planning a governance assessment - United Nations Development ...

One of the main strengths of this approach is the high level of disaggregation available. Direct policy implications are
possible, for instance, when a particular single institution is identified as particularly prone to corruption. Because the
modules are attached to surveys that provide rich socioeconomic information, all governance related phenomena can be
disaggregated in relation to the incidence in poor/non-poor households, households with/without higher education, and
households with a woman as household head, for example. This allows for a clearer picture of the vulnerability of different
social classes.
The DIAL 1-2-3 governance module adds about 13 minutes to a typical household survey conducted by an NSO/CSO.
This additional time should not be too expensive. Obviously, costs will vary from country to country, based on the
sample size of the survey, the coverage, size of the country, and infrastructure. Generally, the most expensive elements of a
household survey are the sampling, making contact with the selected household and then with the selected
respondent in that household. The marginal cost of adding about 100 governance questions to an existing household survey
is quite reasonable in the DIAL 1-2-3 approach. In Peru, the DIAL governance module was added on to an existing survey of
approximately 20,000 households for a cost of approximately US$60,000.
(http://www.dial.prd.fr/)
Example of cost, applying the DIAL governance module
Information on total costs includes equipment, training, wages, services, data entry and consistency analysis for the DIAL
governance module applied in Peru in 2004. The Peruvian sample size is relatively large with respect to other experiences
in Africa or Madagascar where sample sizes usually are around 3000 households.
• Planned sample: 20,000
• Final sample size : 19,673
• Unit cost: US$ 3.53
• Total cost: US$ 52,990
Source: DIAL
Higher-cost options
Democratic governance assessment in Mongolia. Beginning in 2003, the government of Mongolia with assistance from the
UNDP embarked on a process of conducting a democratic governance assessment as part of strengthening democracy
in the country. The assessment was a full-scale and comprehensive process that included consultations with civil society,
country-contextualization of methodology, capacity development of local research institutions and political
institutionalization of governance indicators. Approximately 130 indicators were developed, including a set of “satellite”
indicators designed to capture the local context. The first round of results, Democratic Governance Indicators: Assessing the
State of Governance in Mongolia, was published by the Government of Mongolia and UNDP in 2006.
While more costly, many stakeholders agreed that the higher costs involved in undertaking such a comprehensive process
were justified. The cost of the first round was quite high, but the second round was considerably less expensive. The current
approach relies on the NSO conducting the household surveys with a reduced number of governance indicators (25), with
costs falling into the medium range discussed above in the DIAL example. Today, democratic governance assessment forms
part of the parliamentarian monitoring mechanisms of Mongolia’s MDG9 (Strengthen Human Rights and Foster Democratic
Governance) and has had a real impact on democratization in Mongolia. The financial accounting below sets the standard
for transparency and accountability concerning the use of funds.
36
Planning a Governance Assessment: A Guide to Approaches, Costs and Benefits