E-Discussion DG & MDGs: Phase I Summary
From BDPWiki
E-discussion: Rethinking Democratic Governance and Leadership for Achieving the MDGs: Phase I (09 June – 26 June 2008)
[Facilitator’s Note: We are pleased to share an interim consolidated reply of the Phase I: Strengthening Democratic Governance Engagements with the MDGs Achievement Process. As we are receiving additional responses and online edits/additions on the theme, we will revise it further with newer inputs incorporated. We also invite readers to edit the summary as appropriate in the e-discussion Wiki, our interactive network platform for dynamic knowledge sharing. This is a reflection of your collective wisdom, so please do not hesitate to join us in editing the summary. For detailed background information including e-discussion concept note, Phase 1 contributions, Phase 2 Contributions and resources, please visit our e-discussion Wiki; or the UNDP Intranet e-discussion workspace (Requires Password). The e-discussion is cross-posted on DGP-Net and MDG-Net. Please submit your new contributions on the e-discussion Wiki or by email to dgp-net@groups.undp.org].
E-discussion Phase I Moderation Team:
Ms. Noha El-Mikawy, Policy Advisor for Governance and Poverty, Oslo Governance Center, Democratic Governance Group, Bureau for Development Policy, UNDP, and
Mr. Ernest Rwamucyo, Policy Adviser, Governance, MDGs Support Team, Poverty Group, Bureau for Development Policy, UNDP,
Jointly Prepared by: Facilitation Teams, DGP-Net and MDG-Net
E-DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Phase I: Strengthening Democratic Governance Engagements with the MDGs Achievement Process
The first phase of this e-Discussion attempted to address the role of government institutions in achieving the MDGs. It sought to answer the following questions:
Participative, transparent and responsive governance: Global progress is accompanied by growing disparities within countries which need to be identified and brought into policy via participative, transparent and responsive governance. How and when do participative processes (i.e. budgeting, participatory planning etc.) and/or monitoring influence sustainable pro poor policy and reduce inequities?
Implementing Economic and Social Rights: The content of the MDGs reflects universal social and economic rights. While the numerical targets are useful, a lot needs to be done to respect, protect and enforce the underlying rights of MDGs. How and when does work with courts, national human rights institutions or ombudsperson offices enhance progress towards equitable delivery on the MDGs?
Political Process and Social Movements: The MDGs and the fight against poverty in general will require (a) more involvement by parliaments, political parties, social movements and (b) enhanced accountability that is sensitive to disadvantaged and vulnerable groups and to institutional histories of marginalization. How and when does institutional capacity development ensure responsiveness to vulnerable and marginalized groups when political rules of operation reduce incentives for responsiveness or windfall of natural resource revenue deform such incentives?
Responses were received, with thanks, from:
1. Celestin Tsassa - Economics Adviser; UNDP Guinea-Bissau
2. Jeremias Blaser, Assistant Resident Representative, UNDP Zambia
4. Ernesto Bautista, Regional Advisor & Project Coordinator; UNDP Pacific Centre
5. Wanjiku Margaret, Public Sector Specialist, MDG Centre - SNV ESA/ Kenya
6. Daniel Esser,PhD; Research Analyst - Democratic Governance Group; UNDP New York
7. Dr. Amitava Mukherjee, Poverty and Development Division, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok
8. Djibril Ly, Rule of Law Project Coordinator, UNDP Haiti
9. Angela Reitmaier, PhD, MDG Advisor - NEPAD Kenya
10. Leyla Sen, Programme Manager - Democratic Governance; UNDP Turkey
11. Ricardo Yorg, Programme Officer - Governance; UNDP Paraguay
12. Owais Parray, Technical Advisor; UNDP Indonesia
13. Shirley Randell, Senior Adviser, Education and Governance for Empowerment - SNV East and Southern Africa Region
14. Tiwari Chiranjibi, Senior Advisor Local Governance - Sector Leader Water, Sanitation and Hygiene; SNV Viet Nam
15. A.H. Monjurul Kabir A.H.Monjurul Kabir, Democratic Governance Group, BDP/UNDP New York
16. Bakhodur Eshonov, Manager - Support to Reform Process; UNDP Uzbekistan
17. Srikiran Devara, Programme Analyst; UNDP Uganda
18. Girma Hailu, MDG Support Country Advisor; UNDP-Ethiopia
19. Nandita Dutta, Programme Analyst; UNDP Bangladesh
20. Fatimata Traore Ossade, Assistant Resident Representative – Governance; UNDP Mali
21. Shakeel Ahmad, Programme Officer; UNDP Pakistan
22. Ramachandran Ramasamy, Statistician / Senior Manager Six Sigma; MIMOS Berhad
23. Luke Wasonga, Governance Advisor; UNDP Mozambique
