LEED Programme (Local Economic and Employment Development)

Local Partnership for Better Governance

 

Between 1999 and 2003, the OECD conducted an in-depth study of area-based partnerships in which it examined the experience of 14 countries.  The first results, released in 2001 with the publication Local Partnerships for Better Governance , revealed that the main impact of partnerships is to improve local governance.  Three factors contributing to this outcome were identified.  First, in all the countries surveyed, partnerships stimulate the uptake of public programmes in a way that is consistent with locally-shared priorities.  Second, partnerships combine public programmes with local initiatives, and in so doing, support the development of these initiatives.  Third, there are many instances in which partnerships have influenced the targeting of public programmes better to meet local needs.  Partnerships may also be involved in other types of activity, but most of their impact on local governance is achieved through the impact of the three factors reviewed.

The involvement of partnerships in the delivery of services and programmes to the population appears to be comparatively weak.  This comes as a surprise:  most local partnerships seek to enhance their profile in this area and to deliver employment, social, training or business services, depending on their area of specialisation.  Most partnerships undertake fund-raising activities towards both the public and private sectors with a view to reinforcing their capacity to develop services and projects.  But  the amount they obtain for such activities is in general fairly low compared to the resources of public institutions operating in the same fields (for example, the Irish partnerships’ total programme budget corresponds to 3% of the outlays on active labour market policies delivered by the public employment service).  From a local governance perspective this can be seen as a good thing since emphasis on service delivery by partnership-based organisations is often associated with conflictual relationships among the partners and a distribution of tasks inconsistent with the skills and competence that the various organisations can provide.  Though partnerships fill policy gaps and bring benefits to the local community, some of the new services developed by partnerships may be delivered more effectively by the public services (possibly through delegation to the private and non-profit sectors). Moreover, delivery of services in parallel with the public sector reduces the scope for the latter to learn new techniques of working and improving its methods.  The impact on governance is greatest when the partnership helps the partners, including the public services, to do a better job.

In sum, partnership is a valuable tool.  It can have a significant impact on local governance, as long as it is seen by the partners as a way to improve their action, not as a substitute for action.  There are, however, a number of obstacles to this.  Effective partnership working is often impeded by: a) a disconnection between national policy objectives and local goals.  This can happen even when national ministries set the goals for partnerships and are represented in the partnerships; b) the limited  administrative flexibility of many public programmes, including those which are relevant to local economic and employment development; c) weak accountability relationships, between the various partners, between the partnership and the public, and between the representatives and their constituency; and d) a tendency for partnership-based organisations to be process-driven as they seek to secure their continuity.

A series of recommendations has been made to overcome these obstacles.  The recommendations aim to improve the policy management and accountability frameworks of the various partners, including central government, and to make them consistent with a partnership approach.  This “strategy to improve governance through partnerships”, has been endorsed by the LEED Directing Committee.  For more information, please contact Sylvain.Giguere@oecd.org

A strategy to improve governance through partnerships

  1. Make policy goals consistent at central level.  The creation of a network of partnerships should be accompanied by an exercise at central level to facilitate the necessary trade offs between government departments (and social partners if needed) in order to achieve full consistency among national policy objectives in relation to the goals assigned to partnerships.  Partnerships should not be accountable to one single central agency, but rather to all the partners needed to fulfill their mission.  The partners should agree on the role to be given to partnerships in policy implementation and in improving governance.
  2. Adapt the strategic framework for the partnership to the needs of the partners.  Programming exercises should enable public service officers and local officials to achieve their own policy objectives through participation in the partnership strategy.  This will encourage them to use the partnership as a tool to improve the quality of their own action locally.  To foster a co operative climate, the terms of the contribution of each partner to the implementation of the common strategy should be explicit and transparent.  Services should normally be delivered by individual partners rather than by the partnership itself.
  3. Strengthen the accountability of partnerships.  Partners from all sectors (public services, social partners, the voluntary sector) should have a clear policy on the issues addressed by the partnerships.  They should, accordingly, define mandates and reporting mechanisms for their delegates.  Partners should agree on appropriate representation mechanisms for each sector, and on a clear distribution of responsibility when a partnership is involved in the implementation of a public programme.  They should seek to separate the functions of strategic planning, project appraisal and technical assistance.  These measures will ensure efficient co ordination and secure partners’ commitment.
  4. Provide flexibility in the management of public programmes.  The needs of local public service offices for more flexibility in the management of programmes should be so addressed as to ensure that their participation in the definition of a local joint strategy can be consistently followed up by involvement in its implementation.  Partnerships should be involved in the targeting of public programmes related to common goals, while the responsibility for delivery should remain with public services.

