These suggested indicators are aimed at:

• Measuring the quality of governance of the political and administrative regimes of the city viz. a viz. the situations (or conditions) they are in, the mechanisms, institutions and processes that they employ to combat the problems that stress them and the effectiveness of their responses in solving those problems; and

• Depict the process and direction the governance systems are taking in the city.

The purpose of these indicators is to encourage and assist the urban local government institutions and their civil society and corporate sector partners in understanding and appreciating:

• the need for good governance;

• the need for regular assessment of their performance to determine and address the strengths and weakness of the city’s political and administrative mechanisms;

• the ways and measurement of good urban governance; and

• the urgent need to use the methodology and indicators for self-assessment.

The expected major outcomes from the use of this set of indicators are:

• A novel urban partnership culture that respects the need and responsibility of each other to keep an adequate cooperative tab on the processes of city planning, administration and governance.

• A readily available and regularly updated, comprehensive database to measure the status & trends of the City’s governance and its impact.

• Constantly improving city governance, which is responsive, responsible and accountable to the governed.

In compiling these two sets of indicators of urban good governance, there were several primary considerations. They were selected after ascertaining that the data sought by each indicator:

• are readily available and easily collectable at the city level

• can really help assess governance and

• can, where required, effectively help change governance

• are easy to understand and use by the assessors and citizens

• do not require the use of survey and studies

The selected indicators are those that can help guide urban policy directions, participatory governance and greater municipal responsiveness to needs and aspirations of the residents.

This set of indicators is aimed at stimulating urban local governments and their partners to undertake a periodic exercise of participatory self-assessment to ascertain:

• the direction their local urban governance is proceeding in;

• the impact of such governance in the short rum; and

• the vibrancy of democratic participation in local governance. This will be a participatory joint exercise and therefore, the following partners will be the users of these indicators:

• national, sub-national and urban local governments;

• international development agencies;

• civil society organizations;

• representative organizations of the city’s corporate sector;

• research institutions;

• citizens, particularly the urban poor groups;

• women’s groups; and

• children between 15 – 18 years.

Just consider how medical examinations are held to check the health status of human beings. They are generally done in two stages. First, the physician does a primary examination with basic instruments like the stethoscope. She checks the pulse-rate or puts the client on a treadmill. These are simple tests. Having ascertained the basic condition of health, she puts the patient through a series of pathological and other advanced hi-tech tests to complete the checking up process.

Similarly, here in this Source Book, we are recommending a two-tier approach to determine how healthy the urban governance in your city is. Consequently, we suggest here for your use, two sets of indicators of Good Governance. The first is meant to be an instrument of qualitative primary examination – just a report card. The second is a more advanced quantitative and somewhat high-tech pathological test.

• A. Primary Indicators – The Report Card: These are drive-force indicators. They indicate the performance of the key driving forces of the governance process in the city. Good governance being an amalgam of systems, procedures and processes, the indicators included in this set are basically CSR level indicators. It is a mid-course pulse-checker. Therefore, its emphasis is on the institutions systems and processes of governance and not much on delivery of basic services, which are generally listed for programme reviews. The indicators suggested here are for periodic performance assessment and, not for outcome evaluations. They indicate whether the course of governance is on the right track and which areas of city governance need improvement. By applying this set of simple and perceptive indicators, the stakeholders will be able to make a fair assessment of the strength, weaknesses and direction of the city’s governing process. This set of indicators has an in-built rating system. It provides for performance rating against each indicator along a rating range of 1 to 4. For excellent, high, good and moderate performance, the respondent gives 4, 3, 2, and 1 points respectively. For low performance, no points are given, for these indicators are to assess good governance and not low performance.

This report card containing 50 indicators is recommended for use by municipal institutions if they are keen on doing an internal assessment using the perceptions and ratings of their own staff members and councillors. They can use this card as it is as the indicators given are considered the basic minimum aspects which municipal good governance must have. It can also be administered outside the municipal system, including civil society partners.

The Source Book also offers a set of desegregated report cards, indifferent colours, that gives the users the freedom to create their own indicators. They can select either from these 50 indicators given in a standard report card, or develop their own according to the specific needs of the city. The Report Cards are designed for each of the main critical areas of municipal work such as, solid waste management, water and sanitation, poverty, job creation, health care, shelter and public transport. Each user is free to design and use similar report cards for other areas of critical action that are not already designed for in this set.

B. Extended Indicators – The pathological test: This set is for end-of-term evaluation of the endeavour’s outcome and impact. While the Primary Drive-Force Indicators, referred to above, will look at the functioning of municipal systems and processes, the Extended Indicators will help capture the effectiveness of those systems and processes in terms of inputs, outputs, outcomes and, where possible, the final impact. Being an optional exercise, this set of indicators does not have a rating system. It only provides a standard norm that is achievable through good governance. Each city can decide which of these 100 indicators are relevant to their specific needs and conditions and use them for extended assessment in order to ascertain whether the desired minimum norms have been achieved or not. If most of the indicator show that norms have not been achieved, then it can be concluded that the city governance is weak and there is much work for the municipality to complete.

• Set up an appropriate Task Force to coordinate the use of these indicators. Endure that it comprises, in the least, a representative of the mayor, NGOs, Business People and academics of the town. Limit the number to a maximum of 10 persons.

• Identify an impartial research or academic institution to conduct the assessment.

If you are one of those interested in the wellbeing of your city, its residents and its democratic institutions, the first thing you may wish to do is to encourage the city government and its partners to take a good look at the way the city is being managed. The action steps leading therefrom are easy to understand and support. The major action steps to initiate the exercise are: