Assessing Heterogeneity in Governance Outcome: Evidence from Local Government Institutional Capacity Self-Assessment (LISA) in Nepal

Year 2025, Volume: 5 Issue: 1

Dipesh Kattel

https://doi.org/10.61192/indpol.1570592

Abstract

Local Government Institutional Capacity Self-Assessment (LISA) is a tool for local governments to evaluate their own performance in Nepal. A key strength of LISA is its self-evaluation approach, which assesses local government workflows and achievements to identify the strengths and weaknesses for improving governance and development delivery. It facilitates the critical analysis of periodic plans, financial management, and governance delivery while promoting the development of quantifiable indicators and enhancing local government capacity on a larger scale. It covers ten dimensions for the evaluation such as Governance Approach, Organization and Administration, Annual Budgeting and Planning Management, Financial Management, Public Service Delivery, Judicial Proceedings, Physical Infrastructure, Social Inclusion, Environment Protection and Disaster Management, and Collaboration and Coordination. Each dimension includes a set of major indicators and sub-indicators, with a total of 100 indicators cumulatively across all dimensions. It broadly encompasses accomplishments and evaluation methods through three distinct approaches: Totalitarian Approach, Procedural Order, and Quantitative Results. This study of evaluation approaches, multi-dimensional scope and LISA scores of 749 local governments (published by the ministry after Quality Assurance) for the Fiscal Year 2022/23 by Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) divulges the heterogeneity in local governance. The study results reveal that, through the three evaluation approaches, the ten categorized dimensions each contribute differently to governance outcomes. These variations highlight how each dimension's unique impact can influence overall performance. The direction and strength of their relationships can predict how changes in one area might impact another. The newly institutionalized governance framework, along with its assessment technique, serves as a valuable tool for promoting balanced regional development and improving local governance. By maintaining institutional bricolage, addressing the exit-voice dichotomy, and facilitating yardstick competition, this evaluation process effectively integrates diverse local needs and promotes the whole of the government. Thus, moving beyond a blanket approach, governing policies in Nepal must adopt targeted and tailored strategies that account for the diverse realities and heterogeneity in local governance outcomes.

Keywords

LISA, self-evaluation tool, institutional bricolage, yardstick competition, tailored-approaches, governance-outcomes

