Second International Conference on. Government Performance Management and Public Governance

Transcription

1 [1] Second International Conference on Government Performance Management and Public Governance at the Mark O. Hatfield School of Government, Portland State University Conference Paper on Public Sector Performance Assessment- Experiences from Developing Countries presented by Dr. Thomas Taraschewski, GIZ Nepal August 15 th, 2011

2 [2] Contents 1.0 Introduction Objectives of Assessing Public Sector Performance Stakeholders and Ownership in Public Sector Performance Measurement Incentives for Public Sector Performance Indicators for Public Sector Performance Systems Evaluation Approaches for Public Sector Performance Assessment Brief Overview of Public Sector Assessment Systems in different Asian Countries Philippines Nepal Indonesia Reflections and Recommendations for Public Sector Performance Assessment on Base of practical Experiences References... 18

3 [3] 1.0 Introduction Measuring Performance and assessing performance in the governance sector is always a challenge. It is mostly complex and need to be thoughtfully organized in order to consider interests of various stakeholders, to achieve defined objectives, to limit costs for design, implementation and assessment, and to keep the system manageable. The design of a performance measurement system, as an instrument for public sector performance assessment, depends highly on the overall objectives and the expected results of the tool. Systems targeted towards central level/central government control and/or political programming differ largely from systems which are meant to be self-assessment tools. The same holds true for the process of the conceptual design, participation mechanisms and ownership levels. The Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) 1 has experience with assisting institutions and organizations in its partner countries in the design, implementation and management of performance measurement systems. As a partner for sustainable development solutions, it has decades of experience in many regions of the world. The area of public sector assessment for sub-national governance is one of them. On behalf of its commissioning parties (e.g. the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development-BMZ) GIZ has provided technical advice and assistance in numerous countries, both in Latin America, Africa and Asia. This paper highlights on lessons learned for designing, implementing and managing performance measurement systems, based on practical experiences made over the last years in the Philippines, Nepal, Indonesia, Paraguay and Ethiopia. It provides an overview of best practices and challenges for public sector assessment in developing countries, although it will also demonstrate that there is no one fits all solution. 2 While the presented overall lessons learned and challenges are a result of experiences from the five mentioned countries, this conference paper limits the included overview of systems in place to the Asian region (Philippines, Nepal and Indonesia) due to complexity constraints. The frameworks of governance structures and systems in developing countries are different and very diverse. Therefore, approaches for performance measurement of sub-national bodies cannot be sorted under a universal approach ( one size fits all ). 1 The GIZ was established on January 1 st, 2011 with the merger of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), the Deutsche Entwicklungdienst (DED) and InWEnt, Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung. This paper uses the name GIZ, although it refers in the provided country examples to activities and experiences of the former GTZ. 2 The presented paper is based to large parts on a technical paper on Assessing Public Sector Performance- Outcome oriented Measurement Systems for Subnational Governance in Practice, published by GIZ in autumn The technical paper is a product of joint efforts by GIZ colleagues under the umbrella of the Sector Network Governance Asia (SNGA), Working Group Decentralization and Local Governance. This conference paper summarizes key findings and compiles extracts from the technical paper. The presenter of the paper was the lead author and overall coordinator in the process of compiling the technical paper, which will be made available during the conference.

4 [4] Individual solutions, fitting to the specific characteristics and needs of each distinct public sector, the will for administrative reform and change and the objectives of the public sector assessment process, are required. Assessing governance performance in developing countries might be even more challenging than in the industrialized, developed part of the world. Usually, the public sector is weak, the legal framework inconsistent, service delivery both in quantity and quantity is lacking and accountability mechanisms are fragile. However, systems for performance measurement, especially in developing countries, can be tremendously important and helpful for political programming, monitoring and evaluation of performance of sub-national local bodies, targeted capacity development and the establishment of performance based budget funding. Over the last years, the concept of public sector performance assessment has become more and more popular in many developing countries. Originally evolved from the private sector in the 1930 ( benchmarking ), public sector performance measurement was introduced to industrialized countries at the end of the 1970s. To the developing world similar concepts were introduced during the 1990s. Since then, several paradigmatically changes has enriched the theoretical debates with implications for the practical set-up and implementation of these systems. At the beginning many systems were donor initiate, financed and driven; therefore the ownership within partner structures (ministries, local bodies associations, local bodies themselves) was lacking. Often, systems collapsed immediately after financing donors and development partners have had withdrawn their support from the governance sector. Nowadays, ownership and commitment of governments in countries in which these systems are being introduced are seen as essential and pre-conditional. 1.1 Objectives of Assessing Public Sector Performance Performance measurement systems for the public sector in developing countries, be it at national or subnational level, can have different objectives. Amongst others, these are: Political programming and control of superior government agencies and ministries Management and measurement of performance at different government levels Safeguarding the rule of law Monitoring and improvement of service delivery mechanisms and criteria of good governance Identification of capacity development gaps and provision of custom tailored capacity development solutions by the government or development partners Provision of data for performance based budgeting and staff incentive systems Creation of competition between local bodies or other government entities Strengthening of accountability mechanisms, transparency and the adequate use of funds Generally, performance measurement schemes can be clustered into for different larger categories in terms of objectives: i.) Local Government Control, ii.) Local Government Internal Management, iii.)