24. Dan Dionisie, Policy Specialist - Public Administration Reform and Anti-corruption; UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre
For Archived Messages, please visit: http://sdnhq.undp.org/wiki/Talk:E-Discussion_DG_%26_MDGs:_Phase_I
General Overview
Timely debate on ‘Rethinking Democratic Governance and Leadership for Achieving MDGs’ was appreciated. Discussions in the ‘Phase I: strengthening democratic governance engagements with the MDGs achievement process’ focused on the role of government institutions to achieve the MDGs. These discussions underscored the relationship between growth and governance, linkages of governance reforms and MDG achievements and importance of participation, economic & social rights as well as social and political processes for MDG achievement.
1. Democratic governance is central to the achievement of the MDGs, as it provides the ‘enabling environment' for the realization of the MDGs and, in particular, the elimination of poverty.
2. Growth and governance are necessary for long-term development. Governance is a process of aggregation and articulation of public demand and subsequent conversions into deliberate policies. Therefore, participationof public becomes a prerequisite for governance and any policy achievement.
3. MDGs have been formulated keeping in mind human right based approach. Therefore, implementing social and economic rightsof people becomes central-piece for achieving MDGs. This calls for a right-based and people-centered approach to governance emphasizing peoples’ right to ask questions, claim rights, make decisions and hold institutions accountable.
4. Creating an enabling environment for the MDG achievement involves capacity development in management, resource mobilization and strong state institutions to help build leadership and empowerment. Political processes and social movementplay a critical role in capacity development of institutions and empowerment of community.
5. The discussion also drew attention on relationship between growth, development and governance, which is not neutral. In the long term, growth, development and democratic governance are a matter of interests, incentives and power relations which change in a non-sequential manner. In the short term, growth, development and democratic governance are constrained by capacity weaknesses on the part of state and civil society organization.
6. Strengthening governance institutions is necessary for MDG achievement process. But, governance interventions and institutions cannot be replicated and these have to be anchored to the regional/national/local context. It is necessary to understand the underlying political economy consideration and political dynamics that shape the behavior of the various actors / stakeholders within the existing institutional framework.
7. It was recognized that technical fixes alone will not do it. There is a need to expand the constituency that can scrutinize public policy and anchor government commitments to goals beyond growth and FDI. Availability of resources alone is not enough in the absence of transparency in public management and public investment.
8. The need of advocacy for MDGs came out as a strong point. MDGs have not got into the development psychology of Governance. The MDGs have not been integrated into the national planning, development strategy making and budgeting processes. This was sighted as one of the reasons of failure of timely achievement of MDGs. At times, policy makers at the top and the powerful decision makers like Members of the Parliament and Permanent Secretaries to Government are either unaware of the MDGs or are not cognizant of the MDGs in their economic decision making.
Summary of Responses
Participative, transparent and responsive governance
How and when do participative processes (i.e. budgeting, participatory planning etc.) and/or monitoring influence sustainable pro poor policy and reduce inequities?
It was agreed unanimously that there is a stronger need of effective participatory processes in order to achieve MDGs and long term growth. The discussion was centered around three main points: how to encourage and ensure and participation; inclusiveness of participation; and the influence of participation on governance and in turn, on MDG achievements. The optimal situation is when beneficiaries see their needs/demands, which have been expressed in a participatory process, taken into account in national or local programs; required interventions and adequate resources are also used to respond to these needs.
1. Political decisions cannot be taken by the State alone in a ‘top-down’ manner but need to be taken by engaging concerned stakeholders. Engaging civil societies, business/private entities and the state organizations in a decision making process is becoming more and more important.
