Governance in Local Government. Guillermo Colella

Governance in Local Governments
GUILLERMO GÁSTON COLELLA
Governance in Local
Governments
Index for measuring the degree of
governance in local governments of the
province of BS AS
EDITORIAL AUTORES DE ARGENTINA
Colella, Guillermo Gáston
Governance in Local Governments: index to measure the degree of governance in
Local Governments of the province of Buenos Aires / Guillermo Gáston Colella. - 1st
ed. - Autonomous City of Buenos Aires : Authors of Argentina, 2022. 150 p. ; 21 x 15
cm.
ISBN 978-987-87-2836-0
Political Science. I. Title. CDD

320.82
EDITORIAL AUTORES DE ARGENTINA

www.autoresdeargentina.com
Mail: info@autoresdeargentina.com
The deposit required by LAW 11.723 is hereby made
Printed in Argentina - Printed in Argentina
My most sincere thanks to all the people who have accompanied me and to
all the people who have helped in the whole process of research,
development, writing, proofreading and publication of this book.
Verus Amicus Nunquam Amici Oblisviscitur.

This book addresses the issue of governance in local
governments and the preparation of an index to measure the
degree of governance in each municipality of the province of
Buenos Aires.
The structural reforms and decentralization implemented in
Argentina in the 1990s resulted in new functions for local
governments; however, these were not accompanied by increased
budgetary transfers to municipalities to support them. Because of
this, in theory, local governments began to use the governance
management model to cope with the new functions acquired.
Therefore, it is pertinent to ask ourselves: What is understood
by governance in local governments? And what indicators are
appropriate and useful to measure the degree of use of the
governance management model in the local governments of the
province of Buenos Aires?
8
INTRODUCTION
The general theme of this book is to reflect on the concept of

governance in local governments and then provide an index of its
own design to measure the degree of use of the public
management model of governance in the local governments of the
municipalities of the province of Buenos Aires. 1 Analyzing the
scenario in which local governments act, we find works such as
those of Pulvirenti (2009) that focus on the non-recognition of
municipal autonomy in the province of Buenos Aires 2. Works such
as those of Cravacuore (2016) and Acotto, Martinez and Grinberg
(2011) where the vicissitudes of municipal governments to obtain
budgetary resources appear. And works such as those by
Cravacuore (2007), Ivana Merlo Rodríguez (2012) and Roció Elz
(2017) argue that the neoliberal processes of the 1980s and 1990s,
and the Argentine constitutional reform of 1994, led to a state
reform that resulted in a decentralization that attached new
functions to municipalities -in addition to the traditional ones-, but
without necessarily being accompanied by
budget funds to deal with them.
GUILLERMO GÁSTON
1This book is part of the thesis "Gobernanza en los Gobiernos Locales de la 2da sección elec-
toral de la Provincia de Buenos Aires", defended in December 2021, obtaining the grade of
"good" by the jury of the Master in Government, Faculty of Social Sciences o f t h e UBA.
2 Sartori (2002) states that what is comparable is that which belongs to the same genus,
species or subspecies. Thus, the possibility of comparison is based on the homogeneity
fabricated by the classificatory logic or by the classification criteria themselves. The fact that
there is no full municipal autonomy in the province of BS. AS. is a homogenizing elementin
the constitution, functions and behavior of the municipalities.
10
GOVERNANCE IN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
COLELLA
This bibliography reveals a series of difficulties that local

governments must face, be they budgetary, in terms of their
capacity to perform their functions, representative, etc.
If we dive into the specialized bibliography of the New Public
Management, or similar, we find theoretical explanations of the
emergence of governance as a form of public management, being
a response of the national States to face the difficulties and
challenges caused by the neoliberal principles and reforms of the
80s and 90s of the last century.
Likewise, these works seek to provide a definition of
governance, showing the different types of governance or the
denotation of the word based on the approach or discipline with
which it is studied. Authors who work on this subject are: Jan
Kooiman (1993; 2003), Ivana Merlo Rodríguez (2007; 2012),
Luis Aguilar Villanueva (2008; 2009), María Victoria Munévar
(2010), Juan Manuel Abal
Medina (2012), Hernández Bonivento (2014), etc.
On the other hand, in relation to the problems that local
governments must face, and in relation to the local governance
model, we find works such as those of Carmen Navarro Gómez
(2002), Clemente Navarro (2004), Iturburu (2012), Rodrigo Car-
mona (2014), Mónica Elz (2017), Carmona and Couto (2019), etc.
Based on the arguments outlined above, the question that
emerges at this point is: Do local governments use the public
management model of governance?
This opens up a range of research, not only to contrast the
theoretical work empirically, but also to construct first-hand data
that will provide an account of: first, the existence or not of the
local governance management model in the municipalities of the
province of Buenos Aires. Second, if governance is used in these
municipalities, what is the degree of use of this public
management model in each local government?
11
Before proceeding further, let us establish what is meant by

local governance. The following definition has been formulated as
Follows based on the postulates of authors working on the
concept of governance. These definitions are developed, as we
will see below, in the section on the theoretical framework3.
Without further ado, governance at the local level is defined
here as a decentralized and cooperative process with a network
logic4 -formal or informal- in which the local State, key actors -with
presence, impact and proximity in the territory- from the private
sector, interest groups and other levels of government participate.
In this process, local governments do not govern by subordination,
making unilateral decisions, but tend to do so by coordinating the
interactions and joint actions of the various actors, with the
intention of sustaining them over time; to lead society, defining
objectives and collective goals in a participatory and deliberative
manner; jointly planning, executing and evaluating public works,
social development programs and other types of programs,
investment and economic development projects, and public
service provision. This relational form of government based on
networks formed by the municipalities and by different private
actors, interest groups and other levels of government.
3 The authors are: (Navarro Gómez 2002), (Navarro 2004), (Merlo Rodríguez 2007; 2012),
Villanueva (2008; 2009), (Munévar 2010), (Abal Medina2012), (Iturburu 2012), (Hernández
Bonivento 2014), (Carmona 2014), (Elz 2017), (Carmona and Couto
2019). 4 According to Agustí Cerrillo i Martínez, a network is
understood to mean.
a relatively stable set of relationships of a non-hierarchical and interdependent nature linking
a variety of actors who share a common interest in a policy and who exchange resources to
achieve this shared interest in the knowledge that cooperation is the best way to achieve the
objectives pursued (2006, p 24)).
Under this definition, networks are structural relationships -with a high degree of flexibility
and informality- of interdependence, consensus and cooperation between interest groups
and the S t a t e ; to mobilize different resources that are dispersed among public state actors,
civil society actors and the private sector; in pursuit of the e laboration and implementation
of public programs, policies and services. This is the position of Erik-Hans Klijn (1998) in "Policy
13
vary from municipality to municipality and have different impacts

in each territory.
Thus, the concept of governance at the local level reflects, as
we read in the previous paragraph, the existence of a
decentralized and cooperative process with a network logic, in
which the local government, private sector actors, interest groups
and other levels of government are involved. In this process,
which is coordinated by the local government, the aim is to jointly
define collective objectives and goals in order to plan, execute
and evaluate public works, social and other development
programs, investment and economic development projects, and
public services. It also shows that this process has immanent
characteristics in each municipality, and therefore varies from
one municipality to another.
If the local governments of the province of BS. AS. - and of the
whole country? - If local governments in the province of BS. AS.
and in the country as a whole are facing the difficulties arising
from the lack of full autonomy, decentralization and budgetary
insufficiency through local governance, the framing question is:
What is the best way for them to deal with these difficulties?
To what extent do local governments in the province of BS. AS.
use the local governance management model?
Based on the above, as argumentative premises for the
preparation of an index to measure the degree of governance of
local governments, it is assumed that the local governments of
the different municipalities will draw up and sustain over time
governance networks with private sector actors, civil sector
interest groups and other state levels in order to carry out their
traditional functions, those annexed with the decentralization
process arising from the state reform of the 1990s and the
problems that this process entails. These issues lead to the need
to empirically contrast - in local territories - the works that suggest
that governments are forced to opt for the public management
networks: an overview" when he defines public policy networks as more or less stable social
relationships between interdependent actors to address policy problems and/or programs.
model of governance proposed by the New Public Management

in order to face these challenges. Likewise, The need arises to
analyze to what extent, if at all, local governments are oblige d to
generate and sustain governance networks to address these
issues.
The main idea to be contrasted - in future research - with the
index proposed here is whether the state reform of the 1990s,
which established a decentralized public management model that
added new functions to those already possessed by the
municipalities, plus the limited autonomy of the municipalities of
Buenos Aires, and a precarious budget, gave rise to a series of
difficulties and responsibilities that the municipalities cannot face
in isolation. For this reason, municipalities, based on the theory of
governance, relate to other levels of government, private sector
actors and civil society interest groups in order to face these
functions, difficulties and responsibilities. However, as each
municipality has its own characteristics, such as different relevant
actors, particular local problems, different collection capacity,
different economic actors, etc., it is to be expected that the degree
of governance will differ from municipality to municipality.
The contribution to science that this paper intends to make is,
first, that the works on governance analyzed - as will be seen in
the theoretical framework - focus on governance at the national
level, or on multilevel governance, or on governance in specific
areas, such as forestry governance, tourism governance, etc. In
this sense, this paper focuses on political governance, or, in other
words, on the democratic praxis of local governments to design,
execute and monitor public policies. Secondly, and in relation to
the first point, the works that deal with governance concentrate
on large conglomerates, or on the parties of the conurbation; on
the other hand, here we propose an index that allows us to
address the degree of governance of all local governments in the
province of BS. AS. This is not minor, since the municipalities of the
interior of the province have not yet been analyzed in depth in
terms of their degree of governance.
15
without specific studies on the subject matter being worke d on

here. Thirdly, as mentioned above, an index -based on previous
indexes and indicators- is made to measure the degree of use of
the public management model of governance in the local
governments of the province of BS. AS. 3, which is an instrument
that allows homogenizing the different local governments of the
province in order to compare them with each other.
As can be seen, when reading the annex on the state of the art
in terms of governance indicators and the theoretical framework,
no theoretical works were found that specifically address the
subject matter proposed here. Nor were there any empirically
contrasted works that address governance in local governments,
in this sense, the index proposed here is a tool to address this
task.
In this sense, the question posed by Merlo Rodriguez (2012)
regarding open data, gov network, open gov and governance
models is interesting. Namely, "is a model of governance, open
gov, open data, gov network possible in local governments"
(Merlo Rodríguez, 2012, p. 1). On the previous question, Merlo
Rodriguez explains that it is of academic interest to carry out
empirical work to specify the de jure and de facto qualities of
municipal regimes and their administration; and to analyze the
quality of public policies emanating from the administrative
models used in local governments.
A work such as the one proposed here is not without
theoretical and methodological difficulties. Hugo Borjas García
(2015) mentions the theoretical complications in works of this
nature in relation to the complexity involved in measuring the
quality of
3 The works consulted to compile the index were: Parrado, Löffler and Bovaird (2005);
Munévar (2005), Julián Delgado Aymat (2011); Lobo (2012); Arredondo López, Orozco Núñez,
Wallace (2013); Avellana Castellanos and Rodríguez Molano (2014); Andrea Duarte
Suarez (2015); Gutiérrez & Morales-Pinzón (2017); Nicolás Vladimir Chuchco (2018); Aguirre
Sala (2019); and Sandoval & Ortega (2020).
democracy in entire countries, and even more so in specific

municipalities. Likewise, the author mentions 3 specific problems
in the measurement of local governments: low
institutionalization, increase in the power of local authorities and
resurgence and strengthening of local de facto powers. In an
attempt to overcome these difficulties, like Levine and Molina
(2007) 4 , an index was developed, as mentioned above, based on
previously created indexes.
For its part, the "External evaluation of the UNDP project
04/007 citizen audit - quality of democratic practices in
municipalities" of CEDES, 2009, proposes the use of simple and
weighted summative indexes for measuring local governments, as
is done in this paper. Although this type of indexes are not the
best, they do not cause a high workload and are easily
interpretable. However, this does not mean that more complex
and sophisticated indexes cannot be constructed from this type
of index, such as the one constructed in this paper.
On the other hand, the data obtained by the PAC team -which
are analyzed in the UNDP report- were obtained through
interviews and questionnaires, as is the case in this paper7 . It is
worth mentioning that the PAC teams have also collected data
from administrative records and municipal documents.
In line with this, from the point of view of common politics,
Clemente Navarro in his paper "Sociedades políticas locales: de-
The 2004 "Local Democracy and Multilevel Governance" mentions
that for the study of governance it is useful to use comparative
4Levine, Daniel H; Molina, José H. (2007). The quality of democracy in Latin America: a
comparative view. América latina Hoy, (45), 17-46. See: https://doi. org/10. 14201/alh. 2427
7 Carmona and Couto (2019) also propose for this type of research the use of
"...semistructured interviews, with the analysis of documents and reports and specialized
bibliography. The interviews are conducted with officials in charge of the employment and
production areas of the selected municipalities." (Carmona and Couto, 2019, p. 397). See:
Carmona, R., & Couto, B. (2019). Políticas e intervención institucional sobre producción y
empleo en municipios del Conurbano Bonaerense. Revista Perspectivas de Políticas Públicas,
8(16), 395-424.
17
case studies and surveys of hierarchical local government officials

to obtain information on the relations of local government with
different actors at other levels of government, the private sector
and civil society.
Also from a comparative policy perspective, Pérez-Liñan (2008)
points out that inquiring into an empirical phenomenon that
shows variations in the real world -in our case governance and the
degree to which it is manifested in the different municipalities of
the province of BS. AS.- is of relevance since it allows us to observe
which factors explain such variation. However, the
operationalization of an abstract and complex concept -such as
governance- requires an arduous effort to "...identify dimensions
and concrete indicators that allow its conceptualization and
measurement" (Pérez Liñan, 2008). (Pérez Liñan, 2008, p. 5).
The argumentative strategy unfolds as follows: In the first
section the definition of municipality is made explicit, a brief
historical review of these is made and the framework is
presented. legal framework in which they are framed.
The second section develops the state reform of the 1990s and
the decentralization resulting from the 1994 constitutional
reform in Argentina. It also discusses the new functions and
problems that were added to the municipalities with this reform
and decentralization.
The third section provides a theoretical development of the
concept of governance itself, and of the notion of governance at
the local level.
The fourth section presents the governance index in
selfproduced local governments.
Definition of Municipality
As to the question "What is a municipality?", the National

Constitution does not give any definition, it only requires that a
municipal regime be instituted and maintained.
The definition of the municipal regime (Cravacuore 2007) is
found in each of the provincial constitutions, including all entities
recognized at the local government level. These constitutional
definitions are complemented by the laws of the municipalities
sanctioned by each of the provincial legislatures, which function as
regulatory laws of the municipal regime.
The province of Buenos Aires defines municipalities on the basis
of qualitative attributes -referred to territorial jurisdiction- that
they must possess in order to be a partido or departamento. In this
sense, the local governments of Buenos Aires are "ejido colindante
"5 .
On the other hand, we can trace different points of view of what
a municipality is. Mónica Iturburu (2012) points out that Alberdi
understood municipalities as administrative entities; for
Sarmiento, on the other hand, they were political entities; while
Lisando de la Torre saw them as organizations that occurred
naturally wherever individuals were grouped together.
In fact, municipalities are both political and administrative entities
at the same time. This is a coincidence Iturburu (2012) when she
states that the definition given by
5 Regarding territorial jurisdiction (Cravacuore 2016; Iturburu 2000) there are 2 types. The
"urban ejido" or "non-adjacent", which is when local governments extend over a single locality.
And the "ejido colindante", which is when the local government can extend over several
localities, including rural areas. However, there is a hybrid case where "...local governments
that extend their authority over an urban area, but also have a rural area, anticipating future
growth." (Cravacuore, 2016, p. 19)
21
Passalacqua (1992) is the one that marks the tendency in our

country, namely, "The municipality is essentially an organ of local
democracy and a service provider" (Monica Iturburu, 2012, p 176).
On the other hand, municipalities may have a non-natural
historical origin, as shown by the case of the creation in 2003, in
the province of San Luis, of the municipality of La Punta; this
creation responded to a political project and not to a "grouping of
individuals". This can be seen in the founding of the
municipality, since in the same week the founding act was signed
and 1. 200 homes to the first owners.
Brief Historical Review of the Municipalities

The municipal regime (Iturburu 2012) finds its antecedents in
the colonial cabildos founded by the Spanish. The Cabil - dos
established a legal framework for urban settlements. The National
22
Constitution of 1853 established that the provinces had to ensure

their municipal regime, under penalty of being subject to Federal
Intervention for not complying with the Magna Carta. However,
since there were no specifications as to what type of municipal
regime, disputes began as to whether local governments should be
autonomous or autarchic.
However, the expression "municipal regime" was so ambiguous
that it generated more than a century of controversy regardi ng the
role that the constituents decided to assign to local governments,
dividing the waters between those who considered them
autonomous and those who advocated their autonomy.
Although from 1854 onwards the provincial constitutions began to
establish the competencies and functions9 of the municipalities, their
resources, and the power they had over local issues; these charters
"...gave preeminence to the administrative dimension, reserving
politics to the provincial and national governments, and limited
their resources to the collection of fees for services" (Iturburu,
2012, p. 178). (Iturburu, 2012, p. 178). This administrative vision
was maintained for about 130 years, with a jurisprudence of the
Court that also understood that municipalities should onl y fulfill
administrative functions10.
It is interesting to note (Iturburu 2012) that the role that the
National State begins to play since 1930 led to a
"demunicipalization of the country", where functions and
competencies were transferred from the local government to the
provincial, national and private sectors.
The return of democracy in 1983 led to a strengthening of local
governments, which was reflected in the reform of provincial
constitutions that incorporated the term "municipal autonomy";
in the change of jurisprudence as of 1989; and in the consecration
of the autonomy of municipalities in the reform of the National
Constitution in 1994.
Faced with a National State weakened by the 2001 crisis, a
decrease in tax collection and cut funding channels, local
governments began "...a greater articulation with the political
23
opposition, the business sector and civil society, especially with the
churches" (Iturburu, 2012, p. 181). (Iturburu, 2012, p. 181). Finally,
from 2003 onwards, links between the National Government and
local governments began to take place without provincial
mediation.
20
9 The functions that began to be delegated (Iturburu 2012) were: Legislation on the
organization itself; construction and maintenance of streets and sidewalks, bridges, roads, etc.
(Iturburu 2012). and public lighting; provision of water and sanitation; creation and
maintenance of charitable e s t a b l i s h m e n t s within the commune; security;
administration of civil and criminal justice in the first instance; justice of the peace; food
markets; cemeteries; construction and maintenance of primary schools; financing;
ornamentation; public libraries; and total administrative autonomy in relation to the
government of the province.
10 An exception to this position (Iturburu 2012) was the reform of the Constitution of the
province of Santa Fe in 1921, which granted the right to the municipalities to dictate their own
organic charter, resulting in the sanctioning of the organic charters of the cities of Rosario and
Santa Fe in 1933, although these were later repealed.
24
25
Legal framework of the Municipios

The municipal regime in Argentina is established by 2 articles
of the National Constitution, °5 and °123 6 . The fifth article
establishes:
Each province shall enact for itself a Constitution under the

republican representative system, in accordance with the
principles, declarations and guarantees of the National
Constitution; and shall ensure its administration of justice, its
municipal regime, and primary education. Under these
conditions, the federal government shall guarantee to each
province the enjoyment and exercise of its powers (National
Constitution, 1994).
The one hundred and twenty-third article states that "Each

province dictates its own Constitution, in accordance with the
provisions of Article 5, ensuring municipal autonomy and
regulating its scope and content in the institutional, political,
administrative, economic and financial order" (National
Constitution, 1994).
Autonomy (Iturburu 2012) is the power possessed by regions,
provinces, municipalities, etc., within a National State, to govern
and administer themselves through their own governmental
norms and institutions. With respect to municipalities, which is
the subject of this paper, Iturburu writes:
(Pulvirenti, 2009, p. 50).
6 It should be clarified that the National Constitution of 1853 had already established the
obligation of the provinces to ensure the municipal regime. But it was not until the 1994
reform that an article enshrining municipal autonomy was incorporated. However,
(Pulvirenti 2009) by the 1980s, with the return of democracy, several provinces recognized
full municipal autonomy in their constitutions. In addition, with the rulings " Rivedemar v.
Municipality of Rosario" of 1989 and "Municipality of Rosario v. Province of Santa Fe" of 1991,
the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation guaranteed municipal autonomy with
jurisprudence, establishing "the minimum legal respect that the provinces should have for
the communes"
26
As far as municipalities are concerned, the National
Constitution specifies the dimensions to be defined: the
institutional level implies the power to issue their own organic
charter -the local "constitution"-; the political level implies
electing their authorities and being governed by them; the
administrative level refers to the power to manage and
organize services, works and other local interests; and finally,
the economic-financial level implies defining, organizing and
investing their resources. (2012, p. 182).
However, the provinces of Mendoza, Santa Fe and Buenos Aires

have not yet recognized the municipal autonomy established by
the 1994 constitutional reform. In addition, in the provinces where
it has been recognized, the regulation is limited. This means that
under the constitutional protection each province has its own
institutional design regarding the municipal regime.
Going further into the province of Buenos Aires, (Pulvirenti
2009) the non-recognition of municipal autonomy, as the
Constituent Convention of the Province of Buenos Aires did not
modify the Provincial Constitution and the Municipal Organic Law
was not changed, has resulted in maintaining an autarkic system
-or restricted autonomy- common to all the municipalities of the
province of Buenos Aires.
"The provincial legal system holds that municipalities have a
minimum degree of decentralization, typical of an autarchic form
or restricted autonomy". (Pulvirenti, 2009, p. 53)
An example of this restricted autonomy, or autarkic system, is
the provincial court of accounts, which has the power to be the
external economic, financial and accounting comptroller of
municipal administrations.
Regarding the organic charter of the municipalities, Antonio
María Hernández (2003) understands it as a "Local Constitution"
that comes from a "third degree constituent power". In these are
regulated "...form of government, fi-
27
local regulations, police power, public services, responsibility of

officials, forms of citizen participation, intermunicipal relations,
etc." (María Hernández, 2003, p 141). (Maria Hernandez, 2003, p
141)
On the other hand, since the organic charters emanate from a
third degree constituent power, they must respect the
fundamental norm, as well as the provincial constitutions and the
laws that are above it in the legal pyramid.
Municipalities that have not enacted an organic charter, or
those that are not allowed to enact one, are governed by
provincial laws dealing with the municipal regime. These laws
determine the competencies between the executive and
legislative powers and regulate the administrative responsibilities
of the municipality. In the case of the Province of BS. AS. the
municipalities are governed by the De- creto-Ley 6769/58 -Ley
Orgánica de las Municipalidades-.
Governance System and

