OROMIA STATE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE

Department of Human Resource Management and Leadership

Assessment of the Practice of Good Governance in Addis Ababa: A Survey of

Selected Public Sectors in Kolfe Keraniyo Sub City

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts Degree in Leadership and Change Management

By: Solomon Abate

June, 2018

Batu, Ethiopia

1
 OROMIA STATE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE

Department of Human Resource Management and Leadership

Assessment of the Practice of Good Governance in Addis Ababa: A Survey of

Selected Public Sectors in Kolfe Keraniyo Sub City

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts Degree in Leadership and Change Management

By: Solomon Abate

Advisor: Hailemichael Dadi (PhD Candidate)

June, 2018

Batu, Oromia, Ethiopia

2
 Declaration

I, the under listed prospective graduates in Leadership and Change Management ( LCM) field
of study declare that this research paper “Assessment of the Significance and Practice of
Good Governance in Addis Ababa: A Survey of Selected Public Sectors in Kolfe Keraniyo
Sub City:” is my original work and that all sources of the materials in the research paper have
been duly acknowledged. The matter embodied in this research work has not been submitted
earlier for award of any Master‟s degree or BA degree to the

best of my knowledge and belief.

Name Sign. Date

Solomon Abate

ii
 Statement of Certification

This is to certify that this thesis entitled “Assessment of the Significance and Practice of
Good Governance in Addis Ababa: A Survey of Selected Public Sectors in Kolfe Keraniyo
Sub City” submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the MA
Degree in Leadership and Change Management to the School of Leadership and Governance
in Oromia State University, through the Department of Human Resource Management and
Leadership, done by Solomon Abate, Id.No PGP/LCM/08/E/0082 is an authentic work
carried out by him under my supervision. The matter embodied in this thesis has not been
submitted earlier for award of any degree or diploma to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Advisor:
Signature:
Date:
 Acknowledgment

First and for most, I would like to thank the Almighty God for his support to make my dream
true. My heartfelt thanks go to my advisor Ato Hailemichael Dadi (Phd Candidate) for his
valuable advices and constructive comments and the time he dedicated until the finalization
of this paper. I would never forget the shares of my family members, my wife Emebet
Asmare and my daughter, Meklit Solomon and my son, Tinsae Solomon; they were
continuously helping and encouraging me throughout working the paper. I would also like to
thank Ato Nigatu Balcha and his wife Kidist Hailemariam for their moral and material
support while the paper was under process. Lastly, I am very grateful for those public sectors,
respondents and officials who played greater role in the study by filling the questionnaires
and responding interviews.
 Table of Contents
Contents
Pages
Statement of Declaration......................................................................................................ii
Statement of Certification....................................................................................................iii
Acknowledgment….............................................................................................................iv
Table of Content....................................................................................................................v
List of Acronyms.................................................................................................................viii
List of Tables.......................................................................................................................ix
Abstract.................................................................................................................................x

CHAPTER ONE........................................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................1

1. Background of the Study............................................................................................................1

1.2. Statement of the problem..........................................................................................................3

Research Questions.....................................................................................................................5

Objectives of the Study................................................................................................................................5

General Objective..................................................................................................................5

Specific Objectives................................................................................................................6

Significance of the study..............................................................................................................................6

The scope of the Study...............................................................................................................6

Limitations of the Study...............................................................................................................................7

1.8 Organization of the Study...........................................................................................................7

CHAPTER TWO.......................................................................................................................................8

LTERATURE REVIEW...............................................................................................................................8

The Theoretical Literature...........................................................................................................8

The Significance and Dimension of Good Governance................................................................9

The Significance of Good Governance..........................................................................................................9

Dimension of Good Governance................................................................................................................10

Elements of Good governance..................................................................................................10

Participation 10

2.3.2 Rule of Law.........................................................................................................................11

Transparency 11

Responsiveness..........................................................................................................................................12

Consensus Oriented...................................................................................................................................12

Equity and Inclusiveness.............................................................................................................................13

Effectiveness and Efficiency........................................................................................................................13

Accountability 14

Governance and Decentralization..............................................................................................................14

Governance.........................................................................................................................14

2.4.2. Decentralization.....................................................................................................................17

Public Sector Institutional Capacity Building for Good Governance...........................................................18

Good Governance in Ethiopian Context.....................................................................................................21

CHAPTER THREE...................................................................................................................................26

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................26

Data Type and Sources...............................................................................................................................26

Tools of Data Collection..............................................................................................................................26

Data collection procedure..........................................................................................................................27

Target Population and Sample Selection....................................................................................................27

Sampling Design and Procedures...............................................................................................................28

CHAPTER FOUR....................................................................................................................................30

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION...............................................................................................30

Introduction...............................................................................................................................................30

Response Rate of Respondents..................................................................................................................30

Demographic Profile of Respondents.........................................................................................................30

Source: Survey questionnaire......................................................................................................31

5.1. Participation.........................................................................................................................32

Effectiveness and Efficiency........................................................................................................................38

Accountability.............................................................................................................................................44

Transparency..............................................................................................................................................48

The Rule of Law..........................................................................................................................................52

Analyises and Discussion of Additional Questions......................................................................................54

CHAPTER FIVE......................................................................................................................................63

MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMONDATIONS...........................................................63

Findings 63

Conclusions................................................................................................................................................65

Recommendations.....................................................................................................................................68

REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................70

APPENDICES.........................................................................................................................................74
Acronyms

CBOS Community Based Organizations

CSOs Civil Society Organizations
DIP Development International Program
ECA Economic Commission for Africa
FDRE Federal Democratic Republic Of Ethiopia
GOFORGOLD Good Governance for Local Development
FEACC Federal Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission

IDEA International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

MoFED Ministry of Finance and Economy Development

NAP The National Action Plan

PASDEP Plan for Accelerated Sustainable Development to End Poverty

SDPRP Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Program
UGGP Urban Good Governance Project
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Programs
UNO United Nations Organization
USAID United States Agency for International Development
 LIST OF TABLES

Table No Table Title Pages

Table 1.3 Number of Civil Servants in the Sample Public Sector-------------------------29

Table 1.4 Demographic Profile of Respondents---------------------------------------------31

Table 2.4 Perception of Public Servants on participation in their sectors----------------32
Table 3.4 Service User Respondents‟ Attitude on Participation in the Public Sectors- -34
Table 4.4 Responses of Public Servants regarding Efficiency & Effectiveness---------38

Table 5.4 Responses of Service Users‟ regarding Efficiency & Effectiveness-----------41

Table 6.4 Responses of Public Servants on Questions of Accountability-----------------44

Table 7.4 Responses of public sector employees on Questions of Accountability-------46
Table 8.4 Responses Service Users on Questions of Accountability-----------------------47
Table 9.4 Responses of Public Servants on Questions of Transparency------------------48
Table 10.4 Public servants‟ Attitude about the Questions of Transparency---------------50
Table 11.4 Service user responses about questions of transparency-------------------------51
Table 12.4 Perception of service users on the questions pertaining to the rule of law----52
Table 13.4 Perception of public servants on the condition of hiring employ in public
sector 54
Table 14.4 Civil servant perception about promotion of employees in the
public sectors 54
Table 15.4 Service users‟ responses on good governance 55
Table 16.4 Reasons of service users for rating governance in public sector poor and
very poor ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 55
Table 17.4 Service users suggestions for good governance is to be prevalent------------56
Table 18.4 Civil servant responses on the possible outcome of absence of
good governance 56
 ABSTRACT

Good governance appears to be the heart of democratic values and principles which includes
participation, effectiveness and efficiency, transparency, accountability and rule of law. The
study focused on the Significance and Practice of Good Governance in Addis Ababa City, the
case of Kolfe Keanyo sub-city administration. Based on the analysis conducted using five
core elements of good governance namely accountability, transparency, effectiveness and
efficiency and participation and rule of law, different achievements and failures were
observed. In this study, the lack of good governance in Kolfe Keanyo sub-city administration
emanates due to the capacity and ill commitment tends to reduce the effectiveness of those
public sectors. Inadequate educational qualification of both political and non-political
echelons, poor service facilities, poor management and limited budget are some of the major
causes for the prevalence of poor governance in the sub-city. The findings indicated that
there is poor accountability, absence of transparency and ill commitment at the sub-city
level. The poor capacity and absence of high skilled personnel resulted poor service delivery.
In order to tackle these problems and to enhance the quality of services, upgrading the skill
of employees, installing information technology tools, implementing BPR and BSC to create
the sustainable and conducive atmosphere, developing public /private/ partnership,
establishing the ethical office at the sub-city level are some of the major recommendations. In
addition to this, the necessity of engaging the society in full scale participation, the need for
trainings, workshop, seminars, on good governance, increasing implementing capacity of the
public sectors, the necessity of using different mass medias for good governance issues,
struggling against corruptions are recommended for the failures in public sectors in their run
forward to achieve good governance.

Key Words: Accountability, Effectiveness and efficiency, Participation, Rule of law,

Transparency.
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1. Background of the Study

The concept of governance is not new. Yet, it was since early 1980s that it has emerged as a
popular agenda of development literature and appeared in the discussion about socialorga
nization (Aminuzzaman, 2007:13) (SHRDC, 2004:1)0. Since then, however, consensus has
not reached on among different stakeholders around a single definition of governance (ibid), (
Plumptre and Graham, 1999). However, despite the wide array of governance definitions by
different authors and organizations, one should notconclude that there is a total lack of
definitional consensus in this area. That is because most definitions of governance accept the
importance of a capable state operating under the rule of law (Kraay, 2003). Although
governance has varied definitions it is relevant to this research to use the widely accepted
definitions of governance which are coined by UNDP and Commission on Global
Governance. According to UNDP (1997) Governance is a multi dimensional concept that
covers all aspects of exercise of authority through formal and informal institutions in the
management of the resource endowments of a state.

The term „Good governance has been extensively used in the last three and half decade and is
mainly of a political and technocratic term which is different from governance and suggests
that governance should be “good” not “bad‟ . It is a term that symbolizes the paradigm shift
of the role of government (Holzer Marc & Kim Byong-Joon, 2002; Stella Ladi, 2008). And
good governance is an evaluative term which implies thata number of desirable qualities,
including transparency, inclusiveness, professionalism and effectiveness should be included
in decision making processes, and a number of desired effects such as respect for civil and
political rights, economic development, poverty reduction, political stability and individual
security ought to be achieved by policies.

Though governance in Africa has been debated since the 1960s following the independence
of many African countries from western colonization, it was recently that has become the
leading socio-political agenda of the continent and that democratic politics and better
governance have taken a significant leap in Africa since the last two decades. Competitive

1
political parties have come to power in many African countries and the political space has
been gradually liberalized though still numerous challenges regarding political governance
are widely observed in many African countries (ECA, 2005). Ethiopia, after a long years
tradition of centralized government and governance structure, a decentralized form of
government and governance structure has been adopted since 1991 with four tires of
government structures, federal, regional & woreda(city administration/government) and
Keble. This marked a dramatic change in terms of the tradition of the country‟s governance.
And since 2000 national declaration policies have formed part of a large scale reform of
government resulting in the creation of institutional and legal frameworks for urban local
government authorities which enabled the formerly marginalized municipalities to function as
independent local authorities. The main objective has been to create and strengthen urban
local government that will ensure public participation, democratization, and enhanced
decentralized service delivery through institutional reforms, capacity building, systems
development and training (Ministry of Work and Urban Development, 2007).

The government of Ethiopia using its Plan for Accelerated and Sustainable Development to
End Poverty (PASDEP) has given emphasis to continue supporting the enhancement of
democratization and improved governance. It recognizes that democracy and good
governance are necessary conditions for poverty reduction. To this end PASDEP promotes a
more conducive environment to facilitate enhanced degrees of popular participation and
increasing mechanisms of accountability, responsiveness and effectivenessof public
institutions (MoFED, 2007).
1.2. Statement of the problem

One of the areas of consensuses reached by the world leaders in September 2000 in their
Millennium Summit General /Assembly of the United Nations conference for the Declaration
of Millennium Development Goal was Democracy and Good Governance. That is why
governance occupies a central stage in the development discourse and is considered as a
crucial element to be incorporated in the development strategy ( Aberbach, J.D. and Rockman,
B.A, 2009). In Ethiopia the concept and the practice of good governance is a new
phenomenon. As one of the African countries, Ethiopia is trying to achieve the millennium
development goals, accepted the importance of good governance and striving to achieve it.
However, Ethiopia like any other African country has faced a number of challenges in
democratization and good governance building processes. Ethiopian government began to
implement the practice of good governance due to service delivery dissatisfaction and
growing concensus that it is one of the root causes of all round crises in the country. In order
to address the gaps identified, the government developed a multi-sectoral national capacity
building strategy which advocates the principles of decentralization, regional autonomy, and
efficiency to enhance popular participation and to promote good governance, accountability
and transparency (ECA, 2015).

Most importantly when the policy of decentralization was proclaimed in 2000, according to
Ministry of Work and Urban Development (2012), the main objectives has been to create and
strengthen urban local government that will ensure the traits of good governance such as
public participation, democratization, and enhance decentralized service delivery through
institutional reforms, capacity building, systems development and training. Formerly in its
strategy, Ethiopia‟s Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Program (SDPRP), the
issue of good and decentralized governance was considered as one of the building block in
the struggle against poverty. As clearly stated in the Ethiopia‟s guiding strategic framework
for the five-year period 2005/06-2010/11 commonly known as a Plan for Accelerated and
Sustained Development to End Poverty (PASDEP), programs aimed at strengthening the
democratization processes are being taken step by step in the form of Civil Service Reform,
Justice system Reform, Improved Democratic Governance, and Decentralization which
resulted significant achievements in the last few years (MoFED, 2013).

In general, though the government of FDRE has taken important measures to promote good
governance by ratifying a number of international human right instruments, and the FDRE
constitution adopted multi-party government system and accepted most of the internationally
recognized human rights conventions since 1991, the process of good governance building is
facing serious and complex challenges. The challenges are mainly related with that of the
infancy of building good governance in the country (MoFED, 2013). According to the
Ministry, the major challenges include lack of adequate awareness about human rights among
the public, the limited democratic culture and experience in the country, limited participation
of citizens in governance, lack of adequate and appropriate policies and laws in some areas
and capacity limitations of law enforcement and governance organs of the government.

Based on the state governance survey conducted by the Economic Commission for Africa for
28 countries, Ethiopia‟s performance in all indices of measuring good governance has fallen
below the sample average which is 53% while the sample index of Ethiopia is 36% and the
same trend persists in the country governance profile by subsequent ECA‟s governance
survey of 2013. This clearly, according to the documents, shows that Ethiopia is still not good
in good governance even as far as African standards concerned. In relation to Resource
Allocation Index in the area of public sector management and institution, Ethiopia scores 3.1
averages in which 6 points is the highest and 1 is the lowest point. Especially in
transparency, accountability and corruption in public sector the country score below average,
2.5 points (ECA, 2015).

Being aware of these facts, PASDEP recognizes about the need for more efforts to make local
authorities more transparent, accountable and efficient in their response to the needs of the
people. Therefore, in order to know how far good governance in the country progresses
and/or face obstacles, the activities of making regular assessments and measurements of
governance condition of the country is necessary (MoFED, 2013).

Kolfe keraniyo sub city has been faced several good governance problems that emanate due
to limited budget and lack of commitment in various governmental offices. The gap of
capacity building and ill commitment of employees and leaders tend to reduce the
effectiveness of the public sectors. The lack of executives‟ educational qualification, poor
facilities, poor management and the lack or absence of strategically oriented training are said
to be the major causes of the prevalence of poor government in the sub city. The improper
utilization of urban land, inadequate sanitary system, the pollution of environment also seems
to be other problems (Kolfe keraniyo Administration, 2015).
There fore, conducting an assessment on the current practice and prevalence of governance
along with identifying the magnitude of the above mentioned problems and other draw backs
in public sectors found in Kolfe Keraniyo Sub city of Addis Ababa City Administration was the
focus of the study because of the following reasons:

1. assessing the condition of good governance of the public sectors found in the country will
help to further strengthening total endeavors of the country for good governance
establishment,

2. since researches conducted concerning such issue at the local level in the country in
general and in Addis Ababa City Administration in particular are very few, the findings
of the study will contribute something important for other researchers in the future.

Research Questions

In order to recommend alternative solution, the study was focused on addressing the
following basic research questions.

1. To what extent does good governance prevail in the public/government sectors both in
principle and practice?

2. What perception has the public officials and civil servants about good governance?

3. What are the observations of the society (service users) regarding the performance of
public sectors in relation to good governance?

4. What are the major problems which hinder the prevalence of good governance in
public/government isectors?

5. What are the consequences of the absence of good governance over the public users,
sectors and the sub city?

Objectives of the Study

General Objective

The general objective of the study was to assess how good governance was prevalent in
public (government) sectors at local level in the study area.
 Specific Objectives

The study had the following specific objectives.

1. To examine to what extent good governance was prevalent in public sectors both in
principle and on the ground;

2. Assesses the perception of public officials and civil servants towards good governance,

3. To investigate the perception of the society concerning how prevalent good governance
in public sectors;

4. To identify major setbacks of good governance in public sectors;

5. To explore the consequences of lack of good governance on the public.

Significance of the study

Good governance is said to be the basis of development. To ensure good governance in the
sub-city, the state organs should operate in the manner of independency, accountability and
transparency. The researcher believes that the result of the assessment will help the policy
makers, the administrators, the city managers and other stakeholders who are working with
the government service provision to improve the governance so that the socio-economic
development of the residents realized in the sub-city.