References

• Adhikari, Shiva & Raut, Nirmal. (2024). Size of Informal Economy ın Nepal. 10.13140/Rg.2.2.14311.42406.
• Alexander, DE. (2015). Disaster and Emergency Planning for Preparedness, Response, and Recovery. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science (PP. 1-20). Oxford University Press: Oxford.
• Ashworth, Rachel, George A. Boyne and Tom Entwistle. (2010). (eds) Public service improvement. Theories and evidence. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Bardach, E. & Patashnik, E. M. (2015) A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving (Washington, DC: CQ Press).
• Barrett, S. (2004) ‘Implementation Studies: Time for a Revival?’ Public Administration, 82, 2: 249–262.
• Baumol, W. J. and R. D. Willig (1986). Contestability: Developments since the book. Oxford Economic Papers 38, S, 9-36.
• Bishwakarma, B.K., Upreti, B.R., Devkota, D. and Devkota, N.R. (2021). Agricultural Functions and Policies in the Context of Sectoral Restructuring in Nepal. International Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development Studies, 8(2), 12-28.
• Blore, I., Devas, N. and Slater, R. (2004). Municipalities and Finance: A Sourcebook for Capacity Building. London: Earthscan.
• Boyne, George A. (1998). Public choice theory and local government: A comparative analysis of the UK and the USA. Houndmills: Macmillan.
• Burgess, Philip M. (1975). Capacity building and the elements of public management. Public Administration Review 35(6, Supplement), 705-716.
• Cairney, P. & Weible, C. (2017) ‘The New Policy Sciences: Combining the Cognitive Science of Choice, Multiple Theories of Context, and Basic and Applied Analysis’, Policy Sciences, 50, 4: 619–627.
• Cairney, P. (2019). Understanding public policy: Theories and Issues (Vol. 2). Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Caulfield, J. (1997). ‘Taxation and Equities Within Metropolitan Areas’, Paper presented to OECD Workshop on Governing Metropolitan Areas. Paris: OECD, June.
• Cleaver, F. (2002). Reinventing institutions: Bricolage and the social embeddedness of natural resource management. The European journal of development research, 14(2), 11-30.
• Cleaver, F. (2012). Development through bricolage: rethinking institutions for natural resources management. Water Altern. 6, 142–144
• Cleaver, F. D., & Franks, T. R. (2005). How institutions elude design: river basin management and sustainable livelihoods.
• Constitution of Nepal. (2015). https://lawcommission.gov.np
• Dalisay, S.N.M. (2014). Engaging Local Knowledge for Disaster Risk Reduction. Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies, 29(2), 75-102.
• Davies, Bleddyn. (1969). Local authority size: Some associations with standards of performance of services for deprived children and old people. Public Administration 47, 2, 225-248.
• Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1991). Toward a Stewardship Theory of Management. Academy of Management Review, 5 (1), 20-47.
• Devas, N., & Alam, M. (2008). Financing local government (Vol. 1). Commonwealth Secretariat.
• Goyal, A., & Nash, J. (2017). Reaping Richer Returns: Public Spending Priorities for African Agriculture Productivity Growth. World Bank Publications.
• Greenwood, Royston, C. R. Hinnings and Stewart Ranson. (1975a). Contingency theory and the organization of local authorities. Part I: Differentiation and integration. Public Administration 53, 1, 1-23.
• Greenwood, Royston, C. R. Hinnings and Stewart Ranson. (1975b). Contingency theory and the organization of local authorities. Part 2: Contingencies and structure. Public Administration 53, 2, 1-23.
• Hansen, Tore and Francesco Kjellberg. (1976). Municipal expenditures in Norway: Autonomy and constraints in local government activity. Policy and Politics 4, 3, 25-50 . Hassenforder, E., Ferrand, N., Pittock, J., Daniell, K. A., & Barreteau, O. (2015). A participatory planning process as an arena for facilitating institutional bricolage: an example from the Rwenzori region, Uganda. Society & natural resources, 28(9), 995-1012.
• Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states (Vol. 25). Harvard University Press.
• Honadle, Beth W. (1981). A capacity-building framework- a search for concept and purpose. Public Administration Review 41, 5, 575-580.
• Jimee, G.K., Dixit, A.M., Tandigan, M., Sharma, S. (2015). Strategy for Developing Professional Emergency Responders in Nepal. Conference Paper. ResearchGate.
• Kandel, R. (2021). Local Level Institutional Self-Assessment System: Technological Innovation in Public Sector. Prashasan: The Nepalese Journal of Public Administration, 52(1), 171-180.
• Kattel, D. (2023). Enhancing Labor Productivity via Local Agro-governance of Nepal. Industrial Policy, 3(2), 27-38. https://doi.org/10.61192/indpol.1352332
• Kattel, D. (2024). Empirical evidence transformation into local agro-governance pathways for enhanced agro-productivity in rural mid-hills of Nepal. Industrial Policy, 4(1), 11-22. https://doi.org/10.61192/indpol.1478320
• Local Bodies Fiscal Commission (LBFC). (2011). Minimum conditions and performance measures of local bodies in Nepal: An overview (Assessment years: 2007/08-2010/11).
• Local Government Operation Act (LGOA). (2017). https://lawcommission.gov.np
• Local Level Institutional Capacity Self-Assessment. (LISA). (2020). Government of Nepal, Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration, Singhadurbar. https://LISA.mofaga.gov.np/home
• Local Self Governance Act (LSGA). (1999). and Regulation (LSGR). (2000). https://lawcommission.gov.np
• Martini, R., Chalifah, S., Pisey, K. K., Sari, K. R., Wardhani, S. W., Aryani, Y. A., & Zulkifli, C. (2022). The Local Government Performance in Indonesia. In Proceedings of the 2nd Forum in Research, Science, and Technology. Atlantis Press. https://doi. org/10.5220/000915 (Vol. 1700002500).
• Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration. (MoFAGA). (2020). Ten Years Strategic Plan., Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration, Singhadurbar, Kathmandu.
• Newton, Keith. (1982). Is small really so beautiful. Is big really so ugly? Size, effectiveness and democracy in local government. Political Studies 30, 2, 190-206.
• Oakerson, R. J. (1999, June). Governance structures and problem-solving in metropolitan areas: responding to (Downsian) growth-related problems. In Workshop on the Workshop II, Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind., June. pp. 9–13.
• Ostrom, Eleanor. (1972). Metropolitan reform: Propositions drawn from two traditions. Social Science Quarterly 53, 3, 474-93.
• Pearl, J., Glymour, M., & Jewell, N. P. (2016). Causal Inference in Statistics: A primer. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
• Rose, A. D. (2014). Local Disaster Resilience; administrative and political perspectives. Routledge London. Salmon, P. (2019). Yardstick competition among governments: accountability and policymaking when citizens look across borders. Oxford University Press.
• Shah, A. (ed.) (2007). Local Public Financial Management. Washington, DC: World Bank, p. 1.
• Sidibé, A., Totin, E., Thompson-Hall, M., Traoré, O. T., Traoré, P. C. S., & Olabisi, L. S. (2018). Multi-scale governance in agriculture systems: Interplay between national and local institutions around the production dimension of food security in Mali. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 84, 94-102.
• Tiebout, C.M. (1956). ‘A Pure Theory of Local Expenditure’, Journal of Political Economy, 64(5): 416–24.
• Walker, R. M., & Andrews, R. (2015). Local government management and performance: a review of evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 101-133. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut038
• Walker, Richard M., George A. Boyne and Gene A. Brewer (Eds). (2010). Public management and performance: Research directions. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.