dc.contributor.author | Kraja-Sejdini, Mirjana | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2017-03-09T12:54:35Z | |
dc.date.available | 2017-03-09T12:54:35Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2016-09 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 2082-4440 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11089/20802 | |
dc.description.abstract | Local government performance within public sector performance is coming back
because local government is faced with the problem of increased responsibilities
under tighter budgets. Therefore, the issues of managing taxpayers’ money more
efficiently and effectively still remain a challenge for local government decision
makers. In addition, increased social inclusion has created a need for increased
accountability and transparency towards local government managers.
This paper aims to facilitate decision makers as well as local government officials
to offer a ranking system of local government units (LGUs/municipalities)
in Macedonia by analyzing and normalizing some of the main financial indicators
that make up the final annual accounts of all LGUs in Macedonia. The output of
this work is a local government index showing the best and worst performing municipalities in the country. The provision of one aspect of LG government performance
allows all local government stakeholders to have an overview of the
budget spent as well as identify some best practices by comparatively identifying
the practices of the best performing LGUs. However, the data availability has
narrowed the scope of this performance ranking.
We hope that this study will contribute modestly to the existing literature of
the performance in the public sector and specifically in that of the local government
sector. There is an increasing interest in studies related to public sector performance.
However, this interest has been very little in Balkan Countries. | pl_PL |
dc.description.abstract | Zagadnienie wydajności działania jednostek samorządowych w ramach sektora
publicznego ostatnio cieszy się coraz większą popularnością, ponieważ samorządom
powierza się coraz więcej zadań, wprowadzając jednocześnie ograniczenia
budżetowe. Zarządzanie pieniędzmi podatników na tym poziomie staje się zatem
coraz większym wyzwaniem. Z kolei coraz bardziej świadome społeczeństwo
wywiera na samorządowcach presję, domagając się od nich większej odpowiedzialności
i transparentności działań.
Celem niniejszego opracowania jest ułatwienie – za pomocą przeanalizowania
i znormalizowania wybranych wskaźników finansowych na poziomie lokalnym
– władzom samorządowym stworzenia rankingu najbardziej i najmniej
efektywnych jednostek samorządowych w Macedonii. Ustanowienie łatwo porównywalnego
wskaźnika pozwoli na identyfikację sposobu wydatkowania środków
oraz ustalenie, jakie dobre praktyki stosowane są w najbardziej wydajnych
jednostkach. Czynnikiem ograniczającym możliwości badania okazała się słaba
dostępność danych.
Autorka ma nadzieję, że niniejsze opracowanie przyczyni się do zwiększenia
zainteresowania opisywanym zagadnieniem badaczy z regionu bałkańskiego, którzy
nie poświęcają mu wystarczajaco dużo uwagi. | pl_PL |
dc.language.iso | en | pl_PL |
dc.publisher | University of Lodz | pl_PL |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | Ekonomia Międzynarodowa;15 | |
dc.subject | Financial performance | pl_PL |
dc.subject | local government performance | pl_PL |
dc.subject | local government index | pl_PL |
dc.subject | wydajność finansowa | pl_PL |
dc.subject | wydajność samorządu lokalnego | pl_PL |
dc.subject | wskaźnik samorządu lokalnego | pl_PL |
dc.title | A Performance Ranking of LGUs in Macedonia | pl_PL |
dc.title.alternative | Ranking wydajności działania jednostek samorządowych w Macedonii | pl_PL |
dc.type | Article | pl_PL |
dc.page.number | 278-298 | pl_PL |
dc.contributor.authorAffiliation | Epoka University, Department of Business | pl_PL |
dc.identifier.eissn | 2300-6005 | |
dc.references | Analytica (2007), Evaluation of Public Administration Reforms in Macedonia, Analytica: Public Administration Reform Report No. 5, Skopje. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Church C. & Rogers M. (2006), Design for Results: Integrating Monitoring and Evaluation in Conflict Transformation Programs, Project: Search for Common Ground, Washington DC. | pl_PL |
dc.references | DME (2015), Indicator Module, Project: Design, Monitoring and Evaluation for Peacebuilding, http://dmeforpeace.org/sites/default/files/3.9%20Indicators. pdf (30.09.2016). | pl_PL |
dc.references | GRM (2003), Law on Territorial Organization of the Local Self-Government in the Republic of Macedonia, Government of the Republic of Macedonia, Skopje. | pl_PL |
dc.references | IOM (2008), Handbook on Performance Indicators for Counter-Trafficing Projects, International Organization for Migration, Washington DC. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Lennie J., Tacchi J., Koirala B., Wilmore M. & Skuse A. (2011), Equal Access Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit, Assessing Communication for Social Change. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Martin M. & Sauvageot C. (2011), Constructing an indicator system or scorecard for higher education: A practical guide, UNESCO, Paris. | pl_PL |
dc.references | MDF (2005), MDF Tool: Indicators, Management For Development, www.urbanreproductivehealth. org/sites/mle/files/10%20Indicators.pdf. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Merkaj, E., Imami, D., Sejdini, M., & Rexhepi, S. (2014), Analyzing factors influencing intergovernmental grants distribution in Western Balkans – the case of Albania and Macedonia, http://shtetiweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ Project-paper-Intergovernmental-transfer.pdf. | pl_PL |
dc.references | MISA (2010), Public Administration Reform Strategy 2010–2015, Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian Ministry of Information Society and Adminstration, Skopje. | pl_PL |
dc.references | MLE (2013), Measuring Success Toolkit: Indicators, The Measurement, Learning & Evaluation Project for the Urban Reproductive Health Initiative, www. urbanreproductivehealth.org/toolkits/measuring-success/indicators. | pl_PL |
dc.references | OSCE (2011), Decentralization Assessment Report 2006–2011. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Mission to Skopje, Skopje. | pl_PL |
dc.references | UNDP (2009), Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results, United Nations Development Programme, New York NY. | pl_PL |
dc.references | UNESCO (2011), Systematic Monitoring of Education for All. Training Modules for Asia-Pacific. Module A3: Education Indicators and Data Analysis, UNESCO, Bangkok. | pl_PL |
dc.references | UNICEF (2003), M&E Training Modules, http://www.ceecis.org/remf/Service3/ unicef_eng/. | pl_PL |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.18778/2082-4440.15.07 | |