5 [5] Policy Analysis & Programming, and iv.) Capacity Development. The design of these systems of course depends highly on the defined goals both in terms of indicators, assessment circles as well as assessment schemes and linked incentives. 1.2 Stakeholders and Ownership in Public Sector Performance Measurement The stakeholder landscape involved in measuring performance of the public sector is multifaceted in most developing countries. Typically, the central level government and its different ministries and line agencies, local bodies and subnational governments, local bodies associations (municipal association and district association, e.g.), civil society groups as well as different donors and development partners, just to mention a few, are participating in the negotiations of such systems. This diversity of interests makes the design and implementation process usually rather lengthy and complex. The participation in the regular assessment can be defined as voluntary or mandatory. However, voluntary participation bears the risk that low performers will not participate at all. Usually, the ownership of performance measurement systems can be with the central government, the local government, the business community and/or the local community. Only ownership and commitment in partner countries themselves towards performance measurement in the public sector ensure the sustainability and steadiness of these instruments. 1.3 Incentives for Public Sector Performance Linking performance measurement with incentives has proven to be essential in terms of creating interest, motivation and stimulating participants performance in general. Incentives can be related to image and reputation, finances (e.g. topping up grants or performance based salaries for government staff) and/or the assignment of additional functions. In general, incentive systems can include both sanctions/penalties or rewards/bonuses. Some systems consist of both types of incentives, while some include only positive incentives. Most common are financial incentives. The provision of incentives for public sector staff is considered as important, especially in the context of developing countries in which civil servants normally are heavily underpaid compared to the incomes generated in the private sector. 1.4 Indicators for Public Sector Performance Systems Another assessment related feature of performance measurement systems, which allows differentiating various types of performance measurement, are the indicators. Their output-, process- or outcomeoriented design depends again on specification, the overall objectives of measuring performance and, last but not least, very much on the frameworks and capabilities of the government structures in a developing country. If the public sector is weak, process oriented indicators might be an attempt to capture and reflect on the quality of administrative processes in a wider sense. If government structures already exceeded a certain level of performance and overall development, output- and/or outcomeoriented indicators can stimulate the performance of the public sector towards efficiency or effectiveness. Output-oriented indicators generally focus on the direct output of administrative action and refer to efficiency, therefore. Outcome-oriented indicators establish a link between the effects of political decision making and subsequent activities and include intended and unintended effects. As a result, they refer to effectiveness.

6 [6] 1.5 Evaluation Approaches for Public Sector Performance Assessment The most common approach for assessing performance on a regular or irregular basis in the public sector is external evaluation. External evaluation has the advantage of assuring the quality and control over the performance measurement system. They allow standardization of assessment mechanisms and increase the comparability of the assessment results. In addition, and this is particularly important if the performance measurement is linked to financial incentives, external evaluation improves the overall transparency of such a system. However, external assessment is more complex and costly than internal or self-evaluation and, as experienced in some cases, might cause problems regarding the capacity of external assessors and the ownership of the assessment results.