On the other hand, it is very important to introduce the city governance and to assess the
status of good governance and recommendation will form an important base for policy
strategy and forward looking plan being prepared by the city administration. Furthermore, the
result of the research will fill the gap in the knowledge pertaining to the problem especially
for service providers and for replicating the research.

The scope of the Study

This study was focused on the practice, principles and significance of good governance in
Addis Ababa city with specific reference to KolfeKeraniyo Sub-city since 2013 up to 2017
(the five year practices). The targeted groups of this research were the public sector
employees including officials and service users of the sub-city. These targeted groups were
the source of data or information about the practice of good governance and the existing
 strength and weaknesses of good governance in the sub-city administration. The response of
the respondent was gathered to rate the over all performance of city administration so as to
identify the principles of good governance in the sub-city administration.

Limitations of the Study

There were various factors thatinfluenced and affected the research. Among these, some of
the respondents were unwilling to give reliable and valid data especially about their personal
information. Some of the respondent in the sub-city and administration departments refused
to give information and turn back interview guides. The officials of sub city were abscentin
office by the reason of close meeting. Respondents feared to tell the reality due to the
political nature of the case. Financial constraints for collecting sufficient data from extended
number of sample respondents, time and social constraints for data gathering and analysis
were other limitations of the study. The overlap of the work and the interruption of study
because of government work and social problems were also problems.

1.8 Organization of the Study

The study is organized in five chapters and highlights of each chapter are presented as
follows: Chapter one introduced the research topic and outlined the significance of the study,
statement of the problem, the objective of the study, the research questions and significant of
the study. Chapter two is concerned about therelated literature on the topic. Important
theorists and researchers also mentioned with an overview of the key concepts they have
developed or researched. Chapter three is concerned with the research methodology. The
research design, target population, sampling size and technique, data collection procedure and
instruments, data analysis method and ethical considerations are discussed here. Chapter four
presents a visual representation of the results of the data in the form of tables. And also data
presentation &discussion of the resulting data obtained through questionnaire also identified
and outlined briefly. Chapter five includes Summary, conclusion and recommendation. The
findings are related to the research questions and appropriate recommendations based on
research results are made in this chapter.
 CHAPTER TWO

LTERATURE REVIEW

The Theoretical Literature

Good governance became part of the development vocabulary in 1980 century under
theinfluence of the World Bank development program to replace structure adjustment
whichbased itself on neo-liberal macro economic reforms, privatization of trade and
reducingthe role of the state in economical issues. In general, good governance is about
democracy, transparency, equality, property rights, combating corruption, self administration,
and responsiveness (Seppanene, 2009).

According to the United Nation Development Program (UNDP, 2011), governanceis the
exercise of economical, political and administrative authority to manage a countriesaffairs at
all levels.Governance comprises the mechanisms, processes, and institutions through
whichcitizens and groups articulate their interests, exercises their legal rights, meet
theirobligations and mediate their differences.

According to Seppanene (2009), good governance can be defined as a democraticgovernance

to make fair rules of accountability, transparency, participation and rule oflaw.According to
Jaya Chaturvedi, (2009) good governance is the exercise of legitimatepolitical power
andformulation and implementation of policies and programs that areequitable, transparent,
non-discriminatory, socially sensitive, participatory, and above alland accountable to
people.Besides, there could be specific requirements in programs in different contexts
whichwould be necessary to provide for good goverrnance.

According to Ombudsman (2013), good governance involves, an efficient public service,

anindependent judicial system, and legal framewrk to enforce contracts, and
accountableadministrative of public funds, an independent public auditor responsible to
arepresentative legislature respect the rule of law and human rights at all levels ofgovernment
a pluralistic structure and a free press.

The World Bank (2009) in its document on governance and development definedgood
governance as the manner in which the power is exercised in the management of thecountry‟s
economics and social resources for the development.According to theb73rd Indian
 constitutional amendment Good governance become a very fashionable concept in the
literature on political science and public administration. Itis also widely used byinternational
agencies, such as, the United Nations, the WorldBank and IMF.

The World Bank has identified aspects of good governance such as, politicalaccountability,
freedom of association and participatiion, rule of law and independence ofjudiciary,
bureaucratic accountability, freedom of information and exprression, a soundadministrative
system, which is leading to efficiency and effectiveness, cooperation between the government
and civil society organizatiions.

According to World Bank, the concept of good governance includes the politicalstability, the
quality of policy making as well as implementation, the quality of publicservice delivery,
quality of regulations independent judiciary, the control of corruptionand rent seeking.Good
governance aims at enhancing the quality of life and involves governing theprocess which
strives for maximum good for the maximum number of people.According to M.P.Van DIJK.J
Fransen, (2008), good governance is thenegotiation by all the stakeholders in an issue of
improved public policy out come andagreed governance principles which are both
implementation and regulatory evaluated byall stakeholdrs.

The Significance and Dimension of Good Governance

The Significance of Good Governance

According to the World Bank (2009), ood governance is a broad reform strategy to make
government more open,responsive, accountable, democratic, as well as strengthen institutions
of civic societyand regulate private sector.Good governance is a combination of efficiency
concrns of public management and accountability concerns of governance.

The Bank identified the major points as the significance of good governance such as it is a
prerequisite for promoting people centered development,improvesthe quality of life of
citizens,enhances the effectiveness and efficiency of administration, establishes the
legitimacy and credibility of institution, secures the freedom of information and expression,
provides citizen friendly and citizen caring administration, ensures accountability,uses
information technology based services to improve citizen-governmentinterface,improves or
enhances the productivity of employees, and promotes organizational pluralism, state,
market, and civil society organizationfor the governance.
 There fore, good governance relates to the quality ofgovernance through attributes such as,
participation, empowerment, accountability, equity and justice. Good governance includes
the capacity toformulate and implements sound policies by the government with due respect
forcitizens.

Dimension of Good Governance

The World Bank considered good governance as a sound management developmenthaving

four major dimensions, such as, public sector management, accountability, thelegal frame
work for development, and transparency and information accessibility. In thisreason, good
governance is an essential component of sound economic policies. TheBank identified three
distinct aspects of governance, such as, political regime (whichmay be, parliamentary,
presidential, and military or civilian) processes by whichtheauthority is exercised in the
management of a country‟s economic and social resourcesand the capacity of governments to
design, formulate and implement policies.

Elements of Good governance

The UNDP report (2009) acknowledge that participation, rule of law, transparency, fairness
and inclusiveness, responsiveness, consensus oriented, effectiveness and efficiency,
accountability and strategic visionare elements of good governance. Each of the
majorelements is discussed as follows.

Participation

According to Sharma, K.C (2010), participatiion is considered the core of goodgovernance.

According to him, governments are aiming to ensure the requisite freedom tothe citizens in
order to participate in the decision making process, articulate andrepresents which get
reflected in policies and programs. Participation is being lookedupon as atransformative
approach to development.

The participation of both men and women is a key corner stone of good
governance.Participation could be either direct or through legitimate intermediate institutions
orreprresentatives. It is important to point out that representative democracy dose
notnecessarily mean that the concerns of the most vulnerable in society would be take in
toconsideration in decision making. Participation needs to be informed and organized.
Thismeans the freedom of association and expression on the one hand and organized
civilsociety on the other hand (Common Wealth, Secretariat, 2011).

2.3.2 Rule of Law

According to the Common Wealth, Secretariat, (2011), governance does not imply arbitrary use
of authority.Any type of governance to be effective needs to be supplemented by a fair
legalframework. This should be supported by appropriate enforcement machinery
independentjudiciary which instills confidence in the people.Good governance requires fair
and just legal frame works that are enforcedimpartially. It also requires full protection of
human rights, particularly those ofminorities. Impartial enforcement of laws requires an
independent judiciary and animpartial and in corruptible police force.

Transparency

Transparency is any mechanism for adoptingreforms for responsive governance usually

implies the need to access the vitalinformation.Governments which operates secrecy is
moreprone to corruption as compared to governments which operate in
grateropenness.Therefore; transparency is an openness of governmental functioning and
regarded as anessential ingredient of democracy and the right to information as fundamental
democraticright (Jennfer Jalal, 2008).

Transparency and the right to information tends to remove unnecessary secrecysurrounding

the decision making process in the government and there by helps toimprove the quality of
decision making in public policy and administration. Thethe right to information legislation
enacted at the center and severalstates is a positive measure in ensuring transparency
(Litvackv, 2009).

Transparency is the decisions which are taken and their enforrcements are done in amanner
tthat follows rules and regulations. It is also means that information is freelyavailable and
directly accessible to those who will be affected by such decision and theirenforcement. It
also means that enough information is provided in easily understandableforms and media
(Jennfer Jalal, 2008).
 Responsiveness

According to Goetz and Gaventa (2008), responsiveness is the extent to which apublic service
agency demonstrates receptivity to the views, complaints and suggestionsof service users by
implementing changes to its own structure, culture and servicedelivery patterns in order to
deliver a more appropriate product. According to them,responsiveness also depends to a large
extent on the influence citizens have on thedesign, delivery and assessment of public services
and the interaction of three major factors such as the social, cultural and economic powers of
the client group in question withincivil society and its power to mobilize resources and
public concern to support itsdemands, the nature of polittical system that means the
configuration of the executive,legislative and judicial powers, the organization of political
competitions, thenumber and types of parties, their ideologies and memberships and the
nature and power of the state and its bureaucracies whether it is adevelopmental state or it has
the will and capacity to enforce change inthe culture and practices of bureaucracies, whether
there is a professional civilservices, whether the public service has internalized a commitment
to povertyreduction etc.

According to Goetz and Goventa (2008), good governance requires that the institutions and
processes try to serve allstakeholders within a reasonable time frame. In this reason, every
one who has theobligation to deliver service, has also the obligation to response for the
demand ofcustomers.

Consensus Oriented

According to the 2012 of FDRE higher government officials training manual ondemocratic
system, the full establishment of democratic culture and thought in a societycan be reflected
in the national consensus of its citizens around the basic principles andguide lines. These
basic principles and guide lines are equality; frreedom and rule of lawhave been identified as
important characteristics that rreflected in all eligible citizens.However, it does not mean that
every member of the society holds the commonunderstanding and attitudes towards each and
every issue, because there may be also differences that lead to raise questions in these basic
principles and guidelines. In suchsituations, democratic system can be used as a remedy to
compromise these differences.

According to Kous A, R.J AZAM (2009), consensus oriented means the basic principlesare
reflected in all eligible citizens being equal by the law and having equal access tolegislative
process. In this view, democracy requires three fundamental principles suchas, up ward
control i.e. the sovereignty residing as the lower level of authority, politicalequality, social
norms byindividuals and institutionally consider acceptable acts thatreflect the first two
principles of up ward. Therefore, consensus oriented is the commonunderstanding that is hold
by majoritty on basic principles and issues for building ofdemocracy and good governance.

There are several actors who have many complex view points in the given society.Good
governance requires the mediation of the different interests in the society to reachthe broad
consensus in the society on what is the best interests of the whole communityand how this
can be achieved. It also requires a broad and long term perspective on whatis needed for
sustainable human development and how to achieve the goals of suchdevelopment. This can
only be result from understanding of the historical, cultural andsocial contexts of a given
society (Pierre, J. and Peters, B.G, 2011).

Equity and Inclusiveness

Since governance structure and mechanisms aim at participation, they have topromote equity.
A society‟s well being and development depends upon ensuring that allthe members have a
stake and the role in it and are not excluded from the mainstreamactivities. This means,
Society‟s wellbeing depends on ensuring that its entiremember feel excluded from the
mainstreaming of society. This requires all groups, butparticularly the most vulnerable groups
have opprtunities to improve their wellbeing (Donker, H., &Zahir, S., 2008).

Effectiveness and Efficiency

According to Kaufmann, (2009), good governance relates to the governmenteffectiveness

which includes the quality of policy making and public service deliivery aswell as quality
ofregulation. In addition to this, as stated by the author, goodgovernance and new public
management need to aim effectiveness and efficiency inthe usage of resources in consonance
with the societal needs and demands.Good governance means that the processes and
institutions produce results thatmeet the needs of society while makiing the best uses of
resources at their disposal. Thepconcept of efficiency in the context of good governance also
covers the sustainable use ofnatural resources and the protection of the environment.
 Accountability

As stated by Donker, H., &Zahir, S., 2008), accountability is both answerability and
enforceability. Accountability is giving an account of action of public officials toinform
about and explain what they are doing, while enforceability is the capacity ofaccounting
agencies to impose sanctions on power holds that have violated their publicduties. The
objective of accountability is controlling the abuse of bureaucratic powerr and discretion as
well as an assurance that performance will be in accordance with standardsand quality.

As stated by Hifzainam, F. A. (2014), accountability could be the internal

hierarchy,legislature, judiciary, citizens and media.According to him, the accountability of
public administration has the following requirements such as making laws work as intended
which a minimum of waste and delay, exercisng lawful and sensible administration
discretion,ecommingnew policies and programme in existing policies and programmeas
needed to enhance citizen‟s confidence in the administrative institutions ofgovernment.

According to the author, accountability is a key requirement of good governance. Not only
governmentalinstitutions, also the private sectors and civil society organizations must
beaccountable to the public and to their institutional stakeholders who are accountable
towhom is varies depending on whether or not the decisions and actions which could betaken
are internal or external to organization or institution. In general, organization orinstitution is
accountable to these who will be affected by its decisions or actions.Accountability can not
be enforced with out transparency and rule of law. As weunderstand from the above
discussions it should be clear that good governance is an idealwhich is difficult to achieve in
its totality. The very few countries and societies havecome close to achieving good
governance in its totality. However, to ensure thesustainable human development actions
must be taken to work to wards this ideal withthe aim of making it in reality.

Governance and Decentralization

Governance

The term governance has several concepts. According to the Concise OxfordDictionary,
governance is an act or manner of governing and the office or functioning ofgoverning. It is
the process of decision making and the process by which decisions areimplemented or
notimplemented.Governance refers to the process of exercise of authority to govern people
orregulate the public affaires. It relates to the effective management of the affaires of
acountry at all levels, guaranting its territorial iintegrity, and securing the safety and overall
welfare of people (Sweta Mishra, 2008).

According to Sweta Misha, (2008), governance is the use of political authority andexercise of
control in a society in relation to the management of its resources for socialand economic
development.According to him, governance is the exercise of economic, political
andadministrative authority to manage nation‟s affaires at all levels.He also defines
governance as a process whereby citizen‟s needs andinterests are articulated for the positive
social and economic development of the entiresociety and in the light a perceived common
good. According to this concept, governance is more than government. It refers to the
political process that encompasses the wholesociety and contributes the making citizens,
active contributions to social contract thatbinds them together.

Angelo Bonfiglioli (2005), highlighted the folowing contextual uses of governance.

Governance as the Minimal State

In this context, the form of public intervention and the use of markets and quasi-markets to
deliver public services.As regards UK, the size of government were reduced by privatization
and cuts in the size of the civil service.

Governance as Corporate Governance

According to this interpretation, governance is the system by which organizationsare directed

and controlled.In this context, the role of governance is not concerned withrunning the
busiiness of the company, but, with giving overall directions to the enterpriseswith over
seeing and controlling the executive actions of management and with satisfyinglegitimate
expectations for accountability and regulations by the interests beyond thecorporate
boundaries.

Governance as New Public Management

In this context, governance calls for more steering providing impetus to otherforces rather
than rowing. Thus, the emphasis has been placed on enabling rather thanrowing. This means,
the government not the only service provider, rather it playsfacilitating role for other multi-
actors of governance, such as, citizens. Cooperatives,NGO‟S, research institutes, religious
leaders, finance institutions, political parties, thecivil societies, the Armed forces, individual
self help groups, community basedorganizations are the multi actors of governance. In this
case, the government has tocreate conducive situations for these actors to enable them to
provide services. Citizensare not only service receiver, but also they have to be service
provider.

Governance as Good Governance

According to World Bank (2009), goverrnance is the exercises of political power

tomangenations affaires.The Bank cameto realize that good governance is central for creating
and sustainingan environment which fosters strong and equitable development and it is an
essentialcomplement to sound economic policies.

Governance as a Socio-cybernetic System

According to Grindle, S.Merile, (2005), governance is the pattern or structures that emergesin
a socio-political system as a commonresult or out come of the interacting interventioneffort
of all involved actors. In other words, the policy out comes are not the product ofaction by
the government. The government may pass a law, but subsequently it interactswith local
governments, health authorities, the voluntary sector, the private sector, and inturn they
interact with one another.Socio-cybernetic approach views of governance are the result of
interactive, social, political, forms governing. In this context, there is a multi-ciplity of actors
specificto each policy area, interdependence among these socio-political administrative
actors, shared goals, blurred boundaries between public, private, and voluntary sectors
andmultiplying and new forms of action, intervention and control.

