Content uploaded by Philippe De Lombaerde
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Philippe De Lombaerde on Feb 18, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Systems of Indicators for Monitoring Regional Integration Processes: Where Do We Stand Anno 2010?
Abstract
Systematically monitoring regional integration processes is a relatively recent
activity, but its potential is quite important. From an academic perspective, it
allows us to get a more precise idea of the depth and speed of certain regional
integration processes, more clarity on the relative importance of regionalization versus globalization processes (and their interaction), and a better understanding of the meaning and significance of the so-called new regionalism.
From a policy-making perspective, a better monitoring has the capacity to
make integration policies more development effective and integration processes more transparent, involving higher degrees of participation and legitimacy,
and therefore, making the processes more sustainable. In this paper the
authors present a critical review of recent proposals and experiences with setting up indicator systems for monitoring regional integration processes in different parts of the world. The review covers both conceptual (academic) proposals as well as indicator systems developed by or for regional organizations
such as the European Commission, the European Central Bank, the UN
Economic Commission for Africa, ASEAN, COMESA, ADB, EDB, etc. A systematic comparison of the different indicator systems (covering both technical and
political-economy aspects) makes it possible to evaluate their relative qualities
and to identify best practices.
... The EU has also tried to export this model of "implementation-biased" monitoring in the context of its inter-regional negotiations and agreements, which have historically included an important component of "region-building" (De Lombaerde and Schulz 2009;Lenz 2009Lenz , 2012. Indeed, in most designs of tools supported (and financed) by the EU, to be applied to other regions, the policy implementation dimension is typically the most important category of variables covered by the indicator system (De Lombaerde et al. 2008b;De Lombaerde et al. 2010a). 12 This contrasts with the structure of monitoring systems elsewhere. ...
... 25 The objective of the review was to map and compare the indicator systems, to study their technical features and to identify best practices but also to look at the political-economy aspects of the systems (by whom, for whom, for what purpose). The conclusions of the reviews can be summarized as follows (De Lombaerde et al. 2008b;De Lombaerde et al., 2010, 2011 See also Capannelli (2012). 23 This new semi-annual publication evolved from the Asia Economic Monitor, which was published since 2001. ...
Over the last decades, economic integration processes have proliferated in various
regions of the world, in search of appropriate conditions and institutional contexts
within which goods, services, capital and people can circulate more freely and contribute
to reaching higher growth. In addition, regional economic cooperation has been
organized in various policy areas, going from cooperation in building large-scale
infrastructures, over the design of regional socio-economic policies, to cooperation to
stabilize financial markets.Whether these regional policy packages are effective or not
is a matter of public, political and academic debates.
... Concentrating on indicator-based monitoring systems, previous assessments reached the following conclusions (De Lombaerde et al., 2008a, 2008bDe Lombaerde et al., 2010): First, most of the systems are conceptually underdeveloped and indicator selection lacks clarity. As an illustration, around 30 per cent of the indicators included in the indicator systems worldwide do not directly measure an aspect of the regional integration process itself. ...
... The EU has attempted to export its model of "implementation-oriented" monitoring using its inter-regional negotiation and cooperation channels, which have historically included an important component of "region-building" (De Lombaerde and Schulz, 2009;Lenz, 2009Lenz, , 2012. In most of the monitoring tools financially supported by the EU cooperation budget, the policy implementation category is typically the most important indicator category (De Lombaerde et al., 2008a, 2008bDe Lombaerde et al., 2010). ...
Purpose
African regional integration and market-building processes have not lived up to their expectations in terms of the development of intra-regional international business and the contribution to reaching broader socioeconomic development goals. The purpose of this paper is to critically reflect on the indicator-based monitoring tools that have been designed and used to assess these processes.
Design/methodology/approach
The assessment is based on a comparative analysis of all relevant cases for which information is publicly available. Complementary expert opinion has also been taken into account.
Findings
This study finds that there is room for improvement of the existing monitoring systems, both with respect to their governance and technical aspects, so that they can have more impact on the respective integration processes and can better guide the business strategies.
Originality/value
This is the first systematic comparative assessment of indicator-based monitoring systems for African regional integration.
... The experiences of constructing other systems of regional monitoring were taken into account during the construction of the PRARI Toolkit (De Lombaerde, Estevadeordal and Suominen 2008;De Lombaerde et al. 2010). In turn, there is an awareness of the lack of regional monitoring activities in South America, particularly with regard to the development of indicator systems, compared to other regions. ...
... When exploring the experiences with other monitoring systems based on indicators at the regional level, we find that, among other factors, local participation and leadership are essential for developing and implementing these types of systems (De Lombaerde, Pietrangeli and Weeratunge 2008;De Lombaerde et al. 2010). To respond to this need, the methodological approach which was used to construct these indicators was participatory action research (PAR) (Amaya and Yeates 2015). ...
This PRARI Toolkit is the culmination of the work carried out in the area of regional indicators development of the project on Poverty Reduction and Regional Integration (PRARI), coordinated by Professor Nicola Yeates at the Open University (UK).
The two-year project, carried out during 2014-2015, examines what regional institutional practices and methods of regional policy formation are conducive to the emergence of embedded pro-poor health strategies, and what national, regional and international actors can do to promote these policies.