Representativeness
Current legislation (Cravacuore 2007) -in most of the provinces-
establishes the division of powers in local government, between
a unipersonal executive power called in- tendente, and a
collegiate legislative power called Consejo Deliberante, whose
members are called concejales. The purpose of the division of
powers in local government is to
...to allow the play of weights and counterweights, in order to

achieve a more efficient, transparent and plural local management.
However, the relationship between the Executive Department and
the De- liberating Council often appears to be dominated by a
political conception closely linked to the hegemonic use of power
(Iturburu, 2002, p 3).
28
In all provinces (Iturburu 2000) it is unanimous that the popular

vote is mandatory for the election of mayors and councilmen,
including in those municipalities that are allowed to define the
form of government.
Regarding the Deliberative Council, seats may be re-allocated by
a proportional formula -as in the case of the Province of Buenos
Aires-, or by a majority formula. In the province of Buenos Aires
(Iturburu 2012) foreigners may participate in elections for
provincial and municipal positions.
The mayor has the function of executing the ordinances
sanctioned by the Deliberative Council. He is in charge of the
general administration, responsible for the management and
representative of the municipality. We must bear in mind that
...in local governments, the presidency culture is accentuated

in relation to other levels of government: although legislation
requires the authorization or ratification by the Deliberating
Council of important decisions made by the mayor, in many
jurisdictions this is only a formality (Iturburu, 2012, p. 197).
The Deliberative Council has the function of sanctioning

ordinances 7 . However, (Iturburu 2012) the mayor has a pro- tagonic
role in the drafting of ordinances, since he has the initiative, for
example, to pass ordinances on the budget and ordinances on the
concession of public services. It also has the power of veto. On the
other hand, the maximum and minimum number of councilmen
composing the Deliberative Council depends on the population of
the municipality.
Although the judiciary depends on the provinces and the Nation,
"there are at least three aspects in which the local government
level is involved" (Iturburu, 2012, p. 220): misdemeanor justice,
justice of the peace and alternative dispute resolution.
7 "The Supreme Court decision "Promenade v. Municipality of San Isidro", of August 1989,
clearly defined the legislative nature of ordinances." (Iturburu, 2012, p. 218)
29
Financing Municipal
In general (Cravacuore 2016), provincial laws regulate the ways
in which local governments obtain their revenues, establishing
rates and taxes through which municipalities can collect.
Likewise, through co-participation, the provinces transfer
resources to the municipalities. Local governments also obtain
revenues through the Federal Social Fund and conditional
transfers.
However, the main sources of revenue for municipalities are
inspection, safety and hygiene fees for industrial and commercial
establishments, and fees for providing urban services. In addition,
in some provinces, resources are received through the collection
of traffic licenses and urban property taxes.
A problem that arises in local governments with regard to
financing is that
...in recent years, a strong financial dependence of local
governments has been consolidated; local governments have
concentrated their meager budgets in the payment of salaries
and current expenses, leaving investment expenses to the
possibilities of obtaining discretionary transfers from the Nation
and the provinces (Cravacuore, 2016, p. 29).
In relation to the previous paragraph, another mechanism by
which municipalities obtain income is through co-participation,
framed in the Federal Co-participation Law. The logic of this
(Acotto, Martinez, Grinberg, 2011) is based on the idea of fiscal
federalism and the distribution of functions at the different state
levels; being that transfers from other levels of government are
essential for municipalities to be able to cope with all the
functions they are responsible for. The criteria by which the
municipalities receive a certain amount of co-participation may
be population, social or economic. From a distributive logic,
...the co-participation not only tries to equalize the transfers
received per inhabitant by each commune (through the
population component) but also seeks to achieve a more or
30
less homogeneous provision of local public services
throughout the provincial territory. For this reason, extra
coparticipation is transferred to a greater extent to districts
with less capacity to generate their own resources, due to the
lower economic activity and accumulation of economic assets
present in them. (Aco- tto, Martinez, Grinberg, 2011, p. 23).
However, according to Acotto, Martinez and Grinberg (2011), in

the province of Buenos Aires, rural municipalities receive more re -
courses than municipalities in the conurbation to cover expenses
for local public goods and services. Therefore, the aforementioned
criteria are not always the ones that prevail for sending co-
participation funds to the municipalities, generating a bias in the
distribution of resources.
On the other hand, from a devolutive criterion, the
municipalities that collect the most are those that receive the most
co-participation. Ergo, there is a gap between the richest
municipalities that can spend the most and the municipalities that
can collect the least and therefore spend the least. On the other
hand, the municipalities that spend the most on health are the
ones that receive the most coparticipation, causing municipalities
to set aside other functions in order to receive more resources for
health. Likewise, within the health function, municipalities that
implement a high complexity model and focus on the
hospitalization of patients "are the ones who obtain more
resources, as opposed to those who prefer more efficient and less
costly health strategies for the population, such as primary care in
outpatient facilities and prevention." (Acotto,
Marti- nez, Grinberg, 2011, p. 24)
31
Functions of the Municipalities

For Cravacuore (2016) the functions of municipalities arise
from provincial Constitutions, provincial laws and municipal
Charters. The logic of competences in Argentine law is as follows:
The proper ones: are those that the municipalities exercise
exclusively. Concurrent powers are exercised by the Nation, the
province and local governments, within the jurisdiction of the
municipality. Delegated powers: these belong to the Nation and
the provinces, but are executed and controlled by the local
governments.
Examples of concurrent competencies between local and
provincial governments are: health care, provision of public
services, administration of water and sewage systems, etc. On the
other hand, concurrent competencies between local , provincial
and national governments may include: health care, promotion of
economic development, management of cultural and natural
heritage, construction of infrastructure, consumer protection,
care for the poor and indigent population, tourism promotion,
regulation of cargo and passenger terminals, promotion of sports,
regulation of automobile transportation, etc.
In turn, for Cravacuore (2016), the competencies that have
historically been exclusive to local governments are: construction
and conservation of urban infrastructure; street sweeping; urban
solid waste collection; construction and repair of streets and local
roads; provision of public lighting; maintenance of parks; public
walks and urban equipment; care of cemeteries; regulation and
control of activities such as enabling economic activity ventures,
housing construction or urban transit; low complexity health care,
direct social assistance to the population at risk; civil defense in
the event of natural disasters.
To these historical functions, with the state reform of the
1990s, the following functions were added: access to justice and
the resolution of disputes.
32
The following are some of the areas in which we have been

involved: family and/or neighborhood conflict resolution; public
safety; environmental protection; promotion and social
development in the areas of children, youth, addictions, sports,
disability, senior citizens, gender and culture; economic promotion
with financing for SMEs; business incubation; human resource
training; promotion of productive employment; promotion of
foreign trade; promotion of the social economy; incentives for the
construction of productive infrastructure; preparation of strategic
plans; creation of local development agencies and the
development of programs; formation of intermunicipal
consortiums; non-formal education; student scholarships; etc.
Human resources and organizational structure

Regarding the labor regime of the municipalities, in some
provinces it is similar between municipal and provincial employees,
while in others the municipalities have their own legal employment
regime. Usually there is a mixture of these two configurations.
However, entry into local public administration and promotion in
the administrative career usually depend on personal relationships
rather than on merit.
According to Cravacuore (2016), the staffs of municipalities have
the problem of being swollen, in addition to suffering from the lack
of adequately trained officials to perform their functions. However,
the economic crisis at the end of the last century caused
professionals to seek employment in local governments,
"...favoring the development of innovative policies; however, low
salaries relative to other sectors conspired against this trend."
(Cravacuore, 2016, p. 29).
Regarding the organizational structure, Iturburu (2012) argues
that it appears under the bureaucratic model only in those
municipalities that have ended patrimonialism. Start-
33
ro, "...most municipalities only require the decision of the

municipal mayor for the creation or dissolution of an organic unit"
(Iturburu, 2012, p. 200). (Iturburu, 2012, p. 200). This means that
the municipal or- ganigram is constantly modified, either to
respond to national and/or provincial guidelines, or to create new
positions as political currency or as containment for the militants
themselves. The number of secretariats, subsecretariats,
directorates and departments varies from city to city, as do the
salaries of the officials.
34
State reform of the '90s,
decentralization and
new functions of the
municipalities
As Ivana Merlo Rodríguez (2012) points out, in South

America during the 1950s and 1960s the National State
played a central role, while local governments lacked
protagonism and played a secondary role. However, by the
1970s the welfare state in Latin America was in crisis and
began to be criticized for its "macrocephalic" characteristics,
aggravated by the fact that it was in a society with a "state-
centric" logic. For these reasons, between the 1980s and
1990s, reforms aimed at solving the problem of the state,
making it more efficient, appeared in the New Public
Management movement. "The managerial approach
integrated a package of reforms aimed at getting the social
state out of the crisis, promoting a limited government..."
(Merlo, 2012, p. 6).
Roció Elz (2017) writes that the reform of the State in the
'90s in Argentina marked a 180-degree turn, both in the
functions of the municipalities and in their relationship with
the other levels of the State. This state reform will be
supported by the reform of the National Constitution,
where article 123° will dictate
"Each province dictates its own Constitution, in

accordance with the provisions of Article 5, ensuring
municipal autonomy and regulating its scope and
content in the institutional, political, administrative,
economic and financial order" (National Constitution of
Argentina, 2004, p. 25).
However, with respect to the reform of the Constitution

of the Province of Buenos Aires, an agreement between the
first and third minorities in the Constituent Convention
blocked the possibility of modifying the provisions of the
municipal regime, so that the municipalities of Buenos Aires
do not have the autonomy guaranteed by the National
Constitution.
Cravacuore (2007) agrees with this diagnosis, and stresses
that the main characteristics of this process were: the
deregulation of the economy, the reform of public
administration, an accelerated privatization of public
enterprises and the decentralization of services in favor of
the provinces.
This reform caused the National State to transfer
functions to the private sector (privatizations), deregulation
of the economy, transfer of responsibilities to civil
institutions, and decentralization of functions to the
provinces, and from these to local governments. Thus, a
State is configured that "...is only responsible for the
provision of (minimum) services and regulation". (Elz, 2017,
p. 4).
This is also the point of view of Ivana Merlo Rodríguez
(2012) when she points out that the reform of the Argentine
State in the 1990s modified the competencies and the ways
of relating between local governments, provinces and the
Nation. The competencies were established as follows:
exclusive competencies of local governments, exclusive
competencies of the provinces, exclusive competencies of
the National Government, shared competencies between
provincial governments and local governments, concurrent
competencies between the Nation, provinces and local
governments, and concurrent competencies between the
National Government and the provinces.
Although there is a variation from province to province,

with their respective advances and setbacks, at first local
governments concentrated on providing urban services.
Later, complementing the previous services, they also began
to work on the promotion of local development, in areas
such as: promotion of economic development, security,

consumer protection, environmental protection, fire
protection, education, justice, social development, etc. This
increase in the functions of local governments is not only
due to the transfer of functions from the
Nation and the provinces. It is also due to citizens'
expectations that local government will satisfy demands
that were previously met by other levels of government.
According to Elz, the traditional functions of
municipalities were as follows:
-Administrative management for the normal running of
the organization: planning for the future, organization
of the system, personnel management and governance
of activities, control of results.
- Urban development: urban planning, public works

(construction of natural gas networks, drinking water,
sewage and storm drains, pavement, road lighting,
bridges, etc.), cadastre and exercise of regulatory
power over civil works.
-Provision of public services: drinking water supply and

sewage services, urban hygiene, waste collection,
street and rural road maintenance.
-Regulation of community life: urban supply, control of

health and safety of stores and industries, urban traffic,
etc. (Elz, 2017, p. 6).
Cravacuore (2007) states that the functions of Argentine

municipalities were limited to: I) construction and
maintenance of urban infrastructure, which encompasses
the maintenance of urban equipment, collection of urban
solid waste, lighting, sweeping and cleaning, care of the
cemetery, maintenance of parks and public walks, and the
cons-
I) construction and maintenance of streets and local roads.
II) regulation and control of activities developed in the
territory, such as urban traffic, habitat regulation and
economic activities. III) assistance to the population at risk
with direct social assistance, civil defense against natural
disasters and medical attention in cases of low complexity.
While, according to Elz, the new functions, which are in
addition to the previous ones, are:
Economic promotion agent:
-Architectural policy for local development: design and

implementation of local development strategies,
enhancement of their societies and territories;
management of the territorial image s o a s to generate
"innovative territorial environments" capable of
attracting, retaining and encouraging investment and
employment; identification, expansion and
reinforcement of sectoral strengths to promote
geographically concentrated clusters.
-Linking the educational system with the productive

system to strengthen companies and promote human
resources training.
-Facilitator of opportunities, through business

coordination and innovation; clustering of productive
sectors; improvement of pressure conditions and
stimulation of local demand; collection, preparation
and transmission of information for change;
incorporation of quality criteria in the private sector;
articulation of intra-community relations and with
extra-community actors; provision of land for
productive activities, promotion and productive
specialization.
Social development:
-Social development policy, which involves detecting

social needs, placing them on the political agenda,
coordinating technical studies and public deliberations,
participating in executive decisions, leading the
execution of projects, participating in the evaluation of
results and being a permanent social communicator of
municipal dynamics.
-Social and community integration: direct operation and

control of compliance with the regulations for the
production of services in its area related to the care of
social and age groups (children, adolescents, youth, etc.),
organization of sports and recreational activities.
-Education, educational updating and training.
-Environment: improvement of environmental quality.
-Exercise of authority or regulatory power at the local

level: new areas are incorporated, including ensuring
competition and consumer protection, quality in the
goods and services provided - particularly those paid for
with public resources - and the labor police.
-Security.
-Health: policy setting at the local level; organization,

supervision and evaluation of the execution of health
actions; administration of own effectors with managerial
criteria; comprehensive coverage to risk and deprived
groups. (Elz, 2017, pp. 6-7).
Cravacuore (2007) describes the new agenda assumed by

local governments with the following functions: I) defense
of con-
I) social promotion focused on specific and different groups
(minorities, sports, disability, addictions, culture, gender,
elderly, youth, etc.). II) social promotion focused on specific
and different groups (minorities, sports, disability,
addictions, culture, gender, elderly, youth, etc.). III) public
safety. IV) economic promotion.
V) access to justice and resolution of family and/or
neighborhood conflicts. VI) preservation of the environment
and recovery of natural resources.
In addition to these new competencies acquired, there
are others that do not come from the state reform, but from
"national or provincial-level resolutive acts, granting
competence to local governments" (Cravacuore, 2007, p.
10) in terms of their execution, such as assistance to SMEs
in provincial and national programs.
Finally, other competencies have been designated to
local governments without a regulatory framework, such as
the preservation of cultural and natural heritage, logistical
support to police forces and the maintenance of school
infrastructure.
However, this author clarifies that
It is difficult to find local governments that

simultaneously deploy all these new functions. This is
due to the restrictions and limitations of local
governments and, additionally, because not all
societies demand the same thing at the same time:
thus, citizen demands have a relevant weight in the
shaping of local agendas. (2007, p. 9).
The question that immediately arises is, do local

governments have the necessary capacities to meet
emerging demands? In this sense, faced with the situation
just described "...today the problem is in the process of
government (competence and impotence), in the process of
direction (the directive action of the government):
governance, where the State is a node of the social system"
(Merlo Rodríguez, 2012, p. 8). (Merlo Rodriguez, 2012, p. 8)
The package of reforms described above placed local
governments in a leading role. Both because of the new
functions acquired under the idea of decentralization, as
well as the need to stop being a simple service provider and
become a central political actor to plan and implement
development strategies.
Indeed, the neoliberal economic reforms deployed in

Argentina, and the process of decentralization and
transfer of functions from the national level to lower
levels of government established different dynamics.
These policies had a dual impact on city governments.
On the one hand, municipalities have witnessed an
expansion of their functions and responsibilities and, to
a lesser extent, of their powers, thus having to provide
a larger and more heterogeneous set of services to the
community. On the other hand, the local level has been
redefined and to some extent hierarchized.
Municipalities have begun to play a more important
role in the resolution of conflicts and needs to cope
with the withdrawal of the State and, more recently, to
meet new social and political demands (Carmona,
2014, p. 27).
However, we must keep in mind that for local

governments "the largest source of their own revenues
continues to be "other non-tax revenues", a concept that
includes the fees for services, duties and contributions for
improvements, which reach an average of 30% of the total"
(Iturburu, 2012, p. 207). (Iturburu, 2012, p. 207).
The largest source of revenue (Iturburu 2012) comes from
the tax for lighting, sweeping, cleaning and waste
collection. To this is added the fee for the inspection of
safety and hygiene in commerce, industry and services. On
the other hand, but of lesser importance, is the tax
collected for cemeteries, construction, use and/or
occupation of public roads,
authorization of commerce, street vending, veterinary
inspection in slaughterhouses, permits for public shows,
income from fines and infringements, etc.
There are also collections for investments in sewers,
running water, curbs and gutters, pavement or lighting. In
municipalities with rural areas, the road tax for owning a
property outside the urban radius and the taxes levied on
the livestock sector for control of marks and signs are highly
relevant.
The new functions assigned to local governments have
not been accompanied by the budgetary resources required
to carry them out8
and, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, the collection
capacity through municipal taxes is very low,
The disproportion between the delegation of functions

and resources is partly due to informal
decentralization, produced by the mere withdrawal of
the provincial or national government from the
provision of certain functions and the consequent
increase in citizen pressure on the closest level of
government. But it also responds to the methodology
of formal decentralization, which in many cases
implied the delegation of the entire service, but the
transfer of only a percentage of the resources.
(Iturburu, 2015, p. 204).
Therefore, (Elz 2017) local governments are obliged to

continually seek budgetary support from the Nation and the
provinces to carry out public policies and, fundamentally,
public works. However, (Cravacuore 2007) the increase in
8 For example,
... the province of Buenos Aires decentralized some psychiatric hospitals, but
continued to pay only the salaries of the staff at the time of the transfer; this meant
that the municipalities that accepted the transfer had to assume with their own
resources the rest of the expenditures (goods and services, and investments), as well
as the salaries of the employees appointed to replace vegetative discharges
(resignation, death or retirement). Another example is the case of rural roads, for
which it delegated the entire responsibility for maintenance, but only a part of the
resources paid by taxpayers as rural real estate tax. (Iturburu, 2012, p. 209).
subsidy transfers made by the provinces from the provincial
treasury, and by the Nation through contributions from the
National Treasury is "discretionary". Likewise, the
percentage of current expenditure destined to pay the
salaries of the municipalities is high, which is detrimental to
the levels and investment of the municipalities.
For the above reasons, local governments must manage
in partnership with non-state public actors and the private
sector to cope with the new functions they have acquired
and the new demands that citizens require them to meet.
For all these reasons, it is necessary to carry out academic
research with data describing and explaining how local
governments function in terms of "managing in
partnership" in order to cope with the accumulation of
functions that fall under their responsibility and the
demands of citizenship. This question introduces us to the
notion of Governance.
The concept of
Governance. Theoretical
Framework
Ivana Merlo Rodriguez, in her paper "Organizational models",

describes how the New Public Management (NPM) appeared as
an alternative to solve the problems of the physical crisis that hit
the welfare state. The causes of the crisis were attributed to the
excessive size of the Welfare State and the centralized hierarchy
of the bureaucracy.
The NGP proposed to change the Social State model in order to
make it more efficient. The reform package implemented for this
purpose was:
a) a return to markets, since the hand of the State has proven

to be inefficient; b) fiscal reform to strengthen public
finances; c) government downsizing, i.e. reduction in size; d)
managerialization, i.e. less hierarchy and less regulation to
allow for innovation and the achievement of results instead
of legality; and e) democratization, especially in the face of
Latin American "socialisms" and "populisms" (Merlo
Rodríguez, 2007, pp. 11-12). (Merlo Rodríguez, 2007, pp.
11-12).
This package of reforms led to the neoliberal crisis of the State,

where it was concluded (Merlo Rodríguez 2012) that a managerial
government is not enough to lead society, which makes it
necessary to focus on the government's management capacity.
46
This is a starting point for the theoretical assumptions of

governance. In this sense, Ivana Merlo Rodríguez (2007) explains
how the modern concept of governance comes from Jan
Kooiman's 1993 book entitled "Modern governance: new
government - society interactions "15 . Villanueva (2009) agrees
with Merlo Rodríguez in that Kooiman is the first to propose
changes in the way of governing at the end of the 20th century
due to technological, social and economic changes that have
weakened and made government's capacities to solve problems
insufficient. He also agrees on how this issue gave rise to forms of
interdependence between government and non-state private and
public sector actors. "For the first time, a distinction is made
between the "governing" of the government and "governance",
understood as the new process of directing society" (Villanueva,
2009, p. 1). (Villanueva, 2009, p. 32)
Luis Aguilar Villanueva in his book "Gobernanza y gestión pú-
blica" explains that, in the last two decades of the last century, in
the last two decades of the last century, in
14 However, reading Luis Aguilar Villanueva, in "Governance and Public Management"

