Government of the Republic of Moldova, UN Women, UNDP
DECENTRALIZATION
AND VULNERABILITY
INDICATORS
ASSESSMENT REPORT ON DATA COLLECTION, CAPABILITIES AND
POTENTIAL, REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Patricia Alexander, Consultant
27 August 2013 Chisinau, Moldova
1
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the many officers and staff members of UNDP, UN Women, the
State Chancellery and the National Bureau of Statistics of Moldova, and other departments of
government, who provided valuable information, advice and guidance. In particular, Victoria
Cujba, Ala Negruta, Adrian Ionescu and Anastasia Divinskaya, have consistently provided
substantive guidance in the light of their experience in the decentralization process and the Joint
Integrated Local Development Programme (JILDP). The author is also grateful to the National
Consultants, Maria Vremis and Viorica Craievschi-Toarta, and to Aurelia Spataru, UNDP
Moldova, for their contributions to the conception and drafting of the text, as well as to many
individuals and members of NGOs who sat with team members to provide their views and
experience on the meaning and assessment of the decentralization process. Nevertheless, any
remaining errors are the responsibility of the author.
The views expressed in this report, including its analysis and recommendations, are those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of the institutions of the United Nations or of the
Government of the Republic of Moldova.
[Note for editor: following country information page and map to be placed on one page. Table of
Contents to be re-set.]
2
Republic of Moldova
The Republic of Moldova is a landlocked country in eastern Europe, situated between Romania and Ukraine, with a
population of 3.7 million people. The country is approaching middle-income status, and based on its growth rate of 8.4
percent in early 2011, the economy seemed to have made a full recovery from the 2008-2009 global financial crisis.1
However, its economic performance over the decade has been affected by extremes of deceleration and recovery, sometimes
in contrast with less uneven growth patterns of its neighbours, and rural poverty rates have remained hard to change.
There is a contrast between economic growth and job creation in the country. Data suggest that Moldova’s growth trends in
2011 were among the most impressive in Europe (although slower growth has been projected for 2012). However, trends
presented in Moldova’s labour market data paint a sharply different picture. Among other things, they suggest that
unemployment has worsened steadily over the past three years—even during the recovery of 2010-2011.
Whereas the national unemployment rate had fallen to 3.0 percent during the second quarter of 2008, by the first quarter of
2011 it had more than tripled, to 9.4 percent. Compared to the first quarter of 2008, the number of workers counted as
unemployed by Moldova’s labour force survey had risen by 59 percent in the first quarter of 2011 (UNDP Moldova 2011b).
Figure: Growth rates, Moldova, and Europe and Central Asia developing countries
Annual real growth rate, %
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
2002
-2.0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
Europe & Central Asia (developing only)
Moldova
Source: WB: http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/moldova; UNDP, IMF, WB summary data; 2012 provisional.
1
http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/moldova; 2012: IMF projection
3
Table of Contents
Abbreviations and Terms ...................................................................................................................... 6
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 9
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 15
1.1 Background to the report and decentralization ....................................................................... 15
1.2 International commitments....................................................................................................... 18
1.3 Country process ......................................................................................................................... 18
2. Designing indicators: measures of decentralization, measures of vulnerability ......................... 21
2.1 Measures of decentralization..................................................................................................... 21
2.1.1 International approaches .................................................................................................... 21
2.1.2 Moldova’s NDS approach.................................................................................................... 22
2.2 Vulnerability dimensions .......................................................................................................... 23
2.2.1 Understanding vulnerability .............................................................................................. 23
2.2.2 Dimensions of vulnerability ............................................................................................... 26
2.3 Matrix structure ......................................................................................................................... 43
2.3.1 Fiscal and financial decentralization.................................................................................. 44
2.3.2 Political decentralization .................................................................................................... 54
2.3.3 Administrative decentralization ........................................................................................ 69
2.3.4 Decentralization of services ............................................................................................... 83
3. Availability of data.......................................................................................................................... 99
3.1 Existing sources, user needs, and the NSS ................................................................................ 99
4
3.1.1 What bodies make up the NSS?.......................................................................................... 99
3.1.2 Survey and administrative data ........................................................................................ 101
3.2 Survey instruments and administrative registers ................................................................... 102
3.2.1 Population Census............................................................................................................. 103
3.2.2 Household Budget Survey (HBS) ..................................................................................... 103
3.2.3 Labour Force Survey (LFS) ............................................................................................... 107
3.2.4 Moldova Demographic and Health Survey ..................................................................... 109
3.2.5. Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) ..................................................................... 110
3.2.6. UNDP surveys of Roma people ....................................................................................... 110
3.3. Administrative data ................................................................................................................ 111
3.3 Assessment of gaps and further requirements ........................................................................ 114
4. Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................ 115
4.2 Overall conclusions.................................................................................................................. 116
4.2 Findings on institutional and data assessment ....................................................................... 117
4.2.1 Financial and fiscal data.................................................................................................... 118
4.2.2 Political decentralization data .......................................................................................... 118
4.2.3 Administrative decentralization data............................................................................... 118
4.2.4 Services decentralization data .......................................................................................... 119
4.3 Assessing existing data bases and instruments for monitoring vulnerability ....................... 120
4.3.1 Instruments of choice ....................................................................................................... 120
4.3.2 Constraints on registers in recording client characteristics............................................ 122
4.3.3 The value of using micro-data .......................................................................................... 122
4.3.4 Limitations on access to micro data ................................................................................. 123
4.4 Recommendations and tasks for further indicators of decentralization ............................... 125
References .......................................................................................................................................... 127
Annex I. Matrix of Indicators on Decentralization and Vulnerabilities .................................... 145
Annex II. Services: level of decentralization .............................................................................. 145
Annex III. Terms of Reference..................................................................................................... 151
5
Abbreviations and Terms
CALM
Congress of Local Authorities of Moldova
CCPR
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
CEDAW
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
CERD
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
CES
Conference of European Statisticians
CIS
Commonwealth of Independent States
COE
Council of Europe
CRC
Convention on the Rights of the Child
CRML
Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
CS
civil society
CSO
civil society organization
EC
European Commission
EE
Eastern Europe
ENP
European Neighbourhood Policy
EU
European Union
Eurostat
Statistics agency of the European Commission
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN
FCPNM
Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
GDP
gross domestic product
GM
Government of the Republic of Moldova
HBS
Household Budget Survey
ICERD
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
IESCR
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
ILO
International Labour Office
IOM
International Organization for Migration
IMF
International Monetary Fund
IPU
Inter-Parliamentary Union
JILDP
Joint Integrated Local Development Programme
LFS
Labour Force Survey
LPA
local public authority
LPA1/L1
level 1 local public authority: municipality, primaria
LPA2/L2
level 2 local public authority: district, rayon
MDG
Millennium Development Goal
MDHS
Moldova Demographic and Health Survey
MLSPF
Minister of Labour Social Protection and Family
MOH
Ministry of Healthcare
MOHSP
Ministry of Health and Social Protection
6
NBS
National Bureau of Statistics
NCHM
National Centre for Health Management
NCPM
National Scientific and Applied Centre for Preventive Medicine
NDS
National Decentralization Strategy
NGO
non-government organization
NHIC
National Health Insurance Company
NHSI
National House of Social Insurance
NSO
national statistical office
NSS
national statistical system
ODA
official development assistance
OECD
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
OHCHR
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
primaria
mayoralty or municipality
rayon
district
RM
Republic of Moldova
SIGI
Social Institutions and Gender Index (of OECD)
TAU
territorial-administrative unit
TORs
terms of reference
UN
United Nations
UN Women
UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNECE
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
UNESCAP
UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
UNFPA
UN Population Fund
UNICEF
UN Children’s Fund
USAID
United States Agency for International Development
WB
World Bank
WHO
World Health Organization
Note on currency equivalents:
(As of February 2012)
1 leu (MDL) =
1 leu (MDL) =
1 € (EUR)
=
$1 (USD)
=
.064 EUR
.085 USD
15.64 lei (MDL)
11.81 lei (MDL)
Note: All data exclude Transnistria region unless otherwise stated
7
8
Executive Summary
This report reviews the current situation of statistics available in the Republic of Moldova to
measure ways in which people may be vulnerable or at risk of social exclusion in a specific
context. It examines the decentralization process underway in the country, and proposes a set of
indicators for two linked objectives:
1. Measuring the extent of progress of decentralization. The approach taken by the
report is to focus on four key groups of powers and responsibilities that are to be
shared with the district and municipal tiers of government, specifically
examining:
i.
Fiscal and financial decentralization: the extent to which the central
government cedes fiscal impact to non-central government entities.
ii.
Political decentralization: the degree to which central governments allow
non-central government entities to undertake the political functions of
governance, such as representation.
iii.
Administrative decentralization: how much responsibility for planning,
management, and the raising and allocation of resources is transferred
from the central government and its agencies to subordinate units of
government, and how much autonomy non-central-government entities
possess relative to central control.
iv.
Services decentralization: the extent of decentralization of public service
delivery, and particularly how access to and quality of services will
improve overall and for vulnerable groups.
2. Measuring and monitoring how well people are served by the expansion of
decentralization in the above areas. In particular, how are those most vulnerable
increasingly ensured equal and improved access to a high quality of services, as
their local government acquires greater authority and more funds? The
dimensions of vulnerability that are the focus of attention of government and in
this report are: Income/poverty; Age; Ability/disability; Language and ethnicity;
Religion; Rural residence; Gender and gender identity; and Occupation
The government of Moldova has made decentralization and the strengthening of local
governments one of the priorities of its current strategic plan and its international commitments.
Its objectives of improving the living standards of the population and advancing on its path
toward European integration are both served by decentralizing more power and authority to local
governments. Decentralization is a positive process, because it transfers control over public
services to the decision-making level at which the population receives these services.
Moldova is a member of the Council of Europe (COE) and a signatory to the Council’s European
Charter of Local Self-government, which is an internationally binding treaty that guarantees the
rights of communities and their elected authorities (COE 2010). The country has also entered
into discussions with the European Union as a candidate for membership, and has adopted an
action plan within the European Neighbourhood Policy.
A challenge in expanding decentralization is that the country does not yet have sufficient
statistical data to monitor the delegation of powers and the access to public services by its
population, particularly by those who are more vulnerable in voice and access. This report has
been commissioned by UN Women and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in
9
Moldova, in collaboration with the State Chancellery and the National Bureau of Statistics,
through the Joint Project on Strengthening the National Statistical System (NSS).
The report reviews the capabilities of the NSS and provides recommendations for improving
indicators to monitor both the decentralization process and the dimensions of vulnerability
addressed within it.
From the time of its independence in 1991, Moldova has taken steps, at times halting, aimed at
establishing a modern and autonomous local administration system. The government established
a Parity Commission coordinated by the State Chancellery to lead a renewed decentralization
process, and in 2012 finalized a National Decentralization Strategy (NDS) which is committed to
developing the necessary legislative framework and more clearly delineating the responsibilities,
authority and powers of the local tiers of government and their financing.
Vulnerability and discrimination
Vulnerability results in unequal access to rights and voice as well as to goods or services.
Recognizing that some persons or groups may suffer from one or more elements of vulnerability
and may need special measures does not imply discrimination. The People’s Advocate
(Ombudsman’s office) of Moldova has identified a lack of clarity in the definition of
discrimination, which is not sufficiently defined or fully prohibited under national law. The
report and proposed indicators identify approaches to augment the awareness of vulnerability and
of measures that can reduce social exclusion. Dimensions of vulnerability interact and may
reinforce one another.
1. Income poverty is multi-dimensional; it interacts as a cause and consequence of
other dimensions of vulnerability. Those most likely to experience income
poverty include the elderly, large households (with a high dependency ratio) and
children. Poverty disproportionately affects persons in rural areas, the Roma, and
persons with limited education. The incidence of poverty is high among Roma
households. Whereas 28 percent of non-Roma households are poor, the poverty
rate of Roma households is 65 percent.
2. Persons of specific age groups may be more vulnerable than others to certain risks.
The elderly, youth and children are at greater risk than others of the
consequences of upheaval or insecurity, and they are more likely than others to be
excluded from decision-making and representation.
3. Persons with disabilities may be subject to stigma, or effectively be denied
participation in activities of ordinary daily life, employment, education and
recreation. Language used to refer to the disabled remains stigmatizing or
negative. A new language of needs and capabilities is needed. Persons with
special needs generally suffer poorer quality in education; many social services
may be ineffective in meeting the needs of those of limited mobility or ability.
Other dimensions of vulnerability interacting with disability are those of age and
poverty; rural services are limited; caregivers, often women, carry an extra time
and work burden that hampers their access to employment.
4. Less privileged ethnic minorities are more vulnerable to social exclusion. The
Roma are the largest and most vulnerable ethnic minority in Europe. The
European “Decade of Roma Inclusion” calls for an emphasis on Roma leadership
and active participation in its activities. A vital aspect is improving the database
of all countries for monitoring the conditions and status of the Roma. UNDP in
10
5.
6.
7.
8.
partnership with other organizations has conducted surveys in 18 countries to
date, including Moldova in 2011. The surveys indicate that compared to nonRoma citizens, Roma are more likely to live in poverty, have a higher risk of
unemployment, stay in school for fewer years, live without access to drinking
water, sanitation and electricity, and live in substandard, overcrowded homes.
Roma are more likely to suffer from chronic illness and have less access to health
services. They have little or no access to education in their mother tongue.
In a country which displays a high homogeneity of religious confession, minority
faiths (including Moslems, Jews and minority Christian groups) may experience
difficulty in enjoying the free exercise of their beliefs. Several religious minority
groups have been denied rights to registration and open profession of belief. Local
authorities are those charged with implementing national legislation on equal
rights; therefore, the decentralization of powers is a critical process in which
concerns for diversity and rights can be emphasized.
Persons living in rural areas are more vulnerable than urban households to income
poverty, poor job access, and limited access to consumer goods or to services.
Two-thirds of Moldova’s poor live in rural areas, where most employment is
generated by low-paid agricultural activities, with few alternatives available. In
geographic areas where infrastructure is also poor, entire communities are
vulnerable to social exclusion. Rural communities are at risk of high impact from
natural disasters, and poorly covered by social safety networks and services.
Gender: Women and girls in Moldova often confront a confusing duality between
the state’s official, formal stance that affirms gender equality, and women’s lived
realities in the home and work-place. Women in wage employment in the nonagricultural sector hold more than 50 percent of all jobs, and have done so
consistently throughout the past decade. This is an indicator of access to the
“modern” sector – one of the MDG indicators of gender equality. Yet women’s
average salaries represent only 74.4 percent of the average male salary. Most
women work in the lower-paying jobs and occupy lower positions in the job
hierarchy. Gender inequality is accentuated among vulnerable populations, and
gender-based violence can be more prevalent where women lack economic
independence. Furthermore, legislative bodies present very uneven
representation of women in decision-making positions, with women holding just
19.8 percent of parliamentary seats, a share that is below European and world
averages.
Persons may be at risk as a consequence of their occupation, in particular where
they lack access to labour or produce markets. Specifically farm women and men,
and young women and men with specialized skills have little access to better
opportunities or services. A large part of the rural population is engaged in
informal employment, a sector which may account for half of all national
production. They lack employment security, many have little social protection or
pension income.
Matrix of Indicators
The Matrix of Indicators is designed for use by national government, civil agencies and
independent researchers to monitor the progress of decentralization as well as its impact regarded
through the vulnerability perspective at the level of sectors of service delivery.
11
The report proposes a set of indicators (62 in a basic and 120 in an expanded set), which can be
used to establish a Decentralization Monitoring Framework. The goal is to monitor the four key
components defined above, alongside the measurement and monitoring of the protection of and
support for vulnerable persons and groups.
Indicators of financial and fiscal decentralization measure the size of the government sector vis-àvis the whole economy, and look at the vertical and horizontal imbalance in the amount of
spending local governments have at their own disposal – as compared with the share of
expenditures that remain under the control of higher tiers.
Financial and fiscal indicators also track the autonomy of lower tiers of government – using the
portion of local expenditure that is raised locally or is ensured as stable revenues from
equalization payments.
At this stage of the decentralization programme, only the central government is able to provide
consistent data on its own revenue and expenditures with respect to expenditure delegated to
local authorities or revenues raised locally. Although the lower tiers of government keep their
own budget records, monitoring of vertical or horizontal balances (across tiers or between higher
and lower tiers) cannot be ensured to central observers or the general public. The autonomy of
district and municipal tiers varies, but cannot yet be monitored by the indicator framework. The
area of financial and fiscal monitoring capacities at local levels, and a protocol of reporting to
public authorities – available for public scrutiny – is an item that should be placed on the
decentralization agenda in the immediate term.
Political decentralization indicators track the extent to which government is accountable to the
electorate, and the extent to which branches of government are accountable to the elected
authorities. Using indicators developed in the region of the degree to which elected sub-national
tiers have been effectively created, Moldova ranks relatively high, meaning that some but not all
sub-national tiers possess elected assemblies and executives. There is some confusion over the
terms, and monitors cannot fully report components of accountability. The possibility of
reporting indicators of accountability such as the openness of local budgets to civil society
scrutiny will depend on the decentralization authority involving local and civil society in
monitoring political decentralization.
Political decentralization indicators also monitor the extent to which all groups – particularly
those identified as vulnerable or excluded from decision-making – enjoy representation at every
level of government. The indicators track supportive measures, via legislative measures such as
reservation of seats for specific groups, and financial measures to assist the capacity of potentially
underrepresented groups to stand for election and to hold public office without having large
personal funds at their disposal. Moldova has no reservation system to ensure female
representation in campaigns or assemblies, and there is no meaningful proportional representation
system to ensure the participation of Roma people in public office. The adoption of such
measures is a topic for further discussion – one in which regional (European) experience is likely
to be of benefit.
In describing Administrative decentralization, the government’s NDS defines the scope of
autonomy of local government in limited terms. At present, it seems likely that government
intends to de-concentrate and delegate some control of services – the most limited form of
decentralization – with no plans at this time to go to full devolution. The central government
will retain fairly stringent control over financial incentives, monitoring and control, law
enforcement and assessments of subordinate (district and municipal) authorities.
12
Moldovan officials may feel a degree of ambivalence about the necessity to extend fuller
autonomy to the local public authorities. Among other concerns, decentralization will not
necessarily reduce the expenditures of the central level of government. It is common in Europe
for local authorities to exercise control over a larger proportion of expenditures than the share of
revenues they raise; however, this situation may be unfamiliar in Moldova. In OECD countries,
on average, more than 30 percent of expenditures are fully decentralized, while only 20 percent
of revenues are collected at the sub-national level. It is therefore evident that half as much again
as the amounts raised by local authorities will of necessity be provided by the central government
budget.
Reviews of the Eastern Europe and CIS region show that Moldova and its regional neighbours
rank low on the scale of administrative decentralization achieved in recent years (about 50
percent of the score of Central and Eastern European countries, all of which are EU member
states). The NDS recognizes a need to rationalize its structure of fragmented lower tiers, whose
ability to deliver public services is compromised by duplication of efforts in small and resourcestrapped municipalities.
