LaBerge, Marie/UNDP. 2008."Claiming the MDGs: Anempowerment framework".
- Objective: To develop a framework for a complementary tool to help policy makers account for democratic governance throughout the MDG planning cycle, rather than addressing it only at the end of the implementation process.
- Key characterstics: Ex-ante guide related to all rights that are MDG-related, focusing on the obligation to fulfill (in terms of democratic government assessments and capacity assessments), using pro-poor and gender sensitive indicators that can measure democratic governance, and meant for any user involved in the MDG planning process, both at the national and international levels (ie, government officials and international organizations). Analyzes the missing links between MDG policy input and the set of policy outcomes which are assumed to flow from these inputs; and how to carry out an empowerment check, related to the missing links between MDG outcomes, their assumed sustainability and their assumed pro-poor orientation. Provides a template design.
- Summary: Section one is the executive summary.
Section two introduces the current approach, which is a "governance light" MDG-based planning methodology. The current approach includes assessment of MDG needs and achievement gaps, costing component, and a macroeconomic modeling framework to assess impact of increased government expenditures on macroeconomic performance and MDG investments. But the shortcomings of this methodology are: its geared on the aggregated level and not towards most vulnerable or poorest; investment don't reach those for whom they were intended; focus on central-level ministries neglecting local governments; resource allocations for policy and legislative changes not taken into account; quality assurance not taken into account, costing tools don't capture inefficiency and inadequacy of current service systems; can't handle joint assessment methodologies.
Section three explains how to identify the most vulnerable claim-holders and the related cost implications. Vulnerability analysis looks at: economic status; social, cultural, linguistic and religious status; political status; occupational status; geographic status; educational and literacy status; age status; and a gender analysis across all of the above. This framework can help identify some cost implications related to the capacity and democracy deficits. Examples of costs include those related to: media's dissemination of community groups' activities; information campaigns about rights and entitlements and civic participation; making budget allocation available; conducting independent audits and the public disclosure of results; behavior change interventions; implementation mechanisms of redress mechanisms for victims of discrimination.
Section four outlines how to diagnose the "missing governance links", explaining how to get from policy inputs to assumed outcomes. In order to go beyond the assumptions government officials make about the impact of policies, to best understand where the missing governance links are, the following questions should be asked: what keeps unfair/ineffective practices in place? Does it have to do with ignorance/geographic isolations/unequal distribution of resources/insufficient budgetary allocation/lack of trust by communities in service delivery mechanisms/ social norms and traditions? These questions help point to either capacity deficits or democratic governance deficits. The framework here links the diagnostic tools so that capacity and democratic governance assessments are conducted concurrently. Democratic governance assessment asks what keeps unfair practices in place. Related principles are: participation, representation, accountability, transparency, equity, efficiency (4A framework - accessible, affordable, adapted, acceptable).Capacity assessments asks what keeps ineffective practices in place. This capacity assessment methodology has three dimensions: points of entry (enabling environment and organization level), core issues (capacities to uphold public sector accountability, capacities to provide access to information, development knowledge and technology, and capacities to foster inclusion, participation, equity and empowerment) and functional capacities (situation analysis, policy design and strategy formulation, resources and budget allocation, program and project implementation, and monitoring, evaluation and learning).
Section five focuses on empowerment, and lays out how to open voice and accountability channels for sustained, pro-poor outcomes. The framework asks: what are the concrete channels through which citizens can express their voice or demands, and are able to hold duty-bearers to account? Empowerment checks assess two types of mechanisms: voice and accountability. A table is given of generic set of empowerment checks.
Section six explains how to use sector-based governance assessment templates.
Section seven provides an illustration of the empowerment framework applied to the water and sanitation sector, including tables and checklists. - Best used for: Focusing on issues related to vulnerable groups and issues related to the capacity to reach these vulnerable groups.
- Data needed: Qualitative data, especially to identify the most vulnerable.
- Tested?: Not mentioned
- Possible disadvantages: This is not a tool, but rather a guide of "what to look for" when undertaking sector-based needs assessments to inform an MDG-based planning exercise. Incomplete when used on its own? Strong in guiding user in asking the right questions, but user may then need more guidance in terms of coming up with concrete conclusions as to what needs to be done and clearly identifying where the duty-bearer is lacking. Maybe need a follow-up guide helping user with these next steps?
- Going forward: Possibilities for using this framework on other PRSPs, even though designed only for the MDGs?
- Complementary tools: OHCHR paper on inserting HRBA into MDG process, tools that allow for identification of vulnerable groups (such as OHCHR's paper on indicators) through disaggregation. Combine with tools that help to make a human rights case.