Governance as Self-organizing Networks

In this sense, governance is a broader term than government with servicesprovided by a

combination of government, private sector and the voluntary agencies. Net works are a wide
spread form of social co-ordination a managing inter organizational links is just as important
for private sector management. According to Grindle, S.Merile, (2005), thenetwork form of
governance high lights reputation, trust, reciprocity and mutualinterdependence. The
political, economical and social conditions are important forms ofgovernance.
2.4.2. Decentralization

In the present context of rapid social change and development activities, de-bureaucratization
and decentralization have been found to be much more appropriate to deal with contemporary
trends of globalization, liberalization and privatization. Decentralization is the transfer of
planning, decision making or administrative units, semi-autonomous organizations, local
governments, or non-governmental organizations. Decentralization is regarded as a necessary
condition of political social and economical development. It establishes the social harmony,
community spirit and political stability.However, it is not an end by if self, but it depends on
the circumstances under which thedecentralization occurs. Now a day, democratic
decentralization is a global phenomenon.It should be seen as a theory of development which
requires a varity of institutions forempowering and uplifting the marginalized and the poor.
Decentralization is expected towork for the building up of an administrative space at the
cutting edge level where thefelt needs of the poor could be ventilated. It is a prime
mechanism through which thedemocracy becomes truly representattive and responsive (CH.C
Prased, 2009).

With decentralization, the bureaucrats have to transfer the local functions to thestate and local
governments. This will bring the center of decision making nearer to thepeople and empower
the local administration in solving the civic problems. This will result in empowered
communities who will develop a conductive mind–set forparticipation and motivation. The
civil servants have to have commitment to strengthen the goals of public administration.
According to 73rd and 74th Indian ConstitutionalAmendment acts, the major steps have been
taken in the direction of decentralizationgovernance. The 73 rd Constitutional Amendment
Acts relates to introduce reforms in rurallocal bodies. Where as, the 74 th Constitutional
Amendment Act relates to bring reform inurban local bodies.

According to Dolly Mathew, (2009), the goal of these constitutional amendmentacts is to

integrate the concept of people‟s participation in a formal way with the planningprocess on
the one hand and the devolution of responsibility to the people themselves onthe other hand.
In contemporary settings, decentralization is in operation, politicaldecentralization, functional
decentralization, administrative decentralization andfinancial decentralization.

In political decentralization, the people are drawn in to decision-making process through

empowerment. It is the transfer of powers and responsibilities from the centralgovernment to
 autonomous and local tiers that have been democratically elected by their
constituencies.Functional decentralization, refers to transferring the subject specific function
to localtiers, issues that are studied are the transfer of functions in order to cable them
todischarge their functional roles. Administrative decentralization involves placing, planning,
andimplementation rresponsibilities with local bodies and assigning the roles, and
responsibilities to functionaries and elected members. Issues that are studied underthis are
participatory planning institutional mechanisms for planning, implementation, coordination,
monitoring, transparency, support system etc.

Financial decentralizationinvolves the developing powers with regard to taxation,funds and

expenditure upon local bodies in order to first improve the financial positionand the giving
them, the financial autonomy for planning and implementation as per localbodies. Issues that
are studied under this are collection of taxes by the local bodies, ownincome of
municipalities, devolution of funds by the state, criteriaformunicipalities, devolution of funds
and expenditure by municipalityas per local needs.

Public Sector Institutional Capacity Building for Good Governance

In the context of good governance, capacity is the ability of an institution of the governance
of legislator, executive and judiciary to perform its accountability or
politicalmandattedfuncttiions or roles efficiently and effectively.Thepolitical executives set
goals and broad strategic directions, but the soundinstitutional arrangements can determine
the vision of political leaders. The democraticgood governance need to be well nurtured
institutions particularly the civil serviceinstitutions.

According to Jaya Chturvedi, (2009), the civil services need to be retooled; trainedand re-
oriented to cope with governance and the development challenges. In order torealizethis, the
new principles to be followed are openness rather than serrecy, initiativerather than docile
and pliable obeisance democracy rather than authoritarian managementstructures,
nonhierarchical leader ship rather than corruption.

Good governance requires all government and non-government institutions offunction in

accordance with countries constitutional provisions, such as, rule of law, due-process of law,
cultures and traditions. Good governance is a development issue with thecapacity building
ramifications. Institutions can substantially bride the gap between theformal organizations of
government and their actual governing capacity. It is frequentlyunder stood that the quality of
government is equal to that of its effective institutions.However,the capacity of these new
institutions at the local level would depend onthe resources, infrastructure and the technical
expertise available with the personnel inthese institutions that are elected functionaries, the
local bureaucracy and the subjectmatter specialists such as, the state finance commission, and
the district committee besides the community which is stated to be an important contributor
to development inthe future(Jaya Chturvedi, 2009).

Accordingto UNDP (2009), capacity is the ability to perform functions, solvecrucial

problems, to set and achieve the desired goals. Thus, the capacity developmentcovers the
sustainable creation, utilization and retention oftthe capacity which will serveto reduce
poverty, improve self-rreliance, and the quality vulnerable peoples lives. TheUNDP focuses
on the capacity development is on promoting learning, boostingempowerment, building
social capital, creating an enabling environments integratingcultures and orienting behavior.

Capacity building is the development organizations core skills and capabilitiessuchas

leadership management of finance, and fund raising in order to build
organizationseffectiveness and sustainability. In this concept, the capacity building has
twocomponents such as, organizational and human. Organizational capacity building
involves both technical updating of the organization through periodic reviews and
thedevelopment of human capital through education and learning. Where as, human capacity
building is the process of assisting an individual or group to identify the key areas
ofdevelopment and gain the necessary insights for fuller exploitation of capacity. Itinvolves
building on the available knowledge base both in technical and human relationfields. In other
words, the capacity involves the general knowledge about all skills of leadership and manager
such as, technical, interpersonal, conceptual, communication and decision making skills.

As stated by FDRE Ombudsman (2013), capacity buldiing means, maximize thecapacity of

higher leadership, consolidate the capacity of human resource and changeagents, improve the
capacity of governmental institutions, their organization as well assystem of implementation
and competency of performance, maximize the conduct oftransparency and accountability.

According to FDRE the Civil Service Agency (2012), the institutions are requiredto plan and
carry out the following capacity building activities such asmaximizing the utilization of
existing capacity, train trainers of front the line staff, plan and conduct continuous training
programs based on the identification of thecritical skill gaps and through assessment of
human resource development need ofthe institution, mobilize internl and external resources
for capacity building, including themodern technology, and establish appropriate mechanisms
for collecting processing and maintaininginformation to facilitate continuous improvement of
service delivery effectivelyand efficiently.

According to FDRE five year growth and transformation plan (2010/11-2015/16), the goals
ofcapacity building are maximizing the capacity of higher leadership, consolidating the
capacity of human resource and change agent, developing the capacity of government
institution, maximizing change communication, maximizing the conduct of transparency and
accountability, fighting against corruption mal administration, rent seeking and attitudes,
maximizing the participation of community, ensuring the justice system transparency and
accountability, ensurimg judiciary independent, transparency and accountability, building a
political and economic community, creating one economic, political, communitty, ensure the
participation of people and improving the accessibility service delivery, fight against
corruption and rentseeking, create vibrant civil society.

The Human Strategies for Human Rights (HSHR) provides the capacity buildingservices
centering on the development of effectiveness, efficient and sustainable physicalworking
conditions for the promotion and protection of humanrights. It focuses on thetwo areas of
development such as, the employee‟s institution, and the organizationsthematic area of work.
The objective is to provide training and guidance that facilitatesthe development of
aprofession and ensures transparency and accountability of internalorganizations and
processes with respect to environment and internal equilibrium of theorganization.

Capacity building is very important to change the environment and continued thesystematic
pressure on the organizations which requires that stake holders are capable of with the
increased demands of the tasks. It calls society for a radical change inattitudes and behavior
of the personnel in the public administration system. Capacity isneeded for enhancement
assessment from time to time may enable the managers in takingtimely steps to wards
capacity building stake holders. For example, the ministry ofagriculture before contemplating
a subsidy on any item needs to be awarre of implicationof any subsidy in the world trade
organization. As we understand from the above several concepts institutional capacity
building at grass-root level is very important inorder to realize good governance properly.
Good Governance in Ethiopian Context

According to FDRE Civil Service Agency (2012), although Ethiopia has a longtradition of
various, governments, it has so far given little attention to good governancedue to the
orientation, attitude and work practices of the bureaucratic machineryestablished to carry out
highly centralized and control oriented government policies of thevarious regimes are ill
suited to the needs of the new policy environment in Ethiopia.According to this idea, since
the various governments were not democratic in nature, theydid not promote, rule of law,
participation, transparency and accountability.

According to FDRE Ombudsman (2013), before 1991, there was no goodgovernance in

Ethiiopia. The despotic monarchy and dicatorship form of governments, the violation of
fundamental rights and freedoms were the major problems of democracyand good
governance. After the down fall of PDRE government, the radical political, economical and
social changes have taken place in Ethiopia since the establishment ofthe transitional
government. The FDRE constitution (1995), established a federaldemocratic state
structure.The introductory part of the constitutioniincorporates the right to self determination,
ruleof law, lasting peace, guarantying democratic order, economic and social
developmentindividuals and peoples freedoms and right to live together on the basis of
equality andwith out any sexual rreligious or cultural discrimination.

Chapter two of FDREthe constitution also provides the following fundamental principles.

Sovereignty of people

Article 8 of the constitution stated that all sovereign powers are vested to the
nation,nationalities and peoples of Ethiopia. According to this provision, the constitution is
anexpression of their sovereignty and their sovereignty shall be expressed both throughtheir
representative and direct democratic participation.

Supremacy of the Constitution

As provided under article 9 of the constitution, since the constitution is supreme law ofthe
land, any customary practices or decisions of an organ of the state or public officials which
contravenes this constitution shall be of no effect. According to this provision allcitizens‟
organs of the state political organizations, other associations as well as theirofficials have the
duty to ensure the observance and to obey it.Article 13 of the constitution also stated that all
federal and state government organs at alllevels shall have the responsibility and duty to
respect and enforce the fundamental rightsand freedoms which are provided under this
chapter.

Human and Democratic Rights

As provided under article 10 of the constitution, human rights and freedoms that
areemanating from the nature of mankind are inviolable and inalienable. According to
thisprovision, human and democratic rights of citizens and peoples shall be respected.

Separation of State and Religion

Article 11 of the constitution provided that state and religion are separated. Under
thisprovision, there shall be no state religion. The state shall no interfere in the
religiousaffaires and the religion shall no interfere in the state affaires. According to
thisconstitutional provision, religion is free from any influence of the state and the state isfree
from any influence of religion.

Conduct and Accountability of Government

Article 12 of the constitution incorporates transparency, accountability andresponsiveness. As

provided under article 12(1) of the constitution, the conduct ofaffaires of government shall be
transparent. Any public offiicials or an electedreprresentattive is accountable for any failure
in official duties. In the case of loss ofconfidence, the people may recall an
electedrepresentatiive.Chapter three of the constitution further incorporates, about
fundamental rights andfreedoms in detail. As provided in the charter, 30.2% of the
constitution incorporates thehuman and democratic rights. Under this charter, pursuant to
article 55 (14 and 15) of theconstitution, the house of peoples representatives shall establish a
Human RightsCommission and institution of Ombudsman to protect the Human Right
Violation and mal-administration respectively. Based on these constitutional provisions, the
FDREgovernment established the Human Right Commission and Ombudsman
institutionpursuantto pro.No 210/2000 and 211/2000respectively.

According to article 5 of pro.No 210/2000, the objective of Human Right Commission isto
the public be aware of Human Rights see to it that Human Rights areprotected, respected and
fully enforced as well as to have the necessary measures takenwhere they are found to have
been violated.As provided under article 5 of pro.No 211/2000, the objective of Ombudsman
institutionis to see to bringing about good governance that is of high quality, efficient,
transparentand are based on rule of law by way of ensuring that citizens rights and benefitts
providedfor by law are respected organs of the executive. Article 11(3) of
pro.No.590/2008,provided that one of the objectives of mass media and access to information
is toencourageand promote public and efficiency in the function of public bodies

and to encourage participation, public empowerment to foster a culture of

transparency,accountability and promote good governance.

As stated under article 12 of the same proclamation the right of access to information shall
include the right to be informed and to obtan information from any public bodyby means of
inspection taking extracts, and notes, certified the copies of any records ofsuch public
authority, diskettes, floppies or any other electronic mode or through printouts where such
information is stored in a computer or any other device.

As further stated by Ombudsman (2013), the provisions or expressions that can help tobuild
good governance are supremacy of constitution, voice and accountability, the rightto self-
determination, the equality of nation, nationalities and peoples of Ethiopia,protection of
Human and democratic rights, the absence of mal-administration, legalpluralisms such as,
customary and religious laws, participation, tansparency andaccountability, responsiveness
and the right to development.According to the institution, in order to ensure good
governance, the capacity buildingof public servants, the improvement of justice system and
consolidated the building ofdemocratic system are very important.Article 37 and 38 of the
constitution provided about the right of access to justice and theright to vote and to be elected
respectively.

The FDRE Civil Service Agency (2012), designed the policy instruments, such as,promoting
positive attiudesto wards serving the public facilitating easy access to getservice, establishing
complaints handling mechanism providing adequate information,setting service standards and
promoting transparency to attain the over all specificobjectives of the policy on service
delivery in the civil service.

The FDRE Ministry of Capacity Building (2001) incorporates the following ethics
infrastructures,such as, interity, loyalty, trransparency, accountability, exercising the
legitimateauthority, impartiality, respecting the law, responsiveness and exercising fair
leadership.According to FDRE five years growth and transformation plan (2010/11-2015/16),
goodgovernance is given more attention and includes maximize the accessibility of
servicedelivery, fight against corruption and rent seeking.

Moreover, in 2012, the FDRE council of ministers organized the three major stabling
committees such as, good goverrnance andreform cluster coordinating stabling committee,
social ssues clusters coordinatingcommittee and economic finance cluster coordinating
stabling committee.According to the 2013, FDRE government plan, the human rights
protection and goodgovernance are given more attention to ensure them. The 2013 of federal
prisonadministration citizen charter stated that the preparation of citizen charter, the
redressedof citizens grievances, the right to information, and the participation of people
areinitiatives of good govrrnance in Ethiopia.

As clearly understood in the above discussion, the elemets of good governance, such as, rule
of law, participation, transparency and accountability, responsiveness andrepresentativeness
are incorporated in the constitution, proclamations, regulations, directives, policies and
strategies. There fore, now a day, Ethiopia is a country which isengaged and committed in
promoting good governance.

2.7 The Conceptual Framework of Good Governance

Good governance became part of the development vocabulary in 1980 century under
theinfluence of the World Bank development program to replace structure adjustment
whichbased itself on neo-liberal macro economic reforms, privatization of trade and
reducingthe role of the state in economical issues. In general, good governance is about
democracy, transparency, equality, property rights, combating corruption, self administration,
and responsiveness (Seppanene, 2009).

According to the United Nation Development Program (UNDP, 2011), governanceis the
exercise of economical, political and administrative authority to manage a countriesaffairs at
all levels.Governance comprises the mechanisms, processes, and institutions through
whichcitizens and groups articulate their interests, exercises their legal rights, meet
theirobligations and mediate their differences.
According to Seppanene (2009), good governance can be defined as a democraticgovernance
to make fair rules of accountability, transparency, participation and rule oflaw.According to
Jaya Chaturvedi, (2009) good governance is the exercise of legitimatepolitical power
andformulation and implementation of policies and programs that areequitable, transparent,
non-discriminatory, socially sensitive, participatory, and above alland accountable to
people.Besides, there could be specific requirements in programs in different contexts
whichwould be necessary to provide for good goverrnance.

According to Ombudsman (2013), good governance involves, an efficient public service,

anindependent judicial system, and legal framewrk to enforce contracts, and
accountableadministrative of public funds, an independent public auditor responsible to
arepresentative legislature respect the rule of law and human rights at all levels ofgovernment
a pluralistic structure and a free press.

The World Bank (2009) in its document on governance and development definedgood
governance as the manner in which the power is exercised in the management of thecountry‟s
economics and social resources for the development.According to theb73rd Indian
constitutional amendment Good governance become a very fashionable concept in the
literature on political science and public administration. Itis also widely used byinternational
agencies, such as, the United Nations, the WorldBank and IMF.

The World Bank has identified aspects of good governance such as, politicalaccountability,
freedom of association and participatiion, rule of law and independence ofjudiciary,
bureaucratic accountability, freedom of information and exprression, a soundadministrative
system, which is leading to efficiency and effectiveness, cooperation between the government
and civil society organizatiions.
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter addresses the research methodology used in the study. The study design, the
population and sample as well as the instrument used to collect the data, including methods
implemented to maintain validity and reliability of the instrument are described here.

Research Approach and Design

The study was conducted using qualitative approach. A descriptive survey design was used in
the study. A survey is used to collect original data for describing a population too large to
observe directly. A survey obtains information from a sample of people by means of self-
report, that is, the people respond to a series of questions posed by the investigator (Kothari,
C.R., 1985). In this study the information was collected through self-administered
questionnaires distributed personally to the subjects by the researcher.

A descriptive survey is selected because it provides an accurate portrayal or account of the

characteristics, for example behaviour, opinions, abilities, beliefs, and knowledge of a
particular individual, situation or group. This design is chosen to meet the objectives of the
study, namely to determine the knowledge and views of respondants (Ader, H.J,
Mellenbergh, G.J. and Hand D.J 2008).

Data Type and Sources

The descriptive survey design was selected because it enables the research to describe the
existing governance conditions of the public sectors on the basis of different good
governance indicators. The research used primary sources.

Tools of Data Collection

Qualitative data was gathered through semi structured questionnaires, interviews and
observation as a primary source of information for the study. The information obtained from
primary sources was supported by a document analysis as sources of secondary data.

A questionnaire was chosen as data collection instrument. A questionnaire is a printed self-

report form designed to elicit information that can be obtained through written responses of
the subjects. The information obtained through a questionnaire is similar to that obtained by
an interview, but the questions tend to have less depth (Kumar, Ranjit, 2005).

Data was collected with the aid of questionnaires to evaluate the respondents‟ knowledge and
views on the condition of good governance. Questionnaires ensure a high response rate as
they are distributed to respondents to complete and collected personally by the researcher.
They require less time and energy to administer, offer the possibility of anonymity because
subjects‟ names are not required on the completed questionnaires.

Two categories of questionnaires were used to collect the data. One for the employees of the
sector including officials and the second one for the customers. Most of the questionnaires
were consisted mostly of closed-ended questions and a few open-ended questions as they
provide more diverse detail. In the open-ended questions, the subjects were required to
respond in writing, whereas closed-ended questions had options to be determined by the
researcher. Open-ended questions were included because they allow subjects to respond to
questions in their own words and provide more detail. Closed-ended questions were included
because they are easier to administer and to analyse. They are also more efficient in the sense
that a respondent is able to complete more closed-ended items than open-ended items in a
given period of time (Dawson, Catherine, 2002).

The questionnaires were prepared in English. For those who could not read or write, the
researcher red and wrote their answers for them. They have been given the assurance that the
answers would not be able to link their responses to them at the stage of data analysis,
therefore ensuring anonymity. Instruction guidelines were attached to the questionnaires to
guide the subjects as to whether to circle or tick the chosen response.

Data collection procedure

Questionnaires were personally distributed by the researcher to respondents to complete. The

data were collected over a period of two and half months.

Target Population and Sample Selection

Addis Ababa city is located in the central part of Ethiopia at latitudes of 9.30 north and
longitude 38.740 east. Its altitude ranges from 2000--2500 meters above sea level. In recent
time, the city has a total land area of 540 square kilometers of which 18.2 square kilometer is
rural (FDRE CSA, 2015).According to the central statistical Agency (2015), the city has
about four millions residents of which 48% were men and 52.3% women. The dependency
ratio was 52.3% while 32% of the population was children tthat are below 15 years and 3%
were old above 64 years. According to the city development framework (2012), about 61 of
population derive their livelihoods from informal activities such as street vending, and home
based processing industries and small shops and business (Addis Ababa City Development
Framework, 2017).

As the capital of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa has been serving as political center and financial
decisions are made where most of the financial establishments are located. Further more,
Addis Ababa is the seat of Africa union and various international organizations. Now a day,
the city is divided in to three administrative branches and ten sub-cities. Sub-city is a 2 nd
administrative stratum of the city, such as KolfeKeraniyo, Bole, Arada, Yeka, Lafto, Akaki,
Lideta, Kirkos, Gulelie and Addis Ketema sub-cities. Each sub-city can play a significant role
to alleviate good governance problems in the city. Among these, KolfeKeraniyo sub-city is
the concerned study area (KolfeKeranyo Sub-City Socio-Economic Profile, 2015).

Thus, believing that the result of the research will be important for the sustainability of its
development, the city sub is purposefully selected.

The study had target populations of public servants and service users found in KolfeKeraniyo
Sub city from three selected sectors, namely, Trade and Market development office, Justice
office and Public service and Human Resource Development office. Besides, based on the
reason that they have better information concerning the issue under investigation, public
official from the public sector offices are made to be the part of the target population.

Sampling Design and Procedures

The study was undertaken on purposively three selected public sectors found under
KolfeKeraniyo sub city administration. The public sectors are selected purposively because
of the magnitude and importance of sectors in serving the society and their relation with
diverse stakeholders (accommodating different stakeholders). After the sectors are identified,
all public servants and leaders in each selected sectors were included in the study as
respondents due to the manageable size of their number. After the amounts of number of
respondents in each sector are decided, the data was gathered through questionnaire and
interviews.
Then respondents of service users of each sectorwere selected based on convenience
sampling (accidental) method. This is due to the nature of the service user unavailability in
fixed time and place. Thus, those public users found executing their activities in each sector
in different days filled the questionnaires.

The following tables indicate the number of workers in the selected public sectors based on
their sex, the number of civil servant respondents and their sex compositions, and the number
of public users engaged in the study by being respondents and their sex and level of education

respectively.

Table 1.3 Number of Civil Servant Sample Respondants

Name of the Sector No. of Respondants

Male Female Total %

Office of Public Service and Human Resource Development 25 23 48 39.0

Trade & Market development office 32 29 61 48.0

Justice office 9 8 17 13.0

Total 66 60 126 100

Source: KolfeKeraniyo sub city Office of Public Service and Human Resource Development,
2018.
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Data collected through the questionnaires were coded and reorganized into five main
categories based on the five core good governance indicators so as to accomplish the target
that the study was intended to achieve.

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the significance and practice of good

governance in Addis Ababa in selected public sectors in Kolfe Keraniyo sub

city. To achieve this purpose, relevant literature was reviewed and methodology was set in
chapters two and three respectively. This chapter outlines the result of data analysis obtained
from data collected from respondents. The information gathered is discussed and results are
presented in the following sections

Response Rate of Respondents.

Respondents.

A total of 72 questionnaires were distributed, and 100% of the respondants returned on time
and hence used in the analysis process.

Demographic Profile of Respondents

This section summarizes the demographic characteristics of the sample, which includes
gender of the respondent, age, marital status, education level, position, work experience and
salary. The purpose of the demographic analysis in this research is to describe the
characteristics of the sample such as the proportion of males and females in the sample, range
of age, education level, marital status and employment group and salary scale, so that the
analysis could be more meaningful for readers.
Table 1.4 Demographic Profile of Respondents
Bio data Frequency Percent
Gender Male 66 52.4%
Female 60 47.6%
Age 20-30 65 51.6%
31-40 42 33.3%
41-50 13 10.3%
Above 51 6 4.9%
Marshal status Single 74 58.7%
Married 52 41.3%
Divorced 0 0%
Educational Attainment Diploma 14 11.%
Degree 96 76.3%
Masters 16 12.7%
Above Masters 0 0%
Job Position Officers 116 92%
Team Leaders 6 4.3%
Heads 4 3.2%
Experience 1-5 years 71 55.0%
6-10 years 40 31.7%
11-15 years 8 63.4%
Above 16 years 7 5.5%
Salary level 2,000.00 - 4,000.00 113 89.7%
4,001.00 - 6,000.00 13 10.3%

Source: Survey questionnaire.

Table 1.4 above shows that, demographic profile of 126 respondents. In terms of gender,
respondents of male(52.4) and female are (47.6). This shows that females are less in number
in public sectors.

Regarding the age of respondents, the sample population is largely dominated by the age
group of 20-30 (51.6%) followed by the group comprise age of 31-40 (33.3%). This indicates
that most of the sample populations are youngsters. The remaining group of respondents
consist 5 employees (10.0%) with the age of 41-50 and n4.9% employee above the age of 51
years. Referring to the data, we can say that the employees of public sectors are dominated by
young group who can transform their organization to the future.

In terms of education11.0 % of respondents have attained Diploma, while 76.3% of the

respondents are degree holders.. This shows that, most of the employees are graduates and
 the public sectors hire employees at the graduate levels or encourages employees to upgrade
their education.

By the same token, demographic profile of respondents shows 58.7% are single, and the
remaining 41.3% are married employees.

5.1. Participation

All men and women should have a voice in decision-making, either directly or through
legitimate intermediate institutions that represent their interests. Such broad participation is
built on freedom of association and speech, as well as capacities to participate constructively.
The following table shows the responses of civil servant respondents for participation
questions.

Table 2.4 Perception of Public Servants on participation in their sectors

Questions of Participation Category Frequency Percentage

Are there any procedures for the collection of Yes 59 46.8
citizens‟complaints, suggestions and petitions with No 67 53.2
your follow up? Total 126 100
Is there any institutional frame work which enable civil Yes 50 40.0
society or community based organanizations participate No 76 60.0
in your sector? Total 126 100.0
Is your sector has public forum for Women, Youth and Yes 49 38.75
the disadvantaged groups? No 77 61.25
Total 126 100.0
Is there any mechanism for customers‟ consultation Yes 58 46.25
organized by you as a leader for the implementation of No 83 53.75
policies and programs? Total 126 100.0
Is there any institutional framework that enables the Yes 82 65.0
public users or the society to participate in your sector? No 44 35.0
Total 126 100.0
Source: Own servey, 2018

Participation is one of the core elements of good governance that should be achieved by
institutions for good governance is to be practical and effective instrument in solving socio-
economic problems and achieving the millennium development goals. Participation allows all
stakeholders to take part in the process of ensuring good governance and building of
democratic processes that could be solution for many problems stuck developing countries.
For question one of the above table, 46.8% of respondents which said yes and the rest 53.2%
said no which showed that public sectors had problems in creating chances for service users
to put their suggestions or complains to the service providing sectors.

Civil Society (CSOs) or Community Based (CBOs) Organizations are the main stakeholders
in the process of building good public governance. Thus as indicated in table1, question
leveled number 2 is presented for public sector employee , however, it is only 40% of them
says yes which is a small number of the respondents and the rest 60%, the majority of the
respondents, witnessed the absence of the frameworks that encourage the CBOs and/or the
CSOs. This at least clearly showed that community based organizations, civil society
organizations and NGOs have not favored by the public sectors to take part their roles in the

sectors.

Good governance is a mechanism by which women, youth, minorities and disadvantaged

groups are treated in a special manner and given due emphasis. In the process of building
good governance, giving a special attention to the already mentioned parts of a society is
mandatory and it is by what public sectors did to them that theprevalence of good governance
is measured. But as shown in the table above, there responses were some what negative, that
is to mean, only 38.75% of them say yes but the majority 61.25% 0f them answers no. The
result showed that public sectors under discussion were not totally effectively discharging
their responsibility regarding treating women, disadvantage groups and the youth.

Customers (services users) are the main stakeholderin public sectors and is due to them that
public sectors are framed and existing. The main target that public sectors stand for is to
efficiently, equally and equitably, effectively and transparently serve them. Therefore, as
indicated in the above table only 46.25% of them says yes but the rest 53.75% the
respondents make their answer no. Still workers of public sectors included in the study as
samples witnessed that framework consultation is not available. But it must be noted that the
number of respondents who answered yes were not that much far less than in number. But the
disparity of their response concerning the issue indicated the existence of predicaments in the
public sectors as far as consultation of customers concerned. Regarding the question which
says „is there any institutional framework that enables the public users or the society to
participate in your sector? 65% of the respondants says yes and the rest 35% says no. This
showed that there is an institutional framework that enables the public users or the society to
 participate in public sectors. However, there are still problems in this regard and hence much
more effort is expected from public sectors in doing so.

In general as far as the indicator selected (participation) concerned, as clearly seen from the
above table, the respondents‟ responses percentage for the four operational questions
prepared based on sub indices of the indicator were, for yes 46.8%, 40.0%, 38.75% and 65%
where as for the response no the respondent percentage is 58.2%, 60%, 61.25%, and 35%. As
clearly displayed using the table above, public sectors are far better only concerning the
existence of participation institutional framework that enabled the society or service users to
participate in the public sectors, however, in the rest three questions, questions1, 2, and 3
based on the above table public sectors have below average. Therefore, based on the result
displayed above public sectors was not that much effective in attaining one of the core
elements of good governance. Based on the interview conducted with key officials the main
reason behind the sectors low achievement in participation was the way that public sectors
mostly favored participation to be conducted through suggestion boxes put in the compound
of most sectorss rather than face to face discussion with customers or their representatives.

Table 3.4 Service User Respondents’ Attitude on Participation in the Public Sectors.

The following table shows the perception of public service users on participation in public sectors

Questions of Participation Category Frequency Percentage

Does the sector prepare community forum Yes 62 51.0
inorder to enable the community to No 59 49.0
discuss issues that mater them? Total 121 100.0
Does the public sector encourage you to Yes 70 57.5
participate in decision making process that No 51 42.5
concerns the service user/community? Total 121 100.0
Do you (the community) ever consulted by Yes 48 40.0
the sector before a program or policy is No 73 60.0
implemented that concerns you Total 121 100
Do you have ever invited to evaluate the Yes 39 32.0
service provider sector management? No 82 68.0
Total 121 100
Do you have ever asked by your service Yes 50 41.0
provider sector as far as your need or No 71 59.0
demand concerned? Total 121 100.0
Can you easily provide your suggestions, Yes 57 46.0
questions, comments and complaints for No 64 54.0
your service provider sector? Total 121 168.0
Have you ever provide complains in aYes 64 53.0
service provider sector? No 57 47.0
Total 121 168.0
Do you ever have given training or Yes 58 48.0
workshop concerning the service you No 63 52.0
received by your serviceprovider?
Total 121 100.0
Source: Own Survey, 2018

A question regarding whether a community forum was prepared by the public sectors which
enabled the community to discus issues that concerned them presented to service user
respondents and their responses‟ for yes are51% and no 49%. This clearly pointed out that
public sectorstried to provide the relevant community forums that enabled the community to
discus the issue which concerned them. However, those of 49% of the respondents said no
shouldn‟t be ignored or left out because although the disagreement of 49% of the respondents
could not put in to question the existence of the forum, it has the implication of the forums
were titular having not practically implemented.

When the result triangulated with the result obtained from the response of the sample of
public sector employees, the nominal part of analyses question number one 61.3% of the
respondents were said yes about the institutional framework that enables the public users or
the society to participate in the institution and the rest 38.7% said no and in the likert type
questions analyses of the sample employee for the question ifyes how do you rate the
participation only 8.5% and 9.8% of the respondents were said very poor and poor
respectively while the majority 39.0% said medium, and 30.5% and 12.2% said very good
and perfect respectively.

As far as the role of sectors‟ in encouraging citizens‟ involvement in decision making, service
user respondents proved that institutions encouraged them to involve in decision making
process of which that concerns them. 57.5% of the respondents said yes institutions
encouraged us to participate in decision making where as 42.5% of them said no, although
they are the minority, those who said no should not be discounted as theirresponses pointed
toward the need for additional effort on the part of the public sectors inencouraging
community to involve in decision making. When these responses of the users‟ respondent
triangulated with the employee respondents‟ results they are reinforced with one another. For
the question „rate your sector‟s role in encouraging citizen‟s capacity to engage indecision-
making‟, among the total employee respondents it was only16% and 22% respectively said
very poor and poor , where as 24.5%,28.5% and 9% said good, very good and perfect
respectively.

Out of the total respondents 40% said yes and the majority 60% of them said no concerning
consultation of service users or the society by the sectors before a program or a policy is
implemented. As the result indicates, public sectors were not ready for pre-policy or program
implementation consultation of the society or customer, this implied public sectors were
simply implemented their programs and policies having not asked the society to know about
their interest towards the new programs and/or policies. This further strengthened by
triangulating the result obtained from public sectors employee respondents of whom 53.75%
of them said public sectors did not make consultation of the society for the implementation of
programs or polices. As it is described above, the 40% yes responses of the respondent
should be considered as they witnessed at least the attempt of consulting service users for
program implementation.

The respondent clearly showed that public sectors did not invite service users or customers to
evaluate their managements by responding 68% no and 32% yes. According to the result
observed, service users did not able to evaluate the public sectors management. This is further
strengthened by the results obtained from employee respondents who said 59% no and 41%
regarding institutional mechanism that enables the society to control the administration. This
is even further checked by the interviews that the researcher conducted with key officials as
they said the public sectors were not made directly evaluated by their service users. In fact,
some sectors like justice office had the trend of evaluation by the users face toface. When
60% of the service users respondents said no and 40% yes, they were triying to show that the
public sectors did not make satisfaction survey of the service users. Therefore, what the 60%
of respondant said that they have never asked by our service provider sectors as far as our
need or demand concerned. As 40% of the respondent said we have asked, although they are
small in percentage they should not be undermined as they might show some attempts of the
public sectors in this regard.

This result can be proved by public sector employee responses, because whenever they are
asked about whether their respective sectors were made surveys about customer satisfaction,
60.2% of them said no. In addition, by the interview conducted, it is proved that public
sectors have never been formally made a survey in every public sector. For question labeled
as „have you ever provided complains in a service provider sectors?‟ indicated in the above
table respondents of which 53% said yes and the rest 47% said no which showed that the
majority had provided complaints to the sectors. Another question was added to the
respondents about the sectors‟ treatment when they had provided their complaints. Of those
69% respondents who had provided their complaints said the sectors were properly accepted
their complains though not they were not ready to give them the solutions, where asthe rest of
the respondents said that the sectors accepted their complaints and gave the solution
immediately.

From the resultsobserved some problem in giving solution for questions and complaints of
the customers are observed 46% of the respondents said yes and the rest 54% said no as far as
easily providing their suggestions, questions, comments and complaints for institutions
concerned. As the result put on view, 54% of the respondents witnessed the difficulty of
easily providing their suggestions, questions, comments and complaints for service provider
institution. But the respondents accounted 46% said that they could easily provided their
petition, questions, comments and complaints to the institutions.

In order to know their reasons for 38 respondents which is 54% of them who said no, we
can‟t easily provide our suggestions, questions, comments and complaints to service provider
institution a question, which says „if no is your answer, what do you think is the reason?
„Was asked and most of these respondents 57 were said because they didn‟t think that the
sectors could give solution. From the rest respondents 11 of them said because of strong
bureaucratic delay, 9 of them and 14 of them said because of absence of the mechanism and
because it incurs them additional costs respectively. But in respect of the amount of
respondents, public sectors have shortcomings in giving solutions for service users‟
questions, suggestions and complaints.

