Yesterday's blog postings have me thinking. What approach is a valid approach to governance indicators? I am going to propose a way of developing and thinking about the indicators here, using an example I proposed yesterday--birth registration rates.
First, explain the theory behind your indicator:
I think governance is about the way authority is exercised in society. The goal is to get authority exercised in a way that it fosters improved capability, well being and growth. In developing countries, I think this also involves exercising authority in a way that promotes creative interaction--required to address the complex problems these countries face.
So, I am proposing indicators that assess the way those exercising authority open up interaction, engagement and participation in society--politics, economics and other areas. Essentially, the ones given authority need to be empowering interaction of others which I believe will yield adaptive processes of development.
I think that birth registrations are a good measure to think about in this respect.There is a growing literature that notes the way increased birth registrations increases the potential people have to engage in their societies, especially as these societies become more formal. Without registrations, people struggle to engage politically, benefit from medical care, access schooling, etc. etc. (see unicef's paper on this...http://www.unicef.org/esaro/Technical_paper_low_res_.pdf).
This is my theoretical perspective on the issue, and I am sure others have their views. The key thing is to ensure you can say that there are theoretical foundations for your indicator choice.
Second, make sure the proposed indicator matters in development, and addresses a key problem:
If we hope that the indicators we introduce are going to affect behavior, we should be sure that those who have to act on them care enough. In our pdia work we note that people and organizations care enough to change when they face problems. So: Is the indicator capturing some problem that matters, where we really believe there might be enough political will to move?
In this case, I would argue 'yes'. According to a growing literature on birth registrations, there are may interested groups. First, those in the health sector find it hard to offer care when many kids are not registered (how do you budget, monitor, etc.). Second, those working on education struggle for the same reasons. Third, those working in the justice sector need this information. etc. etc.
One can also see the problem when looking at the countries that have low birth registration rates. It is mostly poorer countries (see chart below). One can also see that countries where growth and development occured tended to improve their registration rates at the same time (the USA began in earnest in the first decades of the 20th century, and increased registration went hand in hand with increased state capacity, engagement, political participation, etc.).
I'm not saying conclusively that there is causal linkage from registration to development, but I am saying that the less developed countries lack this...and more developed countries promoted this in their process of development. So it seems this is a problem worth addressing in poor countries.
Third, make sure the indicator focuses on an output that cannot be a meaningless signal:
I don't think it is useful to focus countries on developing birth registration systems. Many will do this and it won't matter because they won't function. But if the indicator asks countries to ensure that the % of births that are registered increases, one is focusing on an output of a system that has potentially vast change implications. If countries do better on the indicator, one can expect real changes--more engagement, more interaction, more participation as an outcome.
Fourth, make sure the indicator allows flexibility on the process and is contextually iterative:
All indicators are preseciptive in some sense. It is important to precribe some kind of goal (register the kids!) not a means to get there. It is also important to ensure that the goals we prescribe are meaningful and can be done in the contexts we are working.
So, with this example I would say we are not prescribing a specific process of registering children. Indeed, you would want to say "Let's choose some methods, and some areas, that give us the bst strating point...and then let's learn." In places like Ethiopia (where registrations are lower than 15%) we would probably have some targeted manual registration measures in place, learn how they work, then diffuse them and experiment with more advanced mechanisms. In places like Ethiopia the goals would also be contextualized: Let's try to get the rate up to 30% by 2020 (imagine the change this would imply for people who live in that country?). In a country like South Africa the challenge would be going from 90% to 95%, which would entail a struggle to register kids in rural areas.
Fifth, make sure the indicator is stretching but has a low chance of doing harm:
If we are going to take the time of getting those in authority to do things differently (ie. challenging changes in governance) it is important to push the envelope. It is also important to be careful about doing harm. In this respect we should always think about the downside of the measure: What risk is there of isomorphic mimicry? what risk is there that some countries just won't be able to do this? what risk is there that higher rates of birth registration will lead to 'bad' governance?
I am not going to go into my answers in reaction to birth registrations, but I think the discussions would be important. The example here shows that we could have key indicators, I think, that measure ways in which governance could be improved to improve society.
Really interesting post. Was also thinking that a potential theoretical advantage of birth registration, apart from helping people engage in their society, is the fact that, to get the output desired, it would require substantial interaction of the state (and several levels of the state) with the people..this way, working towards increasing this indicator, will require greater interaction among a larger set of actors, which may in turn promote some creative solutions and create a system that can be used creatively for other problems (such as UID in India).
Posted by: Arvind Nair | 10/20/2012 at 09:48 AM