2. Participation is where people can shape the state, and the state, in turn, creates the social, political, economic and legal conditions in which people can exercise their rights and be free from poverty at large. Participation is a two-way process: There must be a vibrant civil society that is aware of its rights and the government must be willing to provide space for civic engagement.
3. While elections are certainly considered important means of participation, other forms of political participation should be explored. A functional election machinery for instance could easily be used to conduct referenda on political issue of national importance or let people vote on propositions supported by a large number of organized interests. African experience tells us that such consensual decision making has been useful in avoiding polarized decision making.
4. One interesting point raised was the linkage between growth and poverty. Growth is necessary but not sufficient for poverty reduction. Growth in sectors demanding high-skilled people does not necessarily result in removing people from poverty. Therefore, it is essential that voices and views of all the people especially the poor are heard.
5. At the same time, meaningful participation cannot be superimposed but it has to grow incrementally. In countries where factors like legal/regulatory framework or relationship between state and civil organizations, are not conducive to participatory processes, it becomes difficult to encourage participation. This can happen when State-CSO relationship is antagonistic or when CSOs suffer from weak capacity in various areas.
6. In order to encourage participation it is necessary that people have faith in the governance system. Discussions on interventions and availability of resources can be useful for strengthening confidence in various stakeholders.
7. Often, governance may be transparent and accountable but it may not necessarily be participatory. The discussion takes an example of government behaving like an efficient corporation and is able to allocate public resource and provide services but decision making is limited to a few, usually at the very top. Therefore, one of the main challenges faced in participative processes is ‘elite capture’. Participation should be inclusive of all segments of the society especially all the vulnerable groups. Due to absence of legal identity and protection, the poor are excluded from participation. It is important to reach and include those categories of the populations also that are usually left out in the MDG debate but politically immensely important for their achievements.
8. Decentralization and de-concentration of decision making and implementation is also necessary for achieving MDGs at local levels. At the same time, capabilities of local partners and institutions are limited and therefore, training, support and capacity building efforts are required.
9. Private sector is becoming more important and relevant in development. As providers of jobs, therefore of wealth, the promotion of private sector is essential for growth and poverty reduction. Democratic governance has contributed to a favorable environment for boosting private sector participation.
10. Some examples of participatory approaches adopted at different stages like planning, evaluation and monitoring, etc. illustrated that how, in practice, participation and, in turn, accountability is encourages and realized.
- UNDP Pakistan is supporting Government Devolution Plans. As a component of this plan, grassroots community organizations are being formed through which community needs are identified, prioritized and development interventions undertaken on a cost sharing basis. This provides for participatory planning starting at community and village levels which can be integrated at the district level and so on. It was also recognized that if organized, in holistic manner, these grassroots organizations can provide effective platforms to input the “voices from the grassroots” into the planning, budgeting and monitoring processes of the national and sub national governments.
- UNDP Russia is working in partnership with the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, and the Ministry of Regional Development on results-based budgeting. This is a key for effectively linking resource allocation to policy priorities like MDGs, and also for ensuring policy consistency across the (sub-national) regions. It can also help improve cross-sectoral policy coordination.
11. The discussion also indicated the significance of evidence into policy processes and monitoring the pro poor impact of policy. There are some examples of such impact assessment studies being done:
- In partnership with Open Society Institute and with four Country Offices of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Moldova, Serbia, the Bratislava Regional Centre is currently implementing a project to enhance capacities for ex-ante Policy Impact Assessment with a particular focus on ensuring equal opportunities for the vulnerable and marginalized groups. The methodology of this assessment involves understanding of the effect of policies on diverse social groups, actors and institutions, including those not targeted by the policy.
- The Democratic governance group of UNDP is launching a global program to enhance national capacity development for country led democratic governance assessments. The aim is increased ownership of these assessments, increased participation in their design, implementation and regular use and, finally, to enhanced linkage of evidence on governance to development plans and policy making.
- The Oslo Governance Centre is also working on a draft template to enhance voice into the monitoring process for service delivery by sector. This template works as an empowerment check on how inclusive participation is and how responsive state institutions can be; the template can be applied to specific sectors of delivery on the MDGs.