Regarding whether training or workshop concerning the services they gained from different
sectors is concerned, their answers were 52% no and 48% yes. The question was intended in
what ways that the society had got information about the regulations, rules, and principles
and other relevant information regarding services.However, most of the respondents were
said that they didn‟t get any training, workshop or conference. For the question followed by
the interview which says „if not, how do you know the rules and regulations of the public
sectors whenever you went to the sectors to get services?‟, most of them said informally from
individuals and the rest said it doesn‟t necessary to know the rules and regulations of the
sectors concerning the services, rather obey what the institutions told to do so.
Effectiveness and Efficiency

Effectiveness and Efficiency is one of the core elements of good governance frequently used
as indicators in governance measurement. As an indicator of good governance, effectiveness
and efficiency has its own sub indices which are changed in to operational questions and
included in the questionnaires of this study. The following table shows these questions with
their responses.

Table 4.4 Responses of Public Servants regarding Efficiency & Effectiveness

Questions of Efficiency & Effectiveness Category Frequency Percentage

Rate your sectors‟ role in encouraging citizen‟s Perfect 11 9.0
capacity to engage in decision-making Very good 36 28.5
Good 31 24.5
Poor 28 22.0
Very poor 20 16
Total 126 100
Perfect 5 3.9
Very good 28 22.1
Rate the financial resource management in your Good 39 31.0
sector? Poor 24 19.0
Very poor 30 24.0
Total 126 100.0
Perfect 8 6.3
Very good 38 30.3
How do you rate relevant decision making
Good 44 35.1
processes based on reliable information being
the culture of your sector? Poor 15 11.6
Very poor 21 16.7
Total 126 100.0
Rate effective, efficient and ethical use of Perfect 9 7.2
resources in your sector? Very good 31 24.3
Good 44 35.2
Poor 27 21.2
Very poor 15 12.1
Total 126 100.
Rate the administrative and technical skills of Perfect 11 8.2
your sector Very good 43 34.2
Good 43 34.3
Poor 15 12.3
Very poor 14 11.0
Total 126 100.0
Rate your sector vulnerability to political Very high 23 19.2
pressure High 32 25.6
Medium 20 16.2
Low 13 10.0
Very low 38 30.0
Total 126 100.0
Perfect 16 13
Very good 27 21.8
How do you rate implementation of decisions in Good 38 30.1
your sector? Poor 21 16.0
Very poor 24 19.1
Total 126 100.0
How much you are secure to stay in your job? Very high 35 27.7
High 41 32.4
Medium 14 11.0
Low 20 16.2
Very low 16 13.1
Total 126 100.0
Rate the sector‟s nature of observing the rule of Perfect 21 16.9
law in service provision as well as other Very good 36 28.4
functions connected to the community Good 40 31.7
Poor 20 16.2
Very poor 9 6.8
Total 126 100
Source: Own Survey, 2018

As shown in the above table regarding public sectors‟ role in encouraging citizen‟s capacity to
engage in decision-making, the respondent 16% and 22% respectively said very poor and
poor , where as 24.5% ,28.5% and 9% said good, very good and perfect respectively.The
result clearly showed that the two consequent majorities 28.5% and 24.5% witnessed public
sectors are effectively working their responsibility of encouraging citizens‟ capacity to
engage citizen decision making and this is also strengthened by those 9% of the respondents
who chose perfect . But 22% and 16% should not be discounted as they pointed the need for
further encouragement of citizens‟ decision making.

As far as financial resource management of the sector‟s concerned 24% of the respondents
said that it is very poor, 19% of them said poor and 31%, 22% and 3.9% of the respondents
respectively said good, very good and perfect. Although based on the result observed, the
financial resource management in the institutions is effective; the portion of very poor and
poor 24% and 19% respectively signified that the financial resource management in the
public sectors need supervision and further improvement. However, the financial resource
management of the sector according to the respondents in generalis above average.

Based on the responses of the sample respondents; 35.1% said good, 30.3% very good and
6.3% said perfect the relevant decision making processesbased on reliable information has
already become the culture in thesectors, it is said because it is only the rest 16.7% and 11.6%
of the respondents said respectively very poor and poor which are together not more than
28% of the respondents. Concerning efficient, ethical and effective use of resources in the
public sectors 35.2%, 24.3%, and 7.2% of the respondents said respectively good, very good
and perfect. Which clearly assured that efficient, ethical and effective use of resources in the
public sectors is well accomplished and public sectors used their resources effectively,
efficiently and ethically. The rest of the respondents said very poor are 12.1% and poor,
21.2% respectively. Although those who said very poor and poor are small even together,
they could show some failures regarding efficient, effective and ethical use of resources in
public sectors.

Regarding administrative and technical skills of the sectors, 34.3%, 34.2% and 8.2% of the
respondents respectively said, good, very good and perfect to ensure that their public sectors
are administratively and technically efficient. But therest 11.0% and 12.3% replied very poor
and poor. Therefore, from the respondents‟ point of view generally public sectors are
administratively and technically effective. The response of the resttogether 23.3% poor and
very poor should not be discounted.

As far as the political vulnerability of the sectors is concerned 30%, 10.0% and 16.2% of the
respondents said very low, low and medium respectively, where as 19.2% and 25.6% of
therespondents chose respectively very high and high. When the results individually observed
the political vulnerability of public sectors stood at very low level, where as when high, very
high and medium are seen together political vulnerability of the public sectors can be said
high, hence, these responses are seentogether the political vulnerability of public sectors need
to be free from political vulnerability. In order to know why they said public sectors are very
highly and highly politically vulnerable, they have been asked another question which said
“what do you think is the cause?” out of those 43 respondents who said high and very high32
of them said because upper officials of the public sectors are politically appointed, and the
rest of the respondantssaid because of lack of confidence on the part of the upper officials of
the public sectors, still others said because it is common in the country.
With regared to the implementation of decisions, 30.1%, 21.8% and 13.0% of the respondents
said good, very good and perfect respectively. Based on the observed result, public sectors
are successful in implementing decisions. But the rests, very poor (19.1%) and poor (16%)
should not be discounted.

Regarding job security of employee of the public sectors 13.1% and 16.2% of the respondent
said very low and low, where as only11% of them said medium and the rest of the
respondents 32.4% and 27.7% said respectively high and very high. The result observed from
the response of the sample respondents showed that almost 29.4% (13.2% +16.2%) of the
respondents are not secured being to stay in their job, although the rest respondents witnessed
that they are secured to stay in their job. Therefore, the result showed the need for public
sectors to work more in creating job security for their staff members if they need to ensure
highest level of productivity that come from secured servants.

In relation to their effectiveness in observing therule of law while conducting their activities,
respondents of 31.7%, 28.4% and 16.9% said good, very good and perfect respectively.
Where as the rest, 6.8% and 16.2%, of the respondents said very poor and poor respectively.
The result of the respondent clearly showed how far ipublic sectors are successful in
observing the rule of law. Different questions were also provided to public Service user
respondents concerning effectiveness and efficiency in the sector.

Table 5.4 Responses of Service Users’ regarding Efficiency & Effectiveness

The following table clearly showed the responses of service user respondents concerning
effectiveness and efficiencyofsectors.

Questions of Efficiency & Category Frequency Percentage

Effectiveness
Very high 6 4.6
High 23 19.0
To what amount is the sector provides Medium 51 42.3
the services to the customers? Low 15 12.6
Very low 26 21.5
Total 121 100
Very dissatisfying 20 16.9
Please rate your satisfaction level on Dissatisfying 32 26.8
the service provided by the sector is? Fairly satisfying 44 36.2
Satisfying 20 16.5
Very satisfying 5 3.6
Total 121 100.0
 Perfect 11 9.1
Rate the efficiency of your service Very good 23 19.1
provider Good 51 42.3
sector Poor 16 13.2
Very poor 20 16.3
Total 121 100
Very highly 39 32.1
If Yes is your answer, how much it Highly 20 16.9
hurts you or your businesses? Averagely 44 36.1
Low 7 6.2
It neither hurts me nor my 11 8.7
business
Total 121 100.0
How would you rate the degree of Very high 8 6.5
confidence High 26 21.2
(trust) you have in your service Medium 38 31.7
provider? Low 17 14.3
Very low 32 26.3
Total 121 100.0
Fully independent 15 12.6
How much do you think that the Independent 23 19.2
public services Partially independnt 33 26.9
are independent from political Dependent 11 9.2
interference? Totally dependent 39 32.1
Total 121 100
Rate the sector‟s nature of observing Perfect 12 10.3
the rule of law in service provision as Very good 30 24.6
well as other functions connected to Good 38 31.2
the community. Poor 18 14.6
Very poor 23 19.3
Total 121 100.0
Have you ever faced bureaucratic Yes 76 63.0
delay and much process whenever No 45 47.0
you are engaged in the service Total 121 100.0
providing sector?
Does the service provider sector have Yes 55 45.2
a special service delivery mechanism No 66 54.8
for women and the disadvantaged Total 121 100.0
group?
Source: Own Survey, 2018

Service users‟ sample respondents responded about the amount of services provided by the
public sectors, they said 21.5%, 12.6%, 42.3%, 19.0% and 4.6% are very low, low, medium,
high and very high respectively. As the result clearly indicated that the service users rated the
services provided to them medium.
As far as their satisfaction level by the service provided public sectors is concerned,
respondents respectively said 16.9% and 26.8% very dissatisfying anddisatisfying. Where as
it is only 16.5% and 3.6% of the respondents who said satisfying and very satisfying. But
what was special in their responses was the category fairly satisfying which had 36.2% of the
respondents. Based on this result it is possible to conclude that service users are dissatisfied.

The efficiency of public sectors rated very poor by 16.3% of the service user respondents,
13.2% of the respondents said poor, 42.3%, 19.1% and 9.1% of them rated it good , very
good and perfect respectively. From the results observed, it can be said that respondents rated
the efficiency of public sectors good.

In the nominal part of the questionnaire respondents were asked whether bureaucratic delay
and much process had faced them while they were engaged in institutions to get services. In
that question majority of the respondents had said yes. Following that, they have asked a
Likerttype question to rate how the delay and much process hurt them and/or their business
this was to know the intensity .Based on that majority of respondent, 36.1% rated as
averagely hurts them, 32.1% and 16.9% rated that the delay and much processes hurt them
very highly and highly respectively. Thus, it can be concluded that bureaucratic delay and
much process exists in public sectors and this is highly hurting the society.

As far as the degree of trust or confidence that public users had on the public public sectors
was asked and the respondents responded medium accounts 31.7%, those said very low and
high accounted 26.3% and 21.2% respectively. Fro the result it can be concluded that public
public sectors users have medium trust or confidence in public institutions. As far as the
service users independence from political interference concerned, out of the total respondents
12.6%, 26.9% and 19.2% of the respondents said fully dependent, partially independent and
independent. Thus from these observed result service users are dependent on politically
(41.3%).

Respondents of service users rated the public sectors‟ nature of observing the rule of law as
very poor (19.3%), good (32.1%) and very good (24.6%). Therefore, from the responses
point of view of public sectors have good performances inobserving therule of law, however,
when it triangulated with public users responses, the above result put in to question. Service
users said public sectors did not observe the rule of law unlike respondents of public sector
employees.
Based on what the table displays for the question‟ have you ever faced bureaucratic delay and
much process whenever you are engaged in the service providing institution?‟ the majority
63% of the respondents said yes and rest 47% said no.It is possible to conclude that
bureaucratic delaying and much process are still prevailing within public public sectors.

As far as existence of special service delivery mechanisms by public sectors for women and
the disadvantaged groups, 45.2% of the respondents said yes but the rest 54.8% agreed on the
absence of the mechanisms. By the majority principle, it can be concluded that public sectors
are not well executing in specially treating women and disadvantaged groups.

Accountability

Public sectors have also been assessed based on one of the core elements of good governance,
accountability. And questions based on the sub indices of accountability were provided to
civil servant respondents and their responses are provided in the following table.

Table 6.4 Responses of Public Servants on Questions of Accountability

Questions of Efficiency & Effectiveness Category Frequency Percentage

Is there any mechanism in your sector that enables Yes 54 43.1
the society to control the administration? No 72 56.9
Total 126 100.0
Are there monitoring and reviewing procedures in Yes 58 45.9
place to follow up the implementation of the anti- No 68 54.1
corruption policy? Total 126 100.0
Is there any institutional framework in your sector Yes 77 60.8
for public review of the budget? No 49 39.2
Total 126 100.0
Does yoursector have a normative framework for Yes 71 56.5
management accountability? No 55 43.5
Total 126 100.0
Is there any procedure which enable civil society Yes 46 36.5
organizations or community based organizations No 80 63.5
review the sector‟s budget Total 126 100.0
Do citizens can access accountability documents Yes 79 62.8
and get an answer to their questions No 47 37.2
Total 126 100.0
Source: Own Survey, 2018

In a country where good governance and democratic processes are deep rooted, mechanisms
which enable the society supervise and control the administration of public sector is highly
propagated and it is considered as a feature of good governance. As it is used as one of sub
indices for measuring governance, the operational question which tries to assess whether or
not a mechanisms that enable the society to control the administration process of public
institutions exists provided for respondents and their responses were 43.1% yes while the
majority of the respondent 56.9% responded choosing no.

Corruption is one of the serious heartaches in the process of building good governance and
democratic institutions. If corruption is a prevalent phenomenon in an institution, the overall
activities of the institution are being forced to be liable for other related anti good governance
problems. Corruption is the great enemy of nations; it obliterated all other functions of
institutions. And it has become the sources of hunger, famine and social instability in many
developing countries. Therefore, firstly good governance principles suggest the establishment
of anti corruption policy and secondly they require monitoring and reviewing procedures in
place to follow up the implementation of anti corruption policy. Thus, for the question
concerning this issue only 45.9% respondent chose yes but the majority of them, 54.1%,
chose no.

Public sector budgets should be accountably, efficiently and effectively and transparently
managed and put in to use. In an institution where good governance principles are accepted
and practically implemented, there is institutional framework that enables the public for
review of the budget. Concerning this issue the respondent who chose yes are 60.8% and
39.2% chose no.

Accountability according to UN-Habitat Governance Index (UNDP, 1997) is one of the core
good governance indicators and always has high value in the process of measuring
governance. Institutions should ensure accountability in different aspects of their activities if
good governance is said to be prevalent in the institution. To do this the first measure that
should be taken by the institution is the establishment of normative framework for
management accountability. In this regard 43.5% of respondentssaid no and the rest 56.5%
said yes.

Generally accountability in the public sector, as the research result displayed in the above
table, concerning society control of sectors, monitoring and reviewing procedures to follow
up the implementation of the anti corruption policy, public review of the budget and civil
society or community based organization review of the institutions‟ budget, the responses
given by the majority respondents were withno63.5%, and yes 36.5%. It is only by the
normative frame for management accountability and citizens‟ access of accountability
documents that the majority of the respondents chose yes with 60.8% and 62.8% respectively.
This vividly witnessed the weakness of public sectors as far as the prevalence of
accountability concerned.

Table 7.4 Responses publicssector employees on Questions of Accountability

What is officials‟ (authorities‟) interes towards the Perfect 18 14.5

community? Very good 40 31.9
Good 35 27.9
Poor 17 13.4
Very poor 16 12.3
Total 126 100.0
How is the rate (severity) of corruption in your Very high 25 19.9
institution? High 27 21.6
Medium 17 13.5
Low 21 16.5
Verylow 36 28.5
Total 126 100
How monitoring and reviewing procedures in place to Perfect 25 19.8
follow up the implementation of the anti-corruption Very good 16 12.9
policy is practically implemented in your institution? Good 33 26.4
Poor 29 22.8
Very poor 23 18.1
Total 126 100.0
Source: Own Survey, 2018

Officials should have positive attitudes towards customers or the publics that their institutions
are serving. Good governance required officials to have positive attitudes towards the
customers or the community that their institutions are serving. Therefore, for a question
concerning their attitude there response were 27.9% good, 31.9% very good and 14.5%
perfect which showed that officials have positive attitude towards the community . Still
12.3% said very poor and 13.4% said poor, although they are minor, they indicated the need
for further improvement of the attitudes of officials.

As far as the severity of corruption in public sectors concerned, respondents said 28.5% very
low, 16.5% low, 13.5% medium, 21.6% high, and 19.9% very high. The result indicated not
the existence but the severity of corruption in thesectors. Based on the responded answers
although 28.5% and 16.5% represented very low and low severity of corruption in the
sectors, almost similar amount of the respondent said high (21.6%) and very high(19.9%),
this clearly witnessed that corruption in public sector is intense in its magnitude.

Table 8.4 Responses Service Users on Questions of Accountability

The table below shows the questions of accountability provided for public service users
respondents and their responses.

Questions of Accountability Category Frequency Percentage

Have you ever asked irregular payments by Yes 53 43.6
personnel/officials of the service provider sector to No 68 56.4
accomplish your task in the sector? Total 121 100
Do the community/ service users have ever got the chance Yes 32 26.2
to review the budget of your service provider institution? No 89 73.8
Total 121 100
Do you think that there is corruption in the service provider Yes 86 71.5
sectors?
No 35 28.5
Total 121 100
Source: Own Survey, 2018

As table 9 showed of all respondents the majority 56.4% said no and 43.6% yes about
irregular payments for personnel/officials of the service provider sector to accomplish their
tasks in the sector. Although the majority respondent said that they did not asked irregular
payment by personnel/officials, it can be possible to conclude that irregular payments are
there using the result of the rest respondents (43.6%).

