OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICE REFORM INITIATIVE Oktober 6. utca 12, 1051 Budapest, Hungary Mailing Address: H-1397 Budapest, P.O. Box 519 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Call for Proposals Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative (LGI)
Policy Fellowship 2008/2009 I. Purpose LGI's fellowship program supports practical policy reform in the region, builds the capacities of individuals who are well placed to influence policy, creates networks of multinational experts, and supports the mission of LGI. Through the Fellowship Program LGI explores emerging or insufficiently studied policy issues relevant for the regions where we work. Each year LGI selects talented professionals from Central, East and South-East Europe and the former Soviet Union to participate in the one-year program. This year we also are looking for proposals beyond these transitional regions. Fellows work in small teams under the guidance of a well-respected mentor to produce policy-oriented studies on a given topic. The completed studies are impact oriented; each contains an advocacy or implementation strategy and concrete policy recommendations. LGI provides its fellows with training on how to write effective policy reports, how to identify and analyze available policy options, how to formulate an effective advocacy campaign, and how deliver a persuasive policy presentation. At the conclusion of the program LGI works with its fellows to determine what steps it can take to support the proposed recommendations in the completed studies. Fellows are generally policy researchers, policy advisors, civil servants and members of NGOs, advocacy groups or professional associations. • To learn more about the Open Society Institute see: http://www.soros.org/ • To learn more about the Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative see: http://lgi.osi.hu/ II. The project The primary goal of the LGI Policy Fellowship program is to support policy research aimed at stimulating innovative and practical policy reform in areas that LGI is interested in exploring further. Each year broad topics are identified for candidates from different country groups. LGI is currently calling for Fellows for its 2007/2008 program, which will run from October 2008 to October 2009. For more background information about the fellowship program please see: http://lgi.osi.hu/documents.php?m_id=127 This year LGI is featuring three topics: Topic 1: Local Taxation of Informal Economies Topic 2: Improving the Effectiveness and Accountability of Voluntary Inter-municipal Cooperation Arrangements Topic 3: Citizen Participation in Public Decision-Making: How Sub-national Governments Can Support Citizen Engagement and Institutionalize Participatory Practices III. Fellowship topics for 2008/9 Topic 1: Local Taxation of Informal Economies Team Mentor: Nick Devas, Senior Lecturer, International Development Department, School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham, UK The objective of this topic is to analyze the experience of the fellow’s country (or selected local governments within the country) in collecting local government revenues (taxes, fees) on predominantly informal economies, and to draw lessons and recommendations for effective taxing of informal economic activities more generally. Informal economies are those where the majority of taxpayers are not employed by large formal organizations paying set wages, and the bulk of commercial activity is undertaken by small unregistered enterprises outside the framework of company law. The purpose of this analysis is to learn how local governments can strengthen the resources which they can devote to the provision of services to predominantly poor populations and increasing their economic opportunity. Classical principles of democratic decentralization stress the importance of taxes levied by local government in providing resources for the provision of local services, in giving local elected bodies choice over the levels of spending and in making local government officials accountable to those whom they tax. Local taxes should ideally comply with the criteria applying to all forms of taxation, particularly in the need for equity, efficiency (or neutrality) and buoyancy. They have the additional requirement that the geographical origin of the tax yields can be identified so that the tax burden truly falls on the residents of the jurisdiction within which they are spent. Two other features are important in practice to their potential. The first is political sensitivity; a tax should not be so unpopular that effective setting of rates and collection encounter insuperable resistance. Secondly levying the tax should be within the administrative capacity of local governments. These last two requirements impose severe constraints on local taxation in informal economies. Take as a contrast the exploitation of personal income taxation which accrues wholly or partly to local budgets in many European countries. It is easy to identify the bulk of those liable for the tax because they are included on the payrolls of large organizations. It is relatively easy to assess how much they should pay because fixed wages represent a large proportion of their income. It is easy to collect the tax by requiring employers to assess the tax payable and deduct it from wages. Much of the process is handled by computers and involves little human effort or skill. None of these practical advantages occur in informal economies where taxpayers are not registered, personal incomes are largely drawn from multiple activities with irregular and often unrecorded sources, and taxpayers have to be