///The ambivalence of the central authorities may be linked to low capacity among public
authorities at the local level. Indicators of the capacities of public authorities are described in the
report; however, in order for the proposed indicators to be monitored, the component services,
including units of personnel and other resources allocated, must first be defined. The work of
defining services and job descriptions is fundamental to using a monitoring framework. ////
The NDS gives attention to the large number of public land assets and facilities remaining as state
property, although many state-owned assets have been privatized since independence. The
Strategy stresses the importance of assuring equal legal status to all classes of property, whether
central government or locally owned. As well, it affirms that assets transferred to local
governments will be provided with sufficient resources to effectively manage those assets. This
will be a challenge for the government. Costly assets such as hospitals and schools are valuable to
local authorities, but costly to maintain, and not generators of revenue. Unprofitable assets are
unsalable, while government may be reluctant to lose those that generate profits.
Decentralization of services should be monitored by indicators of access to and coverage of public
services, and the quality, efficiency of delivery and responsiveness of these services to the
population’s needs. On the basis of budget figures at all levels of government, monitors should be
able to show the share that key social sectors have in the budget of the given level. Key
components of social sectors in the Matrix of Indicators are health, education, water and
sanitation, and transport infrastructure. Government has difficulty at this time reporting such
indicators, particularly at sub-national levels.
The government’s Classification or Nomenclature lists 132 functions of government and indicates
the form of sharing of these functions among the three tiers. However, at this time the functions
are not clearly enough defined to monitor efficiency, since the input of resources and expected
output of services cannot yet be shown.
The most direct way to monitor access and coverage of selected services is via the official
household survey of living standards – the Household Budget Survey (HBS) – or similar existing
survey and census instruments. In the official survey methodology, a representative sample of all
residents is asked a range of questions including use of educational, health and other services. In
the administrative data of ministries, by comparison, while excellent data on units and costs of
services is available, some limitations are important for measurement of coverage of vulnerable
13
populations. For example, officials handling registries of pension, welfare, compensation benefits
or specific health care services are often not in a position to report ethnic or other sensitive
characteristics of recipients. It is understandable that such services should not carry the
appearance of any discriminatory basis of coverage decisions. In addition, much administrative
data reports supply of services, but cannot show a denominator such as the number of potential
beneficiaries of a service. For this reason, the report returns repeatedly to the conclusion that
survey instruments, particularly HBS, will remain the instrument of choice for evidence for
indicators monitoring decentralization and vulnerability.
An extensive inventory of survey, administrative and mixed-type data instruments is presented in
the report. The particular value of survey instruments for confirming population characteristics,
needs and interests, and access to services and representation is underlined.
The report recommends that:
1. Existing instruments such as HBS and the upcoming Population Census remain the
focus of energies for providing the basis for indicator monitoring for decentralization.
This emphasis should include: supporting HBS to enable it to incorporate the key
elements for measuring expanded access to services and representation by the
population, discussions to expand access to HBS micro-data to researchers in
government and civil society, and engagement with the Roma, faith and other
communities to improve identification and reporting of the dimensions of
vulnerability.
2. A monitoring coordination unit should be formed (or strengthened), drawn from
government, including SC, NBS and key data-producing ministries such as Finance, as
well as senior persons in local government associations and independent research
COs. This unit should place a priority on continuing consultations with local
government authorities, ministries (including those producing valuable administrative
databases), and civil society, and developing a platform through which the developing
Indicators Matrix database can be shared by government and non-government
researchers. Among the models to be considered as mechanisms are the DevInfo
model, and the cloud platform already in use by Moldova’s e-government facility.
3. Mainstreaming human rights, gender equality, social inclusion and vulnerability
awareness in the national monitoring and reporting of decentralization should be
strengthened by expanding the current discussion to broader communities of
advocacy groups, the preparation of concise and accessible guides to data and
vulnerability, and the development of data literacy training with donor support.
4.
The national statistical system should be strengthened with respect to gaps and
strengths identified in the decentralization monitoring process, including accelerated
attention to upgrading financial monitoring and compilation at all levels, expanded
discussion of mechanisms of political participation, and continuing work on the
development of quality indicators on the model of ongoing work in the health care
system, as an example.
14
1. Introduction
1.1 Background to the report and decentralization
This report is a discussion paper prepared to review statistics on vulnerability in the context of a
decentralization process underway in the Republic of Moldova, and to offer recommendations for
improving indicators to monitor both the decentralization process and the dimensions of
vulnerability addressed within it.2 The Government of Moldova has embarked on a
decentralization programme to expand the powers and resources of local governments, in order to
enhance local autonomy and improve the delivery of services to the population.3 The
government’s strategic plan (2009-14) has two major objectives: (1) improvement of the living
standards of citizens and (2) European integration”, and decentralization is an important
component of the plan (Government of Moldova 2011, p. 4). The present report examines the
capacities of Moldova’s statistical system within this strategic vision to provide the necessary data
and analysis to support decentralization and to enhance inclusiveness in governance (based on a
mapping of available sources).
Decentralization of certain functions and powers from the central government to its lower
administrative levels has long been viewed as a positive process, because it transfers control over
public services to the decision-making level at which the population receives these services.
International agencies have recommended decentralization as an effective strategy for
development, and cited a “failure of the centralized, hierarchical, bureaucratic administrative
model to accomplish development goals in most countries” (Ali 2003, p. 2). The Council of
Europe (COE) deemed the expansion of local self-governance “the main innovation of 20th
century democracy”, and enshrined this recognition when it elaborated the European Charter of
Local Self-government – the first internationally binding treaty that guarantees the rights of
communities and their elected authorities (Council of Europe 2010, p. 9).
UN agencies additionally have supported decentralization for its potential to expand democracy
and human rights, to empower communities (Joy 2003, pp. 7, 8), and to contribute to poverty
reduction. For example, the UN Division for Public Administration and Development
Management observed that the devolution of power and authority was being used by many
countries adopting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), as an element of good
governance that could contribute to the attainment of several MDG targets (Kauzya 2005, p. 2) 4
2
This report was authored by Patricia Alexander; portions of the text were drafted or contributed to by
Maria Vremis, Viorica Craievschi-Toarta and Aurelia Spataru.
3
The Law on Administrative Decentralization was passed in 2006. On 29 December 2011, the National
Strategy on Decentralization, including an implementation plan, was passed. International donors,
including the government of Sweden, the USA Agency for International Development, UNDP, the Council
of Europe and the European Union, have provided financial support for implementation of the plan. The
Moldova decentralization process is discussed in more detail in section 1.3.
4 Kauzya wrote, “As part of the efforts to promote the participation of the people in the decision-making
processes as well as the development activities, the policy of devolution of power and authority to subnational governments (generally referred to as decentralization) is increasingly adopted and applied in
many countries as one of the tenets of “good governance” . This is based on the premise that decentralized
governance provides a structural arrangement and a level playing field for stakeholders and players to
promote peace, democracy, and development. Many countries are promoting decentralized governance as a
measure for democratization, people empowerment and poverty reduction” (p. 2).
15
It is generally assumed that by bringing decision-making about the provision of public goods and
services closer to citizens, decentralization allows poor people to voice their needs and interests
more clearly, facilitates communication and information flows between local policy-makers and
their constituents, and fosters improved accountability (UNDP Regional Centre Bangkok 2005, p.
7).
The Government of Moldova has affirmed that decentralization accords with international good
practice, as well as its goals to improve public participation, especially that of vulnerable groups.
It has expressed its determination to adhere to a human-rights-based and gender-aware approach
in the process, particularly focusing on the four principles of participation, non-discrimination,
transparency and accountability (Government of the Republic of Moldova 2012, p. 52; hereafter
NDS 2012).
Nevertheless, it has been observed that in the past, “The Moldovan experience in implementing
local development efforts (programs, projects or public policies) is focused mainly on offering
support to the most active and competitive local groups, whether local entrepreneurs, local civic
leaders or local authorities.” While there has been success in involving some of the most visible
and active citizens, “In some cases, local development does not take into account the needs and
perspectives of the poor, the elderly, women heading households, people with disabilities or other
vulnerable groups” (JILDP (Joint Integrated Local Development Programme) 2011, p. 3).
Of particular concern for government and partners are groups which more than others are
excluded from decision-making processes and development benefits, have less access to
fundamental rights such as health care, employment, education – and are consequently more
vulnerable and marginalized. In Moldova, in developing the National Decentralization Strategy
(NDS), the discussion has linked exclusion from access to rights and services with vulnerability.
The key dimensions of vulnerability are identified as: 1) income, 2) age, 3) disability, 4) language
and ethnicity, 5) religion, 6) rural (as opposed to urban) residence 7) gender, and 8) occupation
(NDS 2012, p. 58).
Government and its partners have noted that as yet there is insufficient statistical data
disaggregated by such categories as territory, gender, age, ethnicity, language, religion,
ability/disability to monitor vulnerability and exclusion. Available data do not provide
government or civil society analysts with adequate means for evidence-based policy making,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation, for the needs of the decentralization reform itself, or
to assess the impact of such reforms on individual vulnerable groups.
In the light of its concerns, in 2010 the Government established a Parity Commission on
Decentralization, and designated the State Chancellery as inter-sector coordinator for the
implementation and monitoring of an eventual decentralization strategy (Moldova.org >
Economie 2010). The NDS, finalized in 2012, called for monitoring on the basis of a “set of
indicators that reflect the direct achievements/outputs as well as their outcomes and impact. 5
5
“Monitoring will be based on a relevant set of indicators that reflect the direct achievements/ outputs as
well as their outcomes and impact. The set of indicators will be proposed by the Division of
Decentralization Policies, discussed with all stakeholders and adopted by the Parity Commission. The data
collection process will be done by the same Division in cooperation with Local Government Division” (GM
2011b, p 49).
16
In order to further develop the monitoring and evaluation framework for the NDS and to ensure
that the decentralization reform would be responsive to the dimensions of vulnerability identified
above, it was necessary to improve the availability, collection and analysis of statistical data
covering these dimensions within the population. These data should enable analysts to identify
the numbers, location and situation of vulnerable groups and factors which hamper their rights or
access to basic public services. They should help identify which services are unavailable or
insufficient, and should assist policy makers in identifying priorities in improving and expanding
services in the course of decentralization.
UN Women and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Moldova, in collaboration
with the State Chancellery and the National Bureau of Statistics, through the Joint Project on
Strengthening the National Statistical System, have undertaken the assessment of national
statistics to improve the statistical framework on vulnerable groups in the Republic of Moldova,
in the context of the NDS. This report is a component of that process.
This report was commissioned to provide national stakeholders with a comprehensive assessment,
through the lens of gender and other disaggregation dimensions, of statistical data measuring the
degree of vulnerability, marginalization and exclusion of particular groups of the population. The
report provides a description of the current status of data collection and dissemination within the
national statistical system (NSS), including any gaps with respect to monitoring decentralization
and the situation of vulnerable groups. The findings of the report are expected to serve as a basis
for the elaboration of the monitoring and evaluation framework for NDS.
On the basis of NDS needs and the review of data, the consultant team has compiled a set of
indicators to measure and monitor the progress of decentralization, and changes during the
process of decentralization in relation to social inclusion, gender equity and the empowerment of
women, equal access of all persons and groups to a better quality of public services, respect for
human rights and other dimensions, at the national, regional and local levels.
The report is organized as follows. Chapter 1 summarizes important steps in the government’s
decentralization process, and positions this process in the context of Moldova’s international
commitments and the steps the country has taken to implement a strategy for the process.
Chapter 2 discusses some of the concepts by which decentralization can be analysed and
monitored. The report uses the concepts of fiscal, political and administrative decentralization,
and takes a closer look at the decentralization of services in particular, including specific mention
of public assets. The second part of Chapter 2 is a description of the indicators this report uses
under the given headings: Financial, Political, Administrative and Services, to assess
decentralization and vulnerability dimensions. The Matrix of the selected indicators is provided as
an Annex to the report (Annex I). Within the Matrix, the indicators are labelled according to
their potential use as measures of decentralization, of vulnerability dimensions, or both.
In Chapter 3, the report looks at the NSS of Moldova to assess the data instruments and the
availability of the indicators selected and explained in the foregoing chapter, and discusses some
difficulties experienced by agents of the system in capturing or tracking measures of vulnerability
and the process of decentralization.
Chapter 4, Conclusions and Recommendations, reviews the current NSS, and proposes steps
which may be taken to enable the system to better measure and monitor decentralization, access
to and quality of services, vulnerability and exclusion. The recommendations with respect to
suggested indicators distinguish immediate and medium-term proposals, depending on whether
data are potentially available using existing data instruments of the NSS, or would require
17
modifications to existing definitions, the inclusion of additional questions or, in a longer time
frame, the addition of new surveys or registers.
1.2 International commitments
Moldova is a member of the Council of Europe (which it joined in 1995), and a signatory of the
Charter of Local Self-Government of the Council.6 The Charter is legally binding on states
parties, and requires them to protect by domestic law or the Constitution the establishment,
rights and funding of local self-government institutions (Council of Europe 2010, pp. 9-10). The
Charter is a point of reference in the Government’s NDS in several places, including its statement
of principles guiding the Strategy, and its discussion around developing a nomenclature of the
powers of local authorities (NDS 2012 b, pp. 23, 26, 71, English edition).
Moldova’s commitment to the development of local self-government is demonstrated in its
adhesion to various international conventions and accords in which decentralization is an
important feature. Moldova has entered into discussions with the European Union as a candidate
for membership, and has adopted an action plan within the European Neighbourhood Policy. In
the context of the Eastern Partnership, negotiations on a future EU-Republic of Moldova
Association Agreement were launched in January 2010 (EC 2011, p. 2).
Moldova is also a signatory of a number of other international conventions and commitments to
address the rights of vulnerable groups, including adherence to the Refugee Convention (1951),
the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD,
1991), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, as of 1993), the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (IESCR, as of 1993), The International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (CCPR, as of 1993), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW, as of 1994), and the Framework Convention for the
Protection of National Minorities (FCPNM, as of 1996); it is a signatory of the Charter for
Regional or Minority Languages (CRML, signed 2002, not yet ratified), and the Disability Rights
Convention (2007, not yet ratified). The government is committed to further European
integration, and has taken steps to adopt standards and best practices in this sense.
1.3 Country process
From the time of its independence in 1991, the Government of Moldova undertook a series of
reforms “aimed at establishing a modern and autonomous local administration system”. The local
government system emerged in its basic form by 1995. Proceeding through a number of
hesitations and reversals, by 2003 a Law on Local Public Administration was adopted, that defined
two tiers of local government: “the lower tier consists of public authorities established and
operating in villages (communes) and cities (municipalities), the intermediary level of local
government comprises local public authorities operating on the level of a rayon, Chisinau
municipality or autonomous territorial-administrative unit.” At the time of the adoption of the
law there were, “32 second-level territorial-administrative units (including 31 rayons/districts
comprised of cities and villages and the Municipality of Chisinau, the capital city), the Gagauz
Autonomous Unit ... (with a status of second-level territorial-administrative unit) and 903 first-
6
The Charter was signed by Moldova in 1996, ratified the following year, and entered into force in 1998.
Moldova is also a member of the Congress of Local Authorities of Europe, established by the Council of
Europe as a voice for local authorities, and a means to enable them to discuss issues of common concern.
18
level territorial-administrative units (municipalities, cities, villages and communes)” (material and
quotes taken from Chiriac 2004, pp. 2-3).
In this report, the lower (smaller-size, municipality) tier is referred to as local public
administration Level 1 (LPA 1), and the intermediate or higher rayon/district/territorial unit as
Level 2 (LPA 2).
A UN evaluation team characterized the road to decentralization as equivocal in its results for
local government autonomy over the first decade:
The decentralization process in Moldova has gone through several stages and was affected by
changes in the political power systems in charge of state administration. The reform of 1998
assigned greater authority to local governments in administrative and fiscal matters and
encouraged consolidation of fragmented administrative territorial units. In 2001, the new state
administration decided to return the public administration system to a pre-1998 administrative
organization based on rayons or districts. The 2001 reform substantially restricted their fiscal
autonomy by eliminating some of the existing taxing powers and diminishing self-financing
capacity. These reforms brought about numerous significant alterations of local government
legislation, creating a sense of legal instability and unpredictability (Bassiouni et al. 2011, p.7).
Legislation that further defined details of administration and functioning was adopted in 2006,
and these clarifications were welcomed by European Commission (EC) and COE experts.
Nevertheless, some local authors considered that the financial and fiscal underpinnings of the
new legislation had not yet been worked out satisfactorily, as large discrepancies existed between
the autonomous revenues of local administrations and their capacities for expenditure. These
differences seemed to result in some LPAs benefiting from generous subsidies by the central
government, while other LPAs were blocked in their attempts to spend independently on the
basis of lucrative local resources, by rigid central regulation (Munteanu 2007).
This view was recognized by subsequent administrations, and in consultative meetings with the
World Bank and the European Commission the government noted that administrative
decentralization had not been accompanied by fiscal decentralization. This gap led to continuing
dependence of LPAs on central budget transfers, and a lack of ownership at the local level for
policy implementation. “Moreover,” the government stated, “the mechanism for budgetary
transfers from central to local governments provided space for political manoeuvre, awarding
those districts which were more loyal to the central Government and penalising those in
opposition.” In parallel with the elections of 2009-2010, the Government renewed the process of
decentralization reform, declaring its pursuit of a human-rights and gender-responsive approach
and a commitment to ensure “real local autonomy” (Government of Moldova 2010, p. A9).
In establishing the Parity Commission to lead decentralization, the government noted, "We
reiterate our commitment to obtain quality public services at all levels. In this respect, we will
elaborate the project on Decentralization Strategy, in concert with our development partners." It
stated that the Commission was created on the basis of public consultations with the central
public and local administration authorities, civil society, the academic community, development
partners, and in line with the government’s stipulations on decentralization. It declared its
intention to present the Strategy for public debates, and indicated that the coordination of the
continuing process would be ensured by the State Chancellery (Moldova.org 2010).
The new reforms, government stated, would further expand the responsibilities of LPAs, with
better vertical separation of tiers and greater horizontal coordination among government bodies.
19
It announced a sequenced staging of the reforms, beginning with clearer definitions and broader
local administration responsibilities, and moving in a second phase to practical application of
these expanded LPA roles. The expansion in practice of LPA roles would be “based on the criteria
of exclusive, shared and delegated functions, compatible with criteria of allocation efficiency. At
this stage the decentralization strategy will clarify the functions and role of regional government
agencies and decentralized local governments, phased through the transfer of exclusive
responsibilities (communal service, public transport, water and sewerage, garbage collection,
transport and landfill administration), with some shared functions (primary and secondary
education, primary health services, social services, community based services and residential
institutions)” (GM 2010, p. 9).