(2008), we can trace the concept back to the 17th century in the Spanish, French and English
languages. Closer in time, we find the use of the term in a 1989 World Bank report entitled
"Sub-Saharan Africa: from crisis to sustainable development. A Long-Term Perspective. It later
appeared in a 1992 World Bank study, and in 1993 it c a m e t o b e used by the British Overseas
Development Agency. Then, also in the 1990s, the concept began to be used by the OECD and
the UNDP.
15 In this book the author works on the idea of interactions between the public and
private spheres, where the State no longer acts alone, but where there is a compensation
from the civil sphere to the Government. Jan Kooiman continues to develop these ideas, for
example at the International Conference on Governance, Democracy and Social Welfare,
organized in Barcelona in November 2003 by the Institut Internacional de Governabilitat de
Catalunya. In it, from a systemic theoretical framework, he develops different modes and
models of governance, changing the government-oriented approach advocated in Modern
Governance for an approach that understands governance as a social phenomenon in which
public and private actors participate to solve social problems or frameworks of social
opportunities, preserve the institutions in which these interactions take place and reach
agreements so that joint interactions and actions are sustained over time.
47
GOVERNMENTS
public opinion and the academic world began to differentiate

between government and governance, or, in other words,
between governability and governance. In other words, a
distinction began to be drawn between the actions of government
and the direction of society, 9 and the central question was
whether government alone could deal with social and economic
problems.
Returning to Villanueva (2008), he proposes that the
government alone is currently too small to govern society. For this
reason, it has
...the need to integrate into the process of governing different

actors, independent of the government, who are important
in charting the social course and decisive in achieving its
objectives, since they possess powers, competencies and
resources that are indispensable for solving current social
problems and generating the desired situations of well-being.
(Villanueva, 2008, p. 61).
9 From this perspective, the concept of governance, as opposed to the concept of

governability, which focuses on the government and its actions, emphasizes the governance
or effective management of society. In this sense, the concept of governance is included within
the concept of governance. The guide states that "The term governance is a dynamic
construct that encompasses the interaction of different types of regulations, institutions and
processes in a society that organize and mediate the way that human beings interact...". This
guide states that "The term governance is a dynamic construct that encompasses the
interaction of different types of regulations, institutions and processes in a society that
organize and mediate the way in which human beings interact..." (2021, p. 14). It then states
that it is necessary for the State to consult, involve and collaborate to generate a high degree
o f consensus among stakeholders on processes or measures to be developed. Finally, the
guide mentions as key principles of governance: rule of law, transparency and access to
information, accountability, respect for rights, results/efficiency, consensus building, capacity
and gender equality.
48
However, this integration is not imposed and is not carried out

with total control of the various key actors, since they cannot be
forced to unconditionally hand over or lend the resources they
possess, since these actors and their operating logics come from
outside the political sphere.
On the other hand, contemporary government relations mean
that the government of the day must convene the key actors,
based on the resources they have available, to work in
coordination with them and thus reach a consensus on the
direction of society, objectives and mechanisms to achieve them10 .
This is because government action today requires intellectual,
technological, economic and moral resources, etc., which come
from actors immersed in the productive-competitive logics of
markets and from the cooperative-solidarity logics of non-state
public organizations. Therefore, the "government" actor has a
fundamental role in the "steering process of society", but it is not
the only actor with a fundamental role, which opens the way to
the idea of governance as an approach that brings to the table the
relevance of social actors (NGOs, universities, companies,
financial organizations, civil institutions, social movements,
churches, social organizations, interest groups, trade unions, etc.)
and the coordination/cooperation of the government with them
to achieve the direction of society and realize objectives that favor
the public good.
...the capacity to give direction to society and to achieve it will

depend on the forms of analytical, evaluative, normative,
technological and operational synergy that the government
manages to create, facilitate and establish with the sectors of
society to identify public problems, establish public policy and
public spending priorities and, in particular, it will depend on
10Evidence of this statement in government practice can be found, for example, in the
"Guidelines for stakeholder participation in forest and climate change management" of the
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources.
49
the government's ability to articulate and share the results of

its actions with the sectors of society and the public sector. to
stabilize the interests and initiatives of multiple social actors
in projects of social relevance and to bring them together to
pool resources. In this sense, the governance approach
represents a change in the idea of government and
governing: the passage from a center to a system of
government and the passage from a hierarchical mode of
government to a more associative and coordinating one
(Villanueva, 2008, p. 62). (Villanueva, 2008, p. 62).
We therefore find ourselves in a scenario (Villanueva 2008) in

which governmental action had to integrate private and non-state
public actors in the processes of development, execution of public
policies and public services. Therefore, the concept of governance
- as a descriptive concept - accounts for the emergence of new
forms of association and coordination between the government
and private and non-state public actors, and the greater degree of
influence they have in defining the orientation and execution of
public policies, public services and programs, e specially in the
areas of economic growth and social development.
Government action is not in a position to direct society unless

it combines and coordinates its directive resources and
coordination mechanisms with the resources and directive
mechanisms of other social entities, the market and
organized civil society" (Villanueva, 2008, p. 68).
From the denotation of the concept of governance as a

descriptive concept, we moved on to a concept of governance as
a normative concept, indicating "best governance practices" or
"good governance" in relation to current social, economic and
management conditions, and constructing empirical indicators to
measure "the quality of governance". However, although the
50
descriptive and normative concepts of governance denote

different things, they are linked to the idea of "good governance".
The government is indispensable in governance, but it is not the

only actor. On the other hand, there are relevant private and
nonstate public actors, whose actions and resources are
necessary to chart the course of society, to outline and execute
public policies, and to outline and execute public services.
These qualities indicate that the government is no longer
characterized by a logic of decisive preponderance in the
definition of common objectives and direct action, but becomes a
facilitating agent of association and coordination of a more
horizontal civil society that operates with a "network " 11 dynamic.
In line with these arguments, for Ivana Merlo Rodríguez (2007),
governance is a process involving a multitude of actors
coordinated by the State. In this decentralized and cooperative
process, social objectives and the best ways to achieve them are
defined. "It is a network governance where the important thing is
to create bridges, a relational government. A government that has
to coordinate with others and has to coordinate the process
without directing it". (Merlo Rodrí- guez, 2007, p. 14).
This "network governance" stems (Merlo Rodríguez 2012) from
the process of globalization, which has led to a change in the role
of National States, placing them in a role of construction and
11 According to Acuña and Vacchieri (2007) Hugh Heclo (1978) was the first to develop the
idea of "issue networks". According to Heclo, these networks appear when the State is
assigned new administrative tasks, but officials do not have all the necessary resources to
carry them out. These networks of issues, which may be formal or informal, are made up of
officials, civil institutions, the private sector, individuals, etc. They operate under a logic of
cooperation between officials, civil institutions, the private sector, etc. They operate under
a logic of cooperation between public officials, o r g a n i z a t i o n s and individuals who
"...have the political incentives or professional competence to promote them" (Acuña C and
Vacchier).
(Acuña C and Vacchieri A, 2007, p. 32).
51
coordination of interacting networks for the design and execution

of public policies. Thus, from the social sciences, the following
public management models appear: open data, gov network,
open gov, governance, etc.
Based on the arguments outlined above, Villanueva tends to
view governance as
...the process of government or societal governance by which

a society directs, governs and manages itself. In essence and
in practice, it is the process by which government, private
enterprises, society's organizations (civil, religious, social) and
citizens interact for the purpose of defining, agreeing and
deciding their objectives of general interest and common
value, as well as the forms of organization, resources and
activities deemed necessary and conducive to achieving the
desired and decided objectives. In synthesis, governance is
the process through which the actors of a society decide their
objectives of coexistence -fundamental and circumstantial-
and the ways of coordinating to achieve them: their sense of
direction and their capacity to lead (Villanueva, 2008, p. 70).
It is thus established that for Villanueva (2008) the concept of

governance emphasizes the process of governing and directing
society as social constructions with a logic of a certain
horizontality between the government, private and non-state
public actors. We find an approach that, instead of focusing on
actors, focuses on the processes and interactions that take place
among the relevant actors. Processes and interactions that
behave with a network logic.
Ivana Merlo Rodríguez (2007; 2012) agrees with Villanueva in
that currently governance comprises the process of government
and the process of directing society, where the government
ceases to be the center of the process to become a node that
coordinates the other actors within the system, "Thus, the State
becomes a necessary but not sufficient condition, because to
52
govern will require a process of negotiation, consensus and

interdependence with the other subsystems (Luhmman)". (Ro-
dríguez, 2007, p.
13)
In 2009 Aguilar Villanueva published "Gobernanza. The new
process of governing". In this work the author re-emphasizes the
need for society to generate a new directional process structured
by government action, but that this is meager, "For society to have
direction - a course oriented towards certain objectives and the
capacity to achieve them - the capacities of social actors are
required, valued and integrated, particularly in matters of
economic growth and social development" (Vi- llanueva, 2009, p.
29). (Vi- llanueva, 2009, p. 29). However, this steering process of
society by the government does not occur under a logic of
command and control, since the social actors are politically
independent of the government, in addition to having autonomy
because they possess resources that the government does not
have.
However, Villanueva (2009) goes a step further and speaks not
only of the need for the coordination and cooperation of key
private sector and non-state public actors, but also that society
itself - beyond the networks that are formed - needs to raise its
levels of organization, intelligence, resources, information, etc.
Since the potentialities of civil society exceed those of
government, it is necessary to build a synergy, a release and
interaction between the two, to reach a consensus on the
direction of society and seek the means to achieve social
objectives oriented to the Common Good.
On the other hand, Villanueva's notion of governance in
"Gobernanza. El nuevo proceso de gobernar" is consistent with
that given a year earlier in "Gobernanza y gestión pública". The
definition formulated in 2009 is as follows:
... governance means a change in the process / mode /

pattern of government, which is well understood and
53
formulated as the passage from a center to a governance

system ("governance system", UNDP), in which the resources
of public power, markets and social networks are required,
activated and brought together. In connection, it is the
passage from a centralized hierarchical style to a system of
governance. and vertical style of governing to an associated
and interdependent style of government with private and
social organizations, which makes the government tend to
govern through coordination rather than subordination,
through initiatives of dialogue, discussion, understandings,
negotiations, agreements and commitments with key actors
for the production of the preferred situations of associated
life, which take the form of coordination, collaboration and
public-private-social co-responsibility in the formulation and
implementation of policies, programs, investment projects
and service provision. (Villalba, 2009, pp. 30-31).
On the other hand, we previously discussed the descriptive and

normative concept of governance. However, Villanueva (2009)
also speaks of the theoretical concept of governance. Here, the
fundamental issue is the decrease in the degree of centrality,
sovereignty, autonomy and control by the government in relation
to the social and economic processes occurring in society. This
issue results in "managerial pluricentrism" between the
government and key actors.
The notions of governance put forward in both works by
Villanueva refer to a structurally decentralized and
interdependent society, where there is a need f o r deliberation,
distribution of costs and benefits, articulation, cooperation and
co-production between the government and civil society actors -
private and nonstate public- to establish, plan and execute public
policies, public services, projects, investments, etc. This also
implies a division of labor between the government sector and the
54
civil sector, as well as the resources and quantity of resources to

be contributed by each actor.
Hence, the process of government is no longer encapsulated
within the State, but rather - analytically - within society. This does
not mean that there are symmetrical relations and perfect
information between the different actors, but it does mean that
the government must mediate and solve the conflict between the
different actors.
The governance process is based on a common set of ethical

values, principles and legal norms.
María Victoria Munévar (2010) argues that the different
definitions or ways of understanding governance depend on the
discipline in which the concept is used and the role given to the
State. The combination of these two variables generates a range
of meanings that swing from a State-centric to a polycentric
conception. Nevertheless, and in agreement with the authors who
have been working on this issue, these conceptions stem from the
structural changes in the role of the State over the last 30 years,
where the boundaries between the State, the private sector and
non-state public actors have become blurred.
From a State-centric perspective, governance (Munévar 2010)
is understood as an art of public leadership, in which the State
plays the main role. Therefore, for there to be "good government"
or good governance, the political regime, public management and
government capacity are essential. Likewise, the State plays a
central role by applying mechanisms to guide society. On the
other hand, from a polycentric viewpoint, different disciplines
agree that governance refers to a process in which the state, civil
society and the private sector converge.
In the article What is governance and what is it for? Munévar
defines governance as follows
55
Governance is the realization of political relations between

various actors involved in the process of deciding, executing
and evaluating decisions on matters of public interest, a
process that can be characterized as a power game, in which
competition and cooperation coexist as possible rules; and
which includes both formal and informal institutions. The
form and interaction between the various actors reflects the
quality of the system and affects each of its components, as
well as the system as a whole (Munévar, 2010, p. 222).
We can observe that this definition given by the author places

governance as a process within a polycentric system.
Juan Manuel Abal Medina (2012) mentions that the concept of
governance has gained more strength within public
administration, expressing the need for multiple non-state actors
to articulate with the government to meet the various citizen
demands, as government action alone is insufficient, since no
single actor has all the resources and capabilities to meet them.
Like previous authors, Abal Medina emphasizes that the public
administration model based on governance is centered on
management with a network logic, understood as a system of
interrelationships of cooperation and exchange between public
and private actors. In short, this author defines governance as
...a type of public administration characterized by vertical and

horizontal interjurisdictional and interorganizational
cooperation. Implicit in this definition is the notion that public
policies are no longer the product of unilateral decisions of
the State, but are the product of a complex interaction
between the State and society (Jordana, 1995) and between
the different agencies and jurisdictions of the State itself
(Abal Medina, 2012, p. 44). (Abal Medina, 2012, p. 44).
Hernández Bonivento (2014) understands that the concept of

governance is multidimensional, as seen in the polycentric
56
conception presented by Munévar. Within this framework, the

author argues that there is an academic basis for defining
governance
...as an alternative model of social management to hierarchy

and market logics, based on the interaction between
different social actors (whether public or private) that seeks
to achieve agreed social goals of public interest in a more
efficient and effective way, and that is based on the
interaction between different social actors (whether public or
private) that seeks to achieve agreed social goals of public
interest in a more efficient and effective way. participatory,
collaborative and co-responsible manner (Hernández
Bonivento, 2014, p. 35).
However, governance does not only stem from the emergence

or new role of social actors and the State; it also arises from
contradictions between a democratic system of government and a
hierarchical, State-centered governance logic. This difficulty is
materialized in a delegitimization of authority, an overload of
demands on the government and a disaggregation of social
interests. These difficulties mean that the State is unable to satisfy
all of society's demands and that State hegemony at various levels
of society is eroded.
This does not mean that the State is no longer indispensable for
the development of society and the maintenance of democracy,
but rather that the current logic of networked governance is no
longer necessary for the development of society and the
maintenance of democracy.
...means a change in the way in which the act of governing

society is conceived, where rather than a vertical, imposing
and hierarchical vision, an actor is sought who is in charge of
taking the helm of society, who coordinates the efforts of the
57
other actors to steer the ship to a good port. (Hernández

Bonivento, 2014, p. 41)
This direction of society (Hernández Bonivento 2014) implies

that only the State has the legitimacy to organize the networks
formed by itself and by social actors, but no longer having an
undisputed hegemony. Likewise, it alone has the legitimacy to
define public objectives and to implement them in a coordinated
manner in an increasingly complex society. Thus, networks
become the distinctive quality of governance. And these networks
are characterized as mechanisms for interaction and coordination
between the state, private sector actors and non-state public
actors to reach deliberative consensus on decisions and
consensus on public policies and services aimed at the common
good.
Delving into the specific area of local governments, Carmen

Navarro Gómez (2002) argues that the changes occurring in the
State at the national level and in national governments are
replicated in municipalities and local governments, increasing the
participation and influence of the private sector and non-state
public actors in decision-making at the local level. Thus,
...the features of governance that can be seen at the local

government level are very similar to those we saw in the
general analysis of the concept, although adapted to the local
context and concretized in a change in the decision-making
landscape on the one hand and a transformation of the role
of local governments on the other hand. (Navarro Gómez,
2002, pp. 5-6).
This is reflected (Navarro Gómez 2002) in a greater dependence

of local governments on other levels of government; and in the
emergence of networks composed of diverse social actors -
institutions, unions, neighbors of the municipality, associations,
58
businessmen, NGOs, local politicians, community interest groups,

etc. - that pursue collective interests by coordinating, cooperating
and deliberating together with the municipalities. This leads local
governments to take on a leading role that was previously
forbidden to them and to increase the number and quality of
citizen participation mechanisms.
Clemente Navarro (2004) mentions that the study of local
governance began in the 1980s, mainly with the work of Fastein
and Fastein, and Clarence N. Stone. Subsequently, he argues that
governance at the local level denotes the increase in interactions
between private actors, non-state public entities, local
government and other state levels, with the latter appearing as
multilevel governance.
Within this conception of local governance, the central
question is "how to govern". This as
"...is configured through the formation of coalitions that, as a
result of informal negotiation processes between public and
private actors, guide the municipal political agenda and
actions. Decisions thus transcend the municipal government
itself". (Clemente Navarro, 2004, p. 3).
These coalitions are "situational" in nature, being determined

by the actual power resources that the actors have in their
interactions with each other and by the perception that other
actors possess resources that are useful for their own purposes.
In the multilevel governance dimension, coalitions arise from the
need of local governments to obtain resources from other state
levels. However, these coalitions vary from municipality to
municipality because they have different negotiation contexts.
Rodrigo Carmona, in "Gobiernos locales, dinámica política y
políticas urbanas territoriales: algunas consideraciones teó-
ricometodológicas para su análisis", analyzes the articulation
between local governments and civil society, which, according to
the author, establishes a specific political dynamic, with a systems
logic, among the actors involved. For Carmona, this articulation is
59
composed of "a set of governmental and non-governmental

institutions and political processes, performed by social actors
constituted as such and endowed with a certain capacity for
power." (Carmona, 2014, p. 26). In this way (Rodrigo Car- mona
2005) local governance results in a specific territorial collective
action characterized by novel forms of cooperation, intervention,
articulation and participation between the local state, various
private and public non-state actors and institutional frameworks,
whether formal or informal.
Likewise, Carmona states that the characteristics of this
political process may vary from territory to territory, since each
municipality has certain social relations that depend on
of the social construction of the territory. Ergo, the configuration,
deployment and interaction of networks composed of various
actors - governmental, private sector and non-state public - vary
from municipality to municipality.
The "new conception of urban policy" seeks, through a network
logic, to increase the participation of diverse actors based on their
territorial proximity.
"In general terms, there is a tendency to highlight the need to

recognize the territorial specificities of social problems in
cities and, consequently, the need to adapt policies to these
specificities" (Carmona, 2014, p. 27). (Carmona, 2014, p. 27).
Mónica Iturburu (2012) recognizes that at the local level,

actions in the public sector are not only carried out by the State,
but also involve neighbors, businessmen and civil society
organizations. In this sense, he states that there are several
municipalities that have begun to carry out participatory
processes to reach a consensus on the direction of society in terms
of the economic and social development of the municipality. This
is due to the inability of local governments to cope with new
functions and citizen demands.
60
Briefly taking up Hernández Bonivento (2014), he argues that

the deliberation and participation of various actors from civil
society and the private sector, but also with higher levels of
government, is essential for the proper functioning of local
governments. It also places local governments in a leading role in
terms of political and social praxis in the municipality. Taking
these attributes into account, the author defines local governance
as follows
the process of territorial governance through which goals and

objectives for the common good are established, as well as
the mechanisms
to achieve them, through associative, deliberative and

collaborative interaction between the different social actors
at various levels with presence and impact in the territory.
(Her- nández Bonivento, 2014, p. 72).
Elz (2017) agrees with Iturburu's (2012) arguments, and argues

that due to such inability municipalities have taken on the role of
articulator between local civil society and the private business
sector to carry out local development in a coordinated manner,
taking into account the particularities of the territory itself.
Hence the importance of consensus policies and

