Advertisement

Composite Indicator of Social Responsiveness of Local Governments: An Empirical Mapping of the Networked Community Governance Paradigm

  • Aleksandra Maksimovska
  • Aleksandar StojkovEmail author
Original Research
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

Various local stakeholders with diverse needs seek different treatment and actions by their local governments. From the modern perspective of local governance, this article examines whether local governments are sufficiently responsive in meeting not only the mandatory responsibilities, but also the rapidly expanding range of societal expectations. This study enriches the existing local governance literature with a novel methodology and a set of indicators for measuring the quality of networked community local governance. The primary goal is to enlighten the local governance theory with a newly designed perspective and to offer our own innovative quantitative representation. The conclusions are based on theoretical refinements and our own innovative methodology supported by an empirical investigation. Finally, a composite indicator of social responsiveness of local governments is constructed, elaborated and illustrated through a case study.

Keywords

Networked community governance Social responsiveness Local governance Transparency 

JEL Classification

H70 H75 H76 I38 

Notes

References

  1. Alford, J., & Hughes, O. (2008). Public value pragmatism as the next phase of public management. American Review of Public Administration, 38(2), 130–148.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074008314203.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, M., Hay, R., & Myers, J. (2010). Can governance indicators make sense? Towards a new approach to sector-specific measures of governance. Oxford Development Studies, 38(4), 391–410.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13600818.2010.524696.Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong, C. (2011). Providing a clearer view: An examination of transparency on local government websites. Government Information Quarterly, 28(1), 11–16.Google Scholar
  4. Arvate, P. R. (2013). Electoral competition and local government responsiveness in Brazil. World Development, 43, 67–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.11.004.Google Scholar
  5. Bandura, R. (2005). Measuring country performance and state behavior: A survey of composite indices. Technical report. New York: Office of Development Studies, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).Google Scholar
  6. Bandura, R. (2008). A survey of composite indices measuring country performance: 2008 update. Technical report. New York: Office of Development Studies, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).Google Scholar
  7. Bandura, R. (2011). Composite indicators and rankings: Inventory 2011. Technical report. New York: Office of Development Studies, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).Google Scholar
  8. Bingham, L., Nabatchi, T., & O’Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 85, 547–558.Google Scholar
  9. Bloom, E., Sunseri, A., & Leonard, A. (2007). Measuring and strengthening local governance capacity: The local governance barometer. Washington, DC: PACT.Google Scholar
  10. Bolívar, R., Pedro, M., Navarro-Galera, A., Muñoz, L., Lopez, S., & Deseada, M. (2014). Factors influencing local government financial sustainability: An empirical study. Lex Localis—Journal of Local Self-Government, 12, 1.  https://doi.org/10.4335/12.1.31-54(2014).Google Scholar
  11. Cherchye, L., Ooghe, E., & Van Puyenbroeck, T. (2008). Robust human development rankings. Journal of Economic Inequality, 6(1), 287–321.Google Scholar
  12. Chowdhury, S., & Squire, L. (2006). Setting weights for aggregate indices: An application to the Commitment to Development Index and Human Development Index. Journal of Development Studies, 42(5), 761–771.Google Scholar
  13. Cortina, J. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.Google Scholar
  14. da Cruz, N. F., & Marques, R. C. (2016). Structuring composite local governance indicators. Policy Studies, 38(2), 1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2016.1210117.Google Scholar
  15. Davies, A. (2009). Human development and the optimal size of government. Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(2), 326–330.Google Scholar
  16. Davis, K. E., Fisher, A., Kingsbury, B., & Merry, S. E. (Eds.). (2012). Governance by indicators: Global power through quantification and rankings, law and global governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Desai, M. (1991). Human development: Concepts and measurement. European Economic Review, 35(2–3), 350–357.Google Scholar
  18. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead—Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057.Google Scholar
  19. Frahm, K. A., & Martin, L. L. (2009). From government to governance: Implications for social work administration. Administration in Social Work, 33, 407–422.Google Scholar
  20. Gisselquist, R. (2014). Developing and evaluating governance indexes: 10 questions. Policy Studies, 35, 513–531.Google Scholar
  21. Greco, S., Ishizaka, A., Tasiou, M., & Torrisi, G. (2018). On the methodological framework of composite indices: A review of the issues of weighting, aggregation, and robustness. Social Indicators Research, 1, 1–34.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1832-9.Google Scholar