7 [7] 2.0 Brief Overview of Public Sector Assessment Systems in different Asian Countries 2.1 Philippines The Local Governance Performance Management System (LGPMS) in the Philippines is implemented as a self-assessment instrument by cycles, which corresponds to a three-year period. The instrument covers by a set of various indicators the following performance areas: i.) administrative governance (e.g. local legislation, revenue generation, customer services), ii.) social governance (health, education, housing etc), iii.) economic governance (support to the agriculture sector, fishery services and entrepreneurship), iv.) environmental governance (forestry, water, costal marine and urban management) and v.) criteria of good governance (transparency, participation, financial accountability). 3 LGPMS was designed to identify strengths and weaknesses of local government units and to prioritize projects and programs. Further, it focuses on creating a basis for planning in comparatively underdeveloped governance areas and the evaluation of the organizational efficiency through the comparison of input-output results. The LGPMS is an annual self-assessment, management and capacity development tool that enables subnational government entities to evaluate their competences and limitations in the delivery of vital public services. 4 It is not a rating scheme to measure a specific local government unit per se. The leading key actor in the design and implementation process of the LGPMS is the national Bureau of Local Government Supervision with the support of different development partners (UNDP, Philippines- Canada Local Government Support Programme, GIZ). The ownership of the LGPMS is with the Department of the Interior and Local Government and local government units as primary users of the system. The Department of the Interior and Local Government plays important roles in managing, implementing, and sustaining the Local Governance Performance Management System. Local governments perform critical roles in ensuring the credibility of Local Governance Performance Management System results. Although the participation/commitment of sub-national government units is voluntary (but highly encouraged by the Department of Interior and Local Government), in its first national rollout 85% of all local government units participated in the LGPMS assessment. The currently implemented assessment cycle covers the period of and uses the same set of indicators as the previous cycle. All municipalities, provinces and cities were advised by the central level 3 GIZ actively supported the introduction and enhancement of the LGPMS since Upon request by the Department of the Interior and Local Government Regional Office VI, GIZ continued its support for the implementation of LGPMS to lower grade local government units. The provided technical advice mainly covers the areas of training and capacity development, institutionalization and awareness rising. 4 Governance indicators are assessed annually, performance indicators every three years.

8 [8] Bureau of Local Government Supervision to review and complete their data set, which especially reflects on aspect of Public Financial Management (PFM). The quality assurance is safeguarded by a crosschecking mechanism by central level agencies. Image and reputation serve as incentives for participation and overall performance. However, the system (and subnational governments) faces quite a number of problems, which have to be tackled in the future in order to ensure the sustainability of this modern tool: The capacity for using and managing the instrument needs to be strengthened. Capacity development and hardware support for ensuring the access of local governments to the online based tool is essential. The alignment of national and/or donor supported programmes to address the identified capacity development gaps needs to be improved. Demands and concerns of local governments are not addressed fully yet. There is a lack of appreciation regarding this modern instrument, especially at subnational level. Politicians and stakeholders need to be convinced regarding the benefits of the LGPMS. Amidst these challenges, the LGPMS has evolved into a more responsive, user friendly and practical tool in assessing the performance of local government units in governance, administration, social services, environmental management and economic development. 2.2 Nepal Nepal introduced performance assessment in the public sector about five years back. A system designed for the performance measurement of the country s 75 districts was followed by a system especially developed for the assessment of i.) planning and budgeting processes, ii.) service delivery, iii.) good governance, iv.) public financial management, and v.) human resource management in Nepal s 58 municipalities. 5 Nowadays, a similar but more simplified system for the monitoring of almost so-called Village Development Committees (VDCs) is in place too. 6 The systems mainly serve to support capacity development and internal management processes. The ownership, as a result of a carefully designed participatory process during the technical development 5 GIZ supported the design and implementation of the MC/PM system for municipalities. Currently, GIZ provides technical advice for the management and review of indicators. 6 At the moment Nepal s local government consists of three different types: 3915 Village Development Committees (VDC), 58 municipalities and 75 District Development Committees (DDC). However, local government structures are under transformation as a result of the ongoing constitutional process.