The PRARI Toolkit is one of the most important results of PRARI. We hope that it will be used by different South American stakeholders - officials of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) (including the Institute of South American Governance (ISAGS), which contributed to its development) and national officials to monitor the regional health policies in UNASUR. This Toolkit is focused on access to primary healthcare and access to medicines. The indicator system has not been designed as a static system or as a final proposal. Its innovation consists of the participatory approach used to develop it in collaboration with potential users of the system.
... Al desarrollar este compendio, se han tenido en cuenta las experiencias de construcción de otros sistemas de monitoreo regionales (De Lombaerde, Estevadeordal and Suominen 2008;De Lombaerde et al. 2010). A su vez, hay consciencia sobre la falta de actividades de monitoreo regionales en Suramérica, especialmente en relación con el desarrollo de Sistemas de indicadores, en comparación con otras regiones. ...
... Al explorar las experiencias con otros sistemas de monitoreo basados en indicadores a nivel regional encontramos que entre otros factores, la participación y el liderazgo local son esenciales para desarrollar e implementar este tipo de sistemas (De Lombaerde, Pietrangeli y Weeratunge 2008;De Lombaerde et al. 2010). Para responder a esta necesidad, el enfoque que fue utilizado para construir estos indicadores fue la investigación acción participativa (PAR por sus siglas en inglés) (Amaya y Yeates 2015). ...
Este compendio es la culminación del trabajo realizado en el área de desarrollo de indicadores del proyecto sobre Reducción de Pobreza e Integración Regional (RePIR) - Poverty Reduction and Regional Integration (PRARI), coordinado por Nicola Yeates (The Open University (UK).
El proyecto de dos años analizó cuales prácticas y métodos institucionales de diseño e implementación de políticas regionales conducen al surgimiento de estrategias en el área de salud enfocadas hacia la reducción de pobreza y qué pueden hacer los actores regionales, junto con los nacionales e internacionales, para promover estas políticas.
El compendio es uno de los productos más importantes de PRARI. Se espera que sea utilizado por diferentes stakeholders suramericanos y/o funcionarios de UNASUR (e ISAGS, que también contribuyó a su desarrollo) y por funcionarios nacionales para monitorear las políticas regionales de salud en UNASUR. La versión actual del compendio se enfoca en el acceso a la atención primaria de salud y el acceso a medicamentos. El sistema de indicadores no ha sido pensado como un sistema estático ni una propuesta final. Su novedad consiste en el método participativo utilizado en su desarrollo con la participación de los potenciales usuarios del sistema.
... Taking into account that experiences with other indicator-based monitoring systems in regional contexts have revealed, among other things, that stakeholder participation and local ownership are crucial success factors in developing and implementing such systems (De Lombaerde, Pietrangeli and Weeratunge 2008; De Lombaerde et al. 2010), the approach followed in this project right from the start was a participatory action research (PAR) approach (Amaya and Yeates 2015). This means, among other things, that the (potential) users of the end product have been integrally involved from the outset in the conceptualization, development, rollout and eventual deployment of the toolkit of indicators. ...
While important progress has been made in the past five years, Southern Africa continues to experience the most severe HIV epidemic in the world, with nine countries (Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe) reporting over 10% adult HIV prevalence compared with the global mean of 0.8%. In addition to HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria also cause a large part of the disease burden in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region. Appropriate monitoring has the potential to help identify policy gaps, support decision-making and refine existing health policies that address these diseases.
The task that the team had in the indicator development chapter of PRARI was to facilitate the collaborative or joint development of a set of indicators that can be used by (mainly) regional health policy makers in assisting them to monitor regional health policy change and implementation that affects the most vulnerable. This toolkit is thus a guide to the implementation of an indicator system to measure regional policy change and pro-poor regional health policy successes targeted at HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria in the SADC context. Whilst it is acknowledged that many other diseases are also a priority for host countries, we have chosen to concentrate this toolkit on HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria because they disproportionately affect the poor.
The pro-poor aspects of the policy change measured through this toolkit are an important component in terms of added value for SADC. Clearly provision of treatment for the three diseases covered either at free or at subsidised rates is an important “pro poor aspect” of policy in many countries for dealing with the diseases which have a disproportionate impact on the poorer members of society. By pro-poor, as indicated in the section on definitions, the team means economic policies that speak to or reflect the interests of vulnerable groups (especially women) including those in rural communities, indigenous groups and urban slum dwellers. The toolkit aims amongst others to capture limitations which the health sector in many countries may have in addressing structural issues that make the poor more vulnerable or at risk. A critical dimension of the toolkit is gauging the extent to which regional policies aimed at addressing these diseases reflect concerns of the poor. The toolkit reflects the manner in which regional policies are translated into domestic policy.
Working with sustainability goals at the local level places large requirements on developing and integrating priorities within the budgeting and organization of local government. This study reviews how selected Swedish municipalities have dealt with developing local sustainability processes, in particular in regard to the Aalborg Declaration commitments. The study highlights difficulties, including the lack of funding and staff time for clearly relating to outside sustainability documents and strategies. It also focuses on the requirement for dedicated resources to development, prioritization and follow‐up of sustainability goals, especially in smaller municipalities.
