Comparing governance assessment frameworks and methodologies: Lessons for developing a social accountability index (part 2)

by Randee C. Cabaces and Aldrich Telebrico
ANSA–EAP Research Team

Part 2 of 2

In the first installment of this blog post, we shared our initial observations of existing governance indexes and social accountability assessment frameworks.

Meanwhile, here are some of our initial reflections and thinking about the social accountability (SAc) index:

• Our analyses point to possible considerations in establishing a niche for the SAc index.  First off, there seems to be some space for a regional assessment framework in East Asia and Pacific.  We need to inquire though if there are enough bases for such cross-country measurement.  Looking at how accountability is viewed, the SAM in Tanzania provides an excellent peg for a more citizen-oriented assessment approach.  Finally, our preference for a simple but comprehensive tool means a SAc index would probably rely more on direct data from stakeholders, and include both input and result indicators.

• Our colleague’s initial idea of having “citizens measuring government performance” as an indicator could be a good one.  But, as what the comparative review above tells us, we need some balance between input (or process) and result indicators.  Adopting this perspective, we put forward the following comments:

Comparing governance assessment frameworks and methodologies: Lessons for developing a social accountability (SAc) index

by Randee C. Cabaces and Aldrich Telebrico
ANSA–EAP Research Team

Part 1 of 2

We recently did a review of some governance indexes and social accountability assessment frameworks.  Apart from those that we were more familiar with, like World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI), Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), and Global Integrity’s Global Integrity Report (GIR), we randomly selected those that came out of a cursory online search and which we deemed would have some interesting lessons for us in terms of developing ANSA-EAP’s own social accountability (SAc) monitoring and measurement tool.

Out of the ten (10) indexes and assessment frameworks that we examined, four (4) were global in scope, proposing some measures for governance quality that were supposed to be applicable across countries and regions.  One (1), the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG), provided a regional assessment framework for African countries.  Two (2) outlined a national framework for comparing governance quality across component provinces and municipalities.  Three (3) of the assessment tools were primarily meant for application at the local level.

Reflecting on policy research for SAc: Crafting a regional research agenda

by Randee Cabaces

ANSA EAP’s operations team (or secretariat) recently set for itself the task of influencing policy-making in the region towards the adoption of social accountability (SAc) as an approach to good governance. This is, of course, just one among several strategic objectives that the secretariat has identified for the next three years of the network’s life (dubbed earlier as its “consolidation phase”). So, by 2016, the regional hub dreams of becoming a recognized “think tank” for SAc-related policy issues in this part of the globe.

Dream big or dream bigger, otherwise don’t dream at all, right?

Still intoxicated by the outputs from that strategic planning session, and titillated by this new role as the network’s research lead, I went through the process of creating a mind map for the research cluster’s strategy for 2013.

Re-examining ANSA EAP's assumptions on cultural appropriateness as a pillar of an enabling environment for SAc

by Randee Cabaces

Reading Larry Diamond's "The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World" made me reflect on ANSA-EAP's fourth pillar of social accountability (SAc), an enabling environment for SAc - "cultural appropriateness".

ANSA-EAP's framing of this pillar has always moved along two (2) tracks - not necessarily related:

1. SAc tools or citizen monitoring instruments are often developed with specific governance issues or problems in mind. Thus, the need to customize whenever we apply them to another context. Example, a citizen report card (CRC) or community Score Card (CSC) conducted in a city context (like Bangalore, India) to get citizen feedback on public services (like electricity, transportation, sewerage, etc.) would need some tweaking when used to monitor the health center services in a rural community which were provided as part of a mining company's local development commitments in Benguet, Philippines
   
   
2. SAc approaches have to take into account Asians' different value system when it comes to public leadership, democratic practice and good governance. Some explanations or elaborations on this that I've encountered in ANSA-EAP's discourse during the past three years: the concept of "headship" as our particular brand of Asian leadership, our inclination to communal rather than individual conception of rights, conflict avoidance and face-saving as common attitudes in public engagements, the tendency to look at the polity as a "bigger family" with public officials as heads of that family whose will can not be easily challenged, our penchant to maintain social order rather than promote divisive public debates, etc.