As displayed by table 9 concerning that service users have ever got the chance to review the
budget of the service provider sector the large number of the respondents, 73.8%, said no
while the rest 26.2% respondents said yes we had got the chance to the review the budget of
the service provider institution. To check how relevant the responses of the respondents,
triangulation with employee respondent responses regarding to the presence of institutional
framework which enabled public review of institutions budget was needed, therefore based
on the triangulation majority of the employee respondents (60.8%) has found said yes about
the existence of institutional framework for public review of the budget and when this
compared with described above 73.8% of the service users response which is no concerning
the chance to review the sectors budget, it can be concluded that the service users or the
public didn‟t get the chance to review the budget. Among respondents asked about whether
he/she thinks that corruption in the service provider sectors exists, 71.5% of them said yes
and the rest 28.5% said no. It is possible to conclude that corruption in public sectors is
prevalent, and when triangulate it with the response obtained from employee respondents
who said corruption in public sectors is high (21.6%) and very high (19.9%), the respondents
of service user(71.5%) who said yes,it is possible to conclude that corruption in public sectors
is common.

Transparency

The G-8‟s Commission on Africa stated the significance of progress in governance in

association with transparency by describing that transparencyhas become a central defining
characteristic of improved governance(Langdon,2005). And the research has used
transparency as one of the indicator .Thus civil servants attitude towards transparency in their
institution has provided in the following table.

Table 9.4 Responses of Public Servansts on Questions of Transparency

Questions of Transparency Category Frequency Percentage

Are the procurement procedures in your s ectors Yes 52 41.5

publicly disclosed? No 74 58.5
Total 126 100
Do vacancies announced within the sectors or publicly Yes 87 69.1
are simple, clear and easily understood? No 39 30.9
Total 126 100
Arestaffmembers always informed when important Yes 55 43.8
decisions are made in their sectors?
No 71 56.2
Total 126 100
Is there any procedure to channeling complaints and Yes 82 65.4
answers for the society in your sectors? No 44 34.6
Total 126 100
Source: Own Survey, 2018

Publicly disclosing the procurement procedures of public institution enables the main
stakeholder, the society; to review the budget of the institution in what manner institutions
are used, to understand whether or not institutions manage their budget transparently based
on the laws, rules and procedures of a country. It is also a check for corruption within the
public sector. Therefore, an individual who tries to assess good governance should use the
transparency of procurement procedures as sub indicator of transparency.
Concerning this it is only 41.5% the respondent chose yes and the rest about 58.5% choseno.
Transparency as a core governance indicator should be practically observed in public sectors
in all of the sectors tasks that have either direct or indirect impacts up on the life of the
society. One of the responsibilities of public sectors as far as employment of workers
concerned is making vacancy announcements simpler, clear and easily under stood which are
notified either publicly or in the sectors. The matter of making vacancies simple, clear and
easily understood is directly or indirectly related to good governance. Therefore a question
about transparency of vacancies is made to be answered by the respondents. Accordingly
69.1% of them chose yes and the rest 30.9% chose no.

Different kinds of decisions from the lower to the higher levels in public sectors are always
decided. But whenever decision of either high (mainly) or low importance are decided in
ansectors, it always should be communicated for staff members. If not, according to good
governance principles transparency in the sectors is become under question mark. Thus the
study provided a question, „staff members are always informed when important decisions are
made in their sectors to the respondents and only 43.8% of them said yes but the rest 56.2%
chose no. For channeling of complaints and answers to the society an operational question,
„is there any procedure to channeling complaints and answers the society in your
sector?‟ is provided to the respondents and 65.4% of them chose yes, and 34.6%, no.

To generalize about transparency within sectors, concerning about the publicly disclosing of
the procurement procedure the majority responded, no with 41.5% and yes 58.5% which is
much below the average. About vacancies announcement being simple, clear and easily
understood the majority of the respondent, 69.1% chose yes and only 30.9% of them said no.
this showed that vacancies are announced transparently by the sectors.

Regarding staff members are informed when important decisions are made, the majority
56.2% responded no and the rest which was not that much far from the majority 43.8% said
yes, and this indicated the existence of transparency among staff members within sectors.
Lastly, concerning procedures to channeling complaints and answers to the society the
majority 64.5% said yes but the rest 35.5% chose no. But 35.5% can not be discounted and
still the result showed some problem of transparency regarding the issue.
Table 10.4- Public servants’ Attitude about the Questions of Transparency

Questions of Transparency Category Frequency Percentage

How clear are the rules of the game in the very clear 22 17.6
administration process of your sector? clear 33 26.3
Fairly clear 31 24.3
poorly clear 30 23.5
not clear 10 8.3
Total 126 100
Rate the availability and access to information for Perfect 22 17.6
the community in your sector? Very good 41 32.2
Good 31 24.3
Poor 27 22.3
Very Poor 5 3.6
Total 126 100
Rate your sector‟s transparency towards the Perfect 15 11.9
community? Very good 42 33.2
Good 45 35.6
Poor 17 13.1
Very Poor 7 6.2
Total 126 100
To what extent different departments in your sector Very high 9 7.0
are independent of each other to make decision? High 39 31.3
Medium 48 37.8
Low 18 14.5
Very low 12 9.4
Total 126 100
How much is easy or difficult to obtain information Very difficult 16 12.6
on laws and regulations? Difficult 10 8.3
Somewhat easy 63 50.3
Easy 24 19.3
Very much easy 13 9.5
Total 126 100
Source: Own Survey, 2018

The clarity of the rules of the game in the administration process of the institutions is taken as
one of the sub indices of the indicator, transparency and regularly used in governance
assessment using operational questions. Thus in the assessmentprocess the respondents asked
about the clarity of the rules of the game and their responses were 8.3% not clear 23.5%
poorly clear 24.3% fairly clear and the rest 26.3% and 17.6% were said clear and very clear
respectively. Based on the result although the majority of the responses laid in the clear
category, it does not mean that the rules of the game are clear because 23.5%, 8.3% and
24.3% were in the categories of poorly clear, not clear and fairly clear. In general the rules of
the game in the institutions are not clear enough, thus actions must be taken to achieve the
desired clarity of the rules of the game in the administrative process.

Regarding availability and access to information inthe institutions, 3.6%, 22.3%,24.3% said
very poor, poor and good respectively and the rest 32.2%and 17.6% said very good and
perfect. Therefore, from the point of view of the respondentsresponse good and very good
accounted the largest percents( totally 56.5%) and this implies the availability and access of
information for the community in the institutions is well performed and this further
strengthen by the 17.6% amount of perfect. But it should not be forgotten that very poor and
poor categories shouldn‟t be discounted, as they suggested using their responses the need for
improvement of access and availability of information.

Concerning the sectors‟ transparency towards the community, of all the five categories, it is
good, 35.6% and very good, 33.2%, that had got the majority responses. The rest very poor,
poor and perfect had got 6.2%, 13.1% and 11.9% respectively. Totally as the resultshowed
institutions are transparent towards the community. As far as the extent that different
departments in an institution are independent of each other to make decision concerned,
respondents said very low 9.4%, and those said low14.5% and the rest 38.7%, 31.3% and 7%
said medium, high and very high. Hence based on the result obtained, the different
departments can be said independent of each other and they can decide with out much
interference of each other. But this does not mean that departments of an institution are
perfectly independent of each other while decision making and other tasks are conducted. The
following table indicates questions of transparency and the ratings given by service users‟
respondents of the study.

Table 11.4 Service user responses about questions of transparency

Questions of Transparency Category Frequency Percentage

How much is easy or difficult to obtain Very difficult 28 23.3
information on laws and regulations of your Difficult 20 16.5
service provider sector? Somewhat easy 33 27.4
Easy 24 19.6
Very much easy 16 13.2
Total 121 100
How much do you think is transparent your Totally transparent 23 18.9
service provider sector‟s performance? Transparent 16 13.2
Partially transparent 42 35.1
Not transparent 14 11.3
I don't know 26 21.5
Total 121 100
Does the service provider sector timely and Yes 53 44.3
transparently inform you whenever changes No 68 55.7
in service provision are made? Total 121 100
Source: Own Survey, 2018

How much is difficult or easy to obtain information on laws and regulations of your service
provider sectors? Was the question that was asked for service user‟s respondent, when they
gave responses they said that 23.3%, 16.5%, 27.4% 19.6% and 13.2% of them said, very
difficult, difficult, somewhat easy, easy and very easy respectively? Thus, based on their
response getting on laws and regulation from publicsectors was somewhat easy. Respondents
were also asked to rate how much service provider sectors performances are transparent
towards the public, and their responses were: not transparent (11.3%), partially transparent
(35.1%), transparent (13.2%) and totallytransparent (18.9%). The result showed that sectors
were partially transparent towards their customers. For the question which said „does the
service provider sector timely and transparently inform you whenever changes in service
provision are made?‟ When 55.7% of the respondents said no, the rest of them 44.3% said
yes. When it is seen based on principle of majority it can be said that sectors did not inform
their customers timely and transparently.

The Rule of Law

Table 12.4 - Perception of service users on the condition of questions pertaining to the
rule of law

Questions of the Rule of Law Category Frequency Percentage

Do you get appropriate services which are carried out Yes 83 68.3
in the sub-city? No 38 31.7
Total 121 100
Is there notice board properly placed to indicate Yes 101 84
places so as to acquire speedy and clear services and No 20 16
information?
Total 121 100
When you go to the sub-city offices do you observe Yes 82 68
the public servants badge which indicates the name No 39 32
and responsibility? Total 121 100
When you see unfair treatment by any one of the Yes 74 61
worker, have you ever been reported the case to No 47 39
concerned body? Total 121 100
When the sub-city office workers commit mistakes, Yes 72 59.3
are there rules and regulation to correct them? No 49 40.7
Total 121 100

Source: Own Survey, 2018

With regard to the issues about the appropriate informationin terms ofabout service delivery,
68.3% of the respondents stated that the access of appropriate information is good enough to
deliver efficient and effective services in both sub-city and warada administration. How ever,
about 32.7% of the respondents argue that appropriate information isnot available for the
expected quantity and quality ofservices. There is fear of some staff members to release
information, and the refusal of some staffs to give information issome of the reasons
forwarded by the respondents.

Pertaining to the case which refers to the availability of information desk and bill board to
facilitate efficient quality and speedy services, 84% of the respondents believe that there is an
appropriate information desk and bill boards in the sub-city and each warada. On the
contrarily, 16% of the respondents argue that negatively. In availability of information desk,
the lack of the capacity of workers and out datedness of the some bill boards is some of the
major reason for their negativeresponses

Concerning the issues which addresses whether or not employees fix badges with their
names, position and responsibility on it, 68% of the respondents responded that there is
proper utilization of the employees and executives. In contrast 32% of the respondents
believe that on the contrary. According to them, there is negligence of employees in
implementing government policy. In terms of the case which emphasize on how manage
complaints when there is protest on poor and unfair treatment of customers by any one of
employers, 61% of people responded that the customer complain handling is good enough.
However, 39%of the respondents confirmed that the absence of managing grievance handling
mechanism result on favoritism.

The case which stresses on whether or not rules and regulation to correct employees when
they commit mistakes, 59.3% of respondents believe that in some what there is appropriate
mechanisms on accountability in the sub –city. Whereas, 40.7% of the respondents believe
that there hould be check andbalance of power of civil servants to make them answerable and
enforceable to the public at large. The interdependent between the executives and civil
servants for personal gains is the major reason for their negative response.

Analyises and Discussion of Additional Questions

A question that attempted to understand the condition of hiring employees in public sectors
was, as indicated by the table below, provided to respondents.

Table 13.4 Perception of public servantsservants on the condition of hiring employ in

public sectors

What is the condition of hiring employees in your institution?

A. it is based on B. It is influenced by C. It is based on party D. It is influenced by
legal procedures nepotism, bribery, etc membership family ties and friendship
71 18 21 16
Source: Own Survey, 2018

As it is observed from the table, large number of the respondents, 71 of them said that it was
conducting in accordance with the legal procedures and other respondents, 21, 16 and 18 of
them said it was based on party membership, influenced by family ties and friendship and
influenced by nepotism bribery, etc. When the response of the respondents observed, the
condition of hiring employees in public sectors was conducting according to the legal
procedures of the sector.

Understanding how promotions of the civil servants found in publicsecors are conducting has
high value for governance assessment, thus to do that a question indicated below in the table
was presented to the respondents.

Table 14.4- Civil servant perception about promotion of employees in the public sectors

Employees in the public sectors is promoted based on

A. professional B.party membership/ C. friendship and D. based on E. Based on level
experience, merit affiliation family ties practices of of education
and performance corruption (qualification)
84 8 15 - 19
Source: Own Survey, 2018
 As clearly observed from the table, promotion in public sectors was conducting based on
professional experiences, merit and performance.

Table 15.4 Service users’ responses on good governance

Based on the questions what you have answered Category Frequency Percentage
above, how do you rate the prevalence of good
Perfect 5 3.9
governance in the sector?
Very good 22 18.2
Good 25 21.1
Poor 39 31.9
Very Poor 30 24.9
Total 121 100
Source: Own Survey, 2018

As indicated by the table respondents have been given the chance to rate how good
governance is prevalent in public sectors based on the total questions they previously
responded. They rated it very poor (24.9%), poor (31.9%), good (21.1%) very good (18.2%)
and perfect (3.9%). According to the responses provided by the respondents, it can be
concluded that good governance in public sectors is found poor. Assuming this, in order to
further know their reasons a question was prepared as indicated in the table below.

Table 16.4 Reasons of service users for rating governance in public sector poor and very
poor

If your answer is choices poor or very, what do you think are the causes?

A. Because officials are B. Officials as well C. There is no any D. Because the sector
less concerned as the public sector institutional framework does not have the
(motivated) whether or employees are not that follows up and tradition to discuss
not good governance is well aware of good evaluates the with the community
prevalent in their sector governance implementation of good over the matter)
governance in the sector

19 16 69 17

Source: Own Survey, 2018

 As the table above indicates, of those respondents who selected poor and very poor 69 of
them said because there is no any institutional framework that follows up and evaluates the
implementation of good governance in the sector, the other respondents numbered 17 said
because institutions doesn‟t have the tradition to discuss with the community over the matter
and 19 of them said because officials are less concerned (motivated) whether or not good is
prevalent in their sectors.

Table 17.4 Service users suggestions for good governance is to be prevalent

What measures doyou suggest for good governanceis being prevalent in public sectors?

A. Training for B. Creating awareness about C. Establish institutional D. Other

officials and good governance on the part of frame work for good (specify)
employees the public in order to enable governance
them to challenge in the implementation follow up
absence of good institutional
governance.

29 72 25

Source: Own Survey, 2018

For the question “what measures are you suggested for good governance is to be prevalent in
public institutions? “creating awareness about good governance on the part of the public in
order to enable them to challenge in the absence of good institutional governance (72 of the
respondents), establish institutional frame work for good governance implementation follow
up (25 of the respondents) and training of officials and employees (29 of the respondents)
were suggested by the respondents.

Table 18.4 Civil servant responses on the possible outcome of absence of good
governance

What do you think will be the consequences of the absence or less prevalence of good governance?

A)Hinders B) strongly affects C) slim down D)damage investment, trade D. All

institutional the community and the overall and thedevelopment and
performances retarded development aspect of the expansion of small/medium
sub city and micro enterprises

8 2 9 5 97
Source: Own Survey, 2018
As far as the consequences of the absence or less prevalence of good governance, 97
respondents said all of the ideas under options A, B, C, D and the rest 8 respondent said
hinder institutional performance. As achieving good governance has high momentum for the
effective accomplishment of development targets and is the means to bring development,
peace and stability within a country, different countries and national and international
organizations have long been engaged in the process of ensuring good governance from
international to local levels. One of the methods of different actors of governance used in the
processes of achieving good governance is governance assessment. Assessing governance
leads to know failures and success of governance achievements that must be corrected and
strengthened respectively.

Thus, as achieving good governance is one of the main agendas of Ethiopia, different efforts
on the part of the government has been conducted recognizing that achieving good
governance both at the national and local level directly or indirectly implies economic
development and peace and stability .

Thus in general this paper tried to show how good governance is prevalent in public sectors
in light of the five core good governance principles; participation, effectiveness and
efficiency, transparency, accountability, and rule of law.

Success and failure on the part of the public sectors as far as Participations is
Concerned.

Although all of the public sectors were not failed orachieved all of the operational questions
and interviews prepared based on participation sub indices, in some of them they were found
effective and in other indices they found poor. As far as the existence of institutional
framework for the public participation, they were effective and institutional frameworks have
found in place. Based on the research finding it was not only the frameworks existed but as
far as their implementation concerned the research has found effectively working and the
participation of the society in public sector is wide speared (table 1 and table 2). Regarding
Civil Society (CSOs) or Community Based (CBOs) Organizations, the study found poor in
that in most of the public sectors, there are no frameworks to participate them and sectors
favored not them to have participationin their sectors (table 1).Public sectors concerning
public forum for women, youth and disadvantaged groupsof their customer or the public have
found poor and did not have the required forum these section of the society (table 1).
As far as citizen consultation before implementation of programs and policies sectors have
poor record based on the research finding. Based onthe result obtained from both the public
users and employees of the sectors they achieved poor in the issue (table1 & table 2). In
encouraging citizens in decision making processinstitution performed well and the research
has found that they were effectively conducted it and this was witnessed by the service users
(customers) of the sectors. This was further proved in likert type questions in efficiency and
effectiveness indicators analysis (Table 1 and table 3).