12. The discussion underscored the need for updated and credible data for establishing responsive governance. For citizens to be able to hold governments accountable they need valid, reliable information. Planning at Sub-national level is done using national level aggregate data, which results in fallacious planning. Also, it was highlighted that qualitative assessment and lessons learnt are equally important along with statistical/quantitative analysis.
13. Five step approach adopted generally for socio-economic development project, including thought leadership (vision); program, policies and strategies (mission); leadership and commitments; monitoring and evaluation; institutional and regulatory framework, has the weakest link when it comes to monitoring and evaluation. This is because of lack of data at sub-national level. Drawing lessons from Six Sigma methodology for problems solving in software development indicated that what gets measured, gets done. Six Sigma methodology precisely identifies and measures the problem, addresses root causes and suggests various options and solutions through deploying appropriate tools and problem solving processes. Public policy formulators need to evolve such a problem solving methodology to achieve MDG targets. Also, Identifying and analyzing the causes of delays in achievement of different MDGs such as need assessment tools can be instrumental for sensitizing decision makers.
Implementing Economic and Social Rights
How and when does work with courts, national human rights institutions or ombudsperson offices enhance progress towards equitable delivery on the MDGs?
Rule of law reinforces respect of human rights and as established in the discussion, it is hard to imagine MDG achievement in the situation where rule of law is not respected. Therefore, there is no doubt that the role of courts, national human rights institutions and ombudsperson offices is crucial in ensuring equitable delivery on MDGs.
1. The human rights institutions create and safeguard the political space for the participation of underprivileged and marginalized groups in policy process. They play the role of watchdog in the implementation of the MDG based national development strategies. Whenever the rulers tend to be autocratic, these institutions and judicial system become active and bring the ruling parties on the right track.
2. At the same time, in some countries the judiciary is not an independent body. For judiciaries to make/amend laws pertaining to MDG achievements, it is necessary that these judicial institutions are not dependent on executive as it is the case in many African countries when majority falls under presidential rule. Also, national watchdog institutions are not always strong enough to limit the superpower of the executive. There are situations where judges are not well aware of the MDGs. In such cases, it is challenging to see courts enhancing MDGs. For these reasons, an independent and fair judicial system open to poor and marginalized population becomes essential.
3. From the perspective of legal empowerment of the poor, full recognition of legal identity, assured access to the courts, basic labor protection, the right to own property, and the rule of law to prevent exploitation by the powerful are vital tools to enable the poor to realize their full potential. This certainly contribute to the implementation of the MDGs.
4. In most countries the share of the revenues that accrue from national resources is not utilized judiciously. This is related to the fact that the leadership does not link the accrued revenues to the need of the poorer segment of the citizens. Ways of retaining a larger share of national resource wealth for the sections of the regions that are producing the resources with distributive strategy to respond to the needs of the poor should be explored.
5. It was also pointed out that the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) and Commission on Human Rights’ Special Rapporteurs on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights endorse that human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights help to realize any strategy to meet the MDGs for example by:
- providing a compelling normative framework, underpinned by universally recognized human values and reinforced by legal obligations, for the formulation of national and international development policies towards achieving the MDGs ;
- raising the level of empowerment and participation of individuals;
- affirming the accountability of various stakeholders, including international organizations and NGOs, donors and transnational corporations, vis-à-vis people affected by problems related to poverty, hunger, education, gender inequality, health, housing and safe drinking water; and
- reinforcing the twin principles of global equity and shared responsibility which are the very foundation for the Millennium Declaration.
6. The discussion also elicited examples of national courts taking innovative steps for enhancing progress towards equitable delivery of MDGs. The Mid-day Meal Scheme in India which involves provision of lunch free of cost to school children on all working days has seen a great success in Gujarat and Tamilnadu. After a landmark directive of the Supreme Court of India on November 28, 2001, it has been expanded in all parts of India. The success of the scheme is illustrated by the tremendous increase in the school participation and completion rate in the state of Tamilnadu.
Political Process and Social Movements
How and when does institutional capacity development ensure responsiveness to vulnerable and marginalized groups when political rules of operation reduce incentives for responsiveness or windfall of natural resource revenue deform such incentives?
