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

Abstract

Local Government Institutional Capacity Self-Assessment (LISA) as a self-evaluation tool that assess the workflows and performance by identifying the pros and cons for governance enrichment and development delivery. It analyzes periodic plans, financial management, and governance delivery while developing quantifiable indicators and strengthening local government capacity on a larger landscape. The LISA assessment covers ten dimensions with a total of 100 indicators and sub-indicators, broadly addressing accomplishments and evaluation methods through the Totalitarian Approach, Procedural Order, and Quantitative Results. This study includes evaluation approaches, multi-dimensional scope of LISA and scores of 749 local governments (who submitted their assessment scores for the Fiscal Year 2022/23) published by the ministry after quality assurance. The study method employed is Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with regression analysis. This study aims to divulge the significance, effectiveness, and diversity of local governance outcomes, exploring their implications and variations across different contexts. These comprehensive understandings will thereby contribute to informed policy-making (improvement recommendations in the guideline, directives and working procedure), efficient service delivery and enhanced outcomes (structural and institutional change in local governments, allocation and expenditure efficiency and capacity enhancement) of the local governments. The findings of the study reveal that 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 assessment technique promotes regional balanced development and improved local governance by integrating diverse needs, fostering yardstick competition, and advancing whole-of-government collaboration. Thus, moving beyond a blanket approach, governing policies in Nepal must adopt targeted and tailored strategies that account for the diverse realities and local governance heterogeneity.

Keywords

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

References

1. Adhikari, Shiva & Raut, Nirmal. (2024). Size of Informal Economy ın Nepal. 10.13140/Rg.2.2.14311.42406.
2. 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.
3. Ashworth, Rachel, George A. Boyne and Tom Entwistle. (2010). (eds) Public service improvement. Theories and evidence. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
4. Bardach, E. & Patashnik, E. M. (2015) A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving (Washington, DC: CQ Press).
5. Barrett, S. (2004) ‘Implementation Studies: Time for a Revival?’ Public Administration, 82, 2: 249–262.
6. Baumol, W. J. and R. D. Willig (1986). Contestability: Developments since the book. Oxford Economic Papers 38, S, 9-36.
7. 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.
8. Blore, I., Devas, N. and Slater, R. (2004). Municipalities and Finance: A Sourcebook for Capacity Building. London: Earthscan.

9. Boyne, George A. (1998). Public choice theory and local government: A comparative analysis of the UK and the USA. Houndmills: Macmillan.
10. Burgess, Philip M. (1975). Capacity building and the elements of public management. Public Administration Review 35(6, Supplement), 705-716.
11. 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.
12. Cairney, P. (2019). Understanding public policy: Theories and Issues (Vol. 2). Bloomsbury Publishing.
13. Caulfield, J. (1997). ‘Taxation and Equities Within Metropolitan Areas’, Paper presented to OECD Workshop on Governing Metropolitan Areas. Paris: OECD, June.
14. Cleaver, F. (2002). Reinventing institutions: Bricolage and the social embeddedness of natural resource management. The European journal of development research, 14(2), 11-30.
15. Cleaver, F. (2012). Development through bricolage: rethinking institutions for natural resources management. Water Altern. 6, 142–144
16. Cleaver, F. D., & Franks, T. R. (2005). How institutions elude design: river basin management and sustainable livelihoods.
17. Constitution of Nepal. (2015). https://lawcommission.gov.np
18. Dalisay, S.N.M. (2014). Engaging Local Knowledge for Disaster Risk Reduction. Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies, 29(2), 75-102.
19. 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.
20. Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1991). Toward a Stewardship Theory of Management. Academy of Management Review, 5 (1), 20-47.
21. Devas, N., & Alam, M. (2008). Financing local government (Vol. 1). Commonwealth Secretariat.
22. Goyal, A., & Nash, J. (2017). Reaping Richer Returns: Public Spending Priorities for African Agriculture Productivity Growth. World Bank Publications.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states (Vol. 25). Harvard University Press.
27. Honadle, Beth W. (1981). A capacity-building framework- a search for concept and purpose. Public Administration Review 41, 5, 575-580.
28. Jimee, G.K., Dixit, A.M., Tandigan, M., Sharma, S. (2015). Strategy for Developing Professional Emergency Responders in Nepal. Conference Paper. ResearchGate.
29. 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.
30. 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
31. 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
32. Local Bodies Fiscal Commission (LBFC). (2011). Minimum conditions and performance measures of local bodies in Nepal: An overview (Assessment years: 2007/08-2010/11).
33. Local Government Operation Act (LGOA). (2017). https://lawcommission.gov.np
34. 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
35. Local Self Governance Act (LSGA). (1999). and Regulation (LSGR). (2000). https://lawcommission.gov.np
36. 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).
37. Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration. (MoFAGA). (2020). Ten Years Strategic Plan., Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration, Singhadurbar, Kathmandu.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. Ostrom, Eleanor. (1972). Metropolitan reform: Propositions drawn from two traditions. Social Science Quarterly 53, 3, 474-93.
41. Pearl, J., Glymour, M., & Jewell, N. P. (2016). Causal Inference in Statistics: A primer. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
42. 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.
43. Shah, A. (ed.) (2007). Local Public Financial Management. Washington, DC: World Bank, p. 1.
44. 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.
45. Tiebout, C.M. (1956). ‘A Pure Theory of Local Expenditure’, Journal of Political Economy, 64(5): 416–24.
46. 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
47. Walker, Richard M., George A. Boyne and Gene A. Brewer (Eds). (2010). Public management and performance: Research directions. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.