In December 2011, the government adopted a draft law on the NDS, in accordance with its
strategic plan and in response to remaining problems and gaps in the area of local public
administration. The government stated that the draft law, like the decentralization concept itself,
had undergone an extensive process of cooperation, consultation and communication with central
and local governments, civil society, social and development partners, and academic institutions.
Several working groups have been established to implement the decentralization strategy, hosted
by the State Chancellery and several ministries, including: Finance, Economy, Education, Health,
Labour, Social protection and Family, and Regional Development and Constructions.
In announcing the draft law, the government stated that the earlier implementation of the 2006
legislation had been hampered by “the lack of a strategic plan that would have established the
distinct stages of the decentralization process”. The present plan will provide guidance,
particularly in linking decentralization with the overall government reform agenda, the regional
development programme, and strengthening the competence of local governments." (Government
of the Republic of Moldova 2011a). It underlined its commitment in the coming planning period
to move ahead with more clearly delineating the responsibilities, authority and powers of the tiers
of government and the financing of LPAs.
The NDS document finalized in 2012 recognized that implementation of government’s
decentralization programme has been halting and incomplete, beset by ambiguities that remain in
the legislative framework, coupled with the inexperience at all levels of managing a decentralized
administrative structure (NDS 2012, p. 6).7
7
The NDS noted: “The current situation is depicted by a set of complicated developments, partial
progresses that have not been translated into everyday practice, legislative ambiguities, and confusions
regarding the way of performing certain competences. Both, the above-mentioned studies and the
representatives of the associations of local authorities highlight a range of drawbacks that must be placed
immediately on the agenda of the executive and legislative bodies of the Republic of Moldova... The
separation of competences among the first and second levels of LPAs is unclear and contradictory, and in
some cases it is even absent. Some of the activities mentioned as own competences have not been clearly
defined and in some cases they are attributed to the immediately upper level as well. This situation allows
for the ambiguous and equivocal interpretation of the competences of different levels of territorialadministrative units ... no clear and functional criteria for defining, delimiting, separating and financing
competences” (NDS 2012, p. 6).
20
2. Designing indicators: measures of decentralization, measures of
vulnerability
The first part of this chapter (2.1) looks at approaches to measures of the degree of
decentralization of government powers and authority, and the second part (2.2) at measures of
vulnerability. The third part (2.3) describes the Matrix of Indicators of these two aspects –
decentralization and vulnerability. It describes the structure of the matrix (organized under the
headings of section 2.1: Fiscal/Financial, Political, Administrative and Services), and the types of
indicators, where appropriate, as well as their definitions, functions and application.
While measurement of the extent of decentralization is fairly straightforward – with general
agreement in the literature on the components to be assessed and the terms used to characterize
greater or lesser degrees of decentralization of any component – the concepts and measurement of
vulnerability are more complex. The dimensions of vulnerability to be considered are open to
wide variations according to the concerns of the communities within a country at the time period
in question. For this reason, more space is devoted to the explanation of vulnerability indicators.
We begin, however, with measures of decentralization.
2.1 Measures of decentralization
2.1.1 International approaches
While all countries have a central government, which is responsible for the elaboration of laws
and the allocation of funds to administer its powers and services, virtually all countries also
allocate to lower levels of administrative and/or political sub-units the discharge of some portion
of their duties. Among authors writing on public administration and governance, there is broad
agreement that decentralization has merit because it puts into practice a recognized principle that
the responsibility for services should be taken on by the level at which the population receives
the services; at the same time, the responsible level should have the financing capability and
authority to direct and fund these services.
UNDP has been active in supporting decentralization processes for many years. The experience of
this support has shown the diversity of choices to be made in both the goals and the strategies for
decentralization. In a review of its work in this area more than a decade ago, it was noted as a key
insight that, “Decentralization is not so much a theory as it is a common and variable practice in
most countries to achieve primarily a diverse array of governance and public sector management
reform objectives... there is no common definition or understanding of decentralization, although
much work has gone into exploring its differing applications. Decentralization means different
things to different people...” (Flaman 1999, p. 1)
There can be many approaches to organizing a discussion of decentralization, and defining
indicators of the extent to which a country has decentralized government functions. It is
common within the UN system to define three or four components, which may be considered
fairly straightforward: usually Fiscal, Political and Administrative decentralization (UNDP
Bratislava Regional Centre 2008, p. 9), (Schneider 2003). In this case, the area of services falls
under administrative decentralization. Optionally, services may be considered as a separate,
fourth category.
In either case, one may distinguish degrees of decentralization of functions and services; that is,
proceeding from least to most decentralized, decentralization of services may be deemed deconcentration, delegation, or devolution. The World Bank, IMF and some NGOs (World Bank
21
and Silaka et al. nd) use a three-component structure like that adopted by UNDP in Eastern
Europe and Central Asia, while WB-IMF training materials and website discussion use the fourcomponent approach emphasizing Services as a separate area of decentralization, which is treated
specifically (World Bank and International Monetary Fund nd), (World Bank 2011b).
2.1.2 Moldova’s NDS approach
In its NDS document, the Government of Moldova has focused on three components of
decentralization: (1) Fiscal and financial, (2) Public property and assets, and (3) Services. The
capacities of local authorities to handle the responsibilities, assets and financial resources devolved
to them are addressed in a further section of the text (NDS 2012, pp. 6-15).
A separate section of the document lays out specific concerns for democracy, ethics, human rights
and gender equality. Within this section several elements are included that have been considered
components of Political decentralization in the international literature above. Among others, the
section discusses reform of the local electoral system, measures to increase public participation in
decision making and the representation of vulnerable groups, and improvements in
accountability, transparency and efficiency of government (pp. 15-16).
The Matrix drawn up for the present report combines these approaches. It contains sections for
Fiscal and Financial, Political, and Administrative decentralization. Moldova, as will be seen
later, because of its historical background as a transition economy, has in addition accorded
special emphasis on public assets and the process of devolution of these assets to local
governments. The decentralization of public assets is included under the Administrative
decentralization section of the Matrix. Finally, the Matrix gives due emphasis to the discussion of
Services by addressing them as a distinct element of decentralization (as in most international
approaches).
Some standard definitions, commonly used in Europe by UNDP, WB, and IMF are cited here.
These agencies have used concepts of decentralization proposed by academic researchers
(Schneider 2003, p 33). The definitions are in common use in both industrialized and developing
countries. This report uses these concepts as a first organizing principle in order to describe and
measure public sector decentralization. The consultants have adapted the definitions and
categories within them to meet the specific needs of the Moldova NDS. Further details on the
design of indicators under these broad headings will be provided in section 2.3.
Fiscal decentralization refers to the extent to which central governments cede fiscal impact to
non-central government entities.
Political decentralization refers to the degree to which central governments allow non-central
government entities to undertake the political functions of governance, such as representation.
Administrative decentralization refers to how much responsibility for planning, management, and
the raising and allocation of resources is transferred from the central government and its agencies
to subordinate units of government, and how much autonomy non-central-government entities
possess relative to central control.
Under Services, we look at the extent of decentralization of public service delivery, and at the
same time examine particularly access and quality questions, and the degree to which dimensions
of vulnerability of social groups may limit these.
22
2.2 Vulnerability dimensions
2.2.1 Understanding vulnerability
We turn now to what is meant by “vulnerability”. Vulnerability has been described as a state of
“defencelessness” and insecurity in the face of [socioeconomic] shocks or stresses (St.Bernard
2007, p.6)
That is, individuals, households or communities that have fewer resources, whether in terms of
funds, skills or social networks, are likely to be less able to cope with adverse climate events or
economic crises. More than this, as well, for the UN and European agencies, the concept of
vulnerability recognizes that not all people are able to benefit fully from their human rights
despite existing policy and normative frameworks. “That is why it is important to define
vulnerability from a human rights point of view (by stating that particular community members
cannot fully benefit from a given right due to specific factors) rather than from an economic
standpoint (by stating that some community members are poor due to certain factors) (JILDP
(Joint Integrated Local Development Programme) 2011, p. 4).”
Vulnerability, then, is linked to a lack of access, to rights and voice as well as to goods or services.
It is important not to confuse vulnerability with the related but not identical concept,
“discrimination”. Vulnerability refers to a state of being, not a behaviour. Addressing
vulnerability, through advocacy, policies or mechanisms, may require the extension of resources
or access to persons who are deprived in some way. Discrimination refers to prejudicial treatment
of persons based on their membership or perceived membership in a certain group. It therefore
refers to behaviour towards persons which reduces their access, choices or enjoyment of social
benefits. The recognition of vulnerability does not imply discrimination. Indeed, it is usually
necessary to recognize forms of vulnerability (which may also be described as deprivation or
insecurity) in order to take appropriate measures to mitigate the deprivation or inequality that
arises as a consequence of vulnerability.
Such appropriate measures may involve “reverse discrimination”, or “affirmative action” – that is,
providing additional support or resources to members of vulnerable groups or persons who find
themselves in situations of hardship, to ensure that they enjoy the same opportunities as the
majority who are less vulnerable. The principle that taking affirmative action in the form of
preferential treatment in specific matters is a legitimate action on the part of governments has
been pointed out by Ostaf, in his important study which was prepared for the local development
support programme of the Government of Moldova and donor partners. He recalls the
explanation of affirmative action that has been given by the UN Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights (OHCHR):
The Committee wishes to point out that the principle of equality sometimes requires
States parties to take affirmative action in order to diminish or eliminate conditions which
cause or help to perpetuate discrimination prohibited by the Covenant. For example, in a
State where the general conditions of a certain part of the population prevent or impair
their enjoyment of human rights, the State should take specific action to correct those
conditions. Such action may involve granting for a time to the part of the population
concerned certain preferential treatment in specific matters as compared with the rest of
23
the population. However, as long as such action is needed to correct discrimination in
fact, it is a case of legitimate differentiation under the Covenant. 8
“Therefore”, he states, “governmental policies and foreign assistance should aim at the
improvement of the situations of the vulnerable groups to prevent and address created conditions
for the de facto and real violations of human rights” (Ostaf 2011, p. 8). The distinction between
recognizing vulnerability and acting to improve the situation of vulnerable groups – and
discriminating against particular groups – is an important one, which may be confused by
officials. The mission found that it was not uncommon that officials asked to identify vulnerable
groups interpreted such questions as implying discrimination – and were at pains to insist that
they did not wish to discriminate.
The People’s Advocate or Ombudsman’s office of Moldova has identified a lack of clarity in the
definition of discrimination, and has pointed out that discrimination is not sufficiently defined
and fully prohibited under national law. Nor has the country adopted Protocol 12 of the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (of which
it is a signatory) – in which the full prohibition is spelled out.9 This confusion, according to the
People’s Advocate, leads to reducing the interpretation of “non-discrimination”, “social
inclusion”, “provision of equal opportunities in accessing goods and services” to mere cultural and
traditional dimensions. However, the Advocate points out, it is necessary to “address the nondiscrimination principle through the prism of international standards that aim at human rights
protection, especially of minorities” (Centre for Human Rights of the Republic of Moldova 2012,
pp. 6-7, 13, 16).
It is important that policy and advocacy authors are able to use Moldova’s data instruments to
identify the presence of discrimination and exclusion, and to monitor changes over time. The
availability high-quality data, available to the population, will contribute to clearer
understanding. Good data, which researchers can use to throw light on issues of access and rights,
will aid such discussions. Accurate and representative data help people understand what
conditions prevail, and enable them to avoid resentment which may arise when little systematic
data is available.
We shall return to these distinctions in meaning in the discussion of measurement and
monitoring of vulnerabilities, particularly in Chapters 3 and 4.
Both government and UNDP see opportunities in the decentralization process to improve all
people’s access to high-quality services. If through decentralization of services responsibility for
delivery is brought to a government level that is closer to local communities, it should be possible
for local authorities to have better knowledge of local needs. In particular, local authorities can
be expected to know more and do a better job of addressing the specific needs of vulnerable
groups and supporting the identification of vulnerable individuals.
As noted earlier, the government has underlined its agreement with an approach to the concept
of “vulnerabilities” that is based on the experience of groups faced with “exclusion, discrimination
Cited by Ostaf, p. 8, from the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR),
General Comment No. 18, 1989, available at:
8
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/3888b0541f8501c9c12563ed004b8d0e?Opendocument
9
The background to the creation and work of the office of the Ombudsman/ People’s Advocate, and its
annual reports from 2002, can be found at http://www.ombudsman.md/en/istoria/
24
and marginalization”. It states in the NDS that social exclusion is the result of the interplay of
various, often interrelated factors or characteristics (NDS 2012, p. 58).
[Editorial note: shaded boxes such as this may be used as “pull-outs” – to draw attention to a point.]
The National Decentralization Strategy (NDS) distinguishes a number of lines along which
vulnerability may be identified, specifically: income, age, disability, language and/or ethnicity,
religion, rural residence, gender and occupation
Ostaf explains that in the presence of particular underlying causes, such “fault lines” of
vulnerability lead to social exclusion, marginalization, violations of rights and discrimination. He
identifies the underlying causes as any combination of weak mechanisms of institutional support,
discriminatory social values and cultural practices, political and institutional barriers, and
discriminatory legal structures or poor implementation of legislative provisions. He notes that the
EC has described social exclusion as a process whereby certain individuals are pushed to the edge
[or “margins”] of society and prevented from participating fully in normal social life by virtue of
their poverty, lack of basic competencies and lifelong learning opportunities, or as a result of
discrimination (Ostaf 2011).
Other authors in Moldova have used the EC description of social exclusion, particularly the
understanding that the interaction of multiple components of exclusion frequently compounds
the extent of vulnerability. A study of social exclusion was commissioned as part of a programme
to strengthen the national statistical system and its framework for social indicators. The study
addressed this interaction, defining “the excluded” as, “individuals and/or groups of individuals
deprived of full participation in economic, social, cultural and political life of the society they live
in”. It noted that individuals can be excluded for various reasons: on the basis of their personal
characteristics (elderly people, ill people, people with disabilities, poor, immigrants, vulnerable
women and children); or because of their social/cultural characteristics (such as religion, race,
ethnicity, class, language, etc.). It underlined the heightened risk to such individuals or groups
where elements of exclusion interact, “creating thus a chain of multiple deprivations” (Vremis et
al. 2010, p. 19).
In the framework of the present report, the interaction of multiple dimensions of exclusion
increases the risk or vulnerability of persons or groups. In the face of a family crisis, economic
downturn, or social upheaval, such individuals or groups are likely to have greater difficulty, and
will be less likely to rebound or weather the storm. As Ostaf explains this process, elements of
vulnerability reinforce each other “exclusion leads to reduced opportunities in employment and
education, as well as social and community networks and activities. Because excluded persons
and groups have little access to power and decision-making bodies they are likely to feel
powerless and unable to take control over the decisions that affect their day-to-day lives” (Ostaf
2011, pp 8-10).
The dimensions of vulnerability on which the report focuses are those cited by the government of
Moldova NDS, as noted earlier, that is:






income
age
disability
language and/or ethnicity
religion
rural residence
25


gender
occupation
The following sections explain the ways in which these dimensions of vulnerability are
experienced by persons and groups in Moldova.
2.2.2 Dimensions of vulnerability
This section looks at the eight vulnerability dimensions highlighted in the NDS, in the order they
are listed above, and how these are observed in Moldova, as discussed by various authors. The
discussion relies largely on evidence cited by the NDS (see, for example, pp. 79 ff.), and on the
Ostaf paper commissioned by the decentralization support programme, on studies by UN
Moldova, and reports of various NGOs. In the case of the conditions of the Romani people, it
draws on 2011 survey data from Moldova and other European countries (see UNDP 2012).
2.2.2.1 Income
In the study of social exclusion cited above, the authors noted that inequality of income and assets
is an important risk element. Income poverty limits access to goods and services, including
education and health care. These limitations alter social life and status, and may affect behaviour:
not only are the poor excluded from vital access to the goods and services they require; in
addition, the lack of financial resources to provide a decent standard of living may lead poor
people to “self-exclude” – out of feelings of shame that prevent them from claiming access
(Vremis et al. 2010, pp. 19, 60). Such feelings act as an obstacle to claiming rights, and therefore
hinder the expansion of democratic community.
Writing about Moldova, UNDP authors have stated that poverty – measured through income or
consumption, “is the most important and visible syndrome of social vulnerability and exclusion.”
They make clear that low incomes “do not permit people to buy even basic goods and services
such as food, clothes, footwear, but also health and educational services.” They note the multiple
dimensions that interact with poverty, and the vulnerability exacerbated by crisis or upheaval:
In the Republic of Moldova, poverty is a multidimensional phenomenon and similar to
that of other countries undergoing deep political, economic and social transformations.
Poor families face numerous dimensions of deprivation, including but not limited to: (i)
reduced level of incomes and consumption; (ii) unsatisfactory or low quality nutrition;
(iii) poor health condition; (iv) limited access to education; (v) vulnerability to economic
crises, natural disasters, and political or social instability combined with uncertainty in
the future; (vi) limited participation in decision making process; and (vii) very limited
possibility to improve own living standards (Cace et al. 2007, p. 43).
That is, poverty interacts as a cause and consequence of other dimensions of vulnerability. For
example, those most likely to experience income poverty in Moldova include the elderly, large
households (with a high dependency ratio) and children. The most vulnerable social groups
affected by poverty are the elderly, those whose sole income comes from self-employment in
agriculture, families with multiple children, and the long-term unemployed (JILDP 2011, p. 6).
26
Poverty affects persons in rural areas, the Roma, and persons with limited education
disproportionately.10
An important effect of poverty on children is malnutrition, observed as low weight [for height
and/or age]. Ostaf noted that in 2008 about 11 percent of children were underweight. Families
with three or more children are at greater risk of poverty. Citing government, WB and UNDP
sources, he states that poverty, which had declined from 2006 to 2008, rose again, particularly in
rural areas and among households depending on remittances from abroad (all from Ostaf 2011, pp.
12 ff.). More than 28 percent of households lived in poverty in 2010 (GM and UN Moldova 2010,
p. 19).
The incidence of poverty is high among Roma households. In survey data from 2011, whereas 28
percent of non-Roma households are poor, the poverty rate of Roma households is 65 percent.
Inadequate nutrition is experienced by 62 percent of Roma, compared with 9 percent of nonRoma. Unemployment is high among Roma, affecting 37 percent of persons of working age, as
compared with 20 percent of non-Roma (UNDP 2012). These findings corroborate the
observations of some CSOs, which state that Roma communities face systemic poverty and
unemployment (Roma National Center 2011a, p. 2), and persistent economic problems (ISHR
2011), and earlier findings that the incidence of hunger appears to be much more severe among
Roma than in the population as a whole (UN Moldova 2011, p. 5) 11
Looking at considerations of the impact of poverty for a decentralization programme, “at the local
level there is a high risk of people subjected to poverty having limited access to health services
and education” It is estimated that low-income households spend just one-eighth the amount on
health services and only 2 percent of the amount on education that rich households spend. Two
thirds of the poor in Moldova live in rural areas (JILDP 2011, p. 6).
