FOUR PROPOSITIONS ON GENDER-SENSITIVE AND PRO-POOR INDICATORS OF GOOD GOVERNANCE Christopher Scott London School of Economics April 2005 THE PROPOSITIONS 1. Indicator selection is itself a governance process. 2. Three generations of indicators may be distinguished. 3. Use specific governance processes as units of analysis to identify certain indicators. 4. ‘Gender-sensitivity’ has (at least) four different meanings. INDICATOR SELECTION IS A GOVERNANCE PROCESS • Competent, transparent and participatory IS intrinsic to good governance. • Not an exclusively technical exercise, nor a once-off set of decisions. • Ensure IS process strengthens and supports existing democratic political institutions rather than bypasses them, eg. importance of Parliamentary involvement. DISTINGUISH THREE GENERATIONS OF INDICATORS • 1st generation indicators (G1) – can be used now – may suffer from methodological weaknesses wrt relevance,coverage,etc. • 2nd generation indicators (G2) – not currently available. – could be produced within (say) 3 years – promise to be methodologically superior to some G1 indicators. DISTINGUISH THREE GENERATIONS OF INDICATORS • 3rd generation indicators (G3) – experimental indicators outside official monitoring system. – often pioneered by civil society organisations. – after due process of appraisal, some G3 indicators may evolve into G2. USE GOVERNANCE PROCESSES AS UNITS OF ANALYSIS • Mapping specific governance processes provides a tool for identifying certain pro- poor and gender-sensitive indicators • Suggest hierarchy of ‘governance’ → service lines/practice areas → processes → indicators. • Process ≡ detailed sequence of chronological steps in a single political, administrative or legal procedure which is embedded in a set of institutions. USE GOVERNANCE PROCESSES AS UNITS OF ANALYSIS • Examples – Regulatory process for registering a firm (required for movement from urban informal to formal sector) – Criminal justice process: application in Honduras produced 10 indicators. – In some countries (Mongolia), it is likely that a majority of both perpetrators and victims of certain types of recorded crime (such as theft) come from low-income households. IDENTIFY FOUR TYPES OF GENDER- SENSITIVE INDICATORS 1. Gender disaggregated – eg. % of Parliamentarians who are female – How far to disaggregate ? Large differences in indicator X (propensity to vote) may exist between separate subgroups of either men or women (by age group, income, ethnic group). – Implies average gender differential wrt indicator X may hide large variance across subgroups of the same gender. May be relevant to policy. IDENTIFY FOUR TYPES OF GENDER- SENSITIVE INDICATORS 2. Gender specific – eg. number of reported rape cases prosecuted in courts (victims almost exclusively female) – eg. incidence of domestic violence (victims predominantly female) – relevant for measuring dimensions of welfare which are female-specific. IDENTIFY FOUR TYPES OF GENDER- SENSITIVE INDICATORS 3. Implicitly gendered: – eg. distance from nearest health and education facilities (defined as a governance indicator in Kosovo HDR). – If it is women rather than men who take children to health clinics and accompany them to/from school, this indicator is implicitly gendered. – Importance of obtaining information on time-use by (poor) men and women. IDENTIFY FOUR TYPES OF GENDER- SENSITIVE INDICATORS 4. Chosen by women rather than men – need not refer to gender at all. – such indicators reflect differences in preferences/priorities as between men and women regarding different dimensions of governance.
Pages to are hidden for
"NOTES ON GENDER-SENSITIVE AND PRO-POOR INDICATORS OF GOOD GOVERNANCE"Please download to view full document