  22. Hallerberg, M., & Kayser, M. (2013). Measuring governance. APSA-Comparative Politics Newsletter, 23(1), 1–2.Google Scholar
  23. Hesse, J. J., & Sharpe, J. L. (1991). Conclusions. In J. J. Hesse (Ed.), Local government and urban affairs in international perspective. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  24. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.Google Scholar
  25. Howard, D., & Mike, G. (2000). Modernization and improvement of government and public services: Deepening democracy or élite governance? New Political Management Arrangements in Local Government, 20(2), 15–20.Google Scholar
  26. Humes, S., & Martin, E. (1969). The structure of local government: A comparative survey of 81 countries. The Hague: International Union of Local Authorities.Google Scholar
  27. IDEA (Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance). (2013). State of local democracy assessment framework. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.Google Scholar
  28. Jametti, M., & Joanis, M. (2011). Electoral competition as a determinant of fiscal decentralization. CESifo Working paper series 3574, CESifo Group Munich.Google Scholar
  29. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2004). Governance matters III: Governance indicators for 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002. World Bank Economic Review, 18, 253–287.Google Scholar
  30. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Zoido-Lobatón, P. (1999a). Aggregating governance indicators. World Bank Policy Research working paper no. 2195, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  31. Kaufmann, D., Kray, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2010). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. Policy research working paper no. 5430, World Bank, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
  32. Kaufmann, L., & Rousseeuw, P. (1990). Finding groups in data. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Maksimovska, A. (2010). The model of the asymmetric fiscal decentralization in the theory and the case of Republic of Macedonia. Iustinianus Primus Law Review, 1(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  34. Maksimovska, A. (2011). Financing metropolitan cities: The case of Skopje. Iustinianus Primus Law Review, 2(2), 1–14.Google Scholar
  35. Maksimovska, A., & Pendovska, V. (2009). Financing municipal utility activities and local public enterprises by way of illustrating the situation in the Republic of Macedonia. Lex Localis—Journal of Local Self-Government, 7(2), 141–158.Google Scholar
  36. Maksimovska, A., & Stojkov, A. (2013). The future of fiscal decentralization in South East Europe: What is on horizon? Lex Localis—Journal of Local Self-Government, 11(3), 325–344.Google Scholar
  37. Marozzi, M. (2015). Measuring trust in European Public Institutions. Social Indicators Research, 123, 879–895.Google Scholar
  38. Marozzi, M., & Bolzan, M. (2016). An index of household accessibility to basic services: A study of Italian regions. Social Indicators Research, 9, 1046.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1440-0.Google Scholar
  39. Martinez-Palacios, J. (2017). Inclusive local governance: Normative proposals and political practices. Local Government Studies, 43(4), 577–597.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2017.1303485.Google Scholar
  40. Martinez-Vasquez, J., & Timofeev, A. (2009). Decentralization measures revisited. Working paper 09-13, International Studies Program, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.Google Scholar
  41. Moore, M. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Mulgan, R. (2000). Accountability: An ever-expanding concept? Public Administration, 78(3), 555–573.Google Scholar
  43. Müller, W., & Strøm, K. (Eds.). (1999). Policy, office or votes? How political parties in Western Europe make hard decisions. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Munda, G., Nardo, M., Saisana, M., & Srebotnjak, T. (2009). Measuring uncertainties in composite indicators of sustainability. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, 11, 7–26.Google Scholar
  45. Norton, A. (1991). Western European local government in comparative perspective. In R. Batley & G. Stoker (Eds.), Local government in Western Europe (pp. 21–41). Basingstoke: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
  46. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  47. Oates, W. E. (1972). Fiscal federalism. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovic.Google Scholar
  48. Oates, W. E. (2008). On the evolution of fiscal federalism: Theory and institutions. National Tax Journal, 61(2), 313–334.Google Scholar
  49. OECD. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  50. Osborne, S. (2006). The new public governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377–387.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030600853022.Google Scholar
  51. Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Nasi, G. (2012). A new theory for public service management? Toward a (public) service-dominant approach. American Review of Public Administration, 43(2), 135–158.Google Scholar