Regarding the customers or the society evaluation of the service provider

sectorsmanagementand survey assessments of satisfactions levelof the customer or service
users concerned, according to the finding of the research, performed poor which was strongly
proved by the service users or the customer (table2 and table3).

Based on the research finding customers proved that they could easily provide their
suggestions, questions, comments and complaints for their service provider sectors without
any difficulties, however, the research has found some failure in giving immediate solutions
for the complaints and questions provided. But this does not mean that sectors
accommodating nature of complaints, suggestions, comments and questions is poor because it
was small number of respondents complain this. Thus, sectors in this direction are performing
well. Other poor performance of institution as observed by the research was the sectors
failure to give either of seminars, workshops, or general conference or small group
discussions for the public user regarding the services they are going to provide. In this
directions sectors s performed poorly and that created confusion on the part of the service
users.

In general the research has found successful accomplishment in institutional framework for
the public participation and its effective implementation, in encouraging citizen involvement
in decision making process, in easily accepting, accommodating customers or service users‟
complaints and questions with some shortcomings in giving solutions for complaints quickly.
But regarding CSOs, CBOs and other related organizations involvement in the sectors
concerned, in making public forum for women, youth and disadvantage groups, in consulting
citizens whenever they needed to implement new programs, strategies and polices, in inviting
service users to evaluate the public sectors management and in making survey of satisfaction
level of the service users and giving either seminar, workshops or conferences regarding the
services they provided to the society, they were poor and accomplished poorly. Therefore
although it is not said that participations do not exist in the sectors, they are poor.

Failures and successes of institutions in effectiveness and efficiency

As far as public sectors role in giving seminars or workshops concerning good

governancewas found poor in that sectors did not give seminars and workshops for public
servants or for their staff members. As the issue good governance is “a matter of life and
death” as one of the government officials said, the seminars, workshops and trainings should
have been given for sectors staff members. But as it is proved by respondents and interviews
conducted in most of the institutions the trainings or seminars or workshops on the issue were
not given (Table 3).As far as the existence of published standardsconcerned, public sectors
are successful asthey had the published performance standards.They are also successful in
having clear strategic plan (Table 3).

In financial resource management, relevant decisionmaking processes based on reliable

information being the culture of thesectors, concerning efficient, ethical and effective use of
resourcesin the sectors, implementation of decision, job security of employees, and
administrative and technical skills of the sectors,the research has found that public sectors are
effective and concerning the sectors political vulnerability, the research has found that
interference of politics in public sectors are very low, if the interference is very low public
sectors are independent and they can accomplish their responsibility independently (table 8),
the research has found effectiveness of the sectors in observing the ruleof lawpoor despite the
public employee suggestion of good (table 5).

Regarding bureaucratic delay and much process whenever service users are engaged in the
service providing sectors, and special service delivery mechanism for women and the
disadvantaged group concerned institutions has found poorly performing. Especially as the
respondents proved bureaucratic delay and much process in the sectors is common and that
was highly hurting the service users and their businesses (Table 6).

As far as the amount of services provided to society, on the efficiency in providing services,
degree of confidence that service users have in sectors are concerned, the research discovered
medium level results. The research has also found public services are dependent of political
interference (Table 5). In general as far as effectiveness and efficiency concerned based on
the finding of the research describe above, although it doesn‟t mean that effectiveness and
efficiency as indicator perfectly implemented in public sectors, it is observed that public
sectors were found well accomplishing.

Failures and successes of public institutions in transparency

The rules of the game in public sectors, availability and access to information for the
community, sectors‟ transparency towards the community and departments of an institution
independent of each other to make decisions have found effectively working in public
sectors. In addition, easiness or difficulty to obtain information on lawsand regulationsin
institutions was discovered somewhat easy.

Promotions of employees in public sectors are under going based on the legal procedures
usingprofessional experiences, merit and performances (Table 11 & table 12).Service
provider sectors should timely and transparently inform to the userswhenever changes in
service provision are made, but this wasnot made in the sectors. Thus, in this regard public
sectors were not effective.

In general, as far as transparency in public sectors is concerned, as described above due to the
transparency rules of the game in the sectors, availability of access to information for the
community, transparency of the sectors towards thecommunity, independence of departments
in an sectors to make decision independently and other attributes mentioned, the sectors can
be said they are discharging their responsibility transparently. But this does not mean that
they are highly or perfectly applying the principle of transparency. As there are shortcomings
mentioned and not mentioned here and transparence in the sectors. But in general public
sectors are good in transparency.

Success and failures of public sectors regarding accountability

Due to the absence of institutional mechanism that enable the society to control the
administration of the public sectorsand the absence of monitoring and reviewing procedures
to follow up the implementation ofanti corruption policy, the inability of the public to review
the budget, absence of CBOs and CSOs review of the institutions‟ budget, and the existence
of corruption, public sectors in general are observed and found poorin accountability.
Especially for the prevalence of corruption in public sectors concerned, the research proved
that two factors, lack of adequate wage for workers of public sectors and lack of follow up
and appropriate measures of punishment on those caught up in corruption before(tables 8, 9,
10, 15,16 ,) .

Summary of the Interview Responses

The interview has been conducted to the officials and service users of sub-city administration.
The officials of sub-city administration perceived good governance in basic features, such as
political, economical, social and administrative features. First of all politics refers to decision
making and policy implementation by the legitimate organization which is including the rule
of law, freedom of expression, freedom choose and participation. Second, economic refers to
the economic activities which are the production, and distribution of goods as well as
services.Thirdly, social refers to the value of bases such as, the value of peoples which is
including peace, patriotism and social justice. Finally, administration refers to the existence
of an efficient and effective administration.

In other words, administration is the capacity of state, effective and efficient bureaucracy,
committed leader of officials, financial and other resources. It is also the ability of
government to implement policiesand accomplish its goal. According to the view of most
officials, governance involves the multiple actors such as the government its self, private
sector and civil societies at large.

These multi-actors articulate their interests in the conduct of government. However, in the
case of Kolfe Keraniyo sub-city, there is littlie space for private and civil society to influence
the government. The interviewees believed that there is no strong transparent and accountable
system in the sub-city administration. The poor organizational structures of the sub-city
administration have permitted poor fed back system that hinders the existences of good
governance. The executives of the sub-city administration stated that attitudinal change,
continuous training and development for both political leaders and civil servants and work
process reform should be developed to chance good governance in the sub-city administration
at all levels.

Most of the respondents believe that the service delivery in the sub-city is inefficient. That
means the sub-city administration do not have sufficient space in policy making process and
resource allocation in the sub-city. The sub city administration do not have clear transparent
system for efficient and effective service delivery.Thereare no clear mechanisms to exercise
accountability both in political leader and civil servants. Corruption, rent seeking and
nepotism are the most common phenomena in the sub city administration.The executive
capacity is to low to implement government policies as expected quantity, quality and time
bounded.The government polices suc has condominium house and micro –financing policies
are not properly implemented and there is a high turn over of employees.
 CHAPTER FIVE

MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMONDATIONS

Findings

The findings of this study indicated that good governance is some what practiced in the sub-
city level. However, the rate of performance of good governance elements are low and is
needed to be improved. This implies that all elements of good governance are not given to
attention by the sub-city administration that may be caused by the absence of commitment,
lack of inputs forestablishing and exercising good governance properly. According to the
view of some respondents, there is no conduicive environment to play their roles in the
implementation of good governance elements which shows that the public sector reforms are
not still functional.

According to the information which is obtained from quasionnariesand interview as well as

documents, the main challengs and problems of good governance are absence of transparency
on the part of the administration, lack of democratic culture and experience, lack of
capacities, lack of mutual understanding and lack of conduicive environment toimplement
good governance properly. The government policies are extremely abused in the sub city for
instance in ensuring the demands of the vulnerable and particular segments of society such
asthe youths, women and the lower income citizens. However in reality the beneficiaries are
high income groups of the society.

The study indicates that there is little space for societal demands and pressure to influence
and shape polices and their out comes.The absence or little space of civil society and interest
groups in policy making has resulted vertical imbalances between citizens and policy
beneficiaries.Due to poor organization in thesub-city, there are poor accountability, absence
of transparency and loss of integrity in the executive bodies and civil servants and resulted in
the poorest service delivery.

The information that supposed to be released to the beneficiaries or residents are not clear.
This in turn vested substantial power to the executives that resulted nepotism and corruption
and rent seeking. The poor organized institutional system of the sub-city also brought the
poor capacity and absence of high skilled personnel at the sub –cityand lags behind the
development issues.The long process and diligence of judiciary system resulted in less
credibility there by affecting for the effective and efficient implementation of rule of law.As
it has been responded through questionaire, due to the absences of accountability, the
executed services have not been delivered as per standards. In some cases the beneficiaries
are enforced to find themselves for more than a month to respond their demands.
Conclusions

Based on the result of this study, public sectorswere not been found perfectly effective in any
of the five good governance indicators used in the study. Instead, they were found effective in
some of the sub indices of the indicators and ineffective in some other sub indices of the
indicators. Therefore, in order to avoid generalization by simply using indicators for
conclusion, the conclusion of the study has been conducted by focusing on specific sub
indices of the indicators used in the study. In addition, in the conclusion and
recommendation, focus has been given for the weak side of public sectors.

When policies or programs are going to be launched that directly or indirectly affects the
society or customers, there must be first conducted some form of consultation with the
society or the public users concerning their demands and how it is feasible to the society or at
least for the purpose of creating awareness. Doing not results rejection of the program or
projects on the part of the society, develop low sense of ownershipof the project and finally
results the total failure of the program or projects. In principles of good governance public
sectors‟ management needs to be open for public review and evaluation. If the public sectors
are feared public review and evaluation of their administration by no means they could be
said transparent. For a service provider sectors making a survey of customer satisfaction level
must be one of the first simple activities, failed to do this lead the failure of the public sectors
as institution and the sector will have not the mechanism to know its failures and success as
far as the service it provides to the society.

Customers having not giving immediate solutionsfor their complaints, blame not only the
sector but the overall system of the government. It also results the loss of customers and the
delay of solution led service users to find solution abnormally such as through bribe. For
good governance to be prevalence in public sectors, total staffs of the public sectors should
have awareness about good governance this need training, seminars and workshops, therefore
trainings, seminars, workshops, information about good governance through pamphlets,
journals and medias and other forms need to be given. Especially regional communication
Medias can play greater role. In addition, failure in giving some form of awareness creation
in the form of conference or workshop to the users about the services they provideswill create
confusion among stakeholders. Furthermore, using thegap illegal traders will be benefited by
exploiting the society.
Public sectors need to be aware of concerning their efficiencyin providing services so as to
increase degree of confidence (trust) of the users.The services being totally independent from
political influence encourage users and avoid the sense of discriminate on among service
users. Politically biased sectors produces conflict and hinder the building of good governance
in the sectors. One of the most important things that public sectors expected to achieve is the
establishment of procedures to follow up the implementation of anti corruption policy. What
should not be forgotten in the process of achieving good governance in public sectors is the
case of corruption. The most dangerous enemy of building democratic governance is
corruption. Public sectors highly infected in corruption can not be productive and will never
have good performance rather they deter the process of the building good governance in
public sectors. Corruption strongly affects service users and the sub city in general. As the
same time the public has to have the privilege of reviewing the budget of the sectors.

Because of the cultural and historical influence that had laid up on them women parts of the
population are not in offices and positions as theywould have to been and it becomes
impossible for a country to bring change and development with out active participation of
half of the part of the total population of the country. Immediate corrective actions needs as
far as promoting women in key positions in public sectorswhere by now they are below 10%.

In general absence of giving training and awareness creation of officials and public sectors
employees through training, workshops and seminars, through pamphlets, journals and
regional medias, create the attitude of low value for good governance both among the civil
servants and the community. They consider good governance as an idea that much not
necessary for poverty reduction and sustainable development. In addition, follow up
mechanisms concerning implementation of good governance in public sectorshave great role
if they are established by the sectors. Creating awareness about good governance especially
using regional Medias and letthem struggle the absence of good governance in public sectors.
Lastly, institutional mechanismsshould be established for discussion with the society
regarding good governances. The consequent results of poor governance would probably
decreasesectoralresponsibility discharging capacity, damage society (customers) living and
hinders government and it blocks expansion of investments and trade.

Thus this paper tried to show how good governance is prevalent in public sectors in light of
the five core good governance principles; participation, effectiveness and efficiency,
transparency, accountability, and rule of law. In general those described successes and
failures of public sectors based on the five good governance indicators have their own
positive and negative effects. Successes described by the study promote institutional
performances, ensure productivity of the sectors creates benefit for the society and facilitates
the building of good governance in public sectors. Where as those failures described by the
research strongly affects institutional performance, productivity, and the process of building
good governance. To summerize, for a country striving to achieve the sustainable
development goals, the contribution of public sectors played crucial role. For the sectors to
contribute their parts, good governance should be one of the principal frameworks in all of
their activities.
Recommendations

Civil Society and Community Based Organizations area mong the most relevant stakeholders
that must be given place in the process of good governance building processes because as
they are directly represent the society, they have strongcontributions in building of good
governance. However, poor achievements were observed on the part of public sectors in
accommodating them. Thus, preparing clear frame works and correctly implementing it will
enable Civil Society and Community Based Organizations in public sectors.

In principles of good governance sectors‟ management needs to be open for public

review and evaluation. If the institutions are feared public review and evaluation of their
administration by no means they could be said transparent. For a service provider sectors
making a survey of customer satisfaction level must be one of the first simple activities,
failed to do this lead the failure of the sectors as they have not the mechanism to know the
failures and success as far as the service it provides to the society. Thus, public sectors need
to know the importance of making satisfaction survey and formally implement it.

Public sectors should to know how far hurting the customers having not giving immediate
solutions for their complaints. It needs the public sectors to be quick in giving solutions for
complains of the customer. For good governance to be prevalence in public sectors, total
staffs of the public sectors should have awareness about good governance. This needs
training, seminars and workshops, therefore trainings, seminars, workshops, information
about good governance through pamphlets, journals and Medias and other forms need to be
given. Especially communication Medias can play greater role. In addition, failure in giving
some form of awareness creation in the form of conference or workshop to the users about
the services they provides will create confusion among stakeholder. Thus, public sectors
should prepare the mechanism and apply it.

As described above, whenever we think of service delivery in relation to good governance,

the first thing that has to come in our mind should be the accommodation of women and the
disadvantaged. Programs should be arranged by which women and disadvantaged groups are
treated. Public sectors need to be aware of concerning their efficiency in providing services
so as to increase degree of confidence (trust) of the users.The services being totally
independent from political influence encourages users.
Both the society and CBOs and CSOs organizations should have accesses in reviewing
budgets of the public sectors. There has to have mechanisms in public sectors which enabled
them to review budgets. Corruption as endemic enemy for social, economical and political
enemy of any country especial attentions should be given to it. As it strongly deters
institutional performance capacity public sectors needs to cautious in eliminating from the
sectors.Timely and transparently in forming service users whenever changes are going to
made in services provisions. This enables service users to adjust themselves on time and
avoid later confusions. Because of the cultural and historical influence that had laid up on
them, women parts of the population are not in offices and positions as they would have to
been and it becomes impossible for a country to bring change and development with out
active participation of half of the part of the total population of the country. Immediate
corrective actions needs as far as promoting women in key positions in public sectors
whereby now they are below 10%.

In general, for governance not to be poor in public sectors, training and awareness creation of
officials and public sectors employees through training, workshops and seminars, through
pamphlets, journals and medias is necessary. In addition, follow up mechanisms concerning
implementation of good governance in public sectors have great role if they are established
by the sectors. Creating awareness about good governance especially using Medias and let
them struggle the absence of good governance in public sectors. Lastly, institutional
mechanisms should be established for discussion with the society regarding good
governances. Having not ensuring what are describe dabove could be causes for poor
governance. The consequent results of poor governance would probably be decrease public
sectors‟responsibility in discharging capacity, damage society (customers) living and hinders
government and it blocks expansion of investments and trade.
 REFERENCES

Abdellatif, M. (2012). Good Governance and Its Relationship to Democracy and Economic
Development. Global Forum V on Fighting Corruption, pp. 52-55 London: Oxford
University Press Ltd.

Abreha, Z. B. (2008). The Practice and Challenges of Good Governance in Addis Ababa

City administration. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University Press.

Addis Ababa City Administration Revised Charter Proclamation No 361/2003, (2003). FDRE

Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa City Council.

Addis Ababa City Development Framework Report (2017), Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa
Council.

African Governance Report.(2015), Addis Ababa: Economic Commission for Africa.

B.A, a. J. (2009). Governance and outcomes, Comparative Politics Notes and

Readings.

Thomson Wadison Ltd: New York.

B.K., S. ( 2009). Good Governance in International Law . New Delhi: New Delhi Printing

Ltd.

Bofiglioli, A. (2005). Empowering the Poor Local Governance for Poverty Reduction .

Washington: Harvard University Press.

Civil Service Reform Report (2012), Addis Ababa: Federal Democratic Republic of

Ethiopia, Ministry of Civil Service.

Civil Service Reform Report (2012), Addis Ababa: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Central Statistical Agency.

Civil Service Reform Report (2015), Addis Ababa: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Central Statistical Agency.
Common Wealth, Secretariat (2011). Promoting good Governance, Principles

and Perispectives p.95-96.