persuaded to pay money out of their pocket at a time when they have the cash. There are many attempts to levy taxes in these unhelpful circumstances. They may use “presumptive” forms of assessment; these simply assume that a person undertaking a certain type of activity such as growing a hectare of rice, repairing bicycles or selling beer earns an average of x dollars a year and should pay tax accordingly. There are business taxes which are levied as part of the licensing process and which again vary with the assumed profitability of the business, reflected by type, size and location. There are consumption taxes which are charged on sale and assume that the type and scale of consumption is a proxy indicator of the consumer’s ability to pay; examples the local taxes on hotels, restaurants, entertainments and electricity consumption in Indonesia. Many are indirect taxes paid by the ultimate payer as part of a usually voluntary purchase of something else, whether it be goods, services, accommodation. Not all such levies are called taxes: some may be referred to as fees or charges, but the revenue from the levy far exceeds the cost of providing any related services; examples would include market fees and bus/taxi terminal fees in many African municipalities. Fellows are asked to describe the local tax base and performance of their own country or a group of local governments within it, where local taxation is effective in providing a significant percentage of local budget revenue (e.g. over 20%) and is sufficiently buoyant to maintain a constant or rising percentage of GDP. The objective of the research is to identify characteristics of the tax base which account for its relative effectiveness and may be replicable in other similar economies, both in the fellows countries and perhaps elsewhere. Studies should identify the various local taxes, or at least the most significant ones, in country or countries concerned, and analyze each local tax in terms of the following: 1. A brief description of each significant local tax 2. The proportion of local government budgets raised by each of these local taxes (Ideally based on both national aggregate data and on a selection of individual local governments .) • identifying differences in these proportions between urban and rural local governments 3. How and by whom the tax is levied, in terms: • tax payers are identified • the tax liability is assessed • the tax is collected • tax revenue is recorded and accounted for 4. The scope for abuse in terms of: • evasion by the taxpayer • collusion between taxpayer and tax official • fraud by the tax collector 5. An indication of what impact the tax may have: • on equity, in terms of who bears the burden of the tax, and (together with any associated exemption practices) on the incomes of poor households • on incentives and disincentives, e.g. to produce or consume particular things or to operate in particular ways 6. An indication of the performance of the tax in terms of: • the effectiveness of tax collection, i.e. roughly what proportion of the full tax potential is actually collected • the approximate cost of collection as a proportion of the revenue collected (collection costs may be estimated from the number of staff employed) It is recognized that it may not be possible to obtain information on all the above aspects, but the project is looking for in-depth analyses of local taxes with respect to many of the above aspects as possible. Applications will be considered from Central Eastern Europe, South East Europe, the former Soviet Union, and Africa, Asia and Latin America. Topic 2: Improving the Effectiveness and Accountability of Voluntary Inter-municipal Cooperation Arrangements Mentor: Professor Pawel Swianiewicz, Faculty of Geography and Regional Studies, University of Warsaw, Poland, Member of LGI Steering Committee. There are several situations in which local public service delivery may be more effective when it is performed in co-operation with multiple jurisdictions. This is especially so in countries with territorially fragmented systems (where local governments are very small, often having less than 1,000 residents) but it is also an effective tool in all countries, where it may concern some specific functions, such as water management, utilities, sanitation and others. The objective of this fellowship topic is to analyze the experience of existing voluntary cooperation arrangements in transitional countries, and to draw lessons and recommendations for improving the effectiveness, transparency and accountability of such arrangements. There are four major arguments for co-operative arrangements: • Improved efficiency through the reduction of unit costs – due to economies of scale which may be achieved through service to larger groups of consumers; • Joint management of indivisible infrastructure – for example water or gas provision systems which cover the territory of more than one local government; • Joint management of functionally integrated areas that are politically (administratively) fragmented – i.e. the management of public transportation in metropolitan areas consisting of central city and suburban municipalities provides a good example; • Increased visibility – for example in joint tourist or business opportunity promotion campaigns organized by a multiple local governments. Empirical research shows that voluntary cooperation is difficult to achieve and plays a minimal role in many countries. Often effective voluntary cooperation requires the following conditions: • External incentives – which may be financial or functional. Frequently such incentives can be provided by the central government, but regional or supra-national (European Union) levels may play a role. Two frequently quoted examples—France and Finland—rely heavily on external incentives for cooperation of local governments. In some countries, regulatory frameworks not only fail to provide such incentives, but also include regulations which make cooperation difficult or nearly impossible (for example by lack of providing framework of inter-municipal associations being a legal entity). • Leadership – there has to be a strong, visionary leader to initiate co-operation arrangements. In metropolitan areas it is a charismatic mayor, but there are other options. • Culture of cooperation, often created in a long process of learning (tradition of cooperation) and including trust among partners. Voluntary cooperation implies political costs for individual jurisdictions involved, so what is necessary is sufficient social capital among local political elites. Cooperation requires also an additional organizational effort, so leaders have to be convinced it pays off. The above benefits to cooperation notwithstanding, cooperative agreements can potentially diminish the transparency and accountability of decision making process. Decisions made by individual municipal councils and mayors have direct electoral legitimacy and are controlled through local civic society institutions (local media, NGOs, individual citizens having access to council meetings and documents produced by local governments), even if this control is often far from being perfect. On the other hand, decision making in local government associations, or other cooperative arrangements, implies only indirect electoral legitimacy. The process is less accessible for civil society, so oversight and control is much weaker. According to some studies, a disproportionately high number of corruption cases occur in relation to services provided through voluntary cooperation. Finally, while the rationale for voluntary cooperation is cost effectiveness, it is also possible that the administration of inter-municipal association can duplicate that of individual local governments, thereby increasing overall costs. This needs to be considered. Fellows working on this topic should develop a prescriptive policy paper that considers the following: • A diagnosis of existing voluntary cooperation arrangements, taking into account issues discussed above. What forms of co-operative arrangements are allowed by current legislation? How often are they used and for what (functions)? What have been the typical motives and incemtives to establish voluntary cooperation? How effective have they been? • Identification of barriers limiting the scope of cooperation as well as the effectiveness of existing arrangements. Barriers might be of different nature: (i) legal/regulatory – for example certain forms of cooperation are not allowed by the law, or financial regulations provide disincentives rather than incentives for cooperation; (ii) political/ cultural – such as low level of trust among local politicians, poor civic control over policy making process etc. • Formulate recommendations to improve the legal (regulatory) framework and institutional capacity at the local level to advance inter-municipal cooperation. Specific issues to be discussed may include: how to remove legal obstacles for co-operation? What incentives might be provided to stimulate the most effective solutions? How to increase transparency and accountability of decision making in co-operative arrangements? Applications are encouraged from Central Eastern Europe, South Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, Mongolia and Peru. Topic 3: Citizen Participation in Public Decision-Making: How Sub-national Governments Can Support Citizen Engagement and Institutionalize Participatory Practices Mentor: Professor Vivien Lowndes, Professor of Local Government Studies, Local Governance Research Unit, Department of Public Policy, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK In the transition region donors and the international community have invested great sums in trying to stimulate greater citizen participation in the public decision making processes. After two decades of experimentation, this fellowship program aims to take stock of what methods have worked well and why, and to advance prescriptive recommendations on how to encourage greater and sustainable participation across the region. Over the last decade, we have seen an explosion of interest in creating more participatory forms of governance around the world. Seen as an approach to revitalizing democracy, improving local services, and regenerating local communities, participatory governance involves a shift from narrow ideas of local government to broader concepts of local governance, in which multiple actors play a role in public policy and the delivery of public services, from the neighborhood to the municipal and sometimes even to the regional level. This explosion of interest is evident both in the demand for participation and in the attempts of some local authorities to experiment by innovatively redesigning local institutions and policymaking processes in order to make them suitable for greater public participation. This demonstrates that there has been dissatisfaction on the side of citizens with how local authorities confuse providing information on local affairs to the public with consulting the public on policies or interventions already largely decided in advance, and finally with truly participatory processes of engaging citizens from the early phases of policy or project development. Local public authorities usually complain that citizens are not interested in contributing time and effort towards engaging