Government social assistance to the poor is limited, in part because of the impact of financial
crisis on revenues and compression of public spending in accordance with agreements with
donors. While social aid, including a minimum guaranteed income, has expanded in recent years,
in 2010 the range of programmes reached just 27 percent of the poorest fifth of the population,
and 7.6 percent of the second poorest (EC 2011, p. 10).
The government-donor partnership JILDP has noted that in selecting indicators for monitoring
poverty with respect to a decentralization and good governance process, such interacting factors
help show the way. For example, indicators might show:


Whether there is any indication that children from poor families have lower
attendance in or pre-schools or other levels of education
Whether there is any difference between boys’ and girls’ attendance, at any level,
with respect to level of living
10
Income poverty is measured by the Household Budget Survey, described in 3.2.2. The UNDP/WB/EC
2011 survey of Roma also included income poverty indicators (it is cited as UNDP 2012 in this report).
11
In a recent survey, 12% of Roma reported “lacking food” one time during the previous month, as against
3% among the population at large. 28% of Roma responding said they had been hungry 2-3 times during
the previous month (as opposed to 6% among non-Roma), while 17% (as opposed to 3% among non-Roma)
said they had lacked food more than 3 times during the previous month (UN Moldova 2011, p. 5).
27


Whether primary health care, post-natal care and immunization are as easily
available to children and other members from low-income households as they are
to wealthier households
Whether members of low-income households have access to information on social
aid and services of any kind (JILDP 2011, p. 6).
Questions of this kind are considered in developing the Indicators Matrix.
2.2.2.2 Age
Age can be an element of vulnerability. Persons of specific age groups may be more vulnerable
than others to certain risks. The elderly, youth and children are at greater risk than others of the
consequences of upheaval or insecurity, and they are more likely than others to be excluded from
decision-making and representation. As with income, age vulnerabilities interact with other
dimensions, such as gender, illness and ethnic discrimination. Even prime-age adults may suffer
exclusion as an outcome of stigma or unemployment, which has severe consequences for this
working-age group. Girl children, young or elderly women may be more vulnerable than their
male counterparts to denial of access to voice or services.
In Moldova, young people are considered a group which is vulnerable to social risks including
drug addiction, alcoholism (Vremis et al. 2010, p. 59). They may be more likely to adopt risk
behaviours with respect to sexually transmitted diseases and unprotected sexual activity. Youth
are disadvantaged in the labour market, with those in the 15-24 years age group more than twice
as likely to be unemployed as those in the next cohort, ages 25-34. Those with secondary
education or less and in rural areas face greater risk of unemployment as urban and better
educated youth (Ostaf 2011, pp. 13-14).
Vremis et al. note that children are a potentially vulnerable group because they are dependent on
their family and social environment. They may suffer abuse, violence or neglect, with negative
consequences for their health and development. The vulnerability of children’s dependence
interacts with income poverty, which is exacerbated where the dependency ratio is high. We
have noted above that in Moldova families with three or more children are at greater risk of being
poor. Children living in low-income families with limited access to information resources are
especially vulnerable, often experiencing low school enrolment and poor learning results. This
profile may predict a future of higher vulnerability to insecure employment, lower wages and
more limited access to rights and resources (based on Vremis et al. 2010, p. 59).
The life expectancy of Moldova’s population has risen to 70.9 years, and is longer for women than
men, but it is still almost 9 years shorter than the average for all European countries (79.8). Life is
harder for the growing ranks of elderly people in several ways. If they do not work during their
retirement years, they may face economic insecurity, and if they do work, they face age
discrimination in hiring and wages. As the population ages, there are fewer working-age adults to
support the elderly. Where once there were more than 4 working-age people for every person of
retirement age (in 1980), by 2010 that number had been reduced to less than half – 1.8 working
persons for each elderly person. According to the Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and
Family (MLSPF), the incomes of the elderly are not sufficient for their needs. Average pensions
are equivalent to just 66.5 percent of their subsistence needs, and 92 percent of pensioners are
receiving below-subsistence payments. As an indication of inadequate incomes, 25 percent of
pensioners continue to work (all data are from MLSPF Minister V. Buliga 2012).
28
The earlier work of Ostaf on dimensions of vulnerability confirms awareness among researchers
of these issues. His report had noted that among the elderly the incidence of poverty is more than
10 percent higher than in the general population. (UNDP Moldova 2011a cites the poverty rate
among elderly households as 37 percent in 2009.) He states that elderly people living on their own
without family support are extremely vulnerable, and that, as indicated by the Minister, resources
in the form of pensions and social assistance are inadequate. This paired with greater needs for
healthcare services among some of the elderly can place them in situations of extreme
vulnerability (Ostaf 2011, pp. 13-14).
Moldova living standard studies show that the incidence of poverty increases with age, and along
with a lack of other resources, results in deteriorating health among the elderly (Vremis et al.
2010, p. 59). Indeed, just 11 percent of persons over 50 years of age consider their state of health
to be good or very good, while almost 30 percent consider their health to be poor or very poor.
Women are more likely than men to feel that their health is poor. At the same time, the costs
charged to patients for medical services increased five-fold from 2006 to 2010 (Buliga 2012, p. 14).
Among the elderly, other aspects of vulnerability augment the risks of poverty, exclusion and
denial of rights. While women’s life expectancy is eight years greater than that of men, they will
spend more of their lives living on smaller pension incomes – both because they retire earlier (at
age 57 for women, compared with age 62 for men), and because their shorter earning life has
gained them pension rights at lower salary levels. Lower incomes prevail because of inequalities
of remuneration and status, and more leave time taken during the child-bearing years. Single
elderly women are especially vulnerable, since they are less likely to have land or other assets,
and because of negative stereotyping are more seriously affected than men in cases of divorce,
widowhood or gender-based violence (from Buliga 2012 and JILDP 2011, p. 15).
“The elderly in rural areas are extremely vulnerable since their limited resources are insufficient
to ensure normal living standards. Mortality among the elderly in rural areas is higher than that
of the elderly in urban areas (64 deaths per 1000 in rural areas compared to 48 deaths per 1000 in
urban areas).” The provision of geriatric medicine is inadequate to meet the health needs of
elderly people. (JILDP 2011, p. 15)
The current National Development Strategy (July 2012) contains targets to improve social
indicators for the elderly, some of which can be used in the Indicators Matrix. They address
improvements in the operations, coverage and funding of the pension system, and actions in the
labour market to support working seniors (Buliga 2012, pp. 10-14).
A brief review of data on the vulnerability of various age groups helps illustrate a recurring
methodological issue. Data located in ministry presentations (such as the MLSPF reference), often
to European conferences on sector issues, may contain a mix of administrative data from
operations records and survey data from annual or special nation-wide surveys. It will be
important for the government, in developing the NDS monitoring system, to work with all such
service ministries to incorporate the relevant issues they are targeting within their own plans for
service improvement. Such issues as self-perceived state of health among the elderly offer a
widely used means to assess the effectiveness of vital services for target groups. However, these
issues may not be effectively monitored by the concerned ministry’s day-to-day operations; they
may be better recorded by official household surveys, which provide directly reported views of
the general population and specific, target groups within the population.
Some of the targets adopted by MLSPF that are valuable in assessing decentralization and
vulnerabilities include monitoring for local areas:
29



Tracking Improvement in the coverage and value of pensions and social benefits
for older people
Health-related indicators such as:
o Monitoring self-assessment of state of health of the elderly by survey
methods
o Identifying costs charged to the elderly for medical services and expanding
coverage for pharmaceuticals
o Expanding geriatric care personnel, beds and services
Labour-market related programmes, such as
o Identifying specific ways to combat age discrimination and to make
employment more suitable and feasible
o Providing employment information specifically to the elderly
o Making computer literacy training available to older people
Such indicators should be monitored at local levels, and broken down for rural areas, by gender
and ethnicity.
2.2.2.3 Disability
Persons with disabilities may be subject to stigma, or effectively be denied participation in
activities of ordinary daily life, employment, education and recreation. Some advocacy networks
have pointed out the language used to refer to the disabled in Moldova remains stigmatizing or
negative. While stereotyped terms such as "invalid", "handicapped" or "crippled" still persist,
advocates prefer the fresh approach taken by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, referring to “people with special needs” (Center for Legal Assistance for Persons with
Disabilities 2011 - hereafter cited as CLAD, p. 4). 12
New approaches tend to speak of those “differently abled”, with the appreciation that all persons
are likely to experience limitations in ability, mobility and access at some time in life – including
the limitations that come with aging. Persons with special needs may suffer poorer quality in
education, or social services that are sufficient for persons with greater ability may be ineffective
in meeting the needs of those of limited mobility or ability.
In Moldova, persons with disabilities are generally viewed as subjects of protection, treatment and
assistance rather than as persons with equal rights. This approach tends to exclude them from
mainstream society, in special schools and separate housing. Emphasizing medical and health
components, the concept of disability overlooks the potential for social integration (JILDP 2011,
p. 22).
About 5 percent of Moldovans are reported to suffer disabilities, although the actual number may
be closer to 10 percent – double that recorded (Ostaf 2011). Again, dimensions of vulnerability
overlap and exacerbate the degree of exclusion. It is estimated that about 60 percent of the
disabled live in rural areas. Outside of towns, persons with special needs have little access to
education, employment, or cultural and social life, and little physical access to community
institutions. They are thus especially vulnerable to poverty and exclusion. Households including
a disabled person are more likely to be poor (Ostaf and JILDP 2011).
12
Moldova became a member of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2007, with
ratification in 2010.
30
CSO advocates report that special needs persons find unemployment almost unattainable.
Although legislation provides a mechanism for employment, it has not proven viable. While 535
persons with disabilities registered with employment agencies 2010, fewer than 15% were hired.
These CSOs recommend more measures to assist employability through rehabilitation, financing
and career counselling, incentives to employers and the development of social ventures (CLAD
2011, p. 3).
Persons with mental disabilities number about 90,000 according to WHO-MoHSP data. These
people are particularly vulnerable, and care institutions and community-based services are
woefully inadequate. For children with disabilities, educational institutions are often unable to
provide facilities or services. Only 1.5 percent of schools were deemed to have the potential to
install facilities for pupils with motor disabilities, while fewer than 19 percent of schools had
space available for construction of rehabilitation facilities (Ostaf 2011). There are virtually no
official statistics to properly estimate the incidence of autism in Moldova. “These children are
invisible to our country. They are not diagnosed in time, do not benefit from therapy that
provides opportunities for recovery and are not allowed to go to kindergarten or school” (CLAD
2011, p. 5).
People who care for the disabled (most of them women) carry a time and work burden that
hampers their access to employment. Disabled women face additional risks and challenges. The
impoverishment of disabled women can render them vulnerable to violence at home in cases
where they are economically dependent on a male partner or family member. In some cases
disabled women have little access to reproductive health services and usually have fewer
opportunities to enter the labour market (JILDP 2011).
Across society, stigma may be attached to certain illnesses, particularly HIV/AIDS. Stigma results
in low identification of incidence of an illness. In Moldova there has been a recent trend of
feminization of the infection, and a rising prevalence in recent years among women presenting
for prenatal care.
Advocates state that people with disabilities are the most vulnerable to social exclusion, and that
most legislation on rights of persons with disabilities “have a declarative nature and are not
applied... There is no mechanism to monitor the exercise of the rights of persons with disabilities
... and there is very little information and statistical data” (CLAD 2011, p. 1).
Monitoring the conditions of persons with special needs during the decentralization process
requires consideration of:





Representation of special-needs groups in community decision making
Access to all public facilities through an accessible transport system and necessary
building modifications
Monitoring of extending measures that facilitate local employment access
Identifying different needs of disabled women and men at the community level
Tracking the schooling of children with disabilities in local schools and
preschools, through integration replacing isolating education and care facilities
2.2.2.4 Language and ethnicity
Roma people most vulnerable ethnic group – in Europe, and in Moldova
As discussed earlier, in the presence of discriminatory social values or cultural practices coupled
with weak mechanisms of institutional support, less privileged ethnic minorities are more
31
vulnerable to social exclusion. In the local government process under way in Moldova,
government and donor partners’ focus regarding the ethnic dimension of vulnerability has
emphasized the situation of the Roma people. A statement of the rationale for this focus is found
in the government-donor joint publication, “Who is missing from local development?” The
publication emphasizes the extent and the complex of interrelated factors that make local
development a vital issue for Romani people.
The Roma are a particularly vulnerable group among the ethnic minorities. That is why it
is important to highlight the specific vulnerabilities they face. Due to the stigmatization
and stereotyping of Roma families and Roma children, they are discriminated against and
are vulnerable to a wide range of risks. It is estimated that the unemployment rate among
Roma is 50% higher than in the overall population. Every second Roma lives in extreme
poverty and six out of ten Roma live in absolute poverty. Almost 61% of Roma live on less
than 2 USD a day (the international poverty line) and over 80% of Roma households are
not connected to running water and have neither a bathroom nor a toilet.
The Roma face difficulties in accessing social aid and services due to a complicated
registration process that requires identity documents, a stable address etc. Discriminatory
attitudes towards Roma widely spread in the society represent additional challenges. The
majority of Roma communities are located at the outskirts of their locality or even outside
it, creating additional difficulties for them in accessing basic community services (JILDP
(Joint Integrated Local Development Programme) 2011, p. 38)
The Roma are the largest and most vulnerable ethnic minority in Europe. Their population in
Europe has been estimated at 8 to 10 million. Awareness of the plight of the Romani people
heightened after 1989. Significantly, attention to the rights and living conditions of Roma were
incorporated into the EU accession process, under the political criteria. (See, for example,
Ringold et al. 2005, COE 2011, and WB 2011a.)
Exclusion of the Roma has been linked to wealth and income poverty by observers. In the post1989 transition period Romani people were rarely allocated land under redistribution
programmes. According to research in other European countries, Roma became, "the biggest
losers of the change of regime. With the liquidation of large factories and farmers’ cooperatives
they were the first ones to find themselves without work and without useful skills. There are
parts of the country where Roma unemployment is 90 to 100 per cent. This leads to hopelessness
and if someone sees that their child is starving the respect for the property of others becomes
secondary... [this is] much more of a poverty problem than a Roma issue” (Budapest Times 2012).
In UN research some authors have found that Roma people are twice as likely as non-Roma to be
poor, and 50 percent of Roma live in extreme poverty (Cace et al. 2007, p. 10).
As in other countries, the Roma in Moldova have been excluded historically. Their vulnerability
is linked with chronic invisibility in the statistical system, and education indicators that separate
them from the majority population.
No accurate count of the Roma people
Both government and UN agencies, as well as the Roma themselves, recognize that there is no
accurate count of the population numbers of Roma in Moldova. As the research has noted, the
2004 population Census recorded a Roma population of 12,271, or 0.4 percent of the population.
This number appears to be low, compared with some neighbouring countries such as Bulgaria,
Hungary and Romania.
32
However, regional experience shows that Censuses tend to underestimate the real number of
Roma population. Negative stereotypes attributed to the Roma by the majority population, ethnic
discrimination in the labour market, and in education, health care and other social spheres, and
the effects of injustices and discrimination that the Roma have faced in the past are among the
key reasons for Roma people preferring not to self-identify (Cace et al. 2007, pp. 9, 34).
Estimates of actual numbers vary widely. Some Roma groups estimate the population at more
than 150,000 (Roma National Center 2011b). It remains true that “unlike countries such as
Hungary and the Czech Republic, a social consensus on the approximate size of the Romani
community has not yet been reached” (UN Moldova 2011, p 3). The EC estimates that it is
possible that Roma people make up more than 100,000, or 2.5 percent of the population (Europa
2011).
UN organizations have suggested ways to improve data on the numbers and conditions of the
Roma people, such as including mother tongue and ethnicity questions in other survey
instruments (UN Moldova 2011, p. 2).
Several European countries joined efforts to declare a Decade of Roma Inclusion, 2005-2015. By
2012, 12 countries had made action plans, and many international organizations are supporting
the decade. These include the Open Society Institute, the World Bank, the European
Commission, the United Nations Development Program, the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe, Council of Europe, and the Council of Europe Development Bank, among
others. Principles of the decade include an emphasis on Roma leadership and active participation
in its activities.
Another vital aspect is improving the database of all countries for monitoring the conditions and
status of the Roma. The participating countries have identified indicators that will be used to
measure progress in reaching the goals of the adopted plans. The WB notes that monitoring
defined outcomes will require a combination of designing and implementing new data collection
instruments, and upgrading existing data sources to ensure that Roma are effectively included.
“UNDP has been supporting these efforts through implementing a cross-country baseline survey
and convening a data expert's group for sharing information (World Bank 2011a).”
UNDP in partnership with other organizations has conducted surveys of 18 countries to date,
including Moldova in 2011. 13 The survey data, UNDP has reported, indicate that, “Roma in the
[European] region are excluded from economic, social and political life. Compared to non-Roma
citizens, Roma are more likely to live in poverty, have a higher risk of unemployment, stay in
school for fewer years, live without access to drinking water, sanitation and electricity, and live in
substandard, overcrowded homes. Roma are more likely to suffer from chronic illness and have
less access to health services” (UNDP 2012). Results of the 2011 survey by UNDP/WB/EC are
referred to within this report, referenced as UNDP 2012.14
Surveys, partnership with WB, the EC and the European Union Agency for Fundamental
Rights, have been conducted to date in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Czech Republic, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Portugal,
Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
13
14
“The UNDP/WB/EC survey was conducted in May-July 2011 on a random sample of Roma and nonRoma households living in areas with higher density (or concentration) of Roma populations in the EU
Member States of Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, and the non-EU Member States
33
Language of education
Most minority language people, who account for 25 percent of the population, study in the
Russian language. While some language groups benefit from the proximity of a large pool of
speakers in neighbouring countries (e.g. the Ukrainians, Russians and Bulgarians,) the Gagauz
group faces a risk of disappearance of their language (Ostaf 2011 p. 17).
For the Roma people, there is little or no possibility of schooling in the mother tongue, and
education in general is the clearest mark of social exclusion.
Roma education and literacy levels fall well short of the national average. Every fifth
Roma cannot write and read, while a person with college or higher education is a rarity,
this category constituting only 4% of the total Roma population in comparison with the
non-Roma population enrolment of 38%. The drop-out rates at schools and low
enrolments among Roma children are of alarming proportions and raise the legitimate
question: why is this happening? Cace 2007 p 11
According to Ostaf 2011 there is no right in national legislation to education in the mother tongue
(p. 17). However, Stoianova 2002 states that the, “Law on Education and the Law on Functioning
of Languages Spoken in Moldova stipulates the essential principle according to which the state
guarantees the right to choose the language of instruction at all levels of education process.