 

 

 

Countries list

  • Afghanistan
  • Albania
  • Algeria
  • Andorra
  • Angola
  • Anguilla
  • Antigua and Barbuda
  • Argentina
  • Armenia
  • Aruba
  • Australia
  • Austria
  • Azerbaijan
  • Bahamas
  • Bahrain
  • Bangladesh
  • Barbados
  • Belarus
  • Belgium
  • Belize
  • Benin
  • Bermuda
  • Bhutan
  • Bolivia
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Botswana
  • Brazil
  • Brunei Darussalam
  • Bulgaria
  • Burkina Faso
  • Burundi
  • Cambodia
  • Cameroon
  • Canada
  • Cape Verde
  • Cayman Islands
  • Central African Republic
  • Chad
  • Chile
  • China (People’s Republic of)
  • Chinese Taipei
  • Colombia
  • Comoros
  • Congo
  • Cook Islands
  • Costa Rica
  • Croatia
  • Cuba
  • Cyprus
  • Czech Republic
  • Côte d'Ivoire
  • Democratic People's Republic of Korea
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo
  • Denmark
  • Djibouti
  • Dominica
  • Dominican Republic
  • Ecuador
  • Egypt
  • El Salvador
  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Eritrea
  • Estonia
  • Ethiopia
  • European Union
  • Faeroe Islands
  • Fiji
  • Finland
  • Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)
  • France
  • French Guiana
  • Gabon
  • Gambia
  • Georgia
  • Germany
  • Ghana
  • Gibraltar
  • Greece
  • Greenland
  • Grenada
  • Guatemala
  • Guernsey
  • Guinea
  • Guinea-Bissau
  • Guyana
  • Haiti
  • Honduras
  • Hong Kong, China
  • Hungary
  • Iceland
  • India
  • Indonesia
  • Iraq
  • Ireland
  • Islamic Republic of Iran
  • Isle of Man
  • Israel
  • Italy
  • Jamaica
  • Japan
  • Jersey
  • Jordan
  • Kazakhstan
  • Kenya
  • Kiribati
  • Korea
  • Kuwait
  • Kyrgyzstan
  • Lao People's Democratic Republic
  • Latvia
  • Lebanon
  • Lesotho
  • Liberia
  • Libya
  • Liechtenstein
  • Lithuania
  • Luxembourg
  • Macao (China)
  • Madagascar
  • Malawi
  • Malaysia
  • Maldives
  • Mali
  • Malta
  • Marshall Islands
  • Mauritania
  • Mauritius
  • Mayotte
  • Mexico
  • Micronesia (Federated States of)
  • Moldova
  • Monaco
  • Mongolia
  • Montenegro
  • Montserrat
  • Morocco
  • Mozambique
  • Myanmar
  • Namibia
  • Nauru
  • Nepal
  • Netherlands
  • Netherlands Antilles
  • New Zealand
  • Nicaragua
  • Niger
  • Nigeria
  • Niue
  • Norway
  • Oman
  • Pakistan
  • Palau
  • Palestinian Administered Areas
  • Panama
  • Papua New Guinea
  • Paraguay
  • Peru
  • Philippines
  • Poland
  • Portugal
  • Puerto Rico
  • Qatar
  • Romania
  • Russian Federation
  • Rwanda
  • Saint Helena
  • Saint Kitts and Nevis
  • Saint Lucia
  • Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
  • Samoa
  • San Marino
  • Sao Tome and Principe
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Senegal
  • Serbia
  • Serbia and Montenegro (pre-June 2006)
  • Seychelles
  • Sierra Leone
  • Singapore
  • Slovak Republic
  • Slovenia
  • Solomon Islands
  • Somalia
  • South Africa
  • South Sudan
  • Spain
  • Sri Lanka
  • Sudan
  • Suriname
  • Swaziland
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • Syrian Arab Republic
  • Tajikistan
  • Tanzania
  • Thailand
  • Timor-Leste
  • Togo
  • Tokelau
  • Tonga
  • Trinidad and Tobago
  • Tunisia
  • Turkey
  • Turkmenistan
  • Turks and Caicos Islands
  • Tuvalu
  • Uganda
  • Ukraine
  • United Arab Emirates
  • United Kingdom
  • United States
  • United States Virgin Islands
  • Uruguay
  • Uzbekistan
  • Vanuatu
  • Venezuela
  • Vietnam
  • Virgin Islands (UK)
  • Wallis and Futuna Islands
  • Western Sahara
  • Yemen
  • Zambia
  • Zimbabwe
  • Topics list