configuration of new areas of solidarity based on the
territorial, economic and cultural, so that the repositioning of
each city in the face of global economic competition, leads to
a novel linking of the municipality with various organizations
and actors, in search of agreements with universities,
consultants and institutes, thus seeking to awaken the hidden
potential. (Garcia Delgado, 1997). (Elz, 2017, p. 9)
Carmona and Couto (2019) also state that local governments

had to face new functions due to decentralization processes
61
without having the necessary capacities and resources to cope

with them. Local government maintains a central role in terms of
political-institutional, economic and social interactions.
However, it is the articulation between the municipality, private
sector actors and non-state public actors that favors local
development.
"...the establishment of associative and cooperative

relationships between companies, local organizations and the
State are important aspects in the creation of an environment
that is conducive to the development of a sustainable and
sustainable business environment.
propitious resulting in an increase in the productive and

competitive capacity of these spaces..." (Carmona and Couto,
2019, p. 398).
This is a view shared with Iturburu (2012), Car- mona (2014) and
Elz (2017).
Synthesizing the definitions of the authors just analyzed, we
agree with Carmen Navarro Gómez (2002) when she states that
governance is sometimes understood as the "...empirical
manifestations of the State's adaptations to its external
environment" (Navarro Gómez, 2002, p. 2), while in others it
appears as coordination between various social actors and the
State, emphasizing the role played by the latter in coordination.
(Navarro Gómez, 2002, p. 2), while in others it appears as the
coordination between diverse social actors and the State,
emphasizing the role occupied by the latter in coordination.
Likewise, the modern approach to governance can be
approached from two points of view. One that emphasizes the
resistance of various social actors and forces to the State; the
other that stresses that the existing resources in society are
sufficiently abundant to design and implement public policies.
62
This process is developed by networks, interest groups, etc.,

which are willing to coordinate and cooperate with the State.
However, networks can be understood (Navarro Gómez 2002)
in different ways. Some understand them as all interactions
between the State and interest groups. Others understand them
as specific governance mechanisms, or even as a specific type of
governance, in which state, private and non-state public resources
are combined. At the same time, within the second group, there
are those who use networks to look at the exchange of resources
and the behavior of the actors, while others shift the object of
study from the actors to the relationships that make up the
networks. Here, networks are thought of as a "...set of
relationships that are relatively stable and in continuous
operation, which mobilize dispersed resources, all with the aim of
articulating a common action". that allows us to provide solutions
to problems" (Navarro Gómez, 2002, pp. 3-4).
As can be seen, there is a diversity of definitions of the concept

of governance, depending on the importance given to the role of
the state. Moreover, the definitions vary according to the level of
governance under consideration: global, national, local. On the
other hand, the authors contribute in their definitions a quality or
characteristic of governance based on the type of governance
they are analyzing.
Speaking of governance as "global governance" or "national
governance", Ivana Merlo Rodríguez and Villanueva understand it
to be a decentralized and cooperative process, where the State
ceases to be the center and becomes a node that coordinates the
other actors, where social objectives and ways of achieving them
are agreed upon through networks. Hernández Bonivento clarifies
that, in this network logic, with a certain horizontality, only the
State has the legitimacy to be the coordinating node, but without
an undisputed hegemony. And that governance has an impact and
scope in a given territory.
63
Kooiman agrees with this point of view, but explains that

sometimes the State has a stronger role, this is the case o f
Hierarchical Governance. While, in other cases, the State behaves
as Merlo Rodriguez and Villanueva understand it, this being
CoGovernance. Munévar contributes that in the interactions
between actors there may be power games, and that institutions
may be both formal and informal. Abal Medina, like other authors,
analyzes governance as a model of public administration, or at
least as one that is based on governance, and whose management
is centered on a network logic.
When we move on to "local governance", we find that the
authors take the previously mentioned qualities of governance,
but develop their definition in terms of local government. Thus,
Navarro Gómez mentions in his definition of governance the
new leading role of local governments -according to the authors-
the new role of local governments.
Carmona, Couto, Elz and Iturburu is due to the new functions
acquired by decentralization and citizen demands, and to their
greater dependence on other levels of government because they
do not have the necessary capacities and resources - multilevel
governance.
Rodrigo Carmona agrees with Navarro Gómez; he adds that the
frameworks of interactions between the different actors can be
formal and informal, that each local territory has a governance
with specific characteristics and that the networks favor the
participation of actors based on territorial proximity.
In view of the above, this paper understands that governance
at the local level -in Argentina- appears as a model within the NGP
to provide answers to the problems arising from the state reform
of the nineties. Local governments must face new functions arising
from the decentralization processes -in addition to the "classic"
functions-, but without possessing by themselves, or by transfer
from higher levels of government, the necessary capacities and
resources to face them in their entirety, resulting in an overload
of unsatisfied demands on the part of local governments, thus
64
delegitimizing their authority due to lack of effectiveness and

efficiency. It also arises from contradictions between a democratic
system of government and a hierarchical, State-centered logic of
governance.
Without further ado, using the postulates of the authors
previously analyzed1213 , governance at the local level is defined as a
decentralized and cooperative process with a network logic14 - formal
or informal - in which the local State participates, key actors -with
presence, impact and proximity in the territory- from the private
sector, interest groups and other levels of government. In this
process, the local government does not govern by subordination
by making unilateral decisions, but tends to do so by coordinating
the interactions and joint actions of the various actors, with the
intention of sustaining them over time; to lead society, defining
objectives and collective goals in a participatory and deliberative
manner; jointly planning, executing and evaluating public works,
social development programs, investment and economic
development projects, and the provisionservices. This form of
12 (Navarro Gómez 2002), (Navarro 2004), (Merlo Rodríguez 2007; 2012), Villanueva (2008;
13 ), (Munévar 2010), (Abal Medina 2012), (Iturburu 2012), (Hernández Bonivento 2014),
(Carmona 2014), (Elz 2017), (Carmona and Couto 2019).
14According to Agustí Cerrillo i Martínez, a network is understood to mean a relatively stable
set of relationships of a non-hierarchical and interdependent nature linking a variety of actors
who share a common interest in a policy and a common interest in a particular policy. that
exchange resources to achieve this s hared interest in the knowledge that cooperation is the
best way to achieve the objectives pursued (2006, p. 24).
21 Under this definition, networks are structural relationships -with a high degree of f l e x i b
i l i t y and informality- of interdependence, consensus and cooperation between interest
groups and the State; to mobilize different resources that are dispersed among public state
actors, civil society actors and the private sector; in pursuit of the elaboration and
implementation of public programs, policies and services. This is the position of Erik-Hans Klijn
(1998) in "Policy networks: an overview" when he defines public policy networks as more or
less stable social relationships between interdependent actors to address problems and/or
policy programs.
65
relational governance based on networks 21 made up of local

governments and different private actors,
62
Governance Index in Local
Governments
Based on the definition of governance at the local level given

in this paper, and the analysis of authors and indicators in
the
"Annex: State of the Art in terms of Governance indexes
and indicators", the following index was prepared to measure
the level of governance in the local governments of the
municipalities of the Province of Buenos Aires. Before moving on
to this one, some clarifications. The warning of Parrado, Löfler
and Bovaird
(2005) is considered highly relevant when they state that the
measurement of governance should not be directed to the
organization of the State, nor to the quality of services, since in
that case governance would not be measured, but rather the
organizational quality of the
State based on effectiveness and efficiency, and the quality of
public services. In this sense, the authors re-start by focusing on
the quality of life of the inhabitants, on the quality of public
services, and on the quality of public services.
context and the interactions that take place in it.
It is also important to note that not only the opinions of
institutional agents and government documents should be taken
into account, but also the point of view of social agents should be
included.
On the other hand, Aguirre Sala's (2019) arguments are also
relevant: when measuring governance, it should not be
61
uncritically adapted to indicators and indexes that respond to the

interests of international organizations and/or governments.
First, because the objectives and interests of international
organizations and governments may not be the same as those of
scientific research. Second, because such indices
and indicators may be measuring something else, as in the case
of the World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators, which are
based on the logics of effectiveness and financing. As explained in
the previous paragraph, measuring effectiveness does not
measure governance, but rather the organizational quality of the
State. Third, in relation to the criticisms made by Chuchco (2018)
about the WGI, it has methodological flaws, for comparability, for
transparency, it favors developed countries, etc.
With this in mind, the following dimensions of analysis are
proposed, with their respective indicators, to measure the de gree
of governance of local governments in the province of Buenos
Aires:
A. Participation / Articulation Dimension

I. Citizen participation subdimension
Definition: Citizen participation is understood as the

opportunities for a person's voice and vote to be taken into
account in decision-making regarding the municipality's collective
objectives and goals, as well as in the planning and execution of
public policies.
Rationale: This subdimension makes it possible to measure
citizen participation in different institutional spheres, as well as
the importance given by the local government to promoting such
participation, and the degree of importance given to citizens'
opinions.
Methodology: The data for this item is obtained through
surveys of public officials of the municipality, relevant actors of
62
GOVERNANCE IN LOCAL
the opposition to the local government and key actors of each

municipality (it is recommended to interview at least one person
from each of these options and calculate an average of the
responses to avoid obtaining biased data). Data can also be
collected from official documents.
Indicators: A) Existence of participatory
discussion/consultation processes of the local government with
the municipality's neighbors -citizens- on important issues for the
community15 . B) Existence of Participatory Budget (PB). C) Number
of proposals made by neighbors in the PB. D) Number of projects
executed from the PB that were accepted by the local
government to be executed. E) Dispersion in the territory of
projects executed from the PB16.
It should be clarified that if the value of indicator B is 0,
indicators C, D and E will also necessarily be 0.
15 By participatory discussion/consultation processes we understand the following

mechanisms of citizen participation: participatory planning, public consultation, democracy
by c h o i c e , roundtable dialogue, popular initiative, participatory drafting of regulations,
neighbor's bench, citizen juries, advisory council, observatories, open data, social auditing
and popular consultation. The participatory budget is also a mechanism, but here it is taken
as a separate indicator.
16 As Rodrigo Carmona points out in "Gobiernos locales, dinámica política y políticas ur-
banas territoriales. Algunas consideraciones teóricometodológicas para su análisis",
published by the Instituto del Conurbano (ICO), Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento,
i n 2014; the territorial dimension is fundamental to understand the political relations and
processes of a municipality in terms of the "location or spatial location of social r e l a t i o n
s , and which visualizes the social construction of the territory as one of the essential
components of spatiality" (Carmona, 2014, p. 26). Likewise, measuring the dispersion of
public policies in the territory allows us to see the degrees of socio-spatial inequality
between neighbors and between neighborhoods. This leads to consider the importance of
global planning of municipalities in inclusive and equitable terms.
63
Table 1 Definition and weighting of the indicators of the citizen
participation sub-dimension.
Degree of
Subdimension I. Indicator Weighting and degree of Governance in
g o v e r n a n c e in the the
indicator Subdimension
X and greater than X 4 pts. = Very
High
A) Existence of between X and X 3 pts. = high Very High 17 - 20

public processes of
discussion/c pts.
onsultation between X and X 2 pts. = Medium
of the local
government with
the residents of between X and X 1 point = Low
Citizen the
Participatio municipality
n in matters of
important to the 0 0 pts. = Very High 13 - 16 pts.
community. Low
YES 4 pts. = Very High

B) Existence
0 pts. = Very
of Participatory
NO Low
Budget (PB).
X and greater than X 4 pts. = Very

High
C) Number of
proposals made Medium 9 - 12 pts.
by neighbors in between X and X 3 pts. = high
the PB which
were between X and X 2 pts. = Medium
accepted by the
local government to be between X and X 1 point = Low
executed.
0 0 pts. = Very
Low
D) Number of X and greater than X 4 pts. = Very

projects High
executed by the PP.
between X and X 3 pts. = high
between X and X 2 pts. = Medium Low 5 - 7 pts.
between X and X 1 point = Low
0 0 pts. = Very
Low
between X% and 4 pts. = Very

E) Dispersion in 100%. High
the territory
of projects between X% and X%. 3 pts. = high
executed by the
64
GOVERNANCE IN LOCAL
between X % and X%. 2 pts. = Medium
PP. GOVERNMENTS Very Low 0 - 4 pts.

between X% and X%. 1 point = Low
0 pts. = Very
between 0% and X%. Low
65
II. Subdimension articulation between the Local State

and the Private Sector
Definition: Understood as the interactions between local

government and private sector actors in local programs, public
services and public works.
Rationale: This subdimension allows measuring the inte-
ractions between the local government and private sector actors
in the design, financing and execution of public policies. It also
makes it possible to observe the efforts of the local government
to encourage the participation of the private sector in the
achievement of the municipality's collective objectives.
Indicators: A) Creation and implementation of policies and
incentives to promote the participation and investment of private
sector actors in local economic development. B) Articulations of
the local government with private sector actors in the planning,
financing and execution of municipal programs. C) Local
government articulations with private sector actors in the
planning, financing and execution of public services. D)
Articulations of the local government with private sector actors in
the planning, financing and execution of public works.
66
Table 2 Definition and weighting of the indicators of the sub-dimension
Local State - Private Sector articulation.
Subdimen- Degree of
Indicator Weighting and degree of Governance
sion II.
g o v e r n a n c e in the in the
indicator Subdimension
Local State - A) Creation and
Private Sector X and greater 4 pts. = Very High
start-up of policies
Articulation and than X
incentives to promote between X and X 3 pts. = High
the Very High 14 -
participation and 16 pts.
between X and X 2 pts. = Medium
investment of
private sector actors
in between X and X 1 point = Low
development local
economy. 0 0 pts. = Very Low
X and greater 4 pts. = Very High

than X High 11 - 13 pts.

B) Articulations
of the local
government with between X and X 2 pts. = Medium
private
sector actors in the between X and X 1 point = Low
planning,
financing, and
financing of the and 0 0 pts. = Very Low
execution
of municipal programs. Medium 7 - 10
pts.
than X
C) Articulations
of the local between X and X 3 pts. = high
government with
private between X and X 2 pts. = Medium
sector actors in the
planning, between X and X 1 point = Low
financing and
execution of Low 4 - 6 pts.
0 0 pts. = Very Low
public services.
than X
D) Articulations
of the local between X and X 3 pts. = high
government
with private
sector actors in the
planning, Very Low 0 -
financing and between X and X 1 point = Low 3 pts.
execution of
public works.
0 0 pts. = Very Low
67
III. Subdimension articulation of Local State -

Stakeholder Groups
Definition: Tocqueville (1969) described how the inhabitants of

the United States, faced with problems of a public nature, united
their efforts to act in common. To this end, they constituted
themselves into deliberative bodies, from which emanated an
executive power whose objective was to solve the problem that
afflicted them. Only in case this failed, they resorted to the public
power. These associations among neighbors were constituted on
the basis of shared ideas and interests, seeking a clearly
established end or ends.
In this sense, Tocqueville understood that the development of
civil associations favored the development of political
associations; and that "When a people has a public highway, the
idea of association and the desire to associate present themselves
every day to the spirit of all citizens..." (Tocqueville, 1969, p. 567).
Ergo, freedom of association in civil society causes individuals to
organize themselves into various associations, to enjoy the
pleasures of private life, and to solve problems of public interest.
For their part, Acuña and Vacchieri (2007) argue that there are
various organizations in civil society, with different organizational
models, their own history and specific purposes. 17 These
organizations are considered public because their purposes are of
interest to members and non-members, because they are joined and
left voluntarily, because they are self-governed and because they are
not part of the State. These organizations are considered public
because their purposes are of interest to their members and non-
members, because they join and leave voluntarily, because they
are self-governed and because they are not part of the State. This
implies that outside the State there is a public space, and not only
17The authors mention that the study by Roitter and González Bomba (2000) identified 6
types of organizations in Argentina; three pure: civil associations, foundations and mutuals,
and three hybrids: cooperatives, social works and unions. The subtypes within the pure and
hybrid types total more than twenty categories. In turn, there are other forms of typologies,
68
a private sector. verbi- grace, non-governmental organizations, public

welfare organizations, public interest organizations, non-profit
organizations, voluntary organizations, etc.
These authors are interested in knowing the circumstances,

motivations and results with which these organizations influence
public policy, since
"In the last 30 years, both the public visibility and the more or
less active and institutionalized participation of this type of
organizations in national and international political decision -
making spaces have increased notably. (Acuña and Vacchieri,
2007, pp. 21-22).
On the other hand, Acuña and Vacchieri (2007) understand that

civil society political organizations develop and carry out strategies
based on arguments that evoke public interest to encourage or
halt social changes that affect other groups or organizations. These
organizations have a varied repertoire that includes advocacy,
mobilizations, lobbying, channeling the opinions and influence of
other organizations, participating "...in spaces of consultation for
the design of public policies and collaboration in the
implementation and evaluation of public policies" (Acuña and
Vacchieri). (Acuña and Vacchieri, 2007, p 23) creating networks
that lower costs in the selection, design, implementation and
control/evaluation of public policies and services 18.
18Civil society organizations (Acuña and Vacchieri 2007) in the public agenda s e t t i n g phase
produce useful and reliable information and disseminate it. In the design phase they
contribute new ideas for designing public policies and services, and monitor government
negotiations. In the implementation phase they can carry out their own initiatives to divide
costs with the State, and can solve social, political and institutional problems that slow down
or delay the execution of public policies and services. Finally, in the control/evaluation phase
they analyze data and monitor public policies and services.
69
Diego Solís Delgadillo in his 2017 paper "Towards a definition of

the stakeholder concept" analyzes the definition of "stakeholder"
given by different authors 19 . Although the definitions differ
Delgadillo concludes that the quality most frequently repeated in
the definitions of interest groups is that of "representation of
interests" and the functions carried out by these groups, namely,
to influence public decisions in order to influence public policies .
This conclusion is in line with the arguments of Acuña and
Vacchieri on the incidence of civil organizations in the selection,
design, implementation and control/evaluation of public policies
and services.
Likewise, Delgadillo agrees with the arguments of Tocque- ville
and Acuña and Vacchieri when he makes explicit the qualities of
stakeholders in his own definition, namely,
...are organizations with institutionalized structures, act

through non-violent means and do not seek governmental
responsibilities. Based on the semantic center and these
elements, we can define the interest group as a formally
structured organization that seeks to influence through
nonviolent means on public decision making without
assuming governmental responsibilities. (Delgadillo, 2017, p.
97).
Rationale: Based on the above, measuring the articulation of

the local government with the stakeholders allows to
2008; 31(6):1103-1128; Grossman G., Helpman E. Special Interest Politics. The MIT Press:
Cambridge; 2001; Hrebenar R. J., Morgan B. B. Lobbying in America: A Reference Handbook.
ABC Clio: Santa Barbara; 2009; Jordan G., Halpin D., Maloney W. Defining Interest: Disam-
biguation and the Need for New Distinctions? British Journal of Politics and
19The authors and their papers are: Beyers J., Eising R., Maloney W. Researching Interest
Group Politics in Europe and Elsewhere: Much We Study, Little We Know? West European
Politics.
70
International Re- lations. 2004; 6(2):1-8; Key V. O. Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups. Thomas
Y. Crowell: New York; 1964; Knoke David. Associations and Interest Groups. Annual Review of
Sociology. 1986; 12:1-21; LaPalombara J. Interest Groups in Italian Politics.
Princeton University Press: New Jersey; 1964; Salisbury R. H. Interest Representation: The
Dominance of Institutions. 7e American Political Science Review. 1984; 78(1):64-76; Truman
D. The Governmental Pro- cess: Political Interests and Public Opinion. Alfred A. Knopf: New
York; 1951; Walker J. L. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America. University of Michigan Press:
Michigan, Ann Arbor; 1991.
to see the degree of influence they have on the definition of
collective goals and objectives for the municipality, as well as the
influence they have on the planning of public policies and their
execution. On the other hand, it allows us to see whether the local
government is interested in promoting the participation of
stakeholders in decision-making on collective goals and objectives
for the municipality. Methodology: The data for this item are
obtained through surveys of public officials of the municipality,
relevant actors of the opposition to the local government and key
actors of each municipality (it is recommended to interview at
least one person from each of these options and calculate an
average of the responses to avoid obtaining biased data).
Likewise, data can also be collected from
official documents.
Indicators: A) Presence and scope of local government efforts
for cooperation between local government and stakeholders. B)
Articulations of the local government with stakeholders in the
planning, financing and execution of municipal programs. C)
Articulations of the local government with interest groups in the
planning, financing and execution of public services. D)
Articulations of the local government with interest groups in the
planning, financing and execution of public works.
71
Local Government - Stakeholders articulation.
Subdimen- weighting and degree of Degree of

sion III. governance in the Gobernanza in
indicator
indicator the
Subdimension
than X
A) presence and
scope of between X
3 pts. = high
efforts and X Very High 14 -
of the Government between X 16 pts.
for the 2 pts. = Medium
and X
cooperation
between X
between it and the 1 point = Low
and X
stakeholders.
0 0 pts. = Very Low

than X
High 11 - 13 pts.
B) joints of the between X
3 pts. = high
Government local and X
with groups between X
of interest in 2 pts. = Medium
and X
theplanning,
financing between X
1 point = Low
and execution of and X
Articulation programs
0 0 pts. = Very Low
Local State municipalitie s.
- Groups of X and greater 4 pts. = Very
Interest than High
C) joints of the
Government local between X Medium 7 - 10
with groups 3 pts. = high
and X pts.
of interest in
theplanning, between X
2 pts. = Medium
financing and X
and execution between X
1 point = Low
of services and X
Low 4 - 6 pts.
public.
0 0 pts. = Very Low