Article 8 of the Law on Education, 1995, last updated 2010 (UNESCO 2011)15 stipulates that:
1) The state ensures, according to the Constitution and Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the
Law on the Functioning of Languages the right to choose the language of
education and upbringing at all levels of the educational process.
2) The right of citizens to be brought up and educated in their mother tongue is
ensured by founding a sufficient number of educational institutions, classes,
groups, and conditions for their functioning.
3) Studying of the state language in the Republic of Moldova is obligatory in all
educational institutions. The requirements for studying and teaching the state
language are established by the state educational standard (Stoianova 2002).
However, the law does not appear to be implemented with respect to investing the needed
resources and time to train teachers to provide education in the mother-tongue languages, or
developing non-Romanian-language materials. This is unfortunate, since the value of mothertongue education has been known for many years and widely studied and reported in the UN
system. As early as 1953 this value was stated as “axiomatic” by UNESCO, reiterated by UNICEF
in 1999, and underlined by UNESCO in its 2003 publication, Education in a Multilingual World.
In this report, UNESCO reiterated the points made in its 1953 report and state, “virtually all
research since 1953 has served to confirm the earlier arguments in support of mother tongue
education programs.” The 2003 report argued forcefully for the use of the mother tongue in
primary education. It cited the wealth of findings over five decades, stating: “There is ample
of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, FYR of Macedonia, Montenegro, Republic of Moldova and
Serbia. In each of the countries, approximately 750 Roma households and approximately 350 non-Roma
households living in proximity were interviewed” (UNDP 2012).
15
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO)
34
research showing that students are quicker to learn to read and acquire other academic skills
when first taught in their mother tongue. They also learn a second language more quickly than
those initially taught to read in an unfamiliar language (Dutcher 2004)”.
The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (1992, ECRML), of which Moldova is a
signatory, calls on states to implement measures to promote the use of regional or minority
languages in public life, giving particular emphasis to education, communication with public
authorities, public services and culture, among other areas (Council of Europe 1992). 16
European specialists have argued that the use of the language of choice is an important human
right that has been increasingly recognized in the modern period (since the end of the Cold War),
because “it is through language - a primary marker of identity - that we are able to identify
ourselves, others, and to be identified by others, that we think, communicate and generally relate
to the world around us.” (Hogan-Brun and Wolff 2010, pp. 4 ff.) They point out that the
implementation of minority language rights has carried with it a great deal of complexity;
nevertheless, the importance of the various conventions such as ECRML, and those of the
European Union (EU) and others, is that it is now recognized that such rights must be protected
in practice and not “suppressed actively or simply through neglect (p. 4)”.
The EU, which has about 10-12 million Roma people living in its member and candidate member
countries, has taken several steps and created dedicated funds to which EU members can have
access, to improve education and other services in the Romani language. These and similar funds
have been taken up by, for example, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece,
Hungary, Italy, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and
Slovenia. Moldova has been able to access the fund for one school project that will run from
2011-1012 (European Commission 2011). It would be possible for Moldova to make use of much
more funding if the country were to take steps to be active in the programme.
Enrolment rates for Roma children are lower than for non-Roma at all stages of education.
Primary education covers less than 70 per cent of Roma children and secondary education less
than 50 per cent. This is in dramatic contrast with the situation of non-Roma, where enrolment
rates for primary and secondary education are much higher. A significant difference exists
between Roma and non-Roma in school attendance. 43 per cent of Roma children of the ages 715 do not attend school, in comparison with approximately 6 per cent of non-Roma who do not
attend school (European Roma Rights Centre 2010, pp. 22-23)
It will be important to include in the monitoring framework indicators that enable researchers to
track the authorities’ commitment to implementation of the right to education in the mother
tongue.
2.2.2.5 Religion
In a country which displays a high homogeneity of religious confession, minority faiths may
experience difficulty in enjoying the free exercise of their beliefs. “According to the Government
of Moldova, more than 90 percent of the population belong to one or another of the Orthodox
Christian churches. Adherents of other religious groups constitute less than 10 percent of the
population, and include Roman Catholics, Protestant groups, Seventh-day Adventists, Muslims,
16
Moldova became a signatory of the Languages Charter in 2002, but has not yet ratified accession in
parliament.
35
Jehovah's Witnesses, Baha'is, Jews and other charismatic and evangelical Christian groups” (UN
Moldova 2011 pp 8-11).
By law in Moldova, simplified registration procedures must be available for all religious groups to
facilitate their access to public places of worship. Nevertheless, there have been numerous cases
reported of restriction of access and registration. Local authorities are responsible for ensuring
the respect of national legislation; however, in some communities groups of non-Orthodox faith
have been denied both of these rights. “There are still cases where religious minorities have been
harassed (examples include the confiscation of religious literature and the registration certificate,
interference with funeral celebrations or burials, and the violation of religious symbols) and local
police have not responded adequately” (JILDP 2011, p 46).
Muslim community representatives judge that there are about 30,000 Muslims in Moldova;
however the 2004 Census reported only 1667 persons declaring themselves Muslims. Muslims
groups report decade-long unsuccessful attempts to be accorded registration. Representatives
report that their community members are refused allocation of separate sections in cemeteries and
face stigma within the society at large (Ostaf 2011). The presence of stigma and harassment may
account for difficulties in having an accurate count of religious minorities, in the same way that
undercounting is experienced for the ethnic Roma community.
Other religious minorities report restrictions on their building of places of worship and public
manifestation of their beliefs. The most prominently reported incidents have taken place in
Chisinau, and there is little information as to conditions in smaller municipalities.
In monitoring access and rights under the decentralization process, it is important to consider
whether there are any local forms of discrimination, social exclusion or marginalization of nonOrthodox believers, for instance of non-Orthodox students in schools, or a failure to
accommodate non-Orthodox traditions and rituals at burial places, or during the registration of
marriages at mayor’s offices (JILDP 2011, p. 46).
Some indicators that may be developed include:



Evidence that religious minorities in local areas enjoy full freedom of practice of
their religious beliefs in the community
Evidence that all religious minorities have a place to worship in the community
Indications that the authorities, educational institutions and local leaders promote
awareness of the importance of religious tolerance among the majority (from
JILDP 2011).
2.2.2.6 Rural residence
In Moldova, households located in rural areas are more vulnerable than urban households to
income poverty, poor job access, and limited access to consumer goods or to services. As noted
earlier, two-thirds of Moldova’s poor live in rural areas. Outside the towns, most employment is
generated by low-paid agricultural activities, and few alternative income-generating opportunities
are available. In geographic areas where infrastructure is also poor, entire communities are
vulnerable to social exclusion (Vremis et al. 2010, p 60). Rural communities are at risk of high
impact from natural disasters, and in circumstances of health emergencies, social upheaval,
domestic problems or criminal events, such communities are poorly covered by social safety
networks and services. “Poverty remains in many ways a "rural" phenomenon as 80% of the
country's poor reside in rural areas” (UNDP Moldova 2012a).
36
Almost every dimension of vulnerability interacts with rural residence. Age is one example: “the
elderly in rural areas are extremely vulnerable since their limited resources are insufficient to
ensure normal living standards. Mortality among the elderly in rural areas is higher than that of
the elderly in urban areas – 64 deaths per 1000 in rural areas compared to 48 deaths per 1000 in
urban areas” (JILDP 2011, p. 15). This is confirmed by the data for life expectancy in Moldova,
which is 73.4 years in urban areas, compared with 69.5 years in rural areas (Buliga 2012, p. 3).
The very young provide another age-related example, in access to schooling programmes.
Because of the value of early childhood education in socialization, normal development and
readiness for elementary schooling, the government has adopted a target of enrolling 75 percent
of children age 3-6 years in pre-schools. However, in rural regions fewer than half of children of
this age group do attend, because of poverty or low awareness on the part of parents (Ostaf 2011,
p 18).
2.2.2.7 Gender
Gender, unlike sex, is not a biologically fixed characteristic. Gender is a composite of roles
assigned to women and men by their society and community. As with other social groups
discussed in this report, discriminatory behaviour that defines gender roles in stereotyped ways
can deny persons access to rights, voice and resources. Men as well as women can suffer from
rigidity in the social definition and expectations of their roles.
Moldova has a long history of progress in achieving legal equality between the sexes and access to
fundamental rights. In urban areas, women are prominent in a wide range of economic activities.
Women in wage employment in the non- agricultural sector hold more than 50 percent of all
jobs, and have done so consistently throughout the past decade. This is an indicator of the extent
to which women have gained access to the “modern” sector, and as such is one of the indicators
which have been added to the monitoring of MDG 3, gender equality and the empowerment of
women, by the Republic of Moldova and by the world community. Women in Moldova have
gained a significantly higher share by this measure than the average for all of the developing
Europe and Central Asia group of countries.
37
Share of women employed in the non-agricultural sector (% of total
non-agricultural employment)
%
56.0
54.0
52.0
50.0
48.0
46.0
44.0
42.0
40.0
2000
Europe & Central Asia
47.1
(developing only)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
46.2
47.3
47.6
48.2
48.0
48.0
48.0
48.1
48.2
Moldova
52.6
53.6
54.6
54.6
54.9
53.5
54.6
54.1
54.3
52.8
Source: WB http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.EMP.INSV.FE.ZS/countries/mda-7E?display=graph
There is near-universal access to elementary and secondary education (although, as noted
elsewhere, such access is more limited in rural areas and among the poor and the Roma minority).
Generally, enrolment rates for girls and boys are essentially equal, and more girls than boys
continue on to post-secondary schooling. Nevertheless, inequalities in access and empowerment
of women are apparent in many parts of society.
Facing a duality
Women and girls often confront a confusing duality between the official, formal stance on gender
equality and their lived realities in the home and work-place. In 2010 a wide-ranging study of
women’s status by government-donor partners summarized its findings, stating:
The Republic of Moldova has an advanced gender legal and institutional framework and a
high-level political commitment to address gender inequalities in the country. In fact,
according to OECD17 ranking in Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI), the Republic
of Moldova ranks 12th out of 102 countries. Yet a watchdog non-governmental
organization considers that gender equality legislation is mainly declarative, in large part
because of patriarchal traditions and the traditional perceptions regarding women’s role in
the society.
17
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
38
This study concludes that population’s gender norms show an emancipated society
regarding women’s rights in the society in exercising their equal role in getting education,
employment and full participation to social life, but a strong patriarchal society regarding
women’ role in their family and private lives (Bivol and Vlădicescu 2010, p. 7).
Women’s rights are ensured in national legislation. However legislative bodies present very
uneven representation of women in decision-making positions. Women hold 19.8 percent of
parliamentary seats, slightly below European and world averages (IPU 2012). In local
administrations, women’s representation is lower, at 18.5 percent: “they manage only 166
mayoralties, out of the total number of 898 entities,” and in a decade of local government reform,
this representation has grown by only 3 percent. While central government has ensured gender
parity in the distribution of salaries and of some high-ranked positions, “the higher up in the
hierarchical structure of decision makers one looks, the fewer women one finds compared to
men” (UNDP Moldova 2012b).
Women are deemed a vulnerable group in employment. Equal pay for work of equivalent value is
provided for by national legislation. However, in 2011 women’s average salary represented only
74.4 percent of the average male salary. This gap emerges because of the horizontal and vertical
segregation within the labour market. That is, most women work in jobs held only or mainly by
women – they hold low-paying jobs and occupy lower positions in the job hierarchy. Large
numbers of women occupy jobs in lower-paid sectors – education, healthcare or services – often
in the lower ranks of these professions. New gender equality legislation will come into force in
2013, and may redress some of the existing imbalances (UNDP Moldova 2012b).
Much of the difficulty in enforcing legislation arises from low resources for implementation. In
addition, labour market issues are often hidden. Blagojevic noted a number of these issues. She
found that reported employment is higher among women than among men – however, she
observed that women are more often engaged in part-time jobs that may be under-reported.
Similarly, unemployment rates are higher for men than for women. However, many women are
considered “discouraged workers” because they do not register as unemployed. This likelihood
was confirmed by the consultant mission: officials acknowledged that registration is
cumbersome, particularly for persons living far from registration offices, and the unemployment
benefit is not enough to warrant undergoing the procedures. This is particularly true for low-paid
and part-time workers, whose benefits would be paltry. Many women, like men, find work in the
informal sector – where there are few benefits. “...Estimates of the ‘shadow economy’ in Moldova
[were that it comprised] up to 60 percent of GDP, [and it is likely that] the economic activity of
both women and men represented by official statistical data is somewhat distorted (Blagojevic
2006, p. 7).
For vulnerable minority groups, gender is an additional factor in economic activity. Among the
majority non-Roma population, 20 percent of working-age adults have no employment
experience – and this rate is higher for women than for men (at 23 and 18 percent, respectively).
For Roma women, the rate is 69 percent, much higher than for Roma men, at 48 percent (UNDP
FRA 2012, data for Moldova).
Gender-based violence
Worldwide experience shows that women who have little economic independence, particularly
those with several children, are at greater risk of suffering abuse, and have limited prospects of
escaping this situation. Worldwide, women are most often vulnerable to intimate partner abuse;
that is, women are harmed by a person known to them. In Moldova, the government has
39
documented domestic violence. According to the National Bureau of Statistics, in 2010, 70
percent of women in rural areas and 60 percent of women in urban areas have experienced one or
more forms of violence by a spouse or partner. Sexual harassment in the workplace is reported
by 23 percent of employed women. In partnership with the UN, the government has
disseminated information about the incidence and severity of domestic violence, and resources
available to victims of abuse (Government of Moldova and UN Moldova 2011, and JILDP 2011, p.
61).
In planning for resources at the local level, public and CSO agencies need to be aware that the
available centres are almost all in the larger municipalities. However, rural women are as much
in need of protection and services as those in urban areas.
In small communities, cases of domestic violence cases tend not to be reported, or are dealt with
as “administrative offences,” in which criminal proceedings are not initiated. Gender-based
violence – whether in the home, workplace or in other venues – often is not reported because of
fear of stigma or reprisals and ignorance of existing laws, legal procedures and legal services, or
because there is little confidence in the justice system. More than half the victims of domestic
violence did not seek help, and in cases of sexual harassment at work, 43% of women did not
report incidents and 65 percent said that the perpetrators were not punished (JILDP 2011, p. 61).
The report makes recommendations (in Chapter 4) about indicators needed to monitor genderbased violence. For local government decentralization policy-makers, attention should be paid to:




Ensuring locally based venues and programmes to enable vulnerable persons to
talk about domestic concerns, and about gender-based violence within and outside
the home, in safe spaces
Publicising knowledge within communities, to women and men through
dedicated programmes (that address the sexes in appropriate and separate venues),
that domestic violence is a criminal offense, must be reported, and will be dealt
with seriously
Putting in place local community-based frameworks to protect the victims and
family members
Training local police and justice authorities to deal with gender-based violence of
all kinds, including referral to higher authorities (incorporating JILDP 2011
recommendations, p. 61).
Trafficking
As part of the consequences of poverty and social upheaval, in recent decades many women and
children are at risk of trafficking. Much of the phenomenon is hidden, since victims are rarely
identified in Moldova or in destination countries. As with other forms of violence, the same fears
of stigma and lack of confidence in law enforcement bodies help to conceal xx. Authorities
reported that in the period 2000–2008, the total number of assisted persons directly affected by
human trafficking (victims and their children) was 5,183. Some 70% of victims of trafficking were
from families defined as poor or very poor; 65% cite unemployment as the main reason for fleeing
abroad, and 70–95% suffered from domestic violence, both prior to their abduction and in most
cases after their return.
The government-partner documentation indicates that in most communities “there is an
inadequate or no framework in place to prevent and address cases of human trafficking. Most of
the time, forms of assistance for victims - like shelters, medical attention and counselling are
40
available only in a few locations. Due to stigmatization, the victims of human trafficking rarely
return to their community, and since they lack identification documents they face additional
challenges in accessing housing and employment” (JILDP 2011, p. 62).
The decentralization process is an important occasion to examine how local government and
communities can contribute to stopping trafficking of women and vulnerable persons. Some xx
noted by the above documents are:



Tasking local authorities to facilitate reporting of cases of trafficking to them, and
to ensure that these reports are appropriately dealt with for investigation at local
and higher levels.
Working with designated authorities and CSOs to raise the level of knowledge
about human trafficking within the community and among local public officials
Supporting active initiatives or projects regarding human trafficking in the
community
To assist local authorities in deciding how to approach monitoring of gender and vulnerabilities,
an important resource has been made available. NBS, together with UNDP, UNIFEM (now UN
Women) and UNFPA has prepared an outline on indicators of gender issues that provides
guidance on how exclusion and vulnerability can be monitored in conjunction with MDG
tracking (National Bureau of Statistics 2009)
People living with HIV
At the end of 2010, the cumulative HIV prevalence in Moldova was 155.94 per 100,000
inhabitants. According to official statistics the highest proportion of new HIV cases are among the
age group 15-39; in 2010 for the first time women represented 51.56% of new cases.
Cumulatively, since 1987, the share of men in the people living with HIV is over 60%. Since 2002,
the HIV epidemic is characterized by an increase in the prevalence of heterosexual transmission
(85.9% of cases in the year 2010 compared to 48.2% in year 2004). The data also show that the
majority of HIV positive persons are registered in urban areas (60.7 % of the new HIV cases in
2010). It still remains to be confirmed if this actually mirrors reality or is a reflection of a poorer
identification framework in rural areas. (JILDP 2011, p. 63).
HIV positive persons are vulnerable due to stigmatization and discrimination, resulting from their
real or perceived HIV status. Revealing one’s HIV status increases the chances of being
discriminated against at work, in access to treatment and in finding housing. In most rural
communities in Moldova there is little access to information, education and counselling regarding
HIV/AIDS. Also, at the community level there is a high risk for HIV positive persons to be
excluded and stigmatized, that discourages them from seeking treatment and turning to social
services.
Over the last few years a trend towards ‘feminization’ of the infection has emerged. It is estimated
that women are at greater risk of HIV infection than men and the transmission rate is 10 times
higher from men to women than from women to men. Women and young girls are more
vulnerable to HIV infection, since they cannot always convince their partners to practice
protected sex. Whereas, at the beginning of the epidemic, the majority of HIV positive persons
were men, in recent years, women have constituted a growing share of the number infected. The
feminization of the epidemic brought an increase in the proportion of women among the infected
from 26.5% in 2001 to 43.9% in 2009.
41
Questions to ask include: are there any programs or efforts to educate the community about
HIV/AIDS? What kind of services and counselling for the potentially HIV infected are available
to community members? What is the level of acceptance or stigmatization of HIV/AIDS in the
community? Are there any programs or information available on reproductive health for young
boys and girls? (p. 64)
LGBT gender identity minorities
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons (LGBT) face enormous stigmatization and
discrimination. Homophobic statements and acts are widely accepted and transmitted through
public declarations and mass media, and almost never are condemned by politicians and opinion
makers.
