It is evident that administrative reforms are undertaken by many countries in the world today and in fact, administrative change appears to be a constant factor in regimes that desire to reform their social, political and economic systems. Normally, reform initiatives are regarded as necessary for organizations that want to adapt to the changing environment and to be able to expand and cope with increasing activities and global challenges. Nevertheless, strategies for reform initiatives will differ between sectors and also between nations as each country tries to handle reform in accordance with the country’s administrative traditions, political and cultural nuances and level of economic development. The process of reform may involve a particular sector or administration of the government or an entire level of the government such as the local government. The main characteristic of administrative reform is normally projected in attempts to decentralize powers and autonomy to lower levels of government. It connotes importance that such transition of powers is supposedly significant to the unification and development of a nation. This is especially so, as some studies have shown, where the shift of power to local government has created a series of hierarchically ordered units of administration at some of the lowest levels of government. The implication is a movement of power from the centre and may determine the scope of decentralization, nonetheless it involves a transition process that ultimately may change the characteristics of power structure of the different levels of government.

This briefing paper summarises findings around the key questions of what ‘development’ means at the local level, who is responsible for it, and how local government can be held to account in practice. Findings are illustrated with selected quotes from interviews, focus groups and workshops, which demonstrate the challenges that need to be overcome to design and implement a performance index. The briefing paper then proposes indicators that could be used in these two districts to monitor the performance of local government.

How can it be that people who should have the most fulfilling jobs in the world are generally far less engaged and productive than those we encounter in the private sector? The root causes, we believe, are organizational cultures that are strangled by rules. Myriad rules define the public-sector workplace—rules spelling out procedural red tape, layers of decision making, regulatory compliance, and employee safeguards. These rules are put in place for the best of reasons, such as to ensure fair hiring practices and prevent corruption, favoritism, and the influence of special interests. But as rules proliferate, they often congeal into inefficient, costly bureaucracies that slow decision making, stifle initiative, discourage cooperation, and frustrate employees.

One powerful political idea is the following: if you give people a voice then they will be able to hold leaders to account and put pressure on them to take decisions that will improve public services and reduce poverty. This research starts with this idea. We want to know how (and whether) an index based on local research data and shared amongst citizens could put pressure on local politicians and civil servants to perform better in Tanzania.