than X
D) joints of the
Government local between X
3 pts. = high
with groups and X
of interest in the between X 2 pts. = Medium
planning, and X Very Low 0 -
financing and 3 pts.
between X 1 point = Low
execution of
and X
public works.
0 0 pts. = Very Low
72
IV.Subdimension articulation of Local State - Other

levels of Government
Definition: As described by Cao (2008), Argentina is a federal

country with 3 levels of public administration, with exclusive,
concurrent and complementary attributions and functions.
These three levels are: the National Public Administration or
Central or Federal Administration; the Provincial or State or
Regional Public Administration; and the Municipal or Local Public
Administration. Due to the constitutional reform of 1994, which
brought about reforms in the state structure and installed a
decentralized public administration model, a "cooperative or
coordinated federalism" was created, where the three levels of
government work together. This
"has introduced or strengthened instruments that induce and

facilitate the co-management of activities and programs. The
validity of a cooperative type of federalism inevitably leads to
overlapping and interdependencies in the deployment of the
tasks of each of the administrations" (Cao, 2008, p. 1). (Cao,
2008, p. 1).
Rationale: Analyzing this subdimension allows us to see the

degree of interrelation of local government with other levels of
government. It also allows us to analyze the effort made by local
governments to receive resources - whether budgetary, human,
etc. - from the national and provincial public administration in
order to finance and deploy programs, works and public services
in the municipality.
surveys of public officials of the municipality, relevant actors of the
opposition to the local government and key actors of each
from each municipality).
73
of these options and calculate an average of the responses so as

not to obtain biased data). Data can also be collected from official
documents.
Indicators: A) Presence and scope of local government efforts
for cooperation between this and other levels of government. B)
Articulations of the local government with other levels of
government in the planning, financing and execution of municipal
programs. C) Articulations of local government with other levels of
government in the planning, financing and execution of public
services. D) Articulations of local government with other levels of
government in the planning, financing and execution of public
works.
74
Articulation Local State - Other Levels of Government.
Degree of
Subdimension weighting and degree of Governance
indicator
IV. governance in in the
the indicator Subdivision
Articulation A) presence and X and greater than 4 pts. = Very High Very High
Local State - scope X 14 - 16 pts.
Other Levels of of efforts
Government of the local
government for between X and X 2 pts. = Medium
cooperation
between the local between X and X 1 point = Low
government and
other levels of 0 0 pts. = Very Low High 11 -
13 pts.
government.
B) articulations of X and greater than 4 pts. = Very High

the local X
government with
other levels between X and X 3 pts. = high
government in the
planning, between X and X 2 pts. = Medium
financing, and between X and X 1 point = Low Medium 7
financing of and 10 pts.
program execution 0 0 pts. = Very Low
municipalities.
C) articulations of X and greater than 4 pts. = Very High

local X
government with
other levels of between X and X 3 pts. = high
government in
between X and X 2 pts. = Medium Low 4 - 6
planning,
pts.
financing and between X and X 1 point = Low
executing the
planning, 0 0 pts. = Very Low
financing and
execution of
public services.
D) articulations of X and greater than 4 pts. = Very High
the local X
government with
other levels between X and X 3 pts. = high Very Low
government's 0 - 3 pts.
role in
planning, between X and X 1 point = Low
financing and
execution of 0 0 pts. = Very Low
public works.
75
For the dimension indicators see: Arredondo López, A., Orozco

Núñez, E., Wallace, S., & Rodríguez, M. (2013). Governance
indicators for the development of binational social protection
strategies in migrant health. Saúde e Sociedade, 22, 310-327;
Duarte Suárez, A. D. (2015). Governance Indicators for the
Environmental Management of the Fucha River. Gutiérrez, A. I., &
Morales-Pinzón, T. (2017). Assessment of local environmental
governance in Risaral- da. Revista Luna Azul, (45), 309-328; Lobo,
M. (2012). Analysis of the correlation strength of accountability as
an indicator of governance, present in the communal councils of
the Li- bertador municipality, Mérida State, Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela (2011) (doctoral dissertation, Universidad de los
Andes); Munévar, M. V. W. (2005). Contributions of theory and
praxis for new governance. Re- vista del CLAD Reforma y
Democracia, (33), 1-15.
76
Table 5 Operationalization of the Participation / Articulation dimension.
77
78
B.Equity Dimension
Definition: According to Karen Marie Mokate (2001), there is a
general consensus that the concept of equity 20 is central to the
discussion of public policies. In relation to these, "horizontal
equity" refers to the fact that it is not unfair for the State or
nongovernmental organizations to treat vulnerable, relegated or
marginalized individuals and/or social groups differently in order
to correct or adjust social differences; for example, programs
focused on vulnerable populations. This position is in line with the
approach of Parrado, Löffler and Bovaird (2005) on emphasizing
quality of life from the point of view of citizens and institutional
and social agents in a given area and on the achievement of the
desired effects of public programs and services.
In the sense previously stated, (Mokate 2001) equity in access
refers to guaranteeing basic conditions so that vulnerable,
relegated or minority sectors of society have guaranteed access to
20 The concept of equity is based on the ideas of equality, fulfillment of rights and justice.
79
public programs and services. Mokate proposes that equity of

access "should be measured by the destination of financial
resources for the delivery of services" (2001, p. 24). (2001, p. 24).
Equity in inputs refers to the fact that public services and programs
intended for vulnerable, relegated or minority sectors have the
same quality as those intended for other populations. Finally,
equity of impact or result is related to the idea that the programs
and services targeted to vulnerable, relegated or minority sectors
meet the expected objectives/expectations.
Rationale: This subdimension allows measuring the efforts of
the local government to include in the definition of collective
objectives and goals for the municipality, as well as measuring the
efforts of the local government to generate better living conditions
for excluded, minority and vulnerable populations.
surveys of public officials of the municipality, relevant actors of the
opposition to the local government and key actors of each
Indicators: A) Inclusion of excluded, minority and vulnerable
groups in consultative processes. B) Allocation of resources to
public services for vulnerable populations. C) Allocation of
resources to programs aimed at excluded, minority and vulnerable
populations. D) Dispersion of public works in the municipality. E)
Existence of institutionalized bodies in operation where women
are represented.
80
Table 6 Definition and weighting of the indicators of the Equity
dimension
Degree of
Dimension B. Indicator Weighting and level of Governance in
g o v e r n a n c e in the dimension
indicator
A) inclusion of
excluded groups,
minority and Very High 17 - 20
vulnerable pts.
groups in
consultative
processes. NO 0 pts. = Very Low
B) allocation of YES 4 pts. = Very High

resources to
targeted public
services to
vulnerable NO 0 pts. = Very Low
populations .
C) allocation
of resources
to programs YES 4 pts. = Very High High 13 - 16 pts.
Equity targeting excluded,
minority and vulnerable
populations.
Medium 9 - 12 pts.
NO 0 pts. = Very Low
D) dispersion of X% ≤ X% ≤ 100% 4 pts. = Very High

public works in the
municipality.
X% ≤ X% ≤ X% ≤ X% 3 pts. = high Low 5 - 8 pts.
≤ X%
X% ≤ X% ≤ X% ≤ X% 2 pts. = Medium
≤ X%
X% ≤ X% ≤ X% ≤ X% 1 point = Low
≤ X%
0% ≤ X% ≤ X% ≤ X% 0 pts. = Very Low

E) Existence of Very Low 0 - 4 pts.
organs
institutionalized in
operation where women
are represented.
NO 0 pts. = Very Low
81
For the indicators of the dimension see: Duarte Suárez, A.

D. (2015). Governance Indicators for the Environmental
Management of the Fucha River. Gutiérrez, A. I., & MoralesPinzón,
T. (2017). Evaluation of local environmental governance in
Risaralda. Revista Luna Azul, (45), 309-328; Munévar, M. V. W.
(2005). Contributions of theory and praxis for new governance.
Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia, (33), 1-15.
82
Table 7 Operationalization of the Equity dimension.
Dimension B Index. Equity.
Degree of
Weighting and level of governance
Indicator governance in the
in the indicator
Dimension
Yes (4 pts. = Very High)

A
No (0 pt. = Very Low) Very High 17 - 20
pts.
B
No (0 pt. = Very Low)
High 13 - 16 pts.
C
D X% ≤ X% ≤ 100% (4 pts = Very

High)
X% ≤ X% ≤ X% (3 pts = High) Medium 9 - 12

pts.
X% ≤ X% ≤ X% ≤ X% (2 pts = Medium)
Low 5 - 7 pts.
X% ≤ X% ≤ X% ≤ X% (1 pt. = Low)
0% ≤ X% ≤ X% (0 pts = Very Low)
Yes (4 pts. = Very High) Very Low 0 - 4 pts.

E
No (0 pts = Very Low)
Table prepared by the authors.
83
C.Networks Dimension
Definition: Repeating paragraphs from the theoretical
framework, Agustí Ce- rrillo Martínez defines a network as follows
...a relatively stable set of relationships of a non-hierarchical

and interdependent nature linking a variety of actors who
share a common interest in a policy and who exchange
resources to achieve this shared interest in the knowledge
that cooperation is the best way to achieve the desired
objectives (2006, p. 24).
Under this definition, networks are structural relationships with

a high degree of flexibility and informality- of interdependence,
consensus and cooperation between interest groups and the
State; to mobilize different resources that are dispersed among
public state actors, civil society actors and the private sector; in
pursuit of the design and implementation of public programs,
works and services. This is the position of ErikHans Klijn (1998) in
"Policy networks: an overview" when he defines public policy
networks as more or less stable social relationships between
interdependent actors to address policy problems and/or
programs.
Rationale: This sub-dimension allows us to measure the ability
and/or interest of the local government to generate and sustain
over time relationships that generate interdependent structural
capacity for cooperation with other levels of government, private
sector actors and interest groups; in order to plan, finance,
execute and evaluate, cooperatively and jointly; programs, public
works and public services, according to the actors involved in the
network. Methodology: The data for this item is obtained through
from each municipality).
84
of these options and calculate an average of the responses so as

not to obtain biased data). Data can also be collected from official
documents.
Indicators: A) Local government efforts to promote common
interests and agendas, to generate and sustain over time
interactions (networks) between local government and private
sector actors.
B) Extension (number) of local government networks with private
sector actors. C) Local government efforts to promote common
interests and agendas, to generate and sustain interactions
(networks) between local government and interest groups over
time.
D) Extent (number) of local government networks with
stakeholders. E) Efforts of the local government, for the promotion
of common interests and agendas, to generate and sustain over
time interactions (networks) between this and other levels of
government. F) extension (number) of local government
networks with other levels of government.
85
Table 8 Definition and weighting of the indicators of the Networks
dimension.
Dimension Weighting and degree of Degree of
C. g o v e r n a n c e in the Gobernanza in
Indicator
indicator the
dimension
A) Efforts of the local X and greater 4 pts. = Very High Very High 20 - 24
government, to the than X pts
promotion of between X and X 3 pts. = high
common interests and
agendas, to
generate and sustain over
time
interactions between X and X 1 point = Low
(networks) between it
0 0 pts. = Very Low
and private sector
actors.
than X
B) extent (number) of
local government between X and X 2 pts. = Medium
networks with local
between X and X 1 point = Low
government stakeholders
Networks private sector. High 16 - 19 pts
between 0 and x 0 pto. low
C) Efforts of the local X and greater 4 pts. = Very High

government, to the than X
promotion of
common interests and between X and X 3 pts. = high
agendas, to
generate and sustain over between X and X 2 pts. = Medium
time
(networks) between this
and interest groups. 0 0 pts. = Very Low
Medium 10 - 15
pts.
than X
D) extent (number) of local
government between X and X 2 pts. = Medium
networks with
groups of interest. between X and X 1 point = Low Low 5 - 9 pts.
0 0 pts. = Very Low
E) Efforts of the X and greater 4 pts. = Very High

local government, to than X
the promotion of
common interests and between X and X 3 pts. = high
agendas, to
generate and sustain over between X and X 2 pts. = Medium
time
(networks)
between this and other 0 0 pts. = Very Low
levels of government.
X and greater 4 pts. = Very High Very Low 0 - 4

than X pts.
86
F) extent (number) of between X and X 3 pts. = high
local government
networks with other between X and X 2 pts. = Medium
levels of government. between X and X 1 point GOVERNMENTS

= Low
0 0 pts. = Very Low
For the indicators of the dimension see: Aymat, J. D. (2011).

Governance indicators in the Madrid region of Hoya de Villalba.
Territorios en formación, (1), 23-41; Gutiérrez, A. I., &
MoralesPinzón, T. (2017). Evaluation of local environmental
governance in Risaralda. Revista Luna Azul, (45), 309-328;
Munévar,
M. V. W. (2005). Contributions of theory and praxis for new
governance. CLAD Journal Reform and Democracy, (33), 1-15.
87
GOVERNANCE IN LOCAL
Table 9 Operationalization of the Networks dimension.
Dimension C Index. Networks
Degree of
go-
Indicator Weighting and degree of bernanza in

governance in the the
indicator Dimension
X and ≤ X (4 pts. = Very High)
X ≤ X ≤ X (3 pts. = High).
A X ≤ X ≤ X (2 pts. = Medium) Very High 20
X ≤ X ≤ X (1 point = low) - 24 pts
0 (0 pto = Very Low)
X ≤ X ≤ X (3 pts. = High).
B X ≤ X ≤ X (2 pts. = Medium)
X ≤ X ≤ X (1 pts. = Low).
High 16 - 19 pts
0 (0 pto. = Very Low)
X ≤ X ≤ X (3 pts. = High).
C X ≤ X ≤ X (2 pts. = Medium)
X ≤ X ≤ X (1 pt. = Low)
0 (0 pto = Very Low) Medium 10 -
X and ≤ X (4 pts. = Very High) 15 pts.
X ≤ X ≤ X (3 pts. = High).
D X ≤ X ≤ X (2 pts. = Medium)
X ≤ X ≤ X (1 pts. = Low).
0 (0 pt. = Very Low)
Low 5 - 9 pts.
X ≤ X ≤ X (3 pts. = High).
E X ≤ X ≤ X (2 pts. = Medium)
X ≤ X ≤ X (1 point = low)
0 (0 pto = Very Low)
X ≤ X ≤ X (3 pts. = High). Very Low 0 - 4
F X ≤ X ≤ X (2 pts. = Medium) pts.
X ≤ X ≤ X (1 pts. = Low).
88
Below is a table with the sum of the three previously developed

dimensions, which gives us the weighted index of governance of
the local governments of the province of BS. AS:
Dimension A Index of
Dimension B
Index. Dimension
Index. Degree of
Participation/ C.
Equity. governance
Articulation. Networks.
of X
municipality
in the
province of
BS AS.
Very High 20 Very High 90

Very High 56 - 68 Very High 17 - 20 - 24 - 112
+ + =
Height 42 - 55 High 13 - 16 High 16 - 19 High 67 - 89
Medium 27 - 41 Medium 9 - 12 Medium 10 - 15 Medium 46 - 66
Low 13 - 26 Low 5 - 7 Low 5 - 9 Low 23 - 45
Very Low 0 - 12 Very Low 0 - 4 Very Low 0 - 4 Very Low 0 - 22
Table 10 Governance index of local governments in each municipality

of the province of BS. AS.
89
Methodology for assigning numerical

delimitations to categories of the
indicators that make up the Dimensions
The previous section presented and described the indicators,
sub-dimensions and dimensions that make up the index to
measure the degree of governance in the local governments of
the province of BS. AS.
Although weights were assigned to the "Very High," "High,"
"Medium," "Low," and "Very Low" categories, no numerical de -
constraints were assigned to the indicator categories21 . Verbi- grace,
X% ≤ X% ≤ X% for indicators with percentages, or, X ≤ X ≤ X, for
indicators with integers.
In order to obtain primary data on the degree of governance of
each local government, and to assign a numerical delimitation to
the indicator categories, a series of surveys must be conducted;
as mentioned in the data collection methodology, there must be
at least three: one for a member of the local government of the
municipality, one for a member of the opposition of the local
government of the municipality, and one for a relevant actor in
the city.
The sample interview questionnaire is shown in the survey
questionnaire annex. Each of the questions in the interview
questionnaire represents an indicator of the index. The
respondent's answer to the question determines the value
assigned to the indicator; thus allowing us to place it on the scale:
"Very Good", "Good", "Medium", "Bad", or "Very Bad". Or on the
"Very Good" - "Very Bad" scale, depending on whether the
indicator is dichotomous or not.
The questions are grouped in 4 blocks. The first contains
questions about the respondent. The second contains questions
about the respondent.
delimitation for the set.
21 With the exception of the categories "YES" and "NO" which do not require a numerical
90
contains questions on dimension A "Participation / Articulation"

and its component sub-dimensions. The third block contains
questions on dimension B "Equity". Finally, block 4 contains
questions on dimension C "Networks".
The values established to numerically delimit each category of
indicators are based on an average of the responses of the
respondents.
For example, if for the whole number answers, the respondents
would answer with the following numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 y +20. A is-
In order to determine which numbers would make up the
numerical delimitation of each category (very low, low, medium,
high, high, very high), an average logic must be applied to them.
Thus, numerical responses of "0" fall into the "very low" segment,
numerical responses "between 1 and 4" fall into the "low"
segment, numerical responses "between 5 and 10" fall into the
"medium" segment, numerical responses "between 11 and 19"
fall into the "high" segment, and numerical responses "20 and
greater than 20" fall into the "very high" segment.
Thus, the values for indicators with high numbers would be as
follows: Very Low = 0, Low = between 1 and 4, Medium = between
5 and 10, High = between 11 and 19, and Very High = 20 and
greater than 20. In other words,
Numerical delimitation of segments and degree of

governance in indicators with integers.
20 and greater than 20 4 pts. = Very High
between 11 and 19 3 pts. = High
between 5 and 10 2 pts. = Medium
between 1 and 4 1 point = Low
0 0 pts. = Very Low
Table 12 Numerical delimitation of categories and degree of

governance in indicators with integers.
91
For indicators with percentages, the same logic should be

applied as for numerical responses with whole numbers, but using
the percentage values of the questions that are answered with
percentages. Thus, the values for indicators with percentages
would be as follows: Very Low = between 0 and 20%, Low =
between 21% and 40%, Medium = between 41% and 59%, High =
between 60% and 79%, and Very High = between 80% and 100%.
In other words,
Numerical delimitation of segments and degree of governance in percentage

indicators
between 80% and 100%. 4 pts. = Very High
between 60% and 79%. 3 pts. = High
between 41% and 59%. 2 pts. = Medium
between 21% and 40%. 1 point = Low
between 0% and 20%. 0 pts. = Very Low
Table 13 Numerical delimitation of the categories and degree of

governance in indicators with percentages.
Thus, the 3 dimensions with numerical delimitations in the

categories of the indicators that compose them are formed as
shown below.
A.Participation / Articulation Dimension
Table 14 Operationalization of the Participation / Articulation dimension
with numerical delimitation of the indicator categories.
92
93
94
B.Equity Dimension
Table 15 Operationalization of the Equity dimension with numerical
delimitation of the indicator categories.
Weighting and level of governance in

Indicator
the indicator
Degree of
governance in the
Dimension
A
No (0 pt. = Very Low) Very High 17 - 20 pts.
B
High 13 - 16 pts.
C
80% ≤ X% ≤ 100% (4 pts = Very High) Medium 9 - 12 pts.
60% ≤ X% ≤ 79% (3 pts = High)
41% ≤ X% ≤ 59% (2 pts = Average)

D
Low 5 - 7 pts.
21% ≤ X% ≤ 40% (1 point = Low)
0% ≤ X% ≤ 20% (0 pts = Very Low)
Yes (4 pts. = Very High) Very Low 0 - 4 pts.

E
95
C.Networks Dimension
Table 16 Operationalization of the Networks dimension with numerical
delimitation of the indicator categories.
Weighting and degree of Degree of

governance in the
Indicator governance in the
Dimension
indicator
20 and ≤ 20 (4 pts. = Very High)

11 ≤ X ≤ 19 (3 pts.= High).
A 5 ≤ X ≤ 10 (2 pts. = Medium)
1 ≤ X ≤ 4 (1 pts.=Low).
Very High 20 - 24
20 and ≤ 20 (4 pts. = Very High) pts
11 ≤ X ≤ 19 (3 pts.= High).
B 5 ≤ X ≤ 10 (2 pto. = Medium)
1 ≤ X ≤ 4 (1 pts.=Low).
High 16 - 19 pts

11 ≤ X ≤ 19 (3 pts.= High).
C 5 ≤ X ≤ 10 (2 pts. = Medium)
1 ≤ X ≤ 4 (1 pts.=Low).
Medium 10 - 15 pts.
11 ≤ X ≤ 19 (3 pts.= High).
D 5 ≤ X ≤ 10 (2 pto. = Medium)
1 ≤ X ≤ 4 (1 pts.=Low).
Low 5 - 9 pts.
11 ≤ X ≤ 19 (3 pts.= High).
E 5 ≤ X ≤ 10 (2 pto. = Medium)
1 ≤ X ≤ 4 (1 pts.=Low).

11 ≤ X ≤ 19 (3 pts.= High).
Very Low 0 - 4 pts.

