Towards a development measurement model

PUNCHLINE

Ike Seneres

As a member country of the United Nations (UN), we are bound by our international obligations to comply with global development measurement programs such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Human Development Index (HDI). Part of these obligations is to report factual and truthful data from below, and to accurately integrate these data at the top.

In theory, all the data from below are supposed to be subsets of the data at the top, meaning that there is no other proper way to gather the data but to collect it from below, as a necessary step prior to integrating it at the top. As it is meant to be, the data at the top are not supposed to be estimates, but are supposed to be aggregates of the component data from below.

Just to set the record straight, we have to clarify the difference between a census and a survey. A census is supposed to be a general count of all qualified respondents in a defined data universe. On the other hand, a survey is a limited count of random respondents, usually involving only a sample data universe of about 1,200 people more or less.

Very clearly, we should only report census data to the UN, and not survey data, as far as MDG and HDI data is concerned. Very clearly as well, the census should be conducted at all levels, from the barangay level all the way up to regional level, and it is at that level where the integration of the national aggregated data should start and end.

Although the data outputs that are being targeted by MDG and HDI are very much different from each other, there are six common components, and for easier recall, I have come up with the acronym JEWELS for that purpose, which is short for Justice, Education, Wellness,Employment, Livelihood and Safety. All of these components could be delivered either online or offline.

Among these six components, development measures are very clear for Education, Wellness,Employment, Livelihood and Safety. That leaves only one component that has no clear development measure, and that is Justice. The measure for education is the illiteracy rate, the measure for wellness is the mortality rate, the measure for employment is the unemployment rate, the measure for livelihood is the poverty rate, and the measure for safety is the crime rate.

As it is now, various facilities are already available for telelearning, for telemedicine, for telematching, for telemarketing and for telesafety. Again, what are lacking are facilities for telejustice, which is not really surprising, because the development measures are not clear for the justice component either. In some countries, the development measures for safety and justice are combined.

For lack of a better term, it would be good if we could come up with a development measure that we could probably call the “injustice rate”. There are many ways of measuring injustice, but again for lack of an official definition at this time, we could probably start by counting the “injustice rate” as the percentage of people who do not have access to the services of lawyers.

Again due to the lack of an official development measure, I have come up with the acronym CRES, which is a complete policy framework that includes Criminal Justice, Restorative Justice, Environmental Justice and Social Justice. Varied as they are the common denominator in the framework is still access to the services of lawyers.

For practical reasons, I think that it would only be possible to measure “injustice” in terms of being denied Criminal Justice. We could define this to mean not having access to the services of a lawyer, such that a complainant could not get to the point of being heard by a prosecutor. Fortunately, access to the services of a lawyer could be made possible either through the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) or through the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and other lawyer groups.

Over and above the complex conceptual frameworks, it is easier to understand that access to Justice means access to lawyers, access to Education means access to teachers, access to Wellness means access to doctors, access to Employment means access to employers, access to Livelihood means access to buyers, and access to Safety means access to policemen.

All told, the true measure of good governance is really the ability of local government officials to lower the ratings of their jurisdictions in all of the development measures namely the injustice rate, the illiteracy rate, the mortality rate, the unemployment rate, the poverty rate and the crime rate. These should be the campaign promises of local politicians, and their lack of performance in lowering these ratings should be the basis for their removal by way of recall elections.

Again for practical reasons, good governance is too important to leave in the hands of local politicians. Ideally, all local residents should get involved in local governance to make it good, not only to remove corruption, but also to lower their ratings in the development measures. The truth is, it is corruption that prevents the achievement of high ratings in these development measures.

For feedback, email iseneres@yahoo.com or text +639083159262