Abstract:
|
This study covers new ground in the evaluative criteria for good governance
by local governments. Commonly, such evaluative criteria would be set by the central
state. It is a true top-down process. The evaluative criteria, on the other hand, from a
bottom-up approach, that is, from the viewpoint of local governments, are rarely
found. Therefore, this study will discuss on the evaluative criteria for the good
governance of local governments according to the viewpoint of local government
executives. Such criteria will center on six principles set forth in Thailand’s 2003
Royal Decree on the Principles and Methods of Good Governance. The study applies
theory-based approaches to establish evaluative criteria for good governance.
This study is expected to achieve the following research objectives: 1) to
obtain applicable and practical evaluative criteria of good governance for Thailand’s
local governments according to the viewpoint of local government executives
centered on the 6 principles set forth in the 2003 Royal Decree; 2) to gain rating
scales (standards) for those criteria; 3) to attain the actual rating scales of those
criteria; and 4) to identify the evaluative criteria that are critical problems in the
current local governments in Thailand, thereby realizing true success or failure in
order to further good governance improvement.
Conducted by qualitative and quantitative research methods, the population of
this study encompasses 3 types of local administrative organizations (LAOs), the
Office of the Decentralization to Local Government Organization Committee (ODLOC),
and academics.
The Delphi technique is used for the qualitative research method. In
conducting in-depth interviews with the ODLOC and LAOs, included were the Chairman and 3 directors from all types of Directors, 9 local government executives
from Provincial Administrative Organizations (PAOs), and municipalities and Subdistrict
Administrative Organizations (SAOs). From the total of 7,851 LAOs, the
questionnaires were delivered to 64 executives of the PAOs, 329 executives of the
municipalities, and 360 executives of the SAOs. Using the quantitative research
method, survey by questionnaires was carried out for officers and local citizens in 64
PAOs, 329 municipalities, and 360 SAOs.
The major findings of the study are 18 evaluative criteria of good governance
for Thailand’s local governments according to the viewpoint of local government
executives. These 18 criteria are centered on 6 principles set forth in the 2003 Royal
Decree, where each principle represents 3 criteria. For the rule of law principle the
bottom-up approach presents criteria in term of legal code and Local Development
Plans that require a circular letter, and no complaint and objection filing. Ethics
principle under consequence, virtue and duty theory gives results in determining the
standards of good governance, providing training to build ethics and integrity, and
applying pay for agreed goals. Regarding transparency principle under transparency
theory, the results are disclosure of all kinds of information to the public via
determined communication, and internal control system and an independent auditor
are required. Participation principle under the fairness and competence approach has
multi-channels through public hearings and so on, proven records of the participant
list and their signature in attending local planning, and a need to have a transparent
system to elect committees within defined qualifications. The accountability principle
under the goal, process, and outcome approach emphasizes job assignments, a
traceability and system trail, and an annual survey report by the audit unit or
outsource agent as proof of public satisfaction. Last, the value for money principle
under the 3 Es focuses on setting and spending the fiscal budget and procurement
process, having a one-stop service for its efficiency, and having a policy for training
courses and job rotation.
The study also acquires the 1-to-5 rating scales, Likert-type scales, for each
criterion. The scale level 5 represents “Most Important” to level 1 of “Not Important”.
The rating scales called “standard” resulted mostly in level 5. Only 2 criteria were at
level 4 but those gained as “actual” most still were at level of 5, and then 4. Some
were at level 3 and a few at level 2 and 1.
|
