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.