9 [9] and implementation of the schemes, is now with the Ministry of Local Development and Nepal s local governments, whose participation in the annual assessment is mandatory. GIZ supported the development and implementation of the performance measurement system for municipalities (Minimum Conditions & Performance Measurement System-MC/PM), which nowadays is managed by the Local Bodies Fiscal Commission independently. 7 This system is designed to guide municipalities in capacity development processes, enable a comprehensive learning environment and the exchange of best practices, promote out-performers and to create a healthy competition between municipalities and provide custom tailor capacity development tools for local governance to reduce existing capacity gaps. The three systems in place for the assessment of local bodies performance differ in terms of indicators and reference approaches in order to reflect on the diverse administrative, fiscal and service delivery functions, assigned to DDCs, VDCs and municipalities. Although the indicators vary in areas covered, they are mostly process- and to some extent output-oriented. Considering Nepal s weak public sector, including the absence of democratically elected majors and other political representatives at subnational level, outcome-oriented systems would overload administrative structures and denying existing needs and demands. Usually, the indicators are being reviewed in three-years-cycles and adjusted to the needs of the central and local governments. This approach, in contrast to an ad-hoc based selection of indicators, provides local governments with an adequate time horizon to prepare themselves for the annual assessment. A key feature of the performance measurement system for Nepalese municipalities is the combination of indicators defined as minimum conditions and so-called performance indicators. Minimum conditions safeguarding the system 8 and ensuring the rule of law, performance indicators evaluate local governments performance in different functional areas. While most public sector assessment schemes define beforehand what is understood as good or bad performance by setting normative targets, the MC/PM system for municipalities follows a dynamic reference approach. The overall performance of all municipalities is being evaluated annually and the average performance calculated. Municipalities performing above average are being rewarded; municipalities performing below average are sanctioned. The annual assessment of the different systems is carried out externally and is linked with financial incentives for local bodies and their staff. These arrangements make the systems more costly than the 7 For more detailed information on the MC/PM system please refer to Taraschewski (2009): Measuring Performance at the Sub-National Level and Performance Based Funding for Nepalese Municipalities. Conference paper prepared for the First International Conference on Government Performance Management and Public Governance at the China Center for Local Governmental Performance Evaluation (CCLGPE) at Lanzhou University, China 8 Only municipalities with a certain score in the minimum conditions indicators are eligible for the performance measurement scheme and the linked financial incentives, ultimately.

10 [10] self-evaluation instrument which is in place in the Philippines, for example. On the other side the approach of external evaluation ensures the quality of the assessment results and increases the transparency of the processes, which is essential when financial incentives are in place. All systems are in place since several years now and the assessment results are used for the performance based provision of topping up grants to local bodies. In addition, it serves a cross-sectoral instrument for political programming and steering of subnational government entities by different line ministries, especially the Ministry of Local Development (MLD). Although the systems are comparatively simple and easy to manage, capacity development for the efficient and effective use of the instruments remains one of the main challenges. Experiences in Nepal have shown that both a proper process design for developing and implementing performance measurement systems as well as stakeholder participation is of utmost importance in developing country, especially in fragile states as Nepal, for ensuring ownership and sustainability. Linking performance measurement with incentive schemes seems to ensure the motivation of participating government units to perform and increases the accountability aspects of the systems. Still, the comprehensive linkage of the annual assessment results (and the identified capacity gaps) with development activities of national and international actors has to be improved in the years to come. Otherwise, the systems run the danger of being an instrument for the distribution of government topping up grants only. Potentials for targeted capacity development at subnational government levels would not be fully taped. Nepal s way towards a federally structured state will require the constant review and adjustment of performance measurement schemes, particularly as changing roles, responsibilities and functions for subnational government tiers seem very likely. 2.3 Indonesia In Indonesia, with its large territory and interregional disparities, evaluating the performance of subnational governments always has been a huge challenge. Since several years, GIZ is involved in the fine tuning related sub-systems (Minimum Service Standards). One of the key interests of the central government is the safeguarding of minimum service standards for public service delivery at subnational level. Ensuring and controlling the quantity and quality of these services within one system is tremendously difficult, considering that the provision of basic health services in remote regions and islands is unequally harder and more costly than in the metropolitan area of the capital city Jakarta, for example. Therefore, the methodical approach to evaluation is a fundamental topic in the ongoing debates. The Indonesian government however recognized the importance of overcoming existing capacity development problems at subnational level directly related to public service delivery while supervising regional autonomy. The development and implementation of the Local Governance Performance Evaluation (LGPE) system is driven by the Indonesian government with little or no external technical support. Several ministries