Reducing inequalities and inclusive decision making processes require social change. Social change is at the heart of development. Social struggles, in the past, did not only bring about policy change but equally modified decision making processes. Now, more than ever, collectively binding decisions require a complex interplay between state organs and social groups. For instance, if the existing planning and budgeting processes favor certain interest groups, then introducing these processes may entail changing the existing incentive arrangement and challenging the interest of certain groups which maybe more politically and economically powerful. That calls for social movements and political processes.
1. The discussion established that political space for underprivileged should be enlarged by encouraging social movements and reforming political processes so that they can enjoy their social, economic and cultural rights. The institutional capacity development can enlarge political space for poor in two ways: i) strengthening the capacity of State organizations by sensitizing political leaders for MDG achievement. ii) strengthening capacity of civil society organizations by empowering local population for enhanced collective negotiation power.
2. Political parties can take the MDG agenda closer to the people and parliamentarians can bring back the people’s feedback and insights to the floors of the parliaments, this will also be instrumental in strengthening accountability mechanism and combating corruption. It was suggested to explore engagement of political leaders having influence on policy such as Members of Parliament and State Secretaries in MDG advocacy.
3. MDG Achievements also depend on degree of commitment of authority, leadership and strategies adopted. Therefore, it becomes necessary to inform, educate and train authority about MDGs in order to establish ownership of the actions as well as achievements.
4. The capacity development of civil society institutions is equally important so that they can play effective role in monitoring and promoting equitable public service delivery. In Bangladesh, development assistance to Union Parishad (Councils) is one of the best examples of strengthening local government institutions and community participation. Block grants are being disbursed directly to councils and the councils prepare their own budget. Community participates actively in planning and budgeting.
5. Lack of infrastructure and human resources in institutions leads to lack of efficiency and lack of confidence of people in the institution. In a context where the State and the decentralized Communities have limited financial resources to recruit skills necessary for animation of its different structures, Information/Education/Communication and the achievement of certain types of training, a well- organized Volunteerism System could relieve this deficit.
6. There are cases where personnel and equipment deployment in some institutions is difficult. For instance, in rural areas it is the most difficult to deploy staff. An example of an innovative approach to encourage people to work in rural areas was noted in the discussion. A group of CSO practitioners in Kenya have come together and developed a concept through which to engage with the government and deploy staff at a modest package in 9 pilot districts as strategy to boost efforts on MDGs at the district level. The concept creates a ‘win-win’ situation where young graduates get to learn on the job and at the same time they add value as ‘an extra hand’ at the district level.
7. It came out of the discussion that along with capacity development another important factor is coordination among different government institutions in order to prioritize programs and projects focused on vulnerable groups.
8. One of the discussions pointed out at corruption and how it can be defeating the purpose of MDG achievement. Corruption not only diverts resources that could be used to advance MDGs, but also undermines the basic state capabilities to deliver on a pro-poor agenda, which is a far more serious consequence than resource diversion.
9. Aid can be more effective in supporting the enabling conditions for such social change than supporting particular participatory processes. Another such point which came out of the discussion was the importance of policy intervention rather than just promoting institutional development. One of the participants was of the opinion that policy interventions make the institutions responsible for delivering services to the citizens and when policies are responsive in nature, transforming the institutions into capable service providers should.
Other Discussion points
Participation implies a radical rethinking of who participates in the political and social processes, who makes choices and decisions, and who benefits from the processes and outcomes. Establishing social and economic rights of people encourage participation and participation leads to better and equitable outcomes. At the same time enlarged participation ensuring social and economic rights needs social and political process reforms. Thus, all the three components put forth in the discussion are interlinked and in order to achieve MDGs all the three components as a result of good governance are necessary.
Following are some points of further debate that came out from the discussion.
1. Effective approaches to deal with not-so-democratic counterparts should be discussed and explored.
2. Defining progress and linking measurements to social and economic progress in also necessary. Rating/ranking of national governments should be experimented. UNDP Global Program on Governance Assessments and Measurements managed by the Oslo Governance Center is one such example.
3. Role of innovative leadership is critical to promote democratic governance engagements with MDG achievement processes.
Responses in Full
For access to full e-discussion Phase I contributions, please click here.