with local affairs, but research shows that citizens often find the existing official channels for raising one’s voice inadequate, unresponsive, and therefore a waste of time. For instance, if local government development plans are already decided before citizens are called for statutorily-required consultation on the planning process, then there is little chance for individual citizens and citizen groups to understand the process and logic of planning for the future of the local community, and to give a meaningful input during the planning process. Local consultations usually bring only cosmetic changes in the pre-decided interventions of local authorities undertaking the planning work. Processes around the world show that even when there is a demand on the side of the public, be they citizen groups or NGOs representing interests of various social groups, public institutions do not know how to respond in order to make local decision-making processes systematically more participatory. The fellowship aims at addressing the issues of how to advance public participation by building capacity of local public institutions to enable greater engagement of the public on regular basis. Civil society can help advance the practice of citizen participation in local decisions by engaging in citizen education and capacity building in order to raise the ability and demand of local citizens and NGOs to take part in local decisions rather than remain unengaged and criticize powerlessly from a distance. But opening the door once for a particular group of interests/people does not guarantee that public authorities will know how to sustain the process of giving regular access to that group and how to expand the participation to other groups. In general, gaining access for particular groups often does not lead to the sustainability of public engagement and to redesigning local institutions to make them more participatory on regular basis both in policy development and project implementation. Fellows will explore the opportunities for ensuring that local governments involve citizens and build participatory structures and processes of decision-making as a regular way of making decisions. Fellows should explore the cases of sub-national governments which have shown some initial willingness to launch participatory processes or to give access to some minority/vulnerable groups to certain segments of decision-making on public policies. Based on initial experiences and good practices of proactive sub-national authorities, fellows will be expected to develop policy papers that: 1. Assess the progress made in the last decade: What has been done to mobilize citizens and enable them to engage with local decision-making? What has worked well and why? • Analyze legal and statutory regulations (at all level of government, in all or selected sectors) for the ‘right to participate’ and ‘duty to engage/consult’? How are these rights and duties specified? • What are the current standards of citizen participation? Is there a duty to respond to citizen feedback? Is there capacity building for citizens to participate and for municipal officials to enable, organize and respond to citizen participation? 2. Identify obstacles to establishing public participation as a regular mechanism in public decision-making 3. Develop recommendations for how citizen engagement can be further supported, sustainability of engagement achieved and expanded to all social groups • What is needed to strengthen the ‘rights to participate’ and ‘duties to engage’ in legal and statutory regulations at the sub-national level? • How to improve the mechanism for enabling citizens to participate? • How to improve the capacity building for municipal/regional officials to be able to enable participation by organizing adequate participatory processes, incorporating citizen feedback in official decision-making and responding to citizens as a regular way of how local governments work? Applications are encouraged from Central Eastern Europe, South Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and Mongolia. IV. Methods and procedures Grant LGI will award successful applicants with a stipend for a period of 12 months between November 2008 and November 2009. The stipend will cover monthly expenses related to research and travel costs. Additional funds will cover costs related to attending three international workshops, at least two of which will take place in Budapest, Hungary. Eligibility Fellows are normally civil servants, members of advocacy groups or professional associations, policy researchers and policy advisers. A graduate degree or equivalent is required. Applicants should be citizens of the countries noted under each topic. As a general rule, Fellows will be based in their home countries (for research and advocacy purposes) and will be required to attend three international Fellowship workshops. Fellows are expected to continue with their current employment, spending only up to fifty percent of their time on the Fellowship program. Teams of two collaborating experts may be considered. If accepted the duo would need to appoint a team leader, with ultimate responsibility for the project. The stipend would be split between the two, but LGI would provide extra funds for the workshop-related travel expenses. *Please note that LGI looks favorably upon applicants who can demonstrate in their application that they have secured practical institutional support from a governmental ministry/department, or a reputable policy center or similar institution. English Language: All applications must be in English and applicants must have excellent English-language skills. The English skills of finalists