The Governance Meter: A Benchmarking Framework for Urban Management

Summary

In the article by Biswas et al. (2019), A Good-Governance Framework in Urban

Management, the authors consider the issue of measuring and enhancing urban governance
using a measurable and standardized framework. According to the authors, although
governance plays important role in effective provision of public services, current evaluation
frameworks are disjointed and most of them fail to consider important dimensions. In order to
fill this gap, the analysis of the 22 available governance frameworks worldwide is done
comparatively, and a consolidated model of these 13 key criteria and 74 sub-criteria is
created.

The suggested criteria are: Accountability, Transparency, Participation, Effectiveness,

Equality, Vision and Planning, Sustainability, Legitimacy and Bureaucracy, Civic Capacity,
Service delivery, Efficient Economy, Relationship, and Security. The measurable indicators
are associated with each sub-criterion and these questions are categorized into three, Direct
Indicators (DI), Yes/No (Y/N) questions and Likert-scale (L) survey questions.

The research is methodologically designed as a three-step process that consists of

determining components in the existing frameworks, grouping the results into criteria and
sub-criteria and suggesting a method of quantification. The weighting of criteria is discussed
in three ways that include expert opinion, equal weight per criterion, and equal weight per
sub-criterion. As an example, the authors describe the structure with Mumbai in mind and
give real-world examples of direct indicators of every criterion (like: the percentage of cases
of corruption being convicted) of Accountability and show how it is possible to calculate and
compare scores over a time.

It is concluded that the article presents a general and similar set of the tool of measuring
urban governance, however, it needs information to operate and should be tailored to
particular circumstances.

Review and Commentary

Biswas et al. have come out with a timely and organized input on the topic of urban
governance especially in the fast-urbanizing areas of the Global South. The researchers
have been able to synthesize different forms of governance and thus the study is also strong
in terms of its systematic and integrated approach to explain the holistic model that
incorporates both the qualitative and the quantitative aspects. Moving further away in the
realms of mere abstract deliberations, the authors provide a rather practical set of tools that
can be used by policy-makers and scholars to assess and contrast governance performance
between cities.

The highlight of the article is that it emphasizes on measurability. The fact that the framework
is based on practical, policy-related numbers is presented by the inclusion of direct
indicators like complaints resolution times, budget transparency, and crime rates. The
Mumbai case study is a good example of how indicators can be operationalized, and the
authors are quite justified in warning that all types of indicators must be collected in a
comprehensive way in order to have a complete assessment.
Although the methodology of weighting is well laid out with an interesting nature, it brings out
some fundamental difficulties of governance assessment. The weighting strategy of the
expert is also situation-initiating but can be subjective and wise, whilst the equal-weight
strategies can be simple, yet not indicating their priority at the local scale. The fact that the
authors are quite transparent in introducing several weighting schemes is noteworthy, and it
gives the users an opportunity to select the scheme in regard to their requirements and
limitations.

Nevertheless, there are some drawbacks that should be mentioned. To begin with, the
framework is comprehensive, which is also its strength, though it can serve as an obstacle to
its application in cities that lack monitoring capacity or data infrastructure. Use of readily
available data might not capture some crucial aspects of governance that are not readily
quantifiable. Second, the expert sample size (n=7) is comparatively tiny, and, consequently,
the generalizability of the weighted criteria could be influenced. More diversified, larger panel
would be more convincing in regards to weighting scheme.

Furthermore, although framework is intended to be used universally, development of the

framework seems to be well-informed by the situations akin to Mumbai, a congested,
megacity in a developing nation. It might need to be justified more in relation to smaller
cities, rural areas, or cities of developed countries. The framework is not also much focused
on dynamic nature of governance, e.g. adaptive capacity to crisis or technologic upheaval
which is becoming more and more pertinent in the 21 st century.

The article has an important conceptual and methodological contribution in spite of these
limitations. It develops the topic of urban governance, offering an expert, indicative way of
approaching the subject matter that is neither too profound nor too visionary. The actual
usefulness of the framework could be connected with the ability to conduct benchmarking,
monitor changes in due time and learn more about the gaps in the governance that is
essential to the comprehensive evidence-based policy-making.

To sum up, Biswas et al. have come up with a sound and scaled framework that can be used
as a building block in evaluating urban governance. They can be further developed in future
studies where the framework can be tested in various urban environments, automated
information gathering devices can be made, and automated participation instruments can be
utilized to gather citizen views in a more direct manner. As of today, the article is a worthy of
reference to any person interested in science and practice of urban management.