11 [11] and line agencies already developed their very own evaluation tools, which makes the implementation of a harmonized and consolidated performance measurement scheme even more difficult. The number of stakeholders is high (Ministry of Home Affairs, State Ministry for Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Public Works and other sector ministries) and interests and objectives differ. Nevertheless, a common concern is the introduction of a more competitive behavior among local governments within a decentralized framework as well as to guide capacity development programmes to further strengthen local autonomy. In contrast to Nepal, the country follows a normative assessment approach by pre-determined good, average and bad performance scores. The assessment itself is carried out by different evaluation teams for each level of government, consisting of representatives from various state agencies and institutions and subnational government structures. The national and regional teams are supported by technical advisory teams; at local level (municipalities and districts) so-called self-assessment teams, headed by the regional secretariat, will be established. The entire system consists of three interrelated sub-categories of governance related performance: The central Government shall perform the evaluation of local government. The annual Local Government Performance Evaluation shall be aimed at evaluation of the regions from governance, operational efficiency, and effectiveness viewpoints. The Regional Autonomy Administration Capacity Evaluation shall be aimed at assessing local government s capacity to achieve overall policy and regional autonomy goals, which include the improvement of people s welfare, the quality of public services and regional competitiveness. Essentially it is meant as an evaluation of the performance of the regions, focusing on economic issues and being measured by a large number of indicators, which in total resemble an economic model analysis. Sources of information for assembling the performance evaluation comprise of various reports such as local government performance reports, regional budget accountability reports, information on local finances, reports on institutional performance of local government, as well as satisfaction surveys among the people, etc. The annual performance evaluation is conducted by integrating the measurement carried out by the National Team and the Regional Teams with the self-assessments done by local governments. The system s indicators reflect mainly on two aspects of the policy cycle: policy making and policy implementation. The last named includes for example the implementation of the already mentioned Minimum Service Standards (MSS) at subnational government tiers. So far, two assessment cycles took place in 2008 and Due to the complexity of the system and the lack of human resources for steering, the self-assessment the conduction of regular or even annual assessments seems very challenging.

12 [12] The system is still comparatively new and not fully understood, especially by local governments. Inconsistencies and immanent contradictions, as well as ambiguities in the legal framework and the unclear incentive scheme 9 might erode the credibility of the system in general. With the limited experiences and lessons learned from the application of the system itself, also quality assurance remains a problem. The Local Government Performance Evaluation system does not yet include a comparison between input (budget, human resources, infrastructure, etc.), output and outcome. Such an evaluative approach would show how effective and efficient local government performance is. As an example, the effectiveness of local budget utilization will be evident, if outputs and outcomes are clearly defined. However, it is still perceived an overall weakness of local governments to define properly by way of performance-based budgeting what they want to achieve in terms of results and outcomes. A second methodological problem is that the quality assessment of local government programs and activities is not included in the Local Government Performance Evaluation, as it merely emphasizes quantitative achievements. In the Indonesian local governance performance assessment scheme, performance is quantitatively measured based on the completeness of documents and achievement of targets. There is no orientation to the quality of targets accomplished. In consideration of the above mentioned methodological and structural problems, the benefits and impacts of the developed and successively implemented Local Governance Performance Evaluation system in Indonesia seem unclear. 9 Most likely outstanding performance will be rewarded with greater autonomy for local bodies. At this stage, financial incentives are not foreseen, functional incentives are more likely.

13 [13] 3.0 Reflections and Recommendations for Public Sector Performance Assessment on Base of practical Experiences In developing countries, performance measurement systems are applied under very different political and institutional frameworks. Conditions range from rather political stable systems (e.g. Indonesia) to fragile states (e.g. Nepal). In general, performance measuring systems follow different objectives (control, programming, capacity development), with implications regarding their design and implementation processes. In some developing countries systems have been implemented with a step wise approach, including comprehensive testing, piloting and refining, others followed a big-bang approach. The Indonesian example presents a performance measurement system which is focusing on compliance and is close to rule-based supervision of sub-national levels of government and administration by upper government levels, although capacity development is also stated as an objective of performance measurement. Nepal and the Philippines do follow a different approach as they are more directly oriented towards learning. Indicators in use vary, although in developing countries, mainly as a result of considering the weak public sector in general, process-oriented indicators dominate over output- and outcome-oriented indicator schemes. Similarly, assessment approaches differ widely and range from external evaluation (Nepal) to self-evaluation (Philippines) or a mixture of both (Indonesia). The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action have induced a process of harmonizing and aligning donor efforts in partner countries and with national policies. As a result, new modes of delivery are established and many donors provide direct budget support to national governments in developing countries and finance multi-donor trust funds. With the increasing complexity, many development partners demand comprehensive performance measurement systems for tracking and monitoring the proper use of these funds at different government levels. Donor initiated and donor driven performance measurement systems might be the outcome. These systems however bear a great risk in terms of sustainability, commitment and ownership as practical experiences (e.g. Ethiopia and Paraguay) have demonstrated. Therefore, a participatory process design, which includes all key stakeholders, is essential. In order to meet the ever changing demands and needs of (local) governments, performance measurement systems should be understood as organic and flexible instruments rather than static tools for the collection of statistical data. Only then they can serve the strategic objective of improving capacities in the public sector. Besides the already mentioned objectives, performance measurement systems can be very useful instruments for the monitoring and evaluation of development efforts by national governments and development partners likewise. With a long term perspective, they are able to show intended and

