea.Theworkshop was attended by senior officers from Government of India, eminent persons from Civil SocietyOrganizationsandmultilateraldonoragencies.WearegratefultoProfDebroyand thefollowingparticipantsoftheworkshop whoprovidedfreshinsightsandperspectives on governance and the proposed framework: Mr. Rajesh Tandon, PRIA; Mrs. Ramachandran, IAS, Additional Secretary, Department of Expenditure, GoI; Dr Nagesh Singh, Adviser, Planning Commission; Sri B B Pandit, Director General, Office of ComptrollerandAuditorGeneralofIndia,SmtRanjiniSreekumar,IASPrincipalSecretary, Administrative Reforms, Government of Karnataka; Sri Mukesh Sharma; Ms Vibha Puri Dass;SriRVSuthar;SriAnilChaplot;SriSKBansal;MrPeterEvans,SeniorGovernance Advisor and Mr Pankaj Jain from DFID; Sri CK Koshy IAS (Retd.), Consultant, Adam SmithInternational.
100
Bibliography/References 1. Adeel Malik. State of Art in Governance Indicators (Background Paper for HDR 2002) HumanDevelopmentReportOffice,UNDP 2. AmitabhBehar,etaled.SocialWatchIndia,CitizensreportonGovernanceandDevelopment, 2006. 3. AzmatGaniandRonDuncan,FijisGovernanceIndex,UniversityofSouthPacific,Suva,Fiji Islands 4. BibekDebroyEd.AgendaforImprovingGovernance,,2004,AcademicFoundation. 5. CentreforGovernanceStudies,BRACUniversityandBRACResearchandEvaluation Division.TheStateofGovernanceinBangladesh,2006. 6. ChristineArndtandCharlesOman,UsesandAbusesofGovernanceIndicators,OECD,2006 7. DepartmentofAdministrativeReforms&PublicGrievances,GovernmentofIndia,ModelCode forGovernance,2005. 8. DirkBergSchlosser.IndicatorsofDemocracyandGoodGovernanceasMeasuresofthequality ofdemocracyinAfrica:Acriticalappraisal,ActaPolitica,2004 9. Eva Poluha and Mona Rosendahl ed. Contesting Good Governance Crosscultural perspectivesonrepresentation,accountabilityandpublicspace 10. GovernanceIndicators:AUsersGuide,UNDP 11. Handbook on Democratic Governance Indicators: Method, process and lessons learned from Mongolia,UNDP 12. HydenG.,CourtJ.andKennethMease.MakingSenseofGovernance:TheNeedforInvolving LocalStakeholders,2004 13. JuliusCourt,GoranHydenandKenMease.AssessingGovernance:MethodologicalChallenges WorldGovernanceSurveyDiscussionPaper2(August2002)UnitedNationsUniversity 14. KaufmannD.,AartKrayandPabloZoidoLobaton.AggregatingGovernanceIndicators,, WorldBankInstitute,October1999. 15. KaufmannD.,KraayA.andMastruzziM.GovernanceMattersV:GovernanceIndicatorsfor 19962005,WorldBankInstitute,2006. 16. KaufmannD.,RecenatiniF.andBiletskyS.AssessingGovernance:DiagnosticToolsand AppliedMethodsforCapacityBuildingandActionLearning;WorldBankInstitute,2002. 17. LorraineCorner.Gendersensitiveandpropoorindicatorsforgoodgovernance,UNDP 18. NirvikarSingh,DepartmentofEconomics,UniversityofCalifornia,USA.OnFederalismand ReforminIndia. 19. PlanningCommission,GoI.EleventhFiveYearPlanDocument(Volume1,Chapter10) Governanc. 101
20. PlanningCommission,GoI.TenthFiveYearPlanDocument(Volume1,Chapter6) Governance&Implementation. 21. Rajesh Tandon and Ranjita Mohanty ed. Does Civil Society Matter? Governance in ContemporaryIndia. 22. StevenVanDeWalle.MeasuringBureaucraticqualityinGovernanceindicators 23. SuchitraPunyaratabandhu.CommitmenttoGoodGovernance,Development,andPoverty reduction:MethodologicalIssuesintheevaluationofprogressatNationalandLocallevels 2004. 24. WorldDevelopmentReport.TheStateinaChangingWorld,1997. 25. WorldGovernanceSurveyDiscussionPaper10.Governancein16DevelopingCountries. OverseasDevelopmentInstitute,2003.
102

Governance

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Governance

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

Chapter 2 Governance: Concepts and Approaches

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

provideforjustandhumaneconditionsofwork; provideforfreeandcompulsoryeducationforchildren; promotetheeducationalandeconomicinterestsoftheweakersections; improvepublichealth;and protecttheenvironment.

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

Chapter 3 - Framework for Assessing State of Governance

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

Ability of the State to

3.4 PoliticalDimensionofGovernanceanditskeycomponents Thepoliticaldimensionisthemostessentialaspectofgovernance.Withoutthisdimension, otherdimensionswouldbemeaninglessbecauseitisthepoliticalprocessthatbringsinthe 20

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

2.Profile& Conductof Political Representatives Partiesand Political Executive 3.Functioningof theLegislature

4.Corruption Perception, Vigilance& Enforcement

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

Chapter 4 - Indicator Framework

3. PoliceAdministration& 3. BasicServiceDelivery Citizenfriendliness 4. AccesstoJustice& JudicialAccountability 15/9/(24)

4. CorruptionPerception, Vigilance& Enforcement 15/27/(42) 48/75/(123)

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

Component 1. ExerciseofFranchise 2. Profileandconductofpoliticalrepresentatives, politicalpartiesandpoliticalexecutive

TypesofIndicators Primary Secondary Total 3 2 5 4 1 2 10 3 3 4 12 7 4 6 22

3. FunctioningofLegislature 4. PoliticalDecentralisation Total

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

Votingpercentage inassembly electionsinthe State

Votingpercentagein assemblyelectionsinthe State

Proportionofeligible citizenswhocouldnot exercisetheirfranchise duetonamemissingin theelectorallistduring lastassemblyelections

Primary (Citizens Survey)

Useofillegal meanstoinfluence voting

Proportionofhouseholds (HH)influencedthrough coercivemeasuresor inducementsduringthe

Primary (Citizens Survey)

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

Proportionofassembly constituenciesreporting anypollrelatedviolence duringlastassembly elections

Faithinthe Proportionofrespondents democraticprocess whobelievethattheway theyvotecouldimprove

Primary (Citizens Survey)

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

Profile&Conductof Political Representatives, PoliticalParties& PoliticalExecutive

%ofelected representatives(MLAs) withseriouscriminal charges(chargeshaving minimumconvictionof twoyears)

%ofwomenelected representativesinthe Statelegislature

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

Perceptionabout corruptionamong legislators

Proportionofrespondents whofeelcorruption amonglegislatorsinthe Stateishigh

Primary (Citizens Survey)

State of Governance - A Framework for Assessment

Wasthereanymidterm electioninthelastfive years? Proportionofrespondents whofeelthatthe leadershipprovidedby