At the local level, the topic of LGBT is considered taboo: relevant information and education is
generally absent, and the majority of the population may be predisposed to have a negative
attitude towards this group. Over the past three years, local authorities have refused or failed to
provide security to gay pride demonstrations on the grounds that it homosexuality is immoral.
There are frequent recorded instances of discrimination on the part of the authorities against
people who are open about a minority sexual identity. Although the facts are not wildly
documented or reported, the LGBT community faces increasing discrimination in accessing
health, social services and employment.
In developing monitoring tools for local development plans or projects, authorities and citizens
may highlight the following questions: Is the concept of LGBT properly understood in the
community? Do gay men and women enjoy the same rights and opportunities as heterosexuals
enjoy in being open about their sexual identity? Are local police making enough effort to protect
the local LGBT community? Do LGBT people get the same access to health care as other members
of the community, including access to reproductive health services? (from JILDP 2011)
2.2.2.8 Occupation
The NDS text notes that persons may be at risk as a consequence of their occupation, in particular
where they lack access to labour or produce markets. It highlights specifically farm women and
men, and young women and men with specialized skills (NDS p. 59).
Survey results show that persons occupied in agriculture had incomes half as high as Moldovan
incomes overall. Self-employed persons in small farms are the most vulnerable. According to the
Moldova Household Budget Survey of 2008, households chiefly dependent on agricultural work
on their own land were at high risk of living in poverty, at 37 percent (compared to the national
average of 26 percent) of households. Agricultural employees are at even greater risk, at 43
percent of households living in poverty. Although agriculture in the past had benefited from
long-term investment in irrigation infrastructure and assured markets, this has changed. Most
farms are dependent on the vagaries of the weather, and market access is difficult for small
producers.
A large part of the population, particularly in rural areas, is engaged in informal employment.
Official data record high numbers of men in self-employment or production cooperatives, but fail
to cover potentially higher numbers of women engaged in unpaid work in agriculture. Some
experts estimate the “unobserved economy” at more than 49 percent of GDP, which would make
it higher than most European economies and higher as well than the average of transition
economies, all of which struggle to create secure employment (Cruc et al. 2009, pp. 34-35, and
Blagojevic 2006). Since the earnings of persons working without contracts in the informal
42
economy are characteristically low, the percentage of workers in this sector is likely to be even
higher than the proportion of GDP they generate.
Seventy-eight per cent of the population of Moldova have insurance cover, which is only a small
increase since the introduction of social health insurance in 2004. Factors associated with being
uninsured include being self-employed (particularly in agriculture), unemployed, younger age
and low income. Both insured and uninsured face high additional costs of obtaining care, in
particular due to payments for pharmaceuticals. As a consequence, insurance coverage has only a
limited impact on seeking care when ill. From “Health care data from HBS 2008” (Richardson et
al. 2011, p. 2)
Reporting on vulnerability dimensions
Beginning with this set of eight key dimensions of potential vulnerability and exclusion, the
following section explains the structure of the Matrix of Indicators developed for this report. It
begins with indicators for Fiscal and Financial Decentralization, followed by Political
Decentralization, Administrative Decentralization, and finally Services. The indicators are
selected in part as means of measuring the degree or extent of the progress of the decentralization
process. At the same time, issues of vulnerability noted above are addressed by indicators within
these 4 components of decentralization, as means for measuring the extent to which there is
responsiveness to these dimensions within the decentralization process.
2.3 Matrix structure
This section describes the structure of the Indicators Matrix, placed in this Report as Annex 1.
The Matrix contains 61 indicators selected to measure and monitor over successive periods (1) the
extent and progress of the decentralization process, and (2) the vulnerability of different groups of
the population with respect to the factors discussed above. Indicators in the Matrix are grouped
under four major categories – Financial and fiscal, Political, Administrative and Services. They
are given letters referring to these categories; that is F, P, A, S, and numbered within these
groups.
The Matrix has been developed by the consultant team18, and has undergone a comprehensive
consultation process with concerned government institutions, central and local public
administration. 19
The Matrix can be used by government at the central and local levels as a reporting tool on both
decentralization and vulnerability. Analysts can use the format or guidance of the matrix to fill in
available data for their own research (for any part or portion of the indicator set). In so doing
they could make use of combinations of government data and those data reported by international
surveys, own research or other sources. (In all cases, the Matrix provides a column to be used for
reporting the exact source of the data entered in the cells.)
18
Maria Vremis and Viorica Craievschi, national consultants, under the methodological guidance of Patricia
Alexander, international expert (Canada).
19 State Chancellery, Ministry of Economy, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Constructions and Regional
Development, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Labour,
social Protection and Family, Ministry of Health, Public Property Agency, and other sectoral agencies,
representatives of local public administration and Congress of Local Public Authorities.
43
For users of the data reported by such a Matrix, analysis can be done to help explain the
determinants of marginalization or exclusion. Depending on which indicators are used, the data
may help explain changes in the degree or impact of vulnerability, the interconnection of factors,
and the extent to which the decentralization process has or has not helped to reduce exclusion or
the risk of exclusion.
The Indicators Matrix has been developed to serve as the basis for a monitoring and evaluation
framework for the National Decentralization Strategy. The project partners will use it to measure
progress in, among other goals: decentralizing powers and authority to sub-national units, while
at the same time expanding social inclusion, equity among social groups, gender balance and
women’s empowerment, equitable access to public services and respect for human rights. The
eight dimensions of vulnerability identified by the NDS represent one set of dimensions for
disaggregation of the indicators. At the same time, the Matrix identifies the administrative level
at which the indicator is to be reported.
“Assessment boxes” have been added after the presentation of each indicator or group of
indicators, to show the availability of indicators at this time, based on discussions with the
authorities to date. It will be noted that at this early point in the development of the NDS, many
components of local-level data are not readily available. The assessment boxes do not identify the
reasons for partial or complete unavailability of any indicator. Such reasons may be varied: in
some cases it appears that the reporting of a large part of financial and other data by local
authorities is still limited. In others, it may be that central agencies have prepared aggregated
reports without retaining breakdown by local area. As well, it may be that disaggregation by the
vulnerability factors selected by the NDS has not previously been incorporated into the data
instruments used.
To increase the efficacy of use of the Matrix by national counterparts and other users, it provides,
as noted, indicators aimed to monitor the progress of decentralization as outlined by the NDS, and
indicators to monitor the impact of decentralization on vulnerability dimensions at the level of
sectors of service delivery.
For the same purpose, practical guidelines for the use of the indicators have been included (as
Column 13), containing a brief analytical interpretation of each indicator. This interpretation
complements the standard definitions of statistical indicators by providing further explanation as
to the purpose, principles, and modalities of use of the indicators from either or both of the
perspectives of decentralization and vulnerability.
It is hoped that these guidelines will ensure that the Indicators Matrix can become a working tool
that will increase the practical capacities and abilities of the project’s beneficiaries – initially the
State Chancellery, policy analysis units in line ministries, LPAs and others involved in the
implementation of decentralization – and serve as manual for them in applying and using
statistical data for monitoring, reporting and assessing the progress of decentralization.
Proceeding in the order of Fiscal and Financial, Political, Administrative and Services
decentralization, it lists the indicators used and provides explanations of the meaning or method
of calculation where appropriate.
2.3.1 Fiscal and financial decentralization
As defined earlier, fiscal decentralization refers to the extent to which central governments cede
fiscal impact to non-central government entities. The indicators of fiscal decentralization enable
the analyst to examine imbalances between the powers and autonomous financing ability of local
44
administrative units vis-à-vis the central government, and imbalances between local units –
resulting in some localities enjoying greater financial powers and autonomy than others. The
indicators also facilitate comparison of components of fiscal aggregates, including expenditure and
revenues. The matrix begins with an indicator of the size or reach of the government budget or
public sector as a whole, with respect to the private sector. Moldova is a transition country,
moving from a centrally planned to a market-driven economy. Decentralization is one part of the
path to transition.
Size of government
Under regimes of central planning, the massive size of the government budget dwarfed the
private sector. In the course of transition to market-driven economies, governments seek to
reduce the overall size of the public sector, and to make way for the private sector to drive
economic growth. Governments increasingly confine their role to that of providing a legal and
regulatory framework for the operation of economic activities. They step out of the role of
production of goods and services, and divest themselves of many publicly owned enterprises. At
the same time, they may retain control of services that are deemed rightly the responsibility of
government: providing public services that are not efficiently or fairly provided by private
agents.
Two decades after Moldova’s emergence as an independent republic and a transition economy,
the country’s public sector remains excessively large. This has been recognized by government
and by observers. A 2007 review of public expenditure by the World Bank pointed out that the
share of tax revenues and expenditures to gross domestic product [GDP] in Moldova greatly
exceeded international norms. In 2005, it noted, government [expenditure] had been 38 percent
of GDP – “7 to 8 percentage points of GDP higher than one would expect of a country of similar
income levels” (World Bank 2007, para. 1.1 and 13). 20
F1
Government size and shares Indicator
Availability*
Required/ Reported
F1.1 Size of public sector
Ratio of public expenditure to GDP C
C
Notes to Matrix excerpts:
- Shaded rows represent indicators that are proposed but are not included in the main Indicators Matrix at this time.
20
The WB paper stated, “The Government of Moldova’s Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy
Paper (EGPRSP) lays out an ambitious plan for sustaining growth and poverty reduction and reshaping the
government to meet the needs of a market economy. The public expenditures envisaged under this
ambitious plan, however, vastly exceed the domestic resources available to the Government. Additional
foreign budgetary support may help alleviate some of that resource constraint. Recognizing that the share of
tax revenues and expenditures to GDP in Moldova already greatly exceed comparable international levels,
generating additional domestic tax resources risks crowding out the private sector and undermining growth
prospects. This suggests that in order to finance higher order public expenditures priorities, the
Government needs to create fiscal space from within the existing resource envelope. This will require inter
and intra-sectoral reallocation of expenditures and an increase in the efficiency of public spending rather
than increasing the relative size of government (WB 2007 para. 1.1 ).
45
*
C:
2:
1:
The excerpts from the Matrix indicate, under Availability, the level of government/ administration at which
the indicator is required, and whether or not it is reported. Levels are identified as:
central government
LPA 2 – rayon or district level of public administration
LPA 1 – primaria or municipal level of public administration
This large size of the public sector makes it difficult for government to raise expenditures further,
since higher taxes to increase government revenues have two drawbacks. They could have the
effect of crowding out private sector investment, and higher fees and taxes are unlikely to be
acceptable to the population. Government is therefore interested in finding ways to be more
efficient in its spending. Giving more autonomy to the local (public) authorities (LPA or LA) is
expected to result in savings and improved effectiveness of government programmes without
increasing the overall size of government. During the process of drafting the NDS text,
discussions recognized that the pressing need to restrict expansion of public spending overall was
one motivating factor in pursuing the decentralization process (noted, for example, in draft
versions, Government of the Republic of Moldova 2011b, p. 9). Increasing the size of government
revenues and expenditures would not be an option for improving the financing of local
administrations.
Given these pressures on the public purse, government has striven to hold down public spending,
without damaging public services. Indeed, its concern has been to improve the quality of services
and the access to these services for all the population. Because of this strong motivating factor
underpinning government’s decentralization policy, it is important to track one indicator of this
public-sector-to-GDP ratio. This is included in the Indicator Matrix.
As the Matrix shows in its accompanying table (extract for 2005-2012 below), the ratio of
government spending to GDP had risen to 45.2 percent by 2009.21 However, in 2010 this ratio
was reduced somewhat, and government approvals and estimates for subsequent years show the
expected decline to approach the expenditure-to-GDP ratio that had obtained in 2005. (IMF
forecasts spending to continue in the 40 percent range) (IMF 2012b, p. 17). Even at these levels,
however, the burden of taxation and expenditure on a small and relatively poor economy remains
heavy. The table below shows that Moldova has continued to have difficulty
Ratio of public expenditure to GDP (as %)
2005 (final)
2009 (final)
2010 (final)
2011 (approved budget)
2012 (IMF estimate)
2013 (forecast)
38.0
45.2
40.8
39.7
40.0
38.8
Assessment:
F.1.1: This indicator is required and available at the central level.
21
In 2007, the Government’s Medium-Term Economic Framework had forecast continuing growth of
expenditure, of about 2% per year (WB 2007, para. 1.19), and did continue in an expansionary direction
through 2010. However, subsequently efforts were made to reverse this pace of increase.
46
Imbalances, vertical and horizontal
The issue of “balance” refers to expenditure and revenue proportions (or shares). Vertical
imbalance measures intergovernmental transfers as a share of sub-national expenditures. This
proportion is important to the extent that there is a discrepancy between the cost of funding
services for which territorial-administrative units (TAUs) are responsible, and the self-financing
authority available to them. Various authors have discussed the persistence of this disequilibrium
(between taxation powers and expenditure requirements) in decentralized systems. The capacity
of local-level authorities to raise revenue is usually insufficient to finance the large number of
expenditures that are nevertheless most efficiently provided at that local level. The central
government, in contrast, has greater powers to raise revenues, particularly to ensure compliance
with the taxation regime.
This gap in taxation powers and the demand for services is referred to as a “fiscal vertical
imbalance”, and is inherent in multi-level systems. Bouton et al. note that, “In OECD countries,
on average more than 30% of government expenditures are decentralised. On the other hand,
only 20% of revenues are collected at the sub-national level. This means that one third of local
expenditures need to be financed by national grants.” This imbalance is likely to persist, since
decentralization of expenditures is viewed as an efficient way to meet the variation of local
community needs, whereas “decentralizing revenues is generally viewed as dangerous”. The
concern is that wealth differences across regions or districts mean that different localities would
have unequal abilities to raise funds (Bouton et al. 2008, which includes a discussion of the
literature on fiscal imbalance and equalization).
In Moldova the authors of the NDS recognized the vertical imbalance issue in the “problem
identification” section in Part 1 of the text: “The transfer of responsibilities/competences without
adequate financial means to exercise them”. They noted:
In the Republic of Moldova, as in many other transition countries, the decentralization of
certain public services and the transfer of some responsibilities/competences was not
synchronised with the transfer of the resources necessary for their fulfilment, which led
to the emergence of some profound vertical financial imbalances. As a result, performing
those [functions] is difficult and sometimes even impossible for the small TAUs or those
having small budgets. At the same time, a mechanism that would guarantee the necessary
medium and long-term financial resources for the TAU to perform the competences
transferred to them by the state is missing (NDS 2012, pp. 5-6).
Specifically, in the Matrix, “vertical balance” (or imbalance) refers to the share of the local
expenditure budget that is transferred by the central government, as a proportion of the total local
expenditure. (The remainder of this calculation, of course, is the proportion of local spending
raised under the local authorities’ control.) It is calculated, as stated in the Matrix, as the total of
all transfers to the LPAs by the central authorities, shown as a percentage of the total expenditure
budget of LPAs. An aggregated measure for all LPAs should be provided at the central level.
This calculation should also be made separately for each LPA at L2 and L1 levels. Although this
calculation is not reported at present, it is likely that the central authorities’ software could be
queried to produce the allocation to each LPA.
F1
Government size and
shares
Indicator
Availability
Required/ Reported
47
F1.2
Vertical imbalance
Transfers to sub-national
governments as a share of subnational government
expenditures
F1.2a
Vertical imbalance (a)
Local revenues as a share of local
(sub-national) expenditures
C, 2, 1
C
Transfers to sub-national
governments (non-earmarked)
as a share of sub-national
government expenditures
C, 2, 1
--
F1.2b Vertical imbalance (b)
C, 2, 1
C
F1.3
Horizontal imbalance,
total
Total budget per capita
C, 2, 1
C
F1.3a
Horizontal imbalance,
sub-national
Local budget per capita
C, 2, 1
--
The vertical balance indicator has limitations in that, although the proportion of funds under the
control of the LPA may be significant, these funds may come with qualifications (e.g. they may be
earmarked for specified uses by central government) to such an extent that little real authority is
left for the LPA to determine its spending programme. The COE Charter commits states to avoid
this kind of control by the central authority, in the interest of allowing local authorities to
maintain an appropriate degree of policy control (Council of Europe 2010, p. 17).22 The NDS also
recognizes that at present central as well as district-level authorities too frequently interfere in
the financial management of lower tiers, to the detriment of good service provision by the local
authorities (NDS 2012, p. 6).23
Notwithstanding the importance of non-interference, it should be noted that it is a reasonable
and standard practice in all countries that some proportion of centrally allocated funds be preassigned to certain public services. This practice enables the central government to implement
nationally agreed goals with respect to a range and standard of services, for example in health
care, schooling provision or public utility quality standardization. The challenge remains that of
achieving balance. The matrix should include an indicator to monitor, beyond the shares of funds
under each level of government, the actual degree of control accorded to the LPAs. Such an
indicator would show the proportion of earmarked funds to those not so restricted.
22
The Charter states: “As far as possible, grants to local authorities shall not be earmarked for the financing
of specific projects. The provision of grants shall not remove the basic freedom of local authorities to
exercise policy discretion within their own jurisdiction.”
23 “The excessive intervention of the CPA and the II tier LPAs in the management process of financial
resources by the I tier LPAs, including the arbitrary allocation of transfers, which leads to the unjustified
interference in the local self-governance and negatively affects the capacities of the I level LPAs to provide
public services of quality to the residents of the TAU.” (Emphasis in original.)
48
To calculate the vertical balance indicator, at central, L2 and L1 levels, two numbers must be
available for each LPA: (1) the amount of central government transfers to the given LPA, and (2)
the expenditure of each LPA. The central authority will need to provide the consolidated number
for the total of all transfers to L2 and L1.
(The remainder of transfers as a share of total expenditure subtracted from total expenditure is:
local revenues as a share of total expenditure, and can be shown, if required, as F1.2a. Local
revenues are total budget expenditures minus transfers from central government.)
To have the potential to show the degree of control by each LPA of its transferred funds, an
additional indicator, F.1.2b, is suggested by the consultant. This indicator would distinguish preassigned or ear-marked funds from funds available to the LPA to disburse freely.
The table above shows that at present the indicator (F.1.2) is available at the central level only,
and is not available at the LPA 2 or 1 level. The distinction of earmarked from non-assigned
(direct budget support) funds is not available.
“Horizontal imbalance” refers to the degree to which differences of wealth and conditions are
mitigated by some form of payments which bring the spending capacity of poorer localities up to
that of richer ones, by sharing government revenues. Such “equalization payments”, which
require ‘have’ localities to give up access to some revenues in order to raise the incomes of ‘havenot’ localities, are the subject of complex formulae, which normally should be worked out in
consultation between the centre and the LPAs. The European Charter of Local Self-Government
recognizes the importance of equalization payments to enable all LPAs to deliver public services
fairly equally regardless of their different capacities to raise revenue. 24
The Matrix shows two types of indicator that measure horizontal balance/imbalance: total and
sub-national. These show:
(1) total per capita budget allocation – which represents the average per capita (central
and local) spending for the whole country and for each LPA; and
(2) the local per capita budget allocation for each locality, together with a per capita
average at the consolidated central level.