F 5 ≤ X ≤ 10 (2 pto. = Medium)
1 ≤ X ≤ 4 (1 pts.=Low).
96
Applying this logic -and these numerical values-, the following

are 3 examples of how 3 hypothetical Local Governments -with
different degrees of governance- would look like:
Index of the degree of governance of the local

government of the municipality X.
Table 18 Governance index of the local government of the municipality

X.
Dimension A Index. Participation/Articulation.
weighting degree of
degree of
Subdimension indicator and degree of governance governance
governance in in the in the
the
indicator Subdimension dimension
A 0 pts = Very Low

B 0 pts = Very Low
I. C 0 pts = Very Low 0 pts Very low

D 0 pts = Very Low
E 0 pts = Very Low
A 2 pts = Medium
B 0 pts = Very Low
II. 2 pts Very low

C 0 pts = Very 11 pts Very
Low Under
D 0 pts = Very
Low
A 0 pts = Very Low
B 0 pts = Very Low
III. 0 pts Very low
C 0 pts = Very Low
D 0 pts = Very Low
A 3 pts = High
B 0 pts = Very Low
IV. 9 pts Medium
C 3 pts = High
D 3 pts = High
97
governance
weighting and degree of governance
indicator level in the
in the indicator
Dimension
A 0 pts = Very Low
B 0 pts = Very Low
C 0 pts = Very Low 5 pts Low
D 1 pts = Low
E 4 pts = Very High
weighting and degree of degree of governance in the

indicator governance in the Dimension
indicator
A 0 pts = Very Low
B 0 pts = Very Low
C 2 pts = Medium
3 pts Very Low

D 1 pt = Low
E 0 pts = Very Low
F 0 pts = Very Low
Dimension A + Dimension B + Index of = Degree of

Index. Index. Equity. Dimension governance
Participation/ C. of the
Articulation. Networks. municipality
X
19 pts = Very
3 pts = Very Low
11 pts = Very Low 5 pts = Low
Low
98

government of municipality Y.
Table 19 Governance index of local government in municipality Y.
Index of the Dimension B + Index of = Degree of

Dimension A. Index. Equity. Dimension C. governance of
Participation/ Networks. the
Articulation. municipality
AND
29 pts = 19 pts = Very 11 pts = Medium 59 pts = Medium
Medium High
Dimension A Index.
Participation/Articulation.
weighting degree of degree of

Subdimension indicator and degree of governance governance
governance in the in the in the
indicator Subdimension dimension
A 4 pts = Very High
B 0 pts = Very Low
I. C 0 pts = Very Low 4 pts Very Low

D 0 pts = Very Low
E 0 pts = Very Low
A 3 pts = High
B 0 pts = Very Low

29 pts
II. C 1 pt = Low 5 pts Low
Medium
D 1 pt = Low
A 3 pts = High
B 0 pts = Very Low

III. 5 pts Low
C 1 pt = Low
D 1 pt = Low
IV. A 4 pts = Very High
99
B 3 pts = High 15 pts
Very
C 4 pts = Very High High
D 4 pts = Very High
weighting and degree

of governance in the indicator degree of governance in
indicator
the Dimension
A 4 pts = Very High

B 4 pts = Very High
C 4 pts = Very High 19 pts Very High
D 3 pts = High
E 4 pts = Very High
weighting and degree of governance degree of governance in

Indicator in the indicator the Dimension
A 2 pts = Medium
B 1 pt = Low
C 4 pts = Very High
11 pts Medium
D 1 pt = Low
E 2 pts = Medium
F 1 pt = Low
100

government of the municipality Z
Table 20 Governance index of the local government of the municipality
Z.
Dimension A Index.
Participation/Articulation.
degree of
weighting and governance degree of
Subdimension indicator degree of in the governance
governance in the Subdimension in the
indicator dimension
A 1 pt = Low
B 0 pts = Very Low
I. C 0 pts = Very Low
D 0 pts = Very Low
1 point Very
E 0 pts = Very Low
Low
A 0 pts = Very Low
B 0 pts = Very Low

II. 0 pts Very Low
C 0 pts = Very Low
D 0 pts = Very Low 15 pts Low
A 1 pt = Low
B 2 pts = Medium
III. 5 pts Low
C 0 pts = Very Low
D 2 pts = Medium
A 3 pts = High
B 2 pts = Medium
IV. 9 pts Medium
C 2 pts = Medium
D 2 pts = Medium
weighting and degree governance level in the

indicator of governance in the Dimension
indicator
101
A 0 pts = Very Low
B 0 pts = Very Low
C 4 pts = Very High 9 pts Medium
D 1 pt = Low
E 4 pts = Very High
weighting and degree

of governance in the degree of governance in
indicator
the Dimension
indicator
A 0 pts = Very Low
B 0 pts = Very Low
C 2 pts = Medium
7 pts Low
D 1 pt = Low
E 3 pts = High
1 pt = Low
102
Dimension B
Index. Equity.
Dimension A Degree of
Index of
Index. governance of
Dimension C.
Participation/ the
+ Networks. =
Articulation. municipality Z
15 pts = Low 7 pts = Low 9 pts = Medium 31 pts = Low

BIBLIOGRAPHY .
Abal Medina, J. and Cao, H. (comps.) (2012). MANUAL DE LA

NUEVA ADMINISTRACIÓN PÚBLICA
ARGENTI-.
NA. Ariel (ed.), Argentina.
Acuña, C. H., & Vacchieri, A. (2007). La incidencia política de
la sociedad civil. Siglo Veintiuno, Argentina.
Aguilar Villanueva, Luis F. (2008), Gobernanza y gestión
pública, Fondo de cultura económica (ed.), Mexico.
Aguilar Villanueva, Luis F. (2009), Gobernanza. El nuevo
proceso de gobernar, Friedrich Naumann Foundation
for Freedom (ed.), Mexico.
Aguirre-Sala, J. F. (2019). Proposal of indicators to measure
and evaluate governance. Gobernar: 7e Journal of Latin
American Public Policy and Governance, 3(5), 11.
Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo león-México, Mexico.
Arredondo López, A., Orozco Núñez, E., Wallace, S., & Rodrí-
guez, M. (2013). Governance indicators for the
development of binational social protection strategies
in migrant health. Saúde e Sociedade, 22, 310-327.
Brazil.
Avella Castellanos, M., & Rodríguez Molano, A. (2014).
Battery of governance indicators based on the integral
and sustainable human development approach.
Faculty of Economics, Business and Sustainable
Development FEEDS, Colombia.
Aymat, J. D. (2011). Indicators of governance in the rural
district of La Hoya de Villalba. Territorios en formación,
(1), 23-41. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain.
Borjas García, H. A. (2015). Quality of democracy in local
governments: problems and perspectives in Mexico.
Espiral (Guadalajara), 22(62), 75-99, Mexico.
Cao, H. (2008, November). Argentine public administration:
nation, provinces and municipalities. In XIII Congreso
Internacio- nal del CLAD sobre la Reforma del Estado y
de la Administración Pública. Buenos Aires.
Carmona, R. R. (2005). New forms of government and public
management in the local scenario: elements and
perspectives for the stimulation of concerted
development processes. Buenos Aires: Asociación de
Administradores Gubernamentales. Argentina.
Carmona, R. R. (2014). Local governments, political
dynamics and urban territorial policies: some
theoretical and methodological considerations for
their analysis. UNGS, Argentina.
Carmona, R., & Couto, B. (2019). Policies and institutional
intervention on production and employment in
municipalities of Co- nurban Bonaerense. Revista
Perspectivas de Políticas Públicas, 8(16), 395-424,
Argentina.
CEDES (2009). External Evaluation of the UNDP Project
04/007 Citizen Audit. Quality of Democratic Practices in
Municipalities: Final Report Executive Version. erc.
undp. org/evaluationadmin/downloaddocument.
html?docid=3616. Argentina.
Cravacuore, D. (2007). Los municipios argentinos, (1990-
2005) in: Cravacuore, D. and Israel, R.(comp.) Procesos
políticos mu- nicipales comparados en Argentina y
Chile (19902005).(pp 25-49). Buenos Aires: Editorial de
la Universidad Nacional de Quilmes-Universidad
Autónoma de Chile.
Cravacuore, D. (2016). Local governments in Argentina.
Manual of local governments in Ibero-America, 15-40.
CLAD, Chile.
Chuchco, N. V. (2018). Reflections on the scope and
limitations of Social Network Analysis from the cross-
linking of secondary data from the World Bank
governance indicators
(Argentina, 1996-2017). In VI Encuentro Latinoamericano
de
Metodología de las Ciencias Sociales 7 al 9 de noviembre de
2018
Cuenca, Ecuador. University of Cuenca. Faculty of Economic
and Administrative Sciences.
Duarte Suárez, A. (.). Indicadores de Gobernanza para la
Gestión Am- biental del Río Fucha. http://hdl. handle.
net/11349/3730. Fa- cultad de Medio Ambiente y
Recursos Naturales, Colombia.
Elz, R., Raimodo, H. and Saravia, Y. (2017). The municipality
and the task of facing functions. Villa María: National
University of Villa María, Argentina.
Gutiérrez, A. I., & Morales-Pinzón, T. (2017). Assessment of
local environmental governance in Risaralda. Revista
Luna Azul, (45), 309-328. University of caldas,
Colombia.
Hernández Bonivento, J. A. (2014). From government to
local governance. Capacities, institutions and visions
of the public in the decentralization process in
Colombia: case study (doctoral dissertation).
Complutense University of Madrid. Spain.
I Martínez, A. C. (Ed.) (2006). Governance today: 10
reference texts. National Institute of Public
Administration, Argentina.
Iturburu, M. (2000). Argentine Municipalities: Fortalezas y
debili- dades de su diseño institucional. INAP
Dirección Nacional de Estudios y Documentación,
Argentina.
Iturburu, M. (2002). Interinstitutional disarticulations: Dis-
putas of power between the Executive Department
and the Deli- berative, and its impact on governance.
In IV national seminar of the network of academic
centers for the study of local governments. Argentina.
Iturburu, M. (2012). The municipalities in: Abal Medina, J.
and
Cao,
H. (comps.). MANUAL OF THE NEW ARGENTINE
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ( pp 171-225). Ariel,
Argentina. ley, S. l. (2004). Constitución Nacional (2004, 29
ed.). La Ley SA, Argentina.
Lobo, M. (2012). Analysis of the correlation strength of
accountability as an indicator of governance, present in
the communal councils of the Libertador municipality,
State of Mexico. rida, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
(2011) (doctoral dissertation, Universidad de los
Andes).
López Acotto, A., Martínez, C., & Grinberg, I. (2011).
Concepts and dilemmas of federal co-participation and
bonaerense coparticipation. Universidad Nacional de
General Sarmiento,
Argentina. MARIA HERNANDEZ, A. (2003). Derecho
Municipal Parte General. UNAM, Mexico.
Merlo Rodríguez, I. (2007). Los modelos de organización
pública de los Gobiernos locales y la calidad de sus
políticas (Dissertación doctoral, Tesis para optar el
grado de Doctorado en Gobierno y Administración
Pública, Madrid, Universidad Complutense de Madrid).
Merlo Rodríguez, I. (2012). Models of local public
organization and the quality of their policies: Local
governments with wide autonomy and limited
capacities vs. local governments with limited
autonomy and wide capacities. The Argentinean case.
XVII International Congress of CLAD, On the Reform of
the State and Public Administration, Cartagena,
Colombia, Oct. 30 - Nov. 2, 2012.
Mokate, K. (2001). Effectiveness, efficiency, equity and
sustainability: what do we mean? (pp. 5-6).
Department of Integration and Regional Programs,
Inter-American Institute for Social Development, Inter-
American Development Bank.
Munévar, M. V. W. (2005). Contributions of theory and
praxis for the new governance. Revista del CLAD
Reforma y Democracia, (33), 1-15.
Munévar, M. V. W. (2010), What is governance and what is
it for? Revista análisis internacional (Cesada as of
2015), (2), 219236.
Navarro Gómez, C. (2002). Governance at the local level. VII
Con- greso Internacional del CLAD sobre Reforma del
Estado y de la Administración Pública. Lisbon: CLAD.
Navarro, C. J. (2004). Sociedades políticas locales:
democracia local y gobernanza multinivel. Madrid:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
Parrado, S., Löffler, E., & Bovaird, T. (2005). Assessing the
quality of local governance: some lessons from the
European experience. CLAD Journal Reform and Democracy,
(33), 1-15.
Pérez-Liñan, A. S. (2008). The comparative method:
foundations and recent developments. Comparative Politics.
University of Pittsburgh.
Pulvirenti, O. (2009). Municipal Autonomy in Iberoamerica.
S/N. Argentina.
Sandoval, K. Z., & Ortega, J. L. C. (2020). Limitations of
current governance indicators to measure institutional
quality in a tourist-oriented metropolitan area.
CIMEXUS, 15(1), 153-173. Instituto de Investigaciones
Económicas y Empresariales de la Universidad
Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, Mexico.
Sartori, G. (2002). Logic and method in the social sciences
(pp. 201- 331). Fondo de Cultura Económica. México.
Solís Delgadillo, D. (2017). Towards a definition of the
concept of interest group. Perfiles Latinoamericanos,
25 (50), 83101. Mexico.
Tocqueville, A. (1969). Democracy in America. Ediciones
Guadarrama. España.
ANNEX: STATE OF THE ART IN TERMS
OF GOVERNANCE INDICES AND
INDICATORS.
To outline the state of the art, we will describe a series of

research studies that deal with governance measurement,
detailing the dimensions analyzed and the indicators for
each of them. The research is presented in chronological
order, according to the date of publication.
Parrado, Löffler and Bovaird (2005) suggest that in order
to measure governance, emphasis should be placed on two
dimensions: on the one hand, "the quality of life from the
point of view of citizens and institutional and social agents
in a given area", and on the other, "the extent to which the
process of interaction of these agents corresponds to the
criteria or norms agreed upon among them". Working on
these dimensions ensures that the measurement of
governance does not deviate and end up measuring the
organizational quality of the State.
Likewise, in order to measure these two dimensions, it is
crucial to differentiate between a governance measurement
and one that focuses on measuring the quality of public
services. To this end, the authors argue that, first, the
analysis should not focus on the organization of the State,
but on the institutional agents and the context in which they
interact. Second, the measurement should not be of the
quality of the service, but of the quality of life, since
"...public governance does not focus on the efficiency of
service delivery, but on the achievement of the desired
effects" (Parrado, Löffler). (Parrado, Löffler and Bovaird,
2005, p 6). Third, the measurement of governance should
not be based on the principles of efficiency, effectiveness
and legality, since these are principles for measuring the
organizational quality of the State. Fourth, measurements
cannot only take into account the opinions of institutional
agents; the opinion and assessment of social agents is also
necessary. "The triangulation of the perspectives of
institutional agents and social agents is a key element in this
process. social... allows consensus and potential conflicts
about a quality of life issue or a specific principle to be
identified" (Parrado, Löffler and Bovaird, 2005, p. 10).
(Parrado, Löffler and Bovaird, 2005, p. 10).
In the article "Aportes de la teoría y la praxis para la
nueva gobernanza" (2005), Munévar analyzes various
projects dealing with methodology and indicators for
measuring governance. These indicators are used by the
different international organizations that financed and
promoted this research 22 . On his analysis, Munévar
comments:
Most of the projects reviewed were aimed at

creating valid and reliable indicators to assess
22The agencies are: The Institute on Governance (IOG) which is a Canadian NGO;
The Canadian Centre for Management Development which is an agency of the
Canadian Government; the Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), the Global
Policy Forum and UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) of the United
Nations; The World Bank; Inter-American Dialogue (the Center for Inter-American
D i a l o g u e ) which is an independent research center; Global Development
Research Center (the Global Development Research Center) which is a virtual
organization.
governance, or included the use of indicators as part
of the projects. Many of the indicators used or
designed to assess governance had been or are used
to assess borderline concepts, such as social capital,
state performance and governance. We mention this
mainly because it is possible that we have access to
indicators that are relevant and valid for assessing
governance but have been developed for other
purposes. (2005, p. 8).
Munévar (2005) concludes that there are variables and

indicators shared by the studies he analyzes and others
that are not common to all research projects. He calls the
former the main ones and the others secondary. After 5
years, in
What is governance and what is it for?, from 2010, Munévar
returns to The most frequent variables and their
indicators are: the same main variables and the same
secondary variables. The most frequent variables and their
indicators are:
Participation: Understood as the possibility for a person
to be taken into account in decision-making processes by
themselves or through legitimate institutions representing
their interests.
Indicators: I- representation and role of new interest
groups in the planning, decision making, implementation
and evaluation of
projects, programs or policies that affect them. 23 II- freedom
of the press and media in general, as well as the existence of
local media. II- freedom of the press and media in general,
as well as the existence of local media. III- percentage of
voters, analyzed by gender and socio-economic stratum. IV-
public processes of discussion of issues important to the
community at any level. V- use of the referendum to make
critical decisions. VI- right of association.
Equity: Understood as equal opportunities for the most
vulnerable sectors of society.
Indicators: I- inclusion of excluded groups in competitive
processes. II- allocation of resources to vulnerable
populations. III- access to basic services for disadvantaged
sectors of the population. VI- representation of women. V-
unemployment figures. VI- poverty rates.
Accountability: Understood as a range of criteria that are
used to evaluate the performance of government, and
members of government.
Indicators: I- regularity in fiscal transactions and
compliance with legal requirements and administrative
norms. II- mechanisms available so that the public can be
informed about projects, processes and resources. III-
communication systems that ensure that the goals set are
clearly and timely communicated to the public.
23 Munévar (2005) further refines this indicator by specifying that the role of the
private sector in public services, job creation, etc. can be analyzed. And the role of
civil society institutions in the implementation of municipal programs, etc., can be
analyzed.
minated. IV- degree of delegation of authority. V- degree to
which complaints and grievances are addressed by
management.
Efficiency: Understood as the adequate satisfaction
of the needs of different groups, maximizing available
resources. Indicators: I- economic utilization of funds,
labor, and other resources. II- existence of mechanisms to
evaluate economic performance. III- reduction of the
population living below the poverty line. IV- increase in
the share of housing, education and other welfare areas in
the total population. V- measurement and improvement
of the degree of satisfaction of the populations served.
The secondary variables and their indicators identified by
Munévar (2005) are:
Responsiveness 24 : Understood as the capacity of the

government and public servants to meet the needs of
citizens.
Indicators: I- existence of mechanisms to determine the
preferences and needs of the people; for example: surveys,
public forums, customer service telephone lines, etc. II-
existence of mechanisms for citizen participation in the
implementation and execution of plans, programs and
projects; for example: the existence of an advisory council,
public hearings, etc. III- existence of evaluation mechanisms
that make it possible to know if the goals and objectives of
programs and projects are achieved, and if they have an
24Munévar (2005) considers that this secondary variable may be an indicator of the
primary variable accountability; but it is also related to the primary variables equity
and efficiency.
impact on the populations determined as beneficiarie s. IV-
presence of simple procedures to ensure fair and prompt
response actions to complaints and claims from the public.
V- availability of information that allows citizens to interact,
criticize and suggest changes in the actions that the
government implements to respond to the needs raised by
constituents.
Administrative/managerial innovation25 : Understood as
successful re-forms implemented by local governments.
Indicators: I- Improvement of bureaucratic structures and
procedures in order to orient them to service standards,
such as efficiency, effectiveness and economy. II-
Generation of appropriate, uncommon, innovative
measures. III- Adoption of innovative concepts and practices
in the management of local problems, such as
environmental degradation, land tenure, incidence of
poverty, etc. VI- Application of new management
techniques, such as total quality management, new
technologies, systematization, etc.
Public-private partnerships 26 : Understood as the
interactions between government and private sector actors
in local programs.
Indicators: I- creation and implementation of policies and
incentives to promote private sector participation in
development. II- presence of initiatives from sectors of the
economy to improve the efficiency of local bureaucracy. III-
25
Munévar (2005) considers that this secondary variable can be a sub-variable of the
main efficiency variable.
26Munévar (2005) considers that this secondary variable may be a sub-variable of
the main variable participation.
integration of the private and public sectors in the
implementation, financing and realization of public
programs and projects. IV- privatization of public services.
State-citizen-NGO interaction 27 : Understood as the
communication between the government, civil society
actors and society as a whole.
Indicators: I- presence and scope of cooperative efforts
between local governments, non-governmental
organizations and the community. II- existence of
mechanisms that allow for consultation between local
government and their constituents in matters
of general interest. III- existence and scope of projects that
are the result of cooperation between local government,
nongovernmental organizations and volunteer
organizations.
Decentralized administration 28 : Understood as the
capacity of local management to establish, delegate and
guarantee the fulfillment of responsibilities.
Indicators: I- presence of clear lines of delimitation and
delegation of responsibilities. II- presence of evaluation
systems that provide feedback on the results of delegated
tasks. III- existence and scope of autonomy in the groups
responsible for delegated tasks. IV- consistency between
the hierarchical structure and the groups delegating
particular tasks.
27 Munévar (2005) considers that this secondary variable may be a sub-variable of