  52. Östrom, E., Schroeder, L., & Wynne, S. (1993). Institutional incentives and sustainable development: Infrastructure policies in perspective. Boulder: West View Press.Google Scholar
  53. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis—New public management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian State (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Prud’homme, R. (1995). On the dangers of decentralization. World Bank Research Observer, 10, 210–226.Google Scholar
  55. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Ray, A. K. (2008). Measurement of social development: An international comparison. Social Indicators Research, 86(1), 1–46.Google Scholar
  57. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1999). Foreword: Governance and networks. In G. Stoker (Ed.), The new management of British local governance (pp. xii–xxvi). Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  58. Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2012). Defining and measuring quality of government. In S. Holmberg & B. Rothstein (Eds.), Good government: The relevance of political science (pp. 13–39). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  59. Sagar, A., & Najam, A. (1998). The human development index: A critical review. Ecological Economics, 25(3), 249–264.Google Scholar
  60. Saisana, M., D’Hombres, B., & Saltelli, A. (2011). Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy implications. Research Policy, 40, 165–177.Google Scholar
  61. Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (2005). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 168, 307–323.Google Scholar
  62. Samoff, J. (1990). Decentralization: The politics of interventionism. Development and Change, 21, 513–530.Google Scholar
  63. Schaeffer, M. (2005). Local government accountability: Challenges and strategies. World Bank: World Bank’s Decentralization Thematic Group.Google Scholar
  64. Shah, A. (Ed.). (2007). Participatory budgeting. Public sector governance and accountability series. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  65. Shah, A., & Shah, S. (2006). The new vision of local governance and the evolving roles of local governments. In A. Shah (Ed.), Local governance in developing countries. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  66. Sharpe, A., & Andrews, B. (2012). An assessment of weighting methodologies for composite indicators: The case of the index of economic well-being. CSLS research report no. 2012-10, Centre for the Study of Living Standards, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  67. Smith, B. C. (1985). Decentralization: The territorial dimension of the state. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  68. Stewart, B. (2018). From adversaries to allies: Ethnic gerrymandering and ethnic party behaviour in local elections in Macedonia. Nations and Nationalism, 2018, 1–22.Google Scholar
  69. Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 155, 17–28.Google Scholar
  70. Stoker, G. (2008). Comparative local governance. In S. A. Binder, R. A. W. Rhodes, & B. A. Rockman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Stoker, G. (2011). Was local governance such a good idea? A global comparative perspective. Public Administration, 89(1), 15–31.Google Scholar
  72. Sullivan, H., & Skelcher, C. (2002). Working across boundaries. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  73. Taghizadeh, J. L. (2015). Are political parties more responsive to advocacy groups mobilising core voters or swing voters? Political responsiveness to citizens’ protest movements in Swedish local governments. Scandinavian Political Studies, 39(2), 161–184.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9477.12061.Google Scholar
  74. Tanzi, V. (1995). Fiscal federalism and decentralization: A review of some efficiency and macroeconomic aspects. Paper presented at the Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  75. Teles, F., de Sousa, L., Moreno Pires, S., Macedo, A., & Mota, L. (2017). Assessing the quality of local governance: A review of normative principles and theoretical approaches. Paper presented at ECPR Annual Conference, Oslo.Google Scholar
  76. Thomas, J. C. (2012). Citizen, customer, partner: Engaging the public in public management. New York: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  77. UNDP. (2009). A users’ guide to measuring local governance. Oslo: UNDP Oslo Governance Centre.Google Scholar
  78. UN-HABITAT (United Nations Human Settlements Programme). (2005). Urban Governance Index: Conceptual foundation and field test report: Global urban observatory. Nairobi: UNHABITAT.Google Scholar
  79. Van Puyenbroeck, T., & Rogge, N. (2017). Geometric mean quantity index numbers with benefit-of-the-doubt weights. European Journal of Operational Research, 256(3), 1004–1014.Google Scholar
  80. Wallis, J. J., & Oates, W. E. (1988). Decentralization in the public sector: An empirical study of state and local government. In S. H. Rosen (Ed.), Fiscal federalism: Quantitative studies (pp. 5–32). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  81. World Bank. (1994). World development report: Infrastructure for development. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Iustinianus Primus Faculty of LawSs. Cyril and Methodius UniversitySkopjeMacedonia

Personalised recommendations