As with vertical balance, to calculate each horizontal balance/imbalance indicator – at central, L2
and L1 levels – two numbers must be available for every TAU, including both CPA and L1 and L2
local PAs. These are, for horizontal balance/imbalance:


F1.3:
o
Centre:
 (1) [Total] Central + local budget allocation of LPAs, and
 (2) Total population of the country
LPAs:
o (1) the amount of central government transfers to the given LPA, and
24
“The protection of financially weaker local authorities calls for the institution of financial equalisation
procedures or equivalent measures which are designed to correct the effects of the unequal distribution of
potential sources of finance and of the financial burden they must support. Such procedures or measures
shall not diminish the discretion local authorities may exercise within their own sphere of responsibility
(COE 2010, Art. 9.5, p. 17).”
49

o (2) the population of each LPA.
F1.3a:
o Centre:
 Total of all LPA expenditures for the whole country, and
 (1) Total population of the country
o LPAs:
 the total budget of each LPA, and
 the population of each LPA.
At present, central authorities have not been able to provide the data for this indicator;
specifically, the amount of the budget allocation to each LPA (levels 1 and 2). Therefore, the
indicator is designated 1.3a, and is shown in the Report and expanded Matrix as a “proposed”
indicator. This indicator will be important to produce in future, since it shows on a per-capita
basis the expenditure funds (in total) available to each L1 and L2 PA. It would be difficult to
track progress in decentralization if this or a similar measure of budgetary resources available to
every LPA were not made available.
Indeed, the indicator will be feasible to prepare in future, since LPAs will normally be reporting
their budget expenditures and revenues to the public as suggested under the transparency and
accountability elements of a decentralization process. At the same time, central government
would normally be tracking its allocation of funds to each LPA, and would maintain auditing
procedures for these allocations and for the expenditure by the LPA of these allocations. In this
sense, the NDS has identified what it terms “shortfalls in the local financing system” that
significantly affect local autonomy. Among these, it highlighted weak transparency in budget
execution and inadequate government capacity to track and analyse LPA revenues and
expenditures (NDS 2012, pp. 7-8). 25
This discussion seems to indicate that government is disposed to compile indicators that will
permit tracking of horizontal imbalance. This will require central government to provide the
necessary guidance to all LPA levels to enable reporting of the components. This is an important
indicator in that it enables analysts to compare rich and poor communities, on the basis of their
per capita expenditure allocation. Based on such comparisons, the three tiers can more readily
agree on formulae for equalizing the resources available to all TAUs through transfer payments.
Assessment:
F.1.2:
This indicator is required and available at the central level
25
The low transparency of the budgetary executions at all LPAs levels and the low capacity of the relevant
central institutions to analyse, in a complex manner, the results of the local budgetary executions. The
current budgetary analysis does not include: comparative assessments of the unit costs of public services;
more advanced indicators of local fiscal capacity, etc. Increasing the Government’s capacity to forecast the
financial and cost trends at the local level with a higher precision will result in grounding the national
policy decisions on more accurate data, as well as the possibility to actually implement the performance
based budgeting (NDS p. 8, emphasis in original)
50
This indicator is required, but not available at the L2 and L1 levels. It could be provided by the
central level authorities by creating an output in the budget software for the allocation to each
LPA.
F.1.2a:
This indicator is proposed, but not available at the central level
This indicator is proposed, but not available at the L2 and L1 level
F.1.3:
This indicator is required and available at the central level
This indicator is required, but not available at the L2 and L1 levels
F.1.3a:
This indicator is proposed, but not available at the central level
This indicator is proposed, but not available at the L2 and L1 level
Fiscal and financial autonomy
Developing the financial autonomy (including the fiscal or taxation autonomy) of local
governments is one of the government’s objectives in the NDS.
The ‘local spending share’ in the public sector as a whole (the national budget) shows over time
how much local autonomy is growing. That is, as the share of public sector spending derived
from local sources grows, LPAs are becoming more autonomous. It is a measure of local
autonomy: the analyst may consider that the higher the share of local expenditures, the greater is
local autonomy. On the other hand, it may be that a higher share of local spending out of the
total spending indicates lower support from the central government. This may be the case in poor
localities that are deemed to require more central assistance; that is, such localities should receive
a relatively high proportion of their budget revenue from the central budget. As with other
indicators, the interpretation of the indicator is for the analyst, not the reporting authority.
In order to provide an idea of the growing autonomy of the local authorities, indicators are
selected that show the share of local expenditures that are self-financed, i.e. financed by the LPA’s
own revenues. This is shown in different ways, to enable comparison among LPAs, and over time
as the indicators will be collected in future editions of such a review of public budget activity.
Availability
F2
Fiscal Autonomy
Indicator
F2.1
Local spending share
in budget
Sub-national expenditures as a
% of total (national)
expenditures
C
--
F2.2
Local revenue share in
budget
Sub-national revenues as a % of
total (national) revenues
C, 2, 1
--
Required/ Reported
51
F2.3
Local spending share
in GDP
Sub-national expenditures as a
% of GDP
F2.4
Local revenue share in
GDP
Sub-national revenues as a % of
GDP
C, 2, 1
--
F2.5
Relative level of
revenues, Total and
concerned LPA
Per capita central/ local
revenues
C, 2, 1
--
F2.6
Relative level of
expenditures, Total
and concerned LPA
C, 2, 1
--
C, 2, 1
--
Per capita central/ local
expenditures
C, 2, 1
--
F2.7
F2.8
F2.9
Tax component of
F2.10 local and of central
revenues
Central-level taxes as share of
central revenues / Local taxes as
share of total locally raised
revenues
The selected indicators, presented above, show: for F2.1, F2.2: the value of local expenditures
and revenues as compared with the value of total expenditures at the central level. The indicator
must exclude double counting of central budget expenditures, therefore central budget must be
exclusive of transfers to the LPAs. Similarly local revenues are shown, in the second indicator, as
a percentage of total revenues of the central level, excluding revenues that are eventually
remitted to the centre. These indicators together are a mark of decentralization in the sense that
they indicate what share of spending on services to the population is decided upon at the local as
opposed to the central level, and whether or at what pace the share may grow during the
decentralization process.
Assumption: exclusion of local deficits
A key assumption in defining indicators is that local (LPA) budgets cannot be in deficit over
multiple budget years (unlike the national budget, which can and does run deficits, carried over
from year to year). Any shortfall of funds must be made up by the central government – through
supplementary transfers. Therefore, at the LPA level, and for LPA indicators, total sub-national
revenue and total sub-national expenditure are equal. They are equivalent to “the budget” – to
the two sides of the budget – and must always be equal.
Prohibition or the impossibility of allowing local administrations to run deficits is common in
small and non-federal (unitary) states. This assumption is implicit in the NDS text, for example:
“According to the current practices, the LPAs budgets are filled in through transfers based on the
principle of equity" (p. 8). However, in federal states where the sub-national units are large (such
as provinces, cantons or states, e.g. in Canada, Switzerland, the USA and Australia), these units
52
have the capacity to borrow (on domestic and international financial markets). This enables them
to finance their own deficits.26
Revenues and expenditures of LPAs are also shown, F.2.3-F2.4, in comparison with GDP, to
monitor the scale of local financing – one portion of the public sector – in comparison with the
size of the whole economy in each period monitored. Results for these indicators help assess
whether the public sector (specifically at the local level) is growing or shrinking with respect to
the whole economy. In Moldova, the local public sector has grown in recent years. The NDS
notes that: “from the mid to end ‘90s the total local expenditures increased from 7% of the GDP
up to 10.8% of the GDP by 2010” (NDS 2012, p. 7).
The above indicators are also calculated, F.2.5-F2.6, on a per capita basis, to enable comparison
between different LPAs (relative to other LPAs), and between any LPA and the central level of
the budget (relative to the centre), with respect to revenues gathered and resources made
available to spend on public services.
Additional indicators F2.7-2.9 proposed by the government are noted in the Guide for Working
with the Indicators Matrix. They have not been discussed with the international consultant and
are not addressed in the Report.
An issue of concern to the LPAs is the stability of the revenues on which they rely. The last
indicator, F2.10 above, shows the proportion of local revenues that are accounted for by taxes, as
opposed to other fees such as permits and fines. (This calculation can also be made with respect to
the Centre: centrally levied taxes as a share of central-level revenues.) Most local authorities feel
that tax revenues under their own mandate can be more easily controlled and stabilized.
Whether or not TAUs will continue to hold this view can be assessed only in the future with the
implementation of greater financial decentralization. As noted earlier, the literature on
decentralization is more positive on the decentralization of expenditure than it is on the
decentralization of revenue collection. Not only does local-level revenue collection pose
enormous difficulties for small and weak TAUs; it also provides avenues for avoidance – along
with elite capture of punitive mechanisms. (Some of these problems are noted in NDS.27 See also
Bouton 2008, pp. 1-3.)
Additional indicators proposed by the government are noted in the Guide for Working with the
Indicators Matrix. They have not been discussed with the international consultant.
Assessment:
26
Within the terms of the COE Charter of Local Self-Government, there is recognition that in order to have
fuller autonomy sub-national units require the option of self-finance through borrowing. However, it is
recognized that this may not be a possibility for smaller local units.
27 For example (p. 8) “...erosion of the fiscal base through numerous fiscal exemptions granted by
law...reducing the fiscal equity by favouring some economic agents or social categories. The local
authorities do not have real rights and levers to influence the taxpayers to fully pay their taxes and fees.”
53
F2.2; F2.4; F2.5: These indicators (for revenues) are required at central and local levels; they are
available only at central level. They are not available at LPA 2 or LPA 1 levels.
F2.1; F2.3; F2.6: These indicators (for expenditure) are required at central and local levels; they
are available only at central level. They are not available at LPA 2 or LPA 1 levels (except as a
total, aggregated amount).
[F2.7 – F2.10: It appears that these indicators are not available.]
2.3.2 Political decentralization
2.3.2.1 Single-indicator and index approaches
As described in the Introduction, Political decentralization refers to “the degree to which central
governments allow non-central government entities to undertake the political functions of
governance”, such as representation. This standard definition has been used by UNDP in the
Europe-CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) region; the arguments for decentralization of
political structures emphasize increased participation and accountability, and the potential to
respond to diversity within populations and among regions:
Decentralization increases opportunities for participation and accountability, thereby deepening
democracy and increasing democratic legitimacy. This is especially so where a country’s
population is diverse, and needs and preferences vary between regions. Decentralization increases
the possibilities for participation and access to decision-making by otherwise excluded groups. It
can increase transparency and accountability through the physical proximity of decision-makers
to citizens. Such proximity can also work for less corruption and contribute to political stability
by accommodating the legitimate aspirations of locally based ethnic groups (UNDP Bratislava
Regional Centre 2008, p. 5).
Moldova’s decentralization process has not put forward the objective of political decentralization
in so many words. Nevertheless, as we have noted in the introduction, several objectives often
treated by writers as elements of political decentralization are highlighted in the NDS
programme. These include electoral system reform, improved participation and representation of
vulnerable groups, and increased transparency in the budget process.
International practice has used a number of methods to construct indicators and indices of the
degree of political decentralization.
Single-indicator ranking
In Eastern Europe and Central Asia UNDP has used a methodology that ranks countries according
to their level of decentralization. This approach uses a single indicator for political
decentralization – the degree to which elected sub-national tiers have been effectively created.
Countries are ranked from 1 to 4 depending on the degree to which not only assemblies, but
executives at the sub-national levels hold office by virtue of election (UNDP BRC 2008 p. 24, and
Cintora 2009, p. 23). That is, the indicator assigns a rank for “Existence of elected sub-national
tiers”, as follows:
NO sub-national tiers with elected sub-national assemblies and executives: =
1
ALL or SOME sub-national tiers with elected assemblies and ALL executives =
2
54
SOME BUT NOT ALL sub-national tiers with elected assemblies and executives = 3
ALL sub-national tiers with elected assemblies and executives
=4
Using this approach, the UNDP BRC paper groups geographically countries of the Eastern Europe
and CIS region. Moldova is included in the 7-country sub-regional group, “Western CIS and
Caucasus”: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Russian Federation and Ukraine. It
ranks Moldova as a “3” for this indicator, i.e. in second place, ahead of Belarus (2) and behind
Georgia (4), tied with the other countries of the group.
The single-indicator ranking for Political decentralization requires that an assessment be made of
the extent of Political decentralization with respect to the portion of tiers (PAs) that are elected.
Such a ranking is of particular use when comparing decentralization among countries and regions.
This type of indicator is not used in the present Matrix; however, some components of the
indicator are used in this report. In the present report, greater detail is needed within the domain
of political decentralization monitoring to assess additional elements – beyond the election of
assemblies and executives.
Political decentralization, as noted above, refers to the according of authority to lower tiers “to
undertake the political functions of governance”. The political functions of government combine
authority and power, and they carry responsibilities. The branches of government at the lower
levels are given responsibilities and are accountable to senior levels, and at all levels government
is responsible for its actions and accountable to the people.
55
[International note to Editor: This section is pull-out Box]
Single-indicator approach: overall decentralization ranking
Some authors have applied a composite index method to rank countries by the degree of
decentralization in multiple fields; that is, to compile into one composite index a complex array
of measures. The methodology illustrated here combines several single or two-part indicator
rankings, each applied to several areas of decentralization: Fiscal, Political and Administrative.
By combining three rankings, the authors create an index of decentralization as a whole. In
this overall index or ranking, Moldova stands 4th of 7 countries. Using the rankings for these
three decentralization components, the chart below shows the Fiscal, Political and
Administrative rankings calculated by the authors, and the “Overall Decentralization Ranking”
produced by combining the three component parts. As the figure shows, Moldova ranks
midway in this grouping, tied with Ukraine, ahead of Belarus and Azerbaijan, but behind
Georgia, Armenia and the Russian Federation. Moldova’s overall score is boosted by its
relatively high rank for political decentralization; however, it is ranked somewhat lower in the
fiscal component (Cintora 2009, p. 25).
Decentralization ranking of Western CIS and Caucasus countries, 2009
Decentralization Ranking
4.5
4.0
Rank: Highest 4, Lowest 0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Georgia
Moldova
Fiscal
2.5
1.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
Russian
Federation
2.0
Political
3.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Administrative
2.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
Overall
2.8
1.8
1.3
3.0
2.2
2.4
2.2
Ukraine
1.5
Source: Author’s compilation based on Cintora 2009 data
Government is generally held to exercise three main functions: legislative, executive and judicial.
At the same time, the authority to exercise these functions also constitutes a set of powers. While
56
authoritarian forms of government unite all three sets of powers within one authority, democratic
processes historically have found ways to achieve a “separation of powers” among the three
branches. This has been done in different ways in different countries. To generalize broadly,
nevertheless, we can say that these three areas of functions and powers of government comprise:



the legislative branch, which considers and approves laws
the executive branch puts legislation into effect, and manages the functions of
government; the executive is not the civil service; but it acts as the authority over
the civil service
the judicial branch – which includes the courts at all levels, should be
independent of both the legislative and the executive branch; that is, neither the
elected officials nor appointed officers have any authority to influence or interfere
in the workings of the courts.
The powers of government are never completely separate (judges, for example, may be named by
the chief executive, and the executive branch generally requires the confidence of parliament to
remain effective). However, some degree of separation is necessary to ensure that no branch of
government arrogates too much power into its own hands, at the expense of the legitimate
authority and activity of the other branches – and ultimately at the expense of the control of
government by the electorate.
The legislative branch of government is comprised of the parliament and assemblies, elected by
the people (the electorate). It is parliament’s right and responsibility to make laws – although the
drafts of laws may be prepared by technical personnel who are not themselves elected officials. A
country may have a prime minister, who is appointed or elected, and generally must retain the
confidence of the legislative branch.
The president or prime minister is considered to be the chief executive of the country. In some
countries this office holder is elected directly. The president or prime minister is responsible to
the legislative branch. The chief executive and the cabinet comprise the executive branch. Many
European countries, particularly since the Soviet period, have mixed presidential/ prime
ministerial systems. Nevertheless, most democratic countries in some way make the executive
responsible to parliament or the assembly, through election to the assembly, or via other
supervision by the elected assembly.
If the executive branch of government is completely independent of the elected officials, the
legislative branch might be considered a mere “rubber stamp” parliament – without powers to
ensure implementation of its legislation.
The concept of the separation of powers tempered by their interdependence underpins systems of
“checks and balances” that protect the democratic process and goals. The continual development
of such systems proceeds comfortably with the concept of decentralization. In the past two
decades, the importance of local governance strengthening for political democratization has been
recognized by governments. Many have seen decentralization and better local government as key
components of political responsibility:
It is critically important to ensure the existence of a system of multiple checks and
balances on the exercise of political power. In that respect, the single most important
form of checks and balances in any society is the dispersal, or fragmentation, of political
57
power. Without question, the creation of strong regional and local governments is critical
to that development (Flaman 1999, p. 9). 28
In monitoring political decentralization, we are interested in tracking the accountability of
government or its branches, to the relevant government authority, and the accountability of
various authorities, ultimately to the electorate. Accountability must be seen to mean more than
the possibility of an election at intervals of some years. It also entails practices that are
transparent to the electorate between elections, and the responsibility to act continually in the
best interests of the population that government and its branches ultimately serve. This
transparency is of particular importance in money matters, just as responsibility is vital in matters
of fundamental human rights.
2.3.2.2 Indicators of Political decentralization by elements and characteristics
The Indicators Matrix tracks aspects of Political decentralization: dealing with the accountability
of government and local authorities, transparency of the budget process, political participation
and the representation of various special groups in all tiers.
Indicators in the Political decentralization section of the Matrix are built around characteristics of
accountability and transparency within the legislative framework and the budget process, and
around participation or representation with respect to vulnerability dimensions. The indicators
also allow in some cases for a normative comparison: with other countries, and vis-à-vis COE
standards of decentralization.
While indicators in the previous (Financial and Fiscal) section of the Matrix are generally feasible
to report on the basis of existing or developing capacities in the various tiers of PA, the group of
Political decentralization indicators is more varied. Several of the group have yet to be adopted in
Moldova, and the discussion and interpretation of their meaning may be more or less widespread.
As part of the mandate of this Report, the section delves into the ways that aspects of political
decentralization may be reported. It provides the rationale in each case for reporting the
proposed or existing indicator. The section therefore contributes to the ongoing discussion in
Moldova of decentralization, measurement and monitoring.
2.3.2.3 Electoral system and legislative framework (P1)
Accountability – Electoral system
The P1 indicators highlight whether or not public servants are accountable to elected (rather than
appointed) officials, and whether or not officials are accountable to the electorate. Election of
public officials is a key factor not only in increasing accountability, but also in fostering greater
transparency in the taking of decisions.