14 [14] unintended impacts of such development efforts at various government levels, which in general is very challenging in the governance sector. Although there is no one-size-fits-all solution, the experiences of performance measurements in different countries have shown some important success factors regarding sustainable solutions for performance measurement systems: A. Ownership Without a sound level of ownership, the sustainability of performance measurement systems is questionable. Performance measurements systems must either be linked to, or largely considered a part of, a national monitoring system. The responsible authorities and ministries must be accountable for the regular use, management and maintenance of these systems, otherwise their impact will be negligible and their sustainability will degenerate with the phasing out of donor support. If understood as national systems for programming, steering and monitoring of sub-national public bodies, performance measurement systems can be adjusted according to changes in the regulatory frameworks as well as the needs and demands in the partner structures. Starting the implementation of a performance measurement system without a clear champion within the administrative structures of the partner countries will not be successful and sustainable. Ownership needs to be created at all levels: the overall responsible institution, organization or ministry as well as at the level of the assessed public bodies. Their commitment is especially important for the acceptance of the system, a smooth implementation and the regular assessment. In addition, it creates accountability and responsibility for the actions of sub-national public bodies and, ultimately, their performance. A lack of ownership on the other hand could lead to non-cooperation among and a boycott of stakeholders. B. Incentives Incentives are necessary to motivate and stimulate the improved performance of assessed public bodies. While different types of incentives have shown some success, financial incentives have proven to be the most successful. First, financial incentives for the public body itself, e.g. the topping up of grants, are important. Financial incentives create pressure to perform; as the public body has to justify why it did not receive additional funding in the case of under-performance. If transparently communicated, civil society groups and citizens will hold the administration accountable. Second, financial incentives for the public bodies staff might strengthen their willingness to improve their personal performance and support the creation of an interlinkage of individual actions and the overall performance of the administration. Quite often, badly paid civil servants in partner countries do not necessarily have any motivation to fulfill their assigned tasks - financial staff incentives can contribute to a changing perception. Preferably, financial incentives should be allocated within the partner s budget and not by separate donor funds as this might lead to dependency, lack of sustainability as well as ownership.

15 [15] C. Simplicity Keep it simple. Use and management of performance monitoring of public bodies become more difficult (i) (ii) (iii) with an increasing number of indicators, with the enhanced complexity of indicators, the assessment or the system as such, and in the undesirable scenario of the implementation of numerous, competing performance measurement systems. Assessors will not understand how and what to monitor, assessed sub-national bodies will not understand what is expected from them, and responsible authorities will not be able to manage and/or renew the system. In many of GIZ s partner countries competing sector ministries and competing development partners are stakeholders in the process of designing and implementing performance measurement systems. Naturally, topics of individual interest will influence the agenda setting when it comes to the discussion of which areas or sectors should be monitored or measured in which way. It seems important to communicate clearly what a manageable performance measurement system is capable of and what it cannot provide. The involvement of all stakeholders in these preliminary discussions is important to avoid the future existence of competing systems and to satisfy different existing and future needs. D. Transparency As with any mechanism of rewarding and sanctioning good or bad performance, the transparency of the system, its assessment scheme and the assessment results are of utmost importance. Otherwise, the intended use and objectives of measuring performance would be lead ad absurdum. Only if transparency at all levels is guaranteed will involved stakeholders, including the assessed public, understand the system and act/perform accordingly. Only transparency will create mechanisms of accountability. Only transparency can create a healthy climate of competition, and ultimately, advance the transparent use of public funds in case of financial incentives. In addition, it seems important to establish possibilities for the assessed local bodies to appeal and to file complaints in case of disagreement with the assessment results. These instruments will contribute largely to institutional capacity building and the quality assurance of the assessment process. E. Sector policy objectives Sector policy objectives need to be considered as well and balanced when a performance measurement system is being designed or its indicators reviewed. In addition, the different interests of development partners and national policy must be regarded. Otherwise, the risk of lacking ownership, boycott or non harmonized, contradictory actions will rise. It is advisable to incorporate all important stakeholders in preparatory discussions and to keep them informed constantly. With the inclusion of different yet balanced sectoral policy objectives, performance measurement systems can contribute significantly to a holistic development approach.

