We have defined country-level governance as the exercise of authority through formal and informal traditions and institutions for the common good, thus encompassing: (1) the process of selecting, monitoring, and replacing governments; (2) the capacity to formulate and implement sound policies and deliver public services, and (3) the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them. The three dimensions in this definition of governance are then further unbundled to comprise two measurable concepts per dimension, for a total of six components: (1) _voice and external accountability_ (i.e., the government’s preparedness to be externally accountable through citizen feedback and democratic institutions, and a competitive press); and also (2) _political stability and lack of violence, crime, and terrorism_ . Then (3) _government effectiveness_ (including quality of policymaking, bureaucracy, and public service delivery); (4) _lack of regulatory burden_ ; and, finally, (5) _rule of law_ (protection of property rights, judiciary independence, and so on); and (6) _control of corruption_ . These components are subject to empirical measurement at the country level, for which a worldwide dataset has been constructed.<sup>8</sup>

# **3.2 Defining Urban Governance**

Despite the fewer numbers of citations that can be found in the literature search which give access to specific empirical data sets that are comparable, there is no lack of citations on the definition and use of the term “urban governance”. In simple terms, UNESCO defines urban governance as the processes that steer and take into account the various links between stakeholders, local authorities and citizens. It involves bottom-up and top-down strategies to favor active participation of communities concerned, negotiation among actors, transparent decision-making mechanisms, and innovation in strategies of urban management policies.<sup>9</sup> More comprehensively, one can find definitions of urban governance, as well as descriptions of potential indicators of urban governance in the work of Mehta (1998) and the UNCHS (1999).

Mehta (1998) looks at urban governance through a set of attributes. He introduces the attribute of _accountability_ which he suggests is derived from how cities manage their finances, communicate on use of funds and achievements to their citizens, and adhere to legal requirements and administrative policies. Embedded in Mehta’s concept of accountability is the question of _responsiveness_ , which includes the ability of a decentralized entity to determine and respond to the needs of its constituents. In doing so, city officials need to have processes of citizen _participation_ , and a system for monitoring and evaluation, as well as reporting on results achieved. These three measures are critical if one is using the definition of a city as a place, where it is performing with respect to local issues, and managing the consequences of globalization locally.

If we consider the other definition of a globalized city, as an outcome of globalization but also shaping its role within a globalized world then we need to look at dynamic indicators

> 8  See Kaufmann, Kraay, Mastruzzi, _Governance Matters III: Governance Indicators for 1996–2002_ **,** World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3106.

> 9 <u>http://www.unesco.org/most/most2.htm</u>

7