Index of Good Governance in Macedonia

May 24, 2016

CRPMPublisher: Center for Research and Policy Making, Macedonia

Macedonia’s state healthcare insurance fund scored the best marks for adopting principles of good governance among the country’s 19 central government institutions, according to a Center for Research and Policy Making (CRPM) study.

However, the report showed generally low marks for compliance with the indicators CRPM used to determine if an agency was practicing good governance. Although top-tanked, the Health Insurance Fund of Macedonia (HIF) scored positively in only about 41 percent of the indicators. Macedonia’s parliament was ranked second, complying with 40 percent of the factors.

The country’s Ministry of Defense has the lowest score with 14%, followed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with 16% and the Ministry of Local Self-Government with 18%.

“Considering that the average score of the institutions is 31% of the total points, it is evident that there is extensive space for improvement in all categories of good governance,” the report states.

CRPM used 133 indicators in total, grouped in eight categories of good governance, that considered such elements as transparency, accountability, responsiveness, participation and effectiveness.

The eight categories are:

    • Informing the public and allowing access to information
    • Budget transparency and accountability
    • Engaging the public in policy making
    • Preparedness for Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA)
    • Monitoring regulations and reporting
    • Managing conflict of interests
    • Parliamentary Openness
    • Parliamentary Oversight

The report found the highest level of compliance in “Parliamentary oversight,” in which the institutions scored 60 percent. The worst was “Monitoring regulations and reporting,” with only 5 percent.

CRPM also issued a list of recommendations that would help improve adoption of good governance in Macedonia. These include calls for officials to:

    • Publish a list of frequently asked questions by citizens and responses on the official websites to gain a better understanding of the needs and expectations of the citizens and to improve the efficiency of providing information
    • Prepare so-called ‘citizen budgets’ intended for the non-expert public and publish it on official websites
    • Use external evaluation as a tool and publish results on official websites
    • Publish bylaws/internal acts that define conflict of interests, determine and regulate the procedure in case of conflict of interests
    • Make public the individual activities of the members of Parliament

Download: Index of Good Governance in Macedonia

Related articles

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments are closed.