The Governance Lens: An Integrated Framework for Comparative Urban Politics

Summary

According to DiGaetano and Strom (2003), the multi-level analytical framework creates a
framework in which the understanding and comparative knowledge of the status of urban
governance in other countries can be observed and related. The authors claim that the
available body of knowledge is inclined to use one of the theoretical approaches
single-handedly: the structural, the cultural, or the rational design of actors, all of which
presents the partial explanations of cross-national diversification. In order to solve this, they
combine all the three perspectives by arguing that urban governance is a dynamically
contrived phenomenon by interaction between structural contexts (e.g., economic
globalization, state devolution), political cultures (e.g., statist vs. privatist traditions), and
strategic behaviour of political actors (e.g., leaders, coalitions).

Their paradigm revolves around the notion of the institutional milieu-formal and informal
structures that are involved between the structure, culture and agency. These comprise
institutional foundations (e.g. local governments, parties, alliances, partnerships), and
governance modes (clientelist, corporatist, managerial, pluralist, populist). The authors use
this framework to compare the case of public-private partnerships in four countries; United
States, Great Britain, France and Germany. They illustrate how structural conditions of
individual countries (e.g. the level of state devolution, economic restructuring) and cultural
tradition (e.g. privatism in the U.S., statism in France and Germany) respectively
co-determine the form, function, and prominence of partnerships and also clarify the
contribution of local political actors in accommodating or opposing these forces.

Review and Commentary

The article by DiGaetano and Strom is a major theoretical contribution to comparative urban
politics since it provides a complex and multifaceted model that is not confined to one
paradigm of analysis. Its best asset is its integrative intent - the ability to combine
macro-structural, profoundly rooted cultural normative and micro-level agency in an
integrative model. In this way, it is possible to have a more holistic view of what is behind
cities in various countries having different forms of governance even when they all are
subject to the same global pressures.

The application of the framework can be effectively illustrated using the comparative case
studies. In the analysis, it is shown that globalization and state devolution provide common
pressures in the formation of partnership but national political culture is a vital filter to such
pressures. As an example, the culture of privatism in the U.S. creates business dominated
corporatist collaboration against the French culture of statism that leads to partnerships that
are highly influenced by public actors and whose partnerships are more in a managerial not
corporate fashion. Likewise, the mixed culture and partial devolution system of the UK during
the reign of Thatcher resulted in partnership relationships that were centrally controlled yet
local deals. Such subtle distinction pushes past reductionist convergence theories and
clearly indicates the long-lasting relevance of institutional and cultural nation-specific
directions.

This attention given to actors in the political arena and political leadership introduces an
important element of contingency and dynamism. The authors demonstrate, that in the
context of structural and cultural restrictions, mayors and other elites are in a position to
become entrepreneurs, who oppose or welcome new forms of governance (e.g. populist
alliances in Boston, pragmatic in Dortmund) or which make them transformational. This
agency aspect does not make the framework too determining.

Nonetheless, there are some limitations of the article. First, it is complex which as a strength
may be a barrier to operationalization of empirical research. Since the number of interacting
variables (economic structure, state design, culture, agency) is high, systematic, large-N
comparison is difficult. Second, the focus of the analysis is too instilled with Western
democracies (North America and Western Europe). Its usefulness in the parameters of
urban governance in Global South, where informal institutions, the pace of urbanization, and
other state-society connections are dominant, is unproven and might need dramatic
adjustment. Third, the contribution of the civil society and grassroots movements as opposed
to the so-called populist mode is somewhat minimized in the article. The framework would
benefit in the present age of growing civic mobilization and their mobilization on the internet,
by exploring the forms of political agency in even more action-oriented categories other than
the elite and institutionalized structure of agency.

DiGaetano and Strom offer a theoretical perspective on why governance varies as compared
to the previous research by Biswas et al. which implies a practical toolkit of indicators to
measure governance performance. The two are complementary to the extreme as one gives
the what and how much governance assessment and the other gives the why and how of
governance formation. This could be because a researcher or policymaker can comprehend
the historical and political causes of a style of governance in a city and, subsequently, use a
framework, such as the one developed by Biswas to compare the city on a set of specific
measures.

To sum up, DiGaetano and Strom offer a highly effective and lasting analytic framework
which makes the comparative urban politics field more enriched. Its combined manner is
more complete and realistic in the picture of urban governance as compared to any other
single-perspective theory. The research may be incredibly extended into the non-Western,
include deeper examination of the digital governance and transnational networks, and
deepen the inquiry of the circumstances under which political actors may be able to
successfully change the institutional milieu, which is deeply entrenched. This article is a
valuable source of information to anyone who wishes to gain an insight into the entrenched
drivers that influence the process of governing of cities.