16 [16] An overall result of performance measurement systems is the fact that the size of a local government unit, in terms of population, is not proportional to performance and institutional or financial capacity. In a number of cases, small-scale local government units and metropolitan areas perform less effective than medium-sized jurisdictions. The large number of local government units in any country and their probable performance should thus also guide international donors and technical assistance together with national entities in selecting a sample of local government units to start with the application of a performance measurement system. This includes both the selection of stakeholders to be involved in the process of design as well as in testing the performance measurement systems before national rollout. The following table summarizes the main features of the performance measurement systems for the presented country examples during the conference. The criteria used in the table stem from the empirical evidence found: A s p e c t P h i l i p p i n e s N e p a l I n d o n e s i a Objective Capacity development, internal management, policy programming Capacity development Supervision and capacity development Ownership Central government Central government Central government Previous attempts Yes No No Year started Pre-test Yes Yes Yes Coverage Ca. 90% 100% (of municipalities only) 100% Evaluation approach Self-assessment External assessment Self-assessment and external evaluation Areas Administration Governance Social services Economic development Environmental management Local Governance Financial Management Planning and Programming Organisation and HR Service Delivery Performance of policy-making level Performance of implementing agency level Compliance with decentralisation compliance with subsidiary tasks Compliance with general affairs Compliance with development plan Participation Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory regularity Partially annual Partially tri-annual Annual Annual External benchmark Yes No Yes Incentives for local government unit Linked to different initiatives of local government award systems Yes Yes

17 [17] A s p e c t P h i l i p p i n e s N e p a l I n d o n e s i a Donor-driven No Partially No perspective Supply Supply Supply Dominant type of indicators Output, outcome-oriented process Indicator function Performance Performance and safeguarding Performance Dissemination of results Webpage, reports Media and webpage, reports Reports Assessment costs Low Medium Medium

18 [18] 4.0 References Ammons, David N. und International City/County Management Association, Hrsg. (1995): Accountability for Performance. Measurement and Monitoring in Local Government, Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association. Bouckaert, Geert und Christopher Pollitt, Eds. (1999): Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hood, Christopher (1991): A Public Management for all Seasons?, in: Public Administration, 69(1991)1, p McLaughlin, Kate, Stephen Osborne und Ewan Ferlie, Eds. (2003): New Public Management, New York, NY. Mumenthaler, Marielle and Thomas Taraschewski (2009): Functional Assignment in Nepal. Paper prepared for GTZ Technical Workshop on Functional Assignment and Performance Assessment Systems for Local Government, Bangkok. Poister, Theodore H. und Gregory Streib (1998): Performance Measurement in Municipal Government. Progress, Problems, and Prospects. Paper presented at the 59th National Conference of the American Society for Public Administration, San Francisco, CA. Poister, Theodore H. and Gregory Streib (1999): Performance measurement in municipal government: assessing the state of the practice, in: Public Administration Review, 59(1999)4, p Pollitt, Christopher (2002): The New Public Management in International Perspective, in: New Public Management. Current Trends and Future Prospects, ed. by Kate McLaughlin, Stephen P. Osborne und Ewan Ferlie, p New York, NY. Taraschewski, Thomas and Alexander Wegener et al (2011): Assessing Public Sector Performance. Outcome Oriented Measurement Systems for Subnational Governance in Practice. Published by Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), Sector Network Governance Asia, Working Group Decentralization and Local Governance, Eschborn, Germany.