will be evaluated during personal or phone interviews to ensure they can actively participate in advanced, technical discussions in English with their team, mentor and others in the Soros foundations network about their topic. Please note that LGI also offers a fellowship program for Russian speaking experts. For more information about this program and the topics being offered please see: http://lgi.osi.hu/documents.php?id=1572 Methodology LGI will group Fellows into teams of approximately 4-6 members. Teams will be led by an expert mentor. Mentors will guide Fellows in formulating their final research plans, draft reports, and implementation strategies. LGI and team Mentors will also facilitate professional cooperation and communication between members of the team. Fellows are encouraged to support each other’s work with their expertise and comments within their teams. LGI encourages teams of Fellows to develop joint or comparable research agendas. Expected outcomes/ products Fellows are expected to conduct high quality research according to a mutually accepted research protocol. As a final product, Fellows will submit a persuasive policy paper. Policy papers should be evidence-based, should include evaluation of policy options to address the given problem and policy recommendations. Implementation and advocacy plans will also be produced by fellows, to ensure forward thinking about the results of their findings. Teams are expected to submit a joint report at the conclusion of the project. LGI may publish these studies in English and/or their respective local languages. Finally, LGI will seek ways to work with Fellows in the future on implementing aspects of their proposed policy recommendations. Application procedure Step 1. Submission of the Application: • Applications should be emailed to LGI at the following address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] • The subject heading must identify which Fellowship Topic you are applying for. Applications must include ALL of the following materials: 1. Statement of interest (1 page) 2. Research proposal (2,000 words maximum) including a well-defined research problem, topic justification, research methodology, and expected outcomes of the research. See individual topic descriptions for specific requirements. 3. Professional CV (which includes: full name, email and telephone number of the applicant, country of origin and residence) 4. English language writing sample (maximum 5 pages) 5. The name and contact information of three people familiar with the professional capacities of the applicant. **Please note that failure to submit all of the above documents will likely result in your application being immediately disqualified. The deadline for submitting applications is June 30, 2008 (17:00 GMT). Late applications will not be considered. Step 2. Review and selection: Proposals must respond to domestic needs, be policy-oriented, focused and creative. Each incoming application will be registered by LGI upon receipt. LGI will check each submission to ensure that it meets the formal criteria and quality. Submissions will be reviewed by LGI (see timetable below) and the team mentors. LGI will contact shortlisted candidates for a follow-up interview either by phone or in person in the applicant's respective country. Step 3. Feedback All applicants will be notified by LGI of their status by July 23, 2008. Step 4. Fellowship program provisional timeline July 4, 2008 Deadline for fellowship applications. July 23, 2008 Selection process finalized and applicants notified of their status. Summer 2008 Selected fellows sign contracts with LGI. November 1, 2008 Fellowship program begins, Fellows initiate their research. November 6-11, 2008 Budapest Opening Trainings and Workshop Fellows and Mentors will review the individual research plans and group approach to the project. They will develop a terms of reference for standardizing the individual reports (structure, language, key terms, approach, etc), and discuss possible conferences or workshops to attend during the year that would strengthen their research agendas. November 30, 2008 Based on Budapest discussions, fellows submit final research proposals. January 15, 2009 Fellows submit short progress reports. February 28, 2009 First Drafts and initial advocacy strategies due. March/April 2009 Interim Team workshop. Groups meet to discuss and comment on each other's first drafts. Policy Analysis training. July 1, 2009 Deadline for full drafts - including executive summary and advocacy plan. August 15, 2009 Mentors submit their review of full drafts. October 1, 2009 Fellows submit final drafts. Submission of final team manuscript. Oct/Nov, 2009 LGI Fellowship closing conference in Budapest. Fellows present their Policy Recommendations. Training on Policy Advocacy and Presentation Skills. September/December, 2009 Fellowship reports are reviewed and evaluated by external experts with regard to publishing. If deemed publishable, fellows may be asked to revise certain aspects of their reports. *Note: dates are subject to minor changes. Applications should be submitted via email to: The Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the subject line please include: "LGI Policy Fellowship 2008/9" AND the name of the topic you are applying for. Project Manager: Masha Djordjevic: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------ *** sustineti [romania_eu_list] prin 2% din impozitul pe 2006 - detalii la http://www.doilasuta.ro *** Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/romania_eu_list/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/romania_eu_list/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