Dawson, C. (2002). Practical Research Methods. , New Delhi.: UBS Publishers Distributors,.

Donker, H. &. (2008 ). The International Journal Of Business in Society. Towards an

Impartial and Effective Corporate Governance Rating System, p. 36-38.

FDRE Higher Government Officials Training Manual on Democratic System.(2012 ), Addis

Ababa: EDRE Council of Ministers.

Feyisa, T. D. ( 2008). The Importance of GoodGovernance for Effective and Efficient

Land Administration in Addis Ababa City . Addis Ababa.: Addis Ababa University

Press.

Five Year Growth and Transformation Plan (2010/11-2015/16) (2010), Addis Ababa: FDRE,

Ministry of Finance and Economic Development.

F, M. (2008). Managing Ethiopian Cities in an Era of Rapid Urbanization. Paris: European

Academic Publishing.

Grindle, S. (2005). “Good Enough Governance, Revisited”. Washington: Harvard University

Press.

Hifzainam, F. A. (2014). Corporate Governance and its Impact on Performance of Banking, .

London: Oxford University Press Ltd.

J.Gaventa, G. A. (2008). Bringing Citizen Voice and Client Focus in to Service Delivery.

Calcutta: BR.W Publishers.

Jalal, J. (2008). Public System Management. New Delhi: New Delhi Publishers Ltd.

Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. and Zoido- Lobaton. (2009). “Governance Matters”,

Policy
 Research Working Paper. Leister: Leister Publishing Co Ltd.

Kolfe Keraniyo Sub-City Administration Report (2015), Addis Ababa.: Colfe Keraniyo

Administration.

Kolfe Keranyo Sub-City Socio-Economic Profile, (2015), Addis Ababa.: Kolfe Keraniyo

Administration Office.

Kothari, C. (1985). Research Methodology- Methods and Techniques Wiley. New Delhi:

Wiley Easter Limited.

Kous A, R. A. ( (2009)). Federalism and Good Governance Issues Across Cultures. Culcutta:

South Asian Publishers PVT Ltd.

Kumar, R. (2005). Research Methodology-A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners, (2nd.ed),

Singapore: Pearson Education.

Livtuack, J. A. ( 2009). Rethinking Decentralization in Developing Countries, Washington

DC: Washington Publishers Ltd.

Mathew., D. (2009). State Society and Public Administration. New Delhi: New Delhi

Printing Ltd.

Ministry of Finance and Economic Development Annual Report (2013), Addis Ababa:

Ministry of Finance and Economic Development .

Mishra, S. (2008). Public System Management. New Delhi: New Delhi Printing Ltd.

Pierre, J. a. ( 2011). “Governance, Politics and State”. ,Basingstoke: Macmillan Publishers.

Plan For Acceleratedand Sustained Development to End Poverty (2007),. Addis Ababa:

Republic Of Ethiopia, Ministry Of Works And Urban Development.

Prased, C. (2006). Decentralization and Local Governance. New Delhi: New Delhi
 publishers.

Service Delivery Policy. (2001). Addis Ababa: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Civil Service Agency.

Sharma, K. (2010). Popular Participation for Good Governance and Development at

the Local Level, The Case of Botswana. Macmillan: Macmillan Publishers.

The Concept of Good Governance (2013), The Public Servant Training Manual. Addis
Ababa: FDRE Ombudsman.

UNDP Governance for Sustainable Human Development, (2011). A UN Policy Documents,

(pp. 46-47). New York: UNDP.

World Bank Good Governance in Sub Saharan African (2009), Addis Ababa: ECSC.
 APPENDICES

Oromia State University

Department of Human Resource Management and

Leadership MA programme in “Leadership and Change

Management”

Questionnaires for Public Sector Employees

These questionnaires are prepared to be filled by the Public Servants of Kolfe Keraniyo sub
city in Addis Ababa City administration. The research entitled “Assessment of the
Significance and Practice of Good Governance in Addis Ababa: A Survey of KolfeKeraniyo
Sub City Administration” is aimed to identify the problems which are related to good
governance and the endeavour to its proper implementation and recommend alternative
solution for the identified problems.To this end, your responses for every element in the
questionnaire have a crucial role to the success of this study. The data or informations that
you offer are supposed to contribute and achieve the out come of the study.The information
you are going to give in this regard is kept very confidential.
Thank you for your cooperation.

Notice:

 There is no need to write your name.

 Put „‟X‟‟ in the box and circle the letter of your choice from the suggested options.

 For the open ended choice, please write short notes as needed.

Demographic Data

1. The respondents‟ sex: Male Female

2. Age: 18-30 ≥31

3. Marital status: Married Unmarried Divorce

4. Education status: 1-8 grades 9-10 grades Certificate Diploma C/

 B

MA/MSC/above
 I. Questionnaires pertaining to Participation

1. Is there any sectoral framework that enables the public users or the society to participate
in your sector? A. Yes B. No

If you say yes, how do you rate the participation?

A. Excellent B. Very good C. Fair D. Poor E. Very poor

If your answer is D or E, for the above question, what do you think is the reason?

A. The framework for participation is not practical.

B. The society/ public users are not ready to participate.

C. No favorable conditions on the part of the sector.

D. Officials of the institution disfavor customer‟s participation.

2. What should be done to achieve active involvement or participation of service users

in the sector?

A. Giving training, workshop or seminar to the institution in general about

the importance of community/service users‟ participation.

B. Making changes of participation framework of the sector

C. create awareness about the importance of participation on the part of the

community

D. create favorable institutional condition that attract service users /the community

for participation

E. If any other, please (specify)

3.Is there any sectoral frame work which enable civil society or community based

organanizations participate in your sector? A. Yes B. No

4. How many times in a year are the community participates in your sector on the issues

that concerned them? A. One time B. Two times C. Three times

D. More than three times E. I don‟t have any information about it.

5. Is your sector has public forum for Women, Youth and the disadvantaged groups?

A. Yes B. No

6. Do you think that you clearly defined consultation mechanisms as far as the users‟ needs

are concerned? A. Yes B. No

II. Questionnaires pertaining to Efficiency & Effectiveness

7. How do you rate your sectors‟ role in encouraging citizen‟s capacity to engage in decision-
making A. Perfect B.Very good C.Good D. Poor E.Very poor

8. How do you rate the financial resource management in your sector?

A. Perfect B.Very good C. Good D. Poor E.Very poor

9. How do you rate relevant decision making processes based on reliable information being
the culture of your sector?

A. Perfect B.Very good C.Good D. Poor E.Very poor

10. How do you rate the effective, efficient and ethical use of resources in your isector?

A. Perfect B.Very good C.Good D. Poor E.Very poor

11. How do you rate the administrative and technical skills of your institution

A. Perfect B.Very good C.Good D. Poor E.Very poor

13. How do you rate your sector‟s vulnerability to political pressure?

A.Very high B. High C. Medium D.Low E. Very low

14. How do you rate implementation of decisions in your sector?

 A. Perfect B.Very good C.Good D. Poor E.Very poor

15. How much you are secure to stay in your job?

A.Very high B. High C. Medium D.Low E. Very low

16. Rate your sector‟s nature of observing the rule of law in service provision as well as other
functions connected to the community?

A. Perfect B.Very good C.Good D. Poor E.Very poor

III. Questionnaires of Accountability

17. Is there any mechanism in your sector that enables the society to control the

administration? A. Yes B. No

18. Are there monitoring and reviewing procedures in place to follow up the

implementation of the anti-corruption policy? A. Yes B. No

19. Is there any institutional framework in your sector for public review of the budget?

A. Yes B. No

20. Does your institution have a normative framework for management accountability?

A. Yes B. No

21. Is there any sectoral procedure which enable civil society organizations or

community based organizations review the institution‟s budget?

A. Yes B. No

22. Do citizens can access accountability documents and get an answer to their questions?

A. Yes B. No

23. What is officials‟ (authorities‟) interes towards the community?

A. Perfect B.Very good C.Good D. Poor E.Very poor

 24. How do you rate the degree (severity) of corruption in your sector?

A.Very high B. High C. Medium D.Low E. Very low

24. How monitoring and reviewing procedures are in place to follow up the implementation
of the anti-corruption policy is practically implemented in your sector?

A. Perfect B.Very good C.Good D. Poor E.Very poor

IV. Questionnaires of Transparency

25. Are the procurement procedures in your sector publicly disclosed?

A. Yes B. No

26. Do vacancies announced within the sector or publicly are simple, clear and easily

understood? A. Yes B. No

27. Are staff members are always informed when important decisions are made in

their sectors? A. Yes B. No

28. Is there any procedure to channeling complaints and answers for the society in your

sector? A. Yes B. No

29. How clear are the rules of the game in the administration process of your sector?

A. Very clear B. Clear C.Poorly clear D. Not clear

30. Rate the availability and access to information for the community in your sector?

A. Perfect B.Very good C.Good D. Poor E.Very poor

31. How do your ate your sector‟s transparency towards the community?

A. Perfect B.Very good C.Good D. Poor E.Very poor

32. To what extent different departments in your sectors are independent of each other

to make decision?
 A.Very high B. High C. Medium D.Low E. Very low

33. How much is easy or difficult to obtain information on laws and regulations?

A Very difficult B. Difficult C. Somewhat easy D. Easy E. Very much easy

34. What is the condition of hiring employees in your sector?

A. it is based on legal procedures B. It is influenced by nepotism, bribery, etc

C. It is based on party membership D. It is influenced by family ties and friendship

35. Employees in the public sectors is promoted based on

A. professional experience, merit and performance B.party membership/ affiliation

C. friendship and family ties D. based on practices of corruption

E. Based on level of education (qualification)

V. Questionnaires Pertinent to Rule of Law

34. Do you exercise your democratic right in your locality?

A. Yes B. No

If no, please write down your experience .

35. Do you believe that the justice system bodies fulfill their duties and responsibilities to

overcome illegal actions? A. Yes B. No

If no, write your reasons

36. To what extent doyou think that the judiciary organs are free from political influences?

A.Very high B. High C. Low

If low, write your justifications.

37. Do you think the executive at both levels repent the rule of low?
 A. Yes B. No

If no, write your reasons

38. What do you think will be the consequences of the absence or less prevalence of
good governance?

A) Hinders institutional performances

B) Strongly affects the community and retarded development

C) Slim down the overall aspect of the sub city

D) Damage investment, trade and thedevelopment and expansion of small/medium

and micro enterprisesE. All

 Oromia State University

Department of Human Resource Management and

Leadership MA programme in “Leadership and Change

Management”

Questionnaires for Service Users

These questionnaires are prepared to be filled by the Service Users in public sectors of
KolfeKeraniyo sub city in Addis Ababa City administration. The research entitled
“Assessment of the Significance and Practice of Good Governance in Addis Ababa: A
Survey of KolfeKeraniyo Sub City Administration” is aimed to identify the problems which
are related to good governance and the endeavour to its proper implementation and
recommend alternative solution for the identified problems.

To this end, your responses for every element in the questionnaire have a crucial role to the
success of this study. The data or informations that you offer are supposed to contribute and
achieve the out come of the study.The information you are going to give in this regard is kept
very confidential.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Notice:

 There is no need to write your name.

 Put „‟X‟‟ in the box and circle the letter of your choice from the suggested options.

 For the open ended choice, please write short notes as needed.

Demographic Data

1. The respondents‟ sex : Male Female

2. Age: 18-30 ≥31

3. Marital status: Married Unmarried Divorce

4. Education status: 1-8 grades 9-10 grades Certificate Diploma
BSC/ MA/MSC/above
 I. Questionnaires pertaining to Participation

1. Does the public sectors prepare community forum in order to enable the community to
discuss issues that mater them? A. Yes B. No

2. Do the public sectors encourage you to participate in decision making process that
concerns the service user/community? A. Yes B. No

3. Do you (the community) ever consulted by the sectors before a program or policy is
implemented that concerns you? A. Yes B. No

4. Do you have ever invited to evaluate the service provider sector management?

A. Yes B. No

5. Do you have ever asked by your service provider sector as far as your need or demand

concerned? A. Yes B. No

6. Can you easily provide your suggestions, questions, comments and complaints for

your service provider sector? A. Yes B. No

If your answer is no, what do you think is the reason?

A. Strong bureaucratic delay B. Absence of mechanism to do so

C. I don‟t think that they give me a solution D. It incurs me additional cost

E. If other, specify

7. Have you ever provides complains in a service provider institution? A. Yes B. No

If your answer is yes, in what way the sector treated you?

A. They properly accepted my complain and give solution quickly

B. They properly accepted my complain but they were not ready to give the solution

C. They were not ready to accept my complain

D. If other, specify
8. Do you ever have given training or workshop concerning the service you received

by your service provider? A. Yes B. No

If your answer is No, how do you know the rules and regulations as far as the

service you are received concerned?

A. Through Pamphlets B. through regional radio C. informally from individuals

D. I don‟t need to know about the rule and regulations I simply do what they ordered me

E. If other, specify

9. How do you rate the prevalence of good governance in the sector?

A. Perfect B.Very good C.Good D. Poor E.Very poor

10. If your answer is choices poor or very poor, what do you think are the causes?

A. Because officials are less concerned (motivateed) whether or not good governance

is prevalent in their institution

B. Officials as well as the public sector employees are not well aware of good
governance

C. There is no any Institutional framework that follows up and evaluates the

implementation of good governance in the institution

D. Because the institution does not have the tradition to discuss with the community
over the matter)

1. What measures do you suggest for good governanceis to be prevalent in public sectors?

A. Training for officials and employees

B. Creating awareness about good governance on the part of the public in order to

enable them to challenge in the absence of good institutional governance.

C. Establish institutional frame work for good governance implementation follow up

 D. If other (specify)

II. Questionnaires pertaining to Efficiency & Effectiveness

9. To what amount is the sector provides the services to the customers?

A. Perfect B.Very good C.Good D. Poor E.Very poor

10. How do you rate your satisfaction level on the service provided by thesector?

A. Very satisfying B. SatisfyingC.Fairly satisfying

D. Dissatisfying E. Very dissatisfying

11. How do you ate the efficiency of your service provider institution?

A. Perfect B.Very good C.Good D. Poor E.Very poor

12. If your answer lsYes for question 11, how much it hurts you or your businesses?

A. Very highly B. Highly C. Averagely

D. Low E. It neither hurts me nor my business

13. How would you rate the degree of confidence (trust) you have in your service provider?

A.Very high B. High C. Medium D.Low E. Very low

14. How much do you think that the public services are independent from

political interference?

A.Independent B. Partially independent C.Dependent D. Totally dependent

15. Rate the sectors‟ nature of observing the rule of law in service provision as well as other
functions connected to the community.

A. Perfect B.Very good C.Good D. Poor E.Very poor

16. Have you ever faced bureaucratic delay and much process whenever you are engaged

in the service providing institution? A. Yes B. No

If yes is your answer, how much it negatively affects you or your businesses?

A. Very highly B. Highly C. Averagely D. Low

17. Does the service provider sector have a special service delivery mechanism for women
and the disadvantaged group? A. Yes B. No

III. Questionnaires of Accountability

18. Have you ever asked irregular payments by personnel/officials of the service

provider sector to accomplish your task in it? A. Yes B. No

If your answer is yes, how do you rate the frequency that you are asked the irregular

payment?

A. Most frequently B. Frequently C. Occasionally D. After a long time

19. Do the community/ service users have ever got the chance to review the budget of

your service provider sector? A. Yes B. No

20. Do you think that there is corruption in the service provider sector?

A. Yes B. No

IV. Questionnaires of Transparency

21. How much is easy or difficult to obtain information on laws and regulations of your

service provider sector?

A. Very difficult B. Difficult C. Somewhat easy D. Easy E. Very much easy

22. How much do you think is transparent your service providersector‟s performance?

A. Totally transparent B. Transparent C. Partially transparent

D. Not transparent E. I don‟t know

23. Does the service provider sector timely and transparently inform you whenever changes
in service provision are made? A. Yes B. No

V. Questionnaires Pertinent to Rule of Law

34. Do you exercise your democratic right in your locality?

A. Yes B. No

If no, please write down your experience .

35. Do you believe that the justice system bodies fulfill their duties and responsibilities to
overcome illegal actions?

A. Yes B. No

If no, write your reasons

36. To what extent do you think that the judiciary organs are free from political influences?

A.Very high B. High C. Low

If low, write your justifications.

37. Do you think the executive at both levels repent the rule of low?

A. Yes B. No

If no, write your reasons

38. What do you think will be the consequences of the absence or less prevalence of
good governance?

A) Hinders institutional performances

B) Strongly affects the community and retarded development

C) Slim down the overall aspect of the sub city

D) Damage investment, trade and thedevelopment and expansion of small/medium

and micro enterprises E. All

 Interview Questions

1. What are the basic features of good governance in the sub city?

2. What is the role of concerned bodies to implement good governance in the sub city?

3. Is there clear demarcation of power and function between the sub city and Warada

administration?

4. Who play dominant role in agenda setting and budget allocation in the sub city?

5. Is there check and balance mechanisms amongst government organs in the sub city?

6. What are the major challenges of good governance in the sub city administration?

7. Do the residents of sub city participate in political, economical, and social issues?

8. What are the mechanisms to exercise transparency and accountability of the

executives and civil servants?

2. Is there any feedback mechanism to receive comments from the citizens regarding

service delivery?

3. What must be done to improve good governance in the sub city and what are

the means to tackle the problem of good governance?