of governance. In addition to the static attributes of accountability, responsiveness, and participation, Mehta also includes a dynamic concept of urban governance which he calls _management innovation_ , which measures the degree to which urban managers have been able to successfully implement changes in their systems of administration to achieve superior performance. Mehta introduces three measures which relate to the ability of cities to transform global opportunities to local value. These include measures such as publicprivate partnerships, local government-citizen interaction, and networking.

The ability of cities to engage in public-private partnerships is seen as a key capability for staying power in a global scene by a number of authors (see Doel and Hubbard (2002) and Knox (2002)). Mehta suggests measures such as presence of business sector initiatives to improve efficiency of local government functioning, as well as the degree to which implementation of policies and incentive schemes exist to encourage private sector participation in development. Linking back to the literature on global cities, such indicators would be relevant due to the consideration that strategic decisions by Transnational Corporations to operate in a given city are based on their determination of the advantages of locating there and would therefore depend on the quality of engagement with the local government in key areas as well as the local investment climate they would face.

Having city governments interact with citizens and non-governmental organizations, opens up the space for introducing the global civil society in decision-making at the local level. Cities with a large diaspora that is actively involved in local decisions are one example but so are the networks of civil society that interact on a global scale with respect to local issues (see Sassen (2002)).

Mehta’s definition of urban governance also allows us to introduce the concept of _networking_ of one city with other cities or with key actors such as firms, labor unions and business associations, but also other states. He suggests a number of indicators of networking such as the number of inter-city, regional, and international networks as well as the extent of technological interchange and collaboration. Other measures suggested are the exchange between cities of expertise and training. The recent example of the city of Rome sending experts to Kigali, indicates the extent to which this indicator is relevant.

Urban governance as an outcome that is visible to a citizen is a key feature that allows empirical tests of the city as a place or as a sustained achievement of performances. There are very few existing indicators that can be used to capture dynamic changes in governance at the city level. We draw on measures defined by authors such as Mehta (1998) and the UNCHS (1999) which include: (1) consumer satisfaction (survey/complaints); (2) openness of procedures for contracts/tenders for municipal services; (3) percentage of population served by services; and (4) access of the public to stages of the policy cycle<sup>10</sup> .

> 10 The UNCHS Expert Group Meeting on Urban Poverty and Governance Indicators, 29 April to 1 May 1999, Nairobi, Kenya highlights the top twelve indicators of urban governance which include: (1) consumer satisfaction; (2) openness of procedures for contracts/tenders for municipal services; (3) equity in the tax system; (4) sources of local government funding (taxes, user charges, borrowing, central government, international aid); (5) percentage of population served by services; (6) access of public to stages of policy

8