the main variable participation.
28 Munévar (2005) considers that this secondary variable may be a component of the
main efficiency v a r i a b l e .
Networking 29 : Understood as the capacity of Local
Governments to generate relationships - that are sustained
over time and create structural capacity - of cooperation
with other Governments and institutions.
Indicators: I- extension (number) of intergovernmental
networks. II- extension (number) of regional, intra-local
networks. III- extent of international interaction networks
(they can be, for example, of one country with other
countries in the region). IV- extent of complementarity of
resources in the network. V- extension of inter-change and
technological cooperation. VI- promotion of common
interests and agendas. VII- exchange of learning, capacity
building and training.
Human resource development: Understood as the
capacity to create and sustain programs to incorporate,
train and encourage human resources.
Indicators: I- presence and coverage of policies designed
to improve various aspects of human resources and their
management.
II- existence of a sustained recruitment and selection
program based on merit and capabilities. III- existence of
training programs for local government officials. IV-
classification and compensation plan based on the principle
of equal pay for equal work.
Julián Delgado Aymat, in his 2011 work Governance
indicators in the Hoya de Villalba region of Madrid, argues
the need for strategic urban planning for the Hoya de
Villalba region. He also argues that researching the degree
29Munévar (2005) considers that this secondary variable is related to the main
variables participation and efficiency.
of governance of the Hoya de Villalba is a fundamental issue
for the preparation of such planning.
To perform this task, Aymat (2011) uses indicators that he
calls active and passive. By adding the active and passive
indicators, the author obtains "...the maximum value of
governance to be achieved by each municipality (global
capacity)" (Aymat, 2011, p. 25). (Global capacity)" (Aymat,
2011, p. 25). While the difference between the active and
passive indicators "...will show the actual development of
such governance in each of them (Net load)" (Aymat, 2011,
p. 25).
The active indicators used by Aymat (2011) are:
Urban indicator: Refers to the development of urban
planning that addresses future problems arising from socio-
economic growth. Within this indicator, Ay- mat compares
the initial, approval and final approval stages.
Networked municipal vitality indicator: This refers to the
municipality's capacity to interact with and with actors in
the private sector, civil society and other levels of
government. Within this indicator, Aymat asks about
heritage networks (cultural heritage), supra-municipal
dynamization networks (tourist economy) and local
dynamization networks (social activation).
The passive indicators worked by the author (Aymat 2011)
are:
Environmental indicator: Refers to the requirement to
implement governance actions to protect the environment,
natural resources and landscaping. Within this indicator,
Aymat observes the existence or not, in 1970, of Public
Utility Forests; the State Forestry Heritage; and whether or
not the municipality belongs to the territorial scope of
regional parks.
Institutional indicator: This refers to the initiative of
governance actions to install public and/or private
institutions in the territory. Within this indicator, Aymat
looks at health (hospitals and health centers); education
(universities, distance learning universities, education
council delegations and nonuniversity education centers);
courts; tax offices and civil registries.
María Lobo in her thesis "Analysis of the correlation
strength of accountability as an indicator of governance,
present in the communal councils of the Libertador
municipality", 2012, conducts a field research, correlational,
non-experimental, transversal, quantitative, non-
experimental. In it, the author seeks to know the behavior
of the variable "governmental accountability" based on its
relationship with the variable "citizen participation in the
community councils".
To measure the variables and achieve the proposed
objective, Lobo (2012) developed a closed questionnaire
with dichotomous answers. "This questionnaire is divided
into 8 parts, according to the 8 dimensions obtained from
the theoretical and legal bases that were studied and from
which 60 questions were obtained". (Lobo, 2012, p. 65).
Next, we will mention the dimensions of the variables
worked by María Lobo and their respective indicators. Both
the independent variable "participation of the Communal
Councils" and the dependent variable "municipal
accountability" are disaggregated into the same
dimensions. Within each dimension we will specify -if they
exist- which are the indicators for the independent vari able
and which are for the dependent variable. Namely:
Citizen Participation (CP): Measures citizen participation
in various institutional spheres, the perception of the
citizenry, and the main objective of the program is to
promote citizen participation, and the knowledge of the
institutional disseminators of the topic.
Indicators for the independent variable: I- Citizen
participation (Spokespersons of the Communal Councils) in
municipal elections (Vertical accountability). II- Citizen
initiative (Spokespersons of the Communal Councils) to
elaborate proposals or express their rejection on public
issues. III- Knowledge that the Spokespersons of the
Communal Councils have about different reports and plans
of the municipal government. IV- Petitions that the
spokespersons of the Communal Councils address to the
municipal bodies. V- Participation of the spokespersons of
the Communal Councils in: marches, strikes, discussion of
ordinances, citizens' assemblies, social control.
Indicators for the dependent variable: I- Perception of
the Vo- ceros of the Communal Councils on whether the
public authorities have promoted citizen participation and
facilitated the procedures for such participation. II-
Whether the Spokespersons of the Communal Councils
have had an efficient and timely response from the
municipal authorities.
Request for information (PI): Measures citizens'
access to government information and the State's
response capacity. Indicators for the independent variable:
I- Request for information from the Spokespersons of the
Communal Councils on some plan, policy, decision, action,
budget or project, to the municipal bodies. II-
If the municipal authorities have attended to and given a
timely and adequate response to the requests of the
Communal Councils. information requested by the
spokespersons of the Community Councils.
Indicators for the dependent variable: None.
Obligation to inform (OI): Measures citizens' perception
of government initiatives to keep the public informed, and
the publicity and training provided by government officials
to the communities.
Indicators for the independent variable: I- request and
assistance to municipal authorities by the Communal
Councils.
in training and education on social comptrollership,
participatory budgeting, as well as why and how to
denounce.
Indicators for the dependent variable: I- Timely and
truthful information about matters of collective interest to
the spokespersons of the Communal Councils. II-
Dissemination of sufficient publicity by the municipal
authorities of projects, bids, contracts or costs of the same.
III- Assistance by the municipal authorities in training and
education on social con- traloría, participatory budgeting, as
well as why and how to denounce.
Social Comptrollership (CS): Measures the performance
of social comptrollership within the communal councils.
Indicators for the independent variable: I- Exercise of
social con- traloría by the Spokespersons of the Communal
Councils.
Indicators for the dependent variable: None.
Participatory budget (PB): Measures the knowledge of
voters and citizens about the participatory budget and
citizen participation in the process.
Indicators for the independent variable: I- Knowledge and
participation of the Spokespersons of the Communal
Councils in the formulation, execution, control and
evaluation of the Annual Municipal Budget.
Indicators for the dependent variable: I- Drafting of the
Municipal Budget in terms understandable to citizens.
Complaints (D): Measures the ease and initiatives to
denounce in the Communal Councils, and the citizens'
perception of the functioning of the organs of citizen power.
Indicators for the independent variable: I- Willingness of
the spokespersons of the Communal Councils to denounce
acts of corruption or criminal acts.
Indicators for the dependent variable: I- Perception of the
Vo- ceros of the Communal Councils on the efficiency of the
organs of the Citizen Power: Ombudsman's Office, Public
Prosecutor's Office and Municipal Comptroller's Office.
Municipal Citizen Service Office (O. A. C.): Measures
knowledge, use and performance of the municipal citizen
service office.
Indicators for the independent variable: I- Knowledge and
use made by the Spokespersons of the Communal Councils
of the O's.
A. C.
Indicators for the dependent variable: I- If the
Spokespersons of the Communal Councils have been
attended timely and truthfully by the O. II- Compliance with
Art. 9 of the AntiCorruption Law (2003) regarding the
obligation to publish information on the assets and
administration of the expenses managed by the public
entities in the C.A.O.s.
Perception of accountability (PRC): Measures the
perception that spokespersons have of the Communal
Councils as control bodies to stimulate accountability, and
whether they comply with accountability.
Indicators for the independent variable: I- Perception that
the spokespersons of the communal councils have about
whether said instan- cia of participation serves as a control
or oversight body to encourage governmental
accountability.
Indicators for the dependent variable: I- Accountability of
the mayor before the end of his term of office.
Arredondo López, Orozco Núñez, Wallace and Rodríguez
in their 2013 paper "Governance indicators for the
development of binational strategies for social protection in
the health of migrants", work on the problems of
governance for social protection in health for migrants. They
also present the results obtained, in which they show who
are the key actors in the process, their roles, coalitions and
places where interactions take place. At this point, the
authors explain that
...it is of utmost importance to identify the social actors

involved, as well as the typology of interactions and
spaces for interaction between the different social
actors.
of the health system. This information is strategic to

the extent that it favors the identification of
governance indicators (Arredondo López, Orozco
Núñez, Wallace and Rodríguez, 2013, p. 313).
The authors analyzed documents and interviews,

focusing on the dimensions: position, power and general
characteristics. To identify the governance indicators
mentioned in the previous quote, the authors used the
ATLAS-Ti and POLI-CY-MAKER software. The variables
selected for measurement were:
I- position, power and type of sector of the main
political actors, II- characteristics of the actors in the health
field, III- type and magnitude of transactions between
actors by functions of the Health System. IV- Gradient of
the density of relations between actors, V- transactions
between actors by level of care in the health system, VI-
type and magnitude of transactions by level of care
between actors by type of health system sector, VII- type
and magnitude of transactions between actors by
geopolitical area,
VIII- type of relations between actors and articulation of
main nodes of interaction, IX- identification of nodes from
the spaces of interaction between actors, IX- feasibility of
goals and mechanisms from the proposed policy goals.
Avellana Castellanos and Rodríguez Molano (2014) work on
the relationship between governance and culture in
relation to integral and sustainable human development.
As a starting point for developing their own indicators, the
authors refer to a series of indicators developed by
UNESCO in relation to development and culture, divided
into seven dimensions, namely: communication, economy,
governance, education, gender equality, heritage,
education and culture.
and social. On the other hand, the authors state that
At the national level, we can find the Transparency

Index, which measures "the level of transparency and
corruption risks of public entities" at the national and
departmental levels,
and in the private sector; indicating that the greater the

transparency, the less corruption within the system
(Avellana Castellanos and Rodríguez Molano, 2014, p.
28).
Finally, they refer to the UNDP's Human Development
Index, which measures a country's development based on
life expectancy, education and living standards.
On the other hand, looking at the indicators used by Ave -
llana Castellanos and Rodríguez Molano (2014), the authors
developed four categories -governance, cultural policies,
culture and cultural capital-, each of them divided into sub-
categories. Within each sub-category they designed a series
of questions; finally, the analysis of the set of questions in
each sub-category is used as an indicator. In the following,
only the governance category with its respective sub-
categories, questions and indicators will be mentioned,
namely:
Category: Governance
Sub-category: Citizen Participation

I- Question: How do you rate the opportunities offered
by the State to be able to actively participate in decision-
making? Indicator: total number of people who responded
to each rank, out of the total number of people who voted.
II- Question: Did you vote in the last election? Options:
because yes, because no. Indicator: Number of persons who
answered because yes or why no, over the total number of
persons who answered this question.
III- Question: Do you belong to any organization?
Options:
a) a) Community action boards b) Cultural groups /Youth
groups
c) Religious groups d) Does not belong to any group e) Other
Which ones? Indicator: number of people who answered
each of the options, over the total number of people who
voted in this question.
IV- Question: Do you know of any citizen participation
mechanism? Options: - Yes, Which one? - No, Why?
Indicator: number of people who answered yes or no, over
the total number of people who voted in this question.
V-Question: Do you consider that the mechanisms for
citizen participation in Colombia are sufficient or adequate?
Options: Yes - No, why? Indicator: number of people who
answered yes or no, over total number of people who voted
on this question.
VI- Question: How do you think citizen participation can
be implemented? Indicator: open-ended question.
VII- Question: On a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree): Do you consider that your ideas are
listened to and respected by the members of an
organization. Indicator: total number of people who
responded to each rank, out of the total number of people
who voted.
Sub-category: Bottom-Up Policies
I- Question: Have you been a member of a project in
your community? Options: - Yes, which one? - No, Why?
Indicator: Number of people who answered yes or no, out
of the total number of people who voted on this question.
II- Question: On a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (too much),
how interested are you in being part of a program or project
that will make a change in your community? Indicator: total
number of people who responded on each scale, out of the
total number of people who voted on this question.
III- Question: Do you have any ideas that you would like
to see implemented in your community? Options: - Yes- No,
Which one? Indicator: Number of people who answered yes
or no, over the total number of people who voted on this
question.
IV-Question: On a range from 1 (not at all important) to 5
(very important), how important do you consider it to
participate with ideas and proposals to improve the
environment in your community? Indicator: total number of
people who answered each range, over the total number of
people who voted on this question.
Sub-category: Political Culture
I- Question: Rate on a scale of 1 (never) to 5 (always).
How often do you observe improvements in your
environment due to projects created from your locality?
Indicator: total number of people who responded on each
scale, out of the total number of people who voted on this
question.
II- Question: On a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree): Do you feel well represented by your
elected officials? Indicator: total number of people who
responded on each scale, out of the total number of people
who voted on this question.
III- Question: Your sympathy with the political party or
movement is mainly due to: Options: a) Family tradition b)
Com- part with the political ideas of the party or movement
c) Because of the good performance of the party or
movement in previous administrations d) Trust in its leaders
e) Because you receive some benefit in return f ) Because
the movement is transparent to you g) Other
Which one? Indicator: total number of respondents who
answered each option out of the total number of
respondents who answered this question.
Sub-category: Cultural Empowerment

I- Question: Do you consider yourself a critical person
when it comes to making choices? Options: Yes - No.
Indicator: number of people who answered yes or no, out of
the total number of people who voted on this question.
II- Question: How does your culture play a role in your
choice? Through: Options: a) Traditions b) Beliefs c)
Preferences for local leaders d) Others Which ones?
Indicator: number of people who responded to each option,
over the total number of people who voted in this question.
III- Question: On a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (too much):
How much do you take advantage of the cultural resources
offered by your environment? Indicator: total number of
people who responded to each question out of the total
number of people who voted on this question. IV- Question:
On a range from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very
important), how important do you consider it to persuade
others to follow your ideas? Indicator:
number of people who responded on each scale, over the
this question.
V- Question: Do you know the opportunities offered by
public entities in the cultural field? Options: Yes - No.
Indicator: number of people who answered yes or no, over
the total number of people who voted in this question.
Sub-category: Cultural Organizations
I- Question: On a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (too much),
how well do you think organizations evaluate and correct
faults within the society? Indicator: number of people who
responded on each scale, out of the total number of people
II- Question: Do you consider that organizations are
transformers of society? Options: - Yes - No, Why? Indicator:
number of people who answered yes or no, out of the total
number of people who voted in this question.
III- Question: How many organizations do you know of
that work for the welfare of society? Options: a) Zero b)
Between 1 to
5
c) More than 5 d) Don't know/ No answer. Indicator:
number of people who answered each of the options, over
the total number of people who voted in these questions.
IV-Question: Do you belong to a cultural organization?
Options: - Yes - No, which one? Indicator: number of people
who answered yes or no, over the total number of people
V- Question: If no, to which cultural organization would
you like to belong? Options: a) Folklore Preservation
b) c) Educational d) Recreational e) Art f ) Other, which one?
Indicator: number of people who responded to each of the
options out of the total number of people who voted on
these questions.
VI- Question: On a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree): do you consider the promotion of cultural
diversity by public organizations to be sufficient? Indicator:
number of people who responded on each scale, out of the
Andrea Duarte Suarez in "Indicadores de gobernanza
para la gestión ambiental del Rio Fucha", 2015, analyzes
different perspectives on governance. The author
distinguishes two approaches,
...one centered on principles that offers a perspective
on the role of government, indicating the conditions
necessary for the management of society, establishing
variables and indicators that allow the State's action to
be quantified. A second approach describes society as
a complex, dynamic and diverse system. This tool
categorizes the governance model into types and levels
(Duarte Suarez, 2005, p. 7).
Within the group of "principle-based approach" or

"perspective on the role of government", which focuses
(Duarte Suarez 2015) on "good governance" principles, the
author mentions UNDP, the World Bank 30 , the European
Union, UN-Habitat. We will not stop to mention the
indicators of all these institutions, we will only mention the
30 Roxana Alemán Castillo in "Representación gráfica de indicadores de gobernanza en

Bolivia", 2017, uses World Bank indicators, as previously analyzed authors, but using
a representation of the data through radar graphs. For their part, Pérez Ramírez and
Flores Ramírez in "La administración pública y su desempeño a través de los
indicadores de gobernanza", 2018, also mention, as previously analyzed authors, the
UNDP, the OECD, the Global Competitiveness Survey, and they stop to comment on
the World Bank indicators to analyze the Mexican public administration and its
performance in the 2012-2016 period.
World Bank indicators and the "Whittingham Indicators" of
governance at the global level.
The World Bank, through the Worldwide Governance
Indicators (WGI) project31 , uses 6 indicators, these are: I- Voice
and accountability. II- Control of corruption. III- Rule of law.
IV- Political stability and absence of violence. V-
Government effectiveness. VI- Regulatory quality.
The "Whittingham Indicators "32 are:
Participation Dimension. Indicators: I- Representation
and role of new stakeholders in the planning, decision
making, implementation and evaluation of projects,
programs, or policies that affect them. II- Freedom of
expression and existence of local media. III- Percentage of
decisions made by public vote. IV- Public processes of
discussion on important issues for the community, at any
level. V- Right of association.
Equity Dimension. Indicators: I- Inclusion of excluded
groups in consultative processes. II- Allocation of resources
to services aimed at vulnerable populations. III-
Representation of women.
Accountability Dimension. Indicators: I- Compliance with
legal requirements and administrative norms. II-
Mechanisms available so that the public can be informed
about projects, processes and resources. III-
Communication systems that ensure that the goals set are
31See Mastruzzi, M., Kraay, A., & Kaufmann, D. (2007). Governance matters VI:
aggregate and individual governance indicators, 1996-2006. The World Bank.
32 Olga Bravo, in "Indicadores de gobernanza territorial de los objetivos del Plan
Nacional del Buen Vivir (PNBV 2013-2017), Ecuador", from 2018, uses Whittingham's
taxonomy to des- crib the variables concerning territorial governance found in t h e
Senplades document.
clear and timely communicated to citizens. IV- Degree of
delegation of authority. V- Degree to which complaints and
grievances are addressed by management. Efficiency
Dimension. Indicators: I- Economic use of funds, labor, and
other resources.
II- Existence of mechanisms to evaluate economic
performance; over the total population. III- Measurement
and improvement of the degree of satisfaction of the
public.
bility of the neighboring populations.
The "dynamic approach" group focuses (Duarte Suarez
2015) on describing and analyzing the elements of
governance specific to a territory, such as, for example, the
actors and the relationships between them; this makes it
possible to determine what type of governance is present in
a given area. In this group, the author mentions Kooiman's
interactive governance model and Hufty's Governance
Analysis Framework (GAF), namely:
The "interactive" approach proposed by Kooiman (Duarte
Suarez 2015) prioritizes the interactions between the State
and society as a central point for analyzing governance.
These interactions can be of two types, "controlled", where
it takes preponderance, "controlled" and "controlled",
where it takes preponderance, "controlled" and
"controlled".
The approach is based on the structure, and "flexible" when
the actions of the actors take precedence. Moreover, this
approach proposes three elements of analysis: the system
to be governed, the governance system and governance
interactions33.
The analysis of these elements and their interactions

makes it possible to establish three types of governance:
Self-government: Internal modes of government are

established, its components have the capacity to self-
reproduce, always generating the same network of
processes, weaving a structure that makes interactions
with other systems impossible (closed system).
Cogovernance: It is governed by the collaboration,

coordination and communication of actors, without a
central government actor. In this category there are
three sub-levels: micro, meso and macro, which
indicate the degree of statesociety interaction.
Hierarchical government: It is based on a central actor

that generates rules and policies, which govern and
control the behaviors of society, establishing unidi -
rectional relationships. (Duarte Suarez, 2015, p24).
Hufty's MAG or governance analytical framework34 presents

four dimensions to describe governance
33Governance (Duarte Suarez 2015) is composed for Kooiman by 3 elements: Imá-

genes, instruments and actions.
34 According to Duarte Suarez, Hufty
It defines governance as a set of collective, formal and informal processes that
determine how decisions are made and rules are constructed to govern social
behavior in the use of common resources. Such definition, takes into consideration
the State, institutions and the population in general, in close relationships, so that
processes: problem description, norms, actors,
nodes and processes. Hufty
ty seeks to provide, from an interdisciplinary perspective,
realistic appraisals of governance, using a comparative and
generalizable methodology. On the other hand, it
understands that the relationships between actors; within
institutions and nature, can be: of negotiation, of direction
and sharing, and of reciprocity.
Alejandro Issa Gutiérrez and Tito Morales-Pinzón in
"Evaluation of local environmental governance in
Risaralda", from 2017, quantify the level of local
environmental governance by analyzing local
environmental management au- ditorial reports from 12
municipalities in Risaralda 35 of Colombia. The authors draw
attention to the fact that until now there were no clear
indicators on local environmental governance; however, as
previously worked authors, they cite the global governance
indexes of the European SISC and the World Bank, urban
governance of UNHABITAT, and good governance of UNDP.
Gutiérrez and Morales-Pinzón (2017) operationalize the
concept of local environmental governance36 a s follows:
each community generates its governance system, being particular to each

context.(Duarte Suárez, 2015, p. 25).
35 The municipalities belonging to Risaralda are: Apía, Balboa, Belén de Umbría,
Guáti- ca, La Celia, La Virginia, Marsella, Mistrató, Pueblo Rico, Quinchía, Santa Rosa
de Cabal and Santuario.
36 Gutiérrez and Morales-Pinzón define local environmental governance as an
administrative strategy aimed at harmonizing policies, institutions, norms,
procedures, tools and information related to municipal e n v i r o n m e n t a l planning
Dimension: Good Environmental Governance
Sub-dimension: Strategic Vision. Variables: I-
environmental dimension in the municipal development
plan. II- social inclusion and citizen participation in the
development plan.
Sub-dimension: Administrative structure. Variables:
Environmental competence in the local administrative
structure.
Sub-dimension: Public agents (network). Variables: I-
interinstitutional coordination for environmental planning.
II- interinstitutional coordination for environmental
management.
Sub-dimension: Management instruments. Variables: I-
local environmental policy. II- territorial and sectoral
environmental plans. III- environmental provisions (norms)
IV- financing of environmental management (investment) V-
environmental education. VI- environmental information.
Sub-dimension: Promotion of participation. Variables: I-
Citizen participation programs or spaces for environmental
management. II- promotion of the creation of
and management, in such a way as to enable the effective and integrated

participation of public and private actors in decision-making, conflict management
and consensus building, based on clearly defined responsibilities, security and
transparency, with a view to meeting the requirements of society, the consolidation
of democratic spaces and the sustainability of the natural heritage. Local
environmental governance constitutes a network management that empowers the
plurality of stakeholders to participate in the definition, regulation, implementation
and evaluation of environmental public policies, as a nodal element for sustainable
development.
(Gutiérrez and Morales-Pinzón, 2017, p. 314).
environmental watchdogs by the local government. III-
consultation of the POT with the planning council before its
adoption.
Sub-dimension: Environmental effectiveness. Variables: I-
fulfillment of environmental competencies by the
administration.
Sub-dimension: Transparency. Variables: I- availability of
information related to environmental management. II-
consultations on the land use plan.
Sub-dimension: Control and Surveillance. Variables: I-
political control of local environmental management. II-
control and surveillance of natural resources and the
environment.
Sub-dimension: Accountability. Variables: I-
accountability of environmental management and results to
the community. II- rendering of environmental fiscal
accounts to control agencies.
Dimension: Social Empowerment and
Citizen Participation
Sub-dimension: Social Actors. Variables: I- civil society
and private enterprise actors involved in municipal
environmental management.
Sub-dimension: Citizen Participation. Variables: I- analysis
and discussion of the development plan by the municipal
planning council. II- representation of the ecological sector
in the municipal planning council. III- participation of the
municipal planning council in the approval of the POT.
Sub-dimension: Social Control. Variables: I- social control
of environmental management (oversight). II- Committee
for development and social control of public utilities.
Sub-dimension: Social Networks. Variables: I- social
networks to participate in local environmental
management.
To measure the variables, the authors weighted them
using an ordinal scale,
"seeking to determine its level of observance or

compliance, with emphasis on indicators of efficacy
and effectiveness or impact, using four criteria:
Satisfactory compliance (3), insufficient (2), deficient
(1) or non-compliance with the parameter (0)."
(Gutiérrez and Morales-Pinzón, 2017, p315).
Nicolás Vladimir Chuchco in "Reflexiones sobre los

alcances y li- mitaciones del Análisis de Redes Sociales a
partir del entrecruzamiento de datos secundarios a partir de
los indicadores de gobernanza del Banco Mundial
(Argentina, 1996-2017)", from 2018, problematizes the
World Bank indicators, in order to suggest the use of the
Social Network Analysis methodology37, to build indicators of
governance.
37This approach (Chuchco 2018) focuses on actors -nodes- emphasizing their r e l a t i

o n s h i p s ; using the mathematical formalization of graph theory. It is also useful to
identify structural patterns of a group, and the dynamics that are specific to it.
The author argues that the WB's indicators are not the same
as those of the WB's indicators. As for the criticisms of the
WB indicators, in the words of the author
From a heterodox neo-institutionalist perspective, the

main criticisms of these indicators focus on pointing
out the prescriptive and normative nature of these
measurements, since successful cases of late
development have not followed a virtuous path of
political freedoms, accountability and rule of law, but
have followed an authoritarian path, with strong state
intervention, and from a discretionary moment
incompatible with the principles of the institutional
designs that they seek to promote (Chang, 2006; Durán
Migliardi, 2011; Rodrik, 2004; 2011, Hodgson, 2015).
From a methodological point of view, criticisms (and
responses) concerning instrumental factors point to
sample bias, internal and construct validity, theoretical
vagueness, reverse causality and lack of comparability
(Thomas,
2010; Langbein and Kcnack, 2010; Kurtz and Schrank,

2007a).(Chuchco, 2018, p. 4).
Faced with these weaknesses attributed to the World

Bank indicators, Chuchco (2018) applies the ARS using the
UCINET and NetDraw programs to a database constructed
by World Bank Institute indicators during 1996-2015.
Jorge Francisco Aguirre Sala, in "Propuesta de indicadores
para medir y evaluar la gobernanza", 2019, mentions that
different researches use data collected from interviews,
censuses, official documents of the State and public
institutions, etc., to build governance indexes; however,
these measurements are usually synthetic and are adapted
to the interests of governments and international
organizations. On the other hand, the author mentions the
world governance indicators proposed by the World Bank.
dial in the Worldwide Governance Indicators project.
However, these are based on the logic of efficiency and
financing.
On the other hand, Aguirre Sala adds to the criticisms
made by Chuchco (2018), claiming that various researchers 38
criticize them in terms of their methodology because.
1) the indexes are not comparable over time and, since

they a r e averages, there is immobility in the
evaluations, 2) the evaluations are invalid because they
use various incomparable or non-equivalent sources,
since they have different bases of calculation, 3) the
changes and adjustments of some indicators are not
the result of improvements in governance, but of the
correction of errors, 4) the indicators are imprecise to
allow meaningful and comparative evaluations
between countries, 5) the indicators that make up the
index were constructed based on the biases of the
international economic and financial elites, 6) one of
the biases that limit the scope of the indicators is the
vision of economic development in the immediate past
38See: Ardt, C., & Oman, C. (2006). Uses and abuses of governance indicators. Paris:
OECD Development Center Study. And, Knack, S. (2006). Measuring corruption in
Eastern Europe and Central Asia. A cross critique of the cross country indicators.
Washington: World Bank policy Research Department working papers 3966.
short term, which favors developed countries, 7) the
indicators, indexes and evaluations carried out by
international agencies are also determined by their
interests, 8) the indicators suffer from poor validation
of the construct, 9) The WGI project is not sufficiently
transparent
(Aguirre Sala, 2019, p. 118)
For such arguments Aguirre Sala (2019) proposes to

establish governance indicators by means of a formula
where the total number of programs developed by the State
or institution in which governance is to be measured is taken
over the total number of
programs developed with citizen participation. Under this
logic, the author proposes four indicators, namely,
I- Public governance from non-institutionalized citizen
participation. This takes into account programs developed
with non-institutionalized citizen participation over the total
number of government programs developed. The formula
for this indicator is: IG1 = PCnoI / PI39 .
II- Public governance resulting from citizen
participation if institutionalized through advisory councils or
citizens' councils. This takes into account the programs
elaborated with institutionalized citizen participation over
39IG1 = governance indicator 1. PCnoI = programs with non-institutionalized citizen

participation. PI = existing programs in the government institution under governance
assessment.
the total number of government programs elaborated. The
formula for this indicator is: IG2 = PCI / PI40 .
III- Public governance from non-binding citizen
participation. This takes into account the number of
programs developed with non-binding citizen participation
over the number of government programs developed. The
formula for this indicator is: IG3 = PCnoV / PI41 .
IV- Public governance from binding citizen participation .
This takes into account the number of programs elaborated
with binding citizen participation over the number of
programs elaborated in a government institution. The
formula for this indicator is: IG4 = PCV / PI49 .
Sandoval and Ortega, in their article "Limitations of the
current governance indicators to measure the institutional
quality in a metropolitan area with a tourist vocation", from
2020, we find again reference to the Worldwide
Governance Indicators (WGI) of the
World Bank, the Second-Generation Governance Indicators,
the
IDB indicators, the United Nations Program for Human
Settlements, electronic databases, Etc.
40 IG2 = governance indicator 2. PCI = programs with institutionalized citizen

participation. IP = existing programs in the government institution under governance
assessment.
41 IG3 = governance indicator 3. PCnoV = programs with non-binding citizen
participation. IP = existing programs in the government institution under governance
assessment. IG4 = governance indicator 4. PCV = programs with b i n d i n g citizen
participation. PI = existing programs in the government institution under governance
assessment.
Although the authors' work is more extensive, we will
limit ourselves to mentioning the governance indicators
with international impact proposed by Christiane Arndt and
Charles Oman in "Uses and Abuses of Governance
Indicators" of 2006, which are mentioned by Sandoval and
Ortega, namely: I- Trust in Government. II- Policy
effectiveness. III- Strategic governance. IV- Finance and
public accounts. V- Public budgeting practices and
procedures. VI- Women in Government. VII- Employment
and salaries in the public sector. VIII- Open and inclusive
government. IX- Accessibility. X- Quality of public services.
These indicators
...describe the political and institutional frameworks of
governments, as well as their performance. It covers the
entire chain of production of public goods and services:
inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes. The data come
from administrative records, population surveys and other
NGO information gathering efforts. (Sandoval and Ortega,
2020, p.
160).
QUESTIONNAIRE ATTACHMENT FOR
SURVEYS
Questionnaire
Block 1
A) What position do you hold in the local government of the
municipality and what functions do you perform?
.....................
B) Since what year have you been in office?
.....................
C) Based on the following definition of "stakeholder".
...are organizations with institutionalized structures, act

through non-violent means and do not seek governmental
responsibilities. Starting from the semantic center and these
elements, we can define the interest group as a formally
structured organization that seeks to influence through
nonviolent means on public decision making without
assuming governmental responsibilities. (Delgadillo, 2017, p
97).
Examples of interest groups are: civil associations, foundations,

mutuals, cooperatives, social works, trade unions, knowledge
centers, non-governmental organizations, trade centers,
development societies, public welfare organizations, trade
unions, public interest organizations, professional associations,
133
non-profit organizations, voluntary organizations, clubs, NGOs,

etc.
Are you a member of an interest group or political grouping in
the municipality?
.....................
D) Since what year have you been a member/participant?
.....................
Block 2
A. Participation/articulation dimension
I. Citizen participation subdimension
A) How many participatory processes of

discussion/consultation of the local government with the
municipality's neighbors -citizens- on important issues for the
community have been carried out since the beginni ng of the
current mayor's term of office until today? 42
Quantity....... Don't know/no answer.......
42We understand participatory discussion/consultation processes to include the following

mechanisms of citizen participation: participatory planning, public consultation, democracy
by c h o i c e , roundtable dialogue, popular initiative, participatory drafting of regulations,
neighbor's bench, citizen juries, advisory council, observatories, open data, social auditing
and popular consultation. The participatory budget is also a mechanism, but here it is taken
as a separate indicator.
134
B) Since the beginning of the current mayor's term of office,

has the administration had a participatory budget?
Yes...... No...... Don't Know/No Answer......

C) How many proposals made by the neighbors in t h e PB
were accepted by the local government to be implemented since
the beginning of the current mayor's term of office to date?
D) How many projects have been implemented by the PB

since the beginning of the current mayor's term of office until
now?
E) What is the percentage of dispersion in the territory of the

projects executed by the PB from the beginning of the current
mayor's term of office to the present (if the projects are executed
in different neighborhoods of the municipality)?
percentage ..................... Don't know/no answer.......
II. Subdimension Local State-Private Sector
Articulation
A) From the beginning of the current mayor's term of office

to the present, has the administration created and implemented
public policies and/or incentives to promote the participation and
investment of private sector actors in local economic
development?
Yes...... No...... How many? ..................... Don't know/no

answer.......
135
B) From the beginning of the current mayor's term of office

to the present, does the local government coordinate with private
sector actors in the planning, financing and execution of
municipal programs?
Yes...... No...... How many? ..................... Doesn't
know/doesn't answer.......
C From the beginning of the current mayor's term of office to

the present, does the local government coordinate with private
sector actors in the planning, financing and execution of public
services?

answer.......
D) From the beginning of the current mayor's term of office to

the present, does the local government coordinate with private
sector actors in the planning, financing and execution of public
works?

answer.......
I. Subdimension articulation Local State -

Stakeholder Groups
A) From the beginning of the current mayor's term of office to

the present, does the local government make efforts
(meetings, agreements, incentives) to achieve cooperation
with interest groups?

answer.......
136
B) From the beginning of the current mayor's term of office to

the present day
Does the local government articulate with stakeholders in the
planning, financing and execution of municipal programs?
answer.......
137
the present, does the local government coordinate with
stakeholders in the planning, financing and execution of
public services?

answer.......
D) From the beginning of the current mayor's term of

office to the present, does the local government coordinate
with interest groups in the planning, financing and
execution of public works?

answer.......
II. Subdimension articulation Local State - other

levels of government
A) From the beginning of the current mayor's term of

office to the present, has the local government made efforts
(meetings, agreements, incentives for investment in the
municipality) to generate cooperation with other levels of
government?

answer.......
B) From the beginning of the current mayor's term of

office to the present, does the local government articulate
with other levels of government in the planning, financing
and execution of municipal programs?
answer.......
the present, does the local government coordinate with
other levels of government in the planning, financing and
execution of public services?

answer.......

office to the present, does the local government coordinate
with other levels of government in the planning, financing
and execution of public works?

answer.......
Block 3
A. Equity Dimension
office to the present, does the local government convene
excluded, minority and vulnerable groups in consultative
processes?

answer.......
office to the present, does the local government allocate
resources to public services for vulnerable populations?
Yes...... No......How much? .....................Don't know/no

answer.......
the present, does the local government allocate resources
to programs aimed at excluded, minority and vulnerable
populations?
Yes...... No......How much? .....................Don't know/no

answer.......

office to the present, does the local government disperse
public works throughout the municipality? That is, does it
carry out public works in different neighborhoods of the
municipality?
Yes...... No...... What percentage? ............................don't

know/do not know
reply.......
E) From the beginning of the current mayor's term of

office to the present, are there any institutionalized bodies
in operation by the administration in which women are
represented?

answer.......
Block 4
A. Networks Dimension
Bearing in mind the following definition of "Networks" as
...a relatively stable set of relationships - sustained over

time and not for a one-time articulation for a specific
issue - of a nonhierarchical and interdependent nature,
linking a diversity of actors, sharing a common interest
in a policy and exchanging information. resources -
monetary, human capital, knowledge and/or expertise,
training- to achieve this shared interest in the
knowledge that cooperation is the best way to achieve
the objectives pursued (Agustí Cerrillo I Martínez,
2006, p. 24).

office to the present, has the local government made efforts
(meetings, agreements, incentives) to promote common
interests and agendas, in order to create and sustain
networks with private sector actors over time?

answer.......

office to the present, how many local government networks
with private sector actors exist?
C) From the beginning of the current mayor's term of

office to the present, does the local government make
efforts (meetings, agreements, incentives) to promote
common interests and agendas, in order to generate and
sustain networks with interest groups over time?

answer.......

with interest groups exist?
E) From the beginning of the current mayor's term of

office to the present, does the local government make
efforts (meetings, agreements, incentives) to promote
common interests and agendas, in order to generate and
sustain networks with other levels of government over
time?

answer.......
F) From the beginning of the current mayor's term of

with other levels of government exist?
Notes:
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
...............
INDEX
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................11
DEFINITION OF
MUNICIPALITY.....................................................19
Brief Historical Review of the Municipalities...........20
Legal framework of the Municipalities.................22
System of Governance and Representation .............24
Municipal Financing..............................26
Functions of the Municipalities......................28
Human resources and organizational structure .........29
STATE REFORM OF THE '90S, DECENTRALIZATION AND
NEW ROLES FOR
MUNICIPALITIES.......................................................31
THE CONCEPT OF GOVERNANCE. THEORETICAL

FRAMEWORK 41
LOCAL GOVERNMENT GOVERNANCE

INDEX................................61
Methodology for assigning numerical delimitations to the categories of
the indicators that comprise
Dimensions.....................................86
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................................99
ANNEX: STATE OF THE ART IN TERMS OF INDEXES
AND GOVERNANCE INDICATORS.
............................................105
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX......................................133
LIST OF
TABLES..........................................................................145
LIST OF TABLES
Ta bl e 1 - Definition a nd weighting of the i ndicators of the s ubdimension citizen
pa rti cipation....................64
Ta bl e 2 - Defi nition a nd weighting of the i ndicators of the s ubdimension Local
Government - Pri vate Sector articulation. ..................................66
Ta bl e 3 - Defi nition a nd weighting of the i ndicators of the s ubdimension Local
Government - Stakeholders a rticulation. ..................................71
Ta bl e 4 - Definition and weighting of the i ndicators of the sub-
di mension Local State Articulation - Other Levels of
Government. ......................................74
Ta bl e 5 - Operationalization of the Pa rticipation / Arti culation dimension.

......................................................75
Ta bl e 6 - Definition a nd wei ghting of the i ndicators of the Equity
di mension........................................79
Ta bl e 7 - Operationalization of the Equity dimension.............80
Ta bl e 8 - Defi nition a nd wei ghting of the i ndicators of the Networks
di mension........................................83
Ta bl e 9 - Operationalization of the Networks dimension...........84
Ta bl e 10 - Loca l Government Governance Index
of ea ch municipality of the pcia. of BS. AS............85
Ta bl e 12 - Numerical delimitation of ca tegories a nd degree of governance in
i ndicators with integers..............87
Ta bl e 13 - Numerical delimitation of categories and degree of
governa nce in indicators with percentages. ............88

Ta bl e 14 - Opera tionalization of the Pa rti cipation / Arti cul ation di mension with
numerical delimitation of i ndicator ca tegories. 89
Ta bl e 15 - Operationalization of the Equity dimension with
LIST OF TABLES numerical delimitation of the indicator ca tegories..91
Ta bl e 16 - Operationalization of the Networks dimension with
numerical delimitation of the i ndicator ca tegories......92

Ta bl e 18 - Loca l government governance index of municipality X. ...93
Ta bl e 19 - Loca l government governance index for municipality Y ...95
Ta bl e 20 - Governance index of the local government of municipality Z.

......................................................97
BOOK PUBLISHED BY
E DITORIAL AUTORES DE ARGENTINA

Governance in Local Government. Guillermo Colella

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Governance in Local Government. Guillermo Colella

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Governance in Local Governments

GUILLERMO GÁSTON COLELLA

Political Science. I. Title. CDD

EDITORIAL AUTORES DE ARGENTINA

Verus Amicus Nunquam Amici Oblisviscitur.

The general theme of this book is to reflect on the concept of

This bibliography reveals a series of difficulties that local

Before proceeding further, let us establish what is meant by

vary from municipality to municipality and have different impacts

model of governance proposed by the New Public Management

without specific studies on the subject matter being worke d on

democracy in entire countries, and even more so in specific

case studies and surveys of hierarchical local government officials

As to the question "What is a municipality?", the National

Passalacqua (1992) is the one that marks the tendency in our

Brief Historical Review of the Municipalities

Constitution of 1853 established that the provinces had to ensure

Legal framework of the Municipios

Each province shall enact for itself a Constitution under the

The one hundred and twenty-third article states that "Each

However, the provinces of Mendoza, Santa Fe and Buenos Aires

local regulations, police power, public services, responsibility of

Governance System and

...to allow the play of weights and counterweights, in order to

In all provinces (Iturburu 2000) it is unanimous that the popular

...in local governments, the presidency culture is accentuated

The Deliberative Council has the function of sanctioning

However, according to Acotto, Martinez and Grinberg (2011), in

Functions of the Municipalities

The following are some of the areas in which we have been

Human resources and organizational structure

ro, "...most municipalities only require the decision of the

As Ivana Merlo Rodríguez (2012) points out, in South

"Each province dictates its own Constitution, in

However, with respect to the reform of the Constitution

Although there is a variation from province to province,

such as: promotion of economic development, security,

- Urban development: urban planning, public works

-Provision of public services: drinking water supply and

-Regulation of community life: urban supply, control of

Cravacuore (2007) states that the functions of Argentine

Economic promotion agent:

-Architectural policy for local development: design and

-Linking the educational system with the productive

-Facilitator of opportunities, through business

-Social development policy, which involves detecting

-Social and community integration: direct operation and

-Education, educational updating and training.

-Environment: improvement of environmental quality.

-Exercise of authority or regulatory power at the local

-Health: policy setting at the local level; organization,

Cravacuore (2007) describes the new agenda assumed by

It is difficult to find local governments that

The question that immediately arises is, do local

Indeed, the neoliberal economic reforms deployed in

However, we must keep in mind that for local

The disproportion between the delegation of functions

Therefore, (Elz 2017) local governments are obliged to

Ivana Merlo Rodriguez, in her paper "Organizational models",

a) a return to markets, since the hand of the State has proven

This package of reforms led to the neoliberal crisis of the State,

This is a starting point for the theoretical assumptions of

14 However, reading Luis Aguilar Villanueva, in "Governance and Public Management"

public opinion and the academic world began to differentiate