The P1 group asks in a Yes/No framework, whether CPA and LPA assemblies and executive
bodies are elected by universal adult franchise. A “Yes” answer in all cells of P1.1 and P1.2
indicates that political decentralization has taken place with regards to the election of central and
Flaman 1999 citing: United Nations (DDSMS and UNDP), Report of the United Nations Global
Forum on Innovative Policies and Practices in Local Governance, Gothenburg, Sweden, 23-27
September 1996, ref St/Tcd/Ser.E/46, p. 11
28
58
local assembly members and the executive (prime minister and members of parliament, rayon
heads, primaria mayors, and rayon and primaria councils).
The indicators also allow for a normative comparison: with other countries, and vis-à-vis COE
standards of decentralization. Of course, the indicator cannot show whether elections are
considered by the population or by observers to be entirely democratic and representative.
(Considerations of representation and participation are treated separately, in the P2 group.)
These indicators are reported at each level by the electoral commission of the concerned level.
For monitoring of decentralization, the local (L2) electoral officials should report these and other
indicators noted in sections below to the Central Electoral Commission.
Government officials indicated in discussions with the consultant team that Moldova enjoys
universal adult suffrage (all citizens 18 years old and above may vote), and that elections are held
for the assembly at all levels (parliament and local assemblies, L2 and L2 levels).
Accountability and Transparency – Budget process
With regards to the budget process at both central and local levels, the indicators ask whether the
budget is made widely available to public scrutiny prior to its passage at each level. To provide a
means of verification as to whether the budget is subject to active critique by organizations of
civil society, this question is asked directly. This indicator can be monitored in future by CSOs,
such as citizen’s groups and research institutions, in consultation with associations of local
governments (e.g. CALM).29
P
Measure
(possible
values)
Political
Availability
Required/ Reported
Electoral system and legislative framework
P1
Issues: Accountability and Transparency
Accountability – Electoral system
P1.1
Is the concerned level assembly elected by
universal suffrage?
Yes/No
C, 2, 1
C, 2, 1
P1.2
Is the concerned level executive elected by
universal suffrage?
Yes/No
C, 2, 1
C, 2, 1
Accountability and Transparency – Budget
process
29
CALM: The Congress of Local Authorities of Moldova was established in March 2010, with some 300
representatives of local communities attending. Website: http://www.nalas.eu/events/2010-03-21CALM/Press%20Release.pdf
59
P1.3
Is the concerned level budget available to the
public before its passage?
Yes/No
C, 2, 1
C, 2, 1
P1.4
Is there a civil society (CS) body (political party)
that critiques the concerned level budget?
Yes/No
C, 2, 1
C, 2, 1
Assessment:
The Political decentralization indicators are not reported in the Matrix tables.
P1.1-3: These indicators are required and reported at central and local levels
P1.4: A reporting system for this indicator (which requires inclusion of non-government
entities) has yet to be established.
2.3.2.4 Participation and Representation (P2)
Several of the P-indicators monitor the extent to which all groups – particularly those identified
as vulnerable or excluded from decision-making – enjoy representation at every level of
government. Indicators should to the extent feasible monitor a baseline and changes in the
representation of identified vulnerable groups.
The excerpt below shows indicators in the P2 section of the Matrix, including supportive
measures and indicators to monitor the representation of identified groups.
As noted above, UN and other bodies have endorsed political decentralization as a way of
increasing opportunities for participation and better accountability, and responding to diversity
characteristics of a country and population. Participation is covered in a way that is specific to
the vulnerability issues of the Matrix and the Report. In general, participation may refer among
other things to the percentage of eligible voters who exercise their right to vote, at any level of
government under review. However, this report focuses on the specific question of the
participation of vulnerable groups, and the Indicators Matrix reflects this focus. The indicators
emphasize the participation of women, for example, not only as members of elected assemblies,
but also as candidates for election presented by parties or lists.
In order to measure and monitor whether or not the process of decentralization is meeting the
objectives of participation of vulnerable groups, and representation of these groups in the
legislative and executive branches of government, specific indicators are identified to reflect these
goals and qualities. As a duty bearer, government has the responsibility to take positive action to
ensure that all of its citizens, who have different means at their disposal and face differential
challenges, are nevertheless equitably represented in government at all levels.
Government may exercise this responsibility by bringing into force various requirements,
procedures and supportive measures that reduce various barriers to political representation of
identified vulnerable groups. The P2 group includes indicators for supportive measures (both
60
financial and legislative) to assist the participation of vulnerable groups, and indicators that enable
observers to track the representation of specific groups at central and local levels.
Supportive measures, monitoring and reporting
Supportive measures can be taken in recognition of the type and degree of difficulty faced by
vulnerable groups. Measures may be financial, legislative, or of other types. The Indicators
Matrix incorporates several financial and legislative measures.
Financial support measures: Participation in elections entails expenses for political parties and
individual candidates. Such expenses, while not necessarily onerous for members of elite groups,
usually prove more burdensome for the average citizen, and may constitute insurmountable
barriers for members of disadvantaged groups. What is more, the holding of public office itself
engenders significant expenses, and the honoraria paid to local-level office holders are notoriously
inadequate in many countries. By failing to recognize this burden, a country may be limiting
itself to political representation that is exclusive to the privileged – or, equally unsatisfactory, the
holding of public office with inadequate remuneration for the job provides an invitation to
corruption and the selling of favours.
Exclusion based on income may be partially addressed by the use of financial support to electoral
candidates and members of assemblies (Indicators P1.1 and P1.2). The allocation of usually small
but potentially important state funding attempts to assist the non-rich to participate in electoral
politics by providing a basic stipend, on a per capita allowance based on demonstrated electoral
support in previous elections. (That is, persons and parties receive an annual allocation, on a pro
rata basis reflecting the share of the popular vote received by the party or candidate in the
previous election. This measure, while rewarding the successful, nevertheless allows a group
which has once “gained a toe-hold” to expand its fund-raising activities while enjoying a
minimum of assistance funded by taxpayers.)
The indicator should identify not only the presence or absence of financial support, but also
indicate whether this support is effective/ appropriate (in the context of the state’s resources).
That is, the mere fact that elected representatives receive a stipend does not on its own redress the
balance for the disadvantaged. If the stipend paid to assembly members is unrealistically low, it
fails to address the vulnerability of low-income candidates, single parents with dependent family
members, persons from remote localities, or persons with disabilities requiring special support to
attend to their political duties. Governments are competing with the private sector in attracting
capable persons to public office. To some degree this reality must be recognized; otherwise, new
and struggling local authorities will have difficulty attracting a high quality of officials to occupy
posts that are important to the success of decentralization.
(Clearly, support to candidates in elections is of a lower order than support to elected assembly
members. However, both kinds of financial support are of value and can be monitored.)
The judgment of whether or not financial support to candidates and elected members is adequate
can be made by candidates and elected representatives themselves. The opinions of candidates
and members should be canvassed through organizations of parliamentarians, including women
parliamentarians, and CSOs concerned with strengthening electoral participation. Local media
may also be able to provide views on this issue.
P
Measure
Political
(possible values)
61
Vulnerability
dimension
P2
Participation and Representation: financial support measures
P2.1
Is there appropriate financial support for
candidates at the concerned level?
0: none
1-3, lowest to highest
Income
Is there appropriate financial support for
P2.2
elected officials at the concerned level?
Assessment:
P.2.1-2.2: These indicators are required but not reported at central and local levels. A reporting
system for these indicators, which requires canvassing and compiling views, is needed. The
participation of focus groups of candidates and elected officials is necessary to report whether
or not those who run for political office feel that standing for election or holding office is a
viable choice for members of vulnerable groups.
Supportive legislative mechanisms: As noted earlier, the government’s NDS paper identifies 8
vulnerability characteristics – income, age, [dis]ability, language/ethnicity, religion, (rural)
residence, gender, and occupation. From international experience, the key parameters of
exclusion/inclusion that are often recognized in the political arena are gender and ethnicity, while
other vulnerabilities (such as ability and age) are usually taken up through social and economic
support, rather than political mechanisms. (Another exception, however, is 'income'
vulnerability, which is included in the P2 group above (P2.1-2.2) through the ‘supportive
measures’ indicators.)
Authors have noted that different measures have been adopted to deal with gender from those
used for ethnicity. Mechanisms for ensuring the political representation of women and of ethnic
minorities include reservation and proportional representation. These two dimensions of
vulnerability, gender and ethnicity, have both distinct and overlapping characteristics. Both
dimensions should be monitored – so that analysts using the Indicators Matrix are enabled to
distinguish and also to combine tracking elements.
Measure
P
Political
P2
Participation and Representation: legislative supportive measures
P2.3
Is there a reservation system for women at the concerned
level?
(possible Vulnerability
values)
dimension
Yes/No
Gender
Reservation and proportional representation (PR): Establishing a reservation or proportional
representation system is also a supportive measure. While not based on financial payments, such
measures are not necessarily cost-free. What is more challenging – they may be complex to
62
determine and to implement. They are not, nonetheless, measures that can be disregarded
without harming the accessibility of certain vulnerable groups to representation in government.
Supportive legislative measures – such as P2.3 and P2.4 – are discussed in what follows, under the
separate headings of gender and ethnicity.
Moldova does not have a reservation system for women in central or local assemblies. As the later
section indicates, the representation of women can be monitored in several ways. The P2.3
indicator, however, focuses on one of the most important supportive measures that governments
can take to help ensure that women are more fairly represented. We noted earlier that women’s
representation in parliament and in lower-level assemblies sits below European averages.
The International Parliamentary Union has long held that systems having a proportion of
assembly houses or party lists reserved for women have greater success in bringing women into
their electoral bodies, as compared with countries without such measures (Alexander 2008, p. 29).
In the IPU annual report for 2011 this result was confirmed once again. World-wide, in
countries holding elections in the previous year, on average women took 27.4% of seats in those
systems employing special measures or legislated quotas, as opposed to 15.7% of seats in countries
without any form of quota (IPU 2011, p. 1).
Some authors have observed that the use of reserved seats is more common in the case of local
and district legislative bodies – that is, seats at the decentralized levels – than at central levels
(Duflo 2004); (also, see Htun 2004, and Protsyk 2010). It may be more difficult to convince
opinion leaders at the level of national parliaments to reserve seats for women, than to adopt
affirmative action at lower levels. This observation notwithstanding, the process of political
decentralization seems to offer an ideal opportunity to bring forward reservation proposals to
address gender concerns, beginning at local levels.
The introduction of some form of reservation of seats or party list positions for female candidates
remains up for discussion in Moldova.
Assessment:
P2.3: This indicator highlights that there is no reservation system for women at any level.
Mala Htun writing in 2004 observed that at least 50 countries had adopted mechanisms to
promote the representation of women and ethnic minorities, castes or other groups in legislative
bodies. She noted that different mechanisms are used to address different vulnerabilities. In the
case of gender, countries have tended to make use of “reservation” systems, where quotas of
candidacies or seats are earmarked for women. In the case of ethnic groups, countries have been
more likely to use “proportional representation” (although some may also use quotas), to assist
access to elective bodies (Htun 2004).
With respect to political representation of ethnic and religious minorities, states have used both
reservation and proportional representation (PR) mechanisms. The latter has had varying degrees
of success, particularly because the status and degree of vulnerability varies among groups and
among countries. For example, a language minority in one country may be a majority in another.
This is the case of ethnic Hungarians in Romania, Russians in Estonia) (Hogan-Brun and Wolff, p.
5). Because Roma are the ethnic group identified as most vulnerable, in Moldova and in COE
materials (Council of Europe 2011) as well as by the EU (EU 2011), this report highlights
indicators to monitor Roma participation specifically.
63
Measure
P
Political
P2
Participation and Representation: legislative supportive measures
P2.4
Is there a PR (proportional representation) system
for Roma at the concerned level?
(possible
values)
Vulnerability
dimension
R=Reservation;
P=PR; B=Both; Ethnicity
N=None
In Moldova, the discussion of vulnerability based on ethnicity has focused on the Roma as the
specifically disadvantaged group (distinct from the experience of other ethnic minorities), as the
Council of Europe has noted (COE 2011). A cultural heritage of dispossession and impediments to
mainstream opportunities has given rise to various dimensions of exclusion (Petcut 2007, pp. 1,
8).30
There are difficulties in achieving self-identification of Roma people, and in identifying exact
estimates of their number in the population. Approaches to better reporting have been discussed
throughout Europe. One of the most important elements is ensuring that Roma people
themselves participate in the development of reporting mechanisms. It is important that
governments adopt supportive measures for such processes.
Assessment:
P.2.4: This indicator is needed and should be reported at all levels. As yet there is no
functioning reservation system for Roma at any level.
Further, the approach suggested by some advocates has been to focus more attention and
resources on the issues that arise from exclusion. In this sense, the COE Decade of Roma
emphasizes positive actions in matters such as inclusion in education and other service provisions.
(As will be noted in the section on Services, local level issues of service delivery and community
accountability are ideally suited to encourage the participation of new entrants to public service.
Indicators highlighting these aspects are discussed in the fourth section, Services, below.)
The participation of special groups may be supported by various measures, including legislation
and financial assistance, as already noted. In addition, the foregoing section has referred to
legislative provision for reservation or proportional representation; these approaches are
explained below.
30
This emphasis may rest on the historic foundation that Roma people were enslaved on the territory of
present-day Romania and Moldova for five centuries, and were emancipated in Moldova as late as 1861
with the abolition of serfdom. In many other parts of Europe Roma, although marginalized, were not held
as slaves.
64
“Proportional representation”: In Moldova as in several European and other countries, some
mechanisms of proportional representation (PR) are used to enable small parties to win
parliamentary seats that might otherwise elude them. This could be the case where, for example,
minority interest groups reside throughout the country, but nowhere in sufficient concentration
to enable them to be victorious in one or more constituencies. Examples of statutory group
representation include Croatia, New Zealand, Romania, Singapore, Slovenia and Switzerland – for
ethnicity only; and Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Jordan, Pakistan, Serbia and Montenegro,
and Taiwan – for both ethnicity and gender (Htun 2004, p. 441).31
The following discussion draws extensively on the experience of Romania. This experience can
be highly relevant to observers in Moldova, since movement of ethnic minorities, particularly the
Roma people, has historically ranged over both countries, and some similarities of electoral issues
may be of value.
The Romanian electoral legislation contains “very liberal provisions for minority groups to gain
representation in the lower chamber of parliament,” via reserved seat provisions that are “the
most extensive in Europe” (Protsyk 2010, pp. 3, 10). Nevertheless, although the system has
assisted the representation of almost every minority (to the extent that all but one are “overrepresented” in proportion to their population share), it has failed to foster adequate
representation of Roma. While Roma people are the second-largest minority group, making up
2.46 percent of the total population, over the past two decades since the system was instituted
they have won on average only 0.36 percent of legislative seats (Protsyk 2010, p. 6).32
The Romanian experience points to a difficulty that beleaguers PR systems. While groups that
are relatively advantaged in terms of income, organization and social capital have consistently
benefited by PR in a number of countries, it is disadvantaged minorities who as a rule have not
benefited.
In the case of disadvantaged minorities, some countries have used a combination of reserved-seat
provisions combined with a lowered PR threshold for these groups. Protsyk judges that an
excessively high threshold has prevented Romania’s Roma people from gaining a PR-based
presence in the national parliament. He considers that:
[A PR-based] presence would be more adequate than the reserved seat representation
granted to Roma under the existing electoral rules. Under the current electoral system,
Roma remain significantly underrepresented. Given the multiple problems and challenges
that the community faces, securing a greater presence of Roma deputies in the parliament
would considerably enhance parliament´s ability to address Roma issues. Lowering the
electoral threshold for ethnic minority parties might be an option worth considering by
Romanian decision makers.
31
Htun 2004 does not mention Romania; however, this is an omission: Romanian provisions for
proportional representation and minority reserved seats were established from the early 1990s (Protsyk
2010, p. 9).
32
For example, the largest ethnic minority, Hungarians – who comprise 6.6 of the population – have held
7.3 percent of seats. Ukrainians, whose population at 0.28 percent of the total is about one-tenth that of the
Roma, have held a share of seats as large as that held by Roma members (Protsyk 2010, p.6).
65
Options of this kind have been implemented with respect to the German-speaking minority in
Italy, and, at a decentralized level, with respect to the Danish minority in the German state of
Schleswig-Holstein (Protsyk 2010, p. 15). Indicators P2.2-P2.4 ask whether any system is in place
for various ethnic groups, and whether such a system incorporates reservation or proportional
representation elements.
2.3.2.5 Measures of representation
International discussion on the participation and empowerment of women has resulted in the
identification of a number of standard indicators, some of which are listed below, as presented in
practical guidelines for CSO workers (McGowan and Sparr 2005, pp. 60 ff).




% of seats held by women in local councils/decision-making bodies
% of women [and men] who ran as candidates in central and local elections (most
recent available)
% of women in the local and national civil service
% of women/men registered as voters divided by the % of eligible women/men
who vote (this is a kind of “participation rate”)
Participation of women in parliaments is monitored internationally by the International
Parliamentary Union (IPU 2012/ current year).
To monitor gender indicators of political representation, it is necessary for electoral officials to
record the sex not only of successful candidates, but of all candidates who run, at local and central
levels. For Moldova, this would mean a change in the current practice, which does not at present
require officials to report the sex of candidates. Central and local election commissions (who
receive registrations) will need to record and report this information, within a regulation time
following the cut-off date for candidate’s registration. Indicator P2.5, in the group (below),
records women’s participation as a share of candidates and elected representatives.
This group within P2, indicators P2.5 – P2.9, are measures of representation of identified groups,
as shown in the excerpt from the Matrix, below. Indicators P2.5 – P2.6 are used to report the
share of seats at each PA level that are held by women and by Roma. Similarly, indicator 2.7
may be used to show the representation of persons belonging to the various faith communities.
As discussed above, some indicators (such as this one) may be collected in selected constituencies
by use of special, dedicated surveys for the purpose of shedding light on a particular vulnerability
issue. Such surveys may be supported by government or other donor interest groups.
Measure
P
Political
P2
Participation and Representation: measures of representation
P2.5
(possible
values)
% women among candidates/elected members at the
concerned level
66
No. of women
/ no. of
candidates
[elected
members]
Vulnerability
dimension
Gender
P2.6
P2.7
% Roma among candidates/elected members at the
concerned level
No. of Roma /
no. of
candidates
[elected
members]
Ethnicity
% religious group among candidates/ elected members
at the concerned level
No. of
[Orthodox,
Catholic,
Protestant]
Christian,
Moslems,
Jews, ...] / no.
of candidates
[elected
members]
Religion
P2.8 Proportionality of representation index*
Proportion
(%) of group's
representation
in concerned
assembly /
Ethnicity
Proportion of
group's
population at
that level **
Is there reporting of sex and ethnicity of candidates and
elected members by the Electoral Commission, survey,
P2.9 or any other appropriate mechanism, at the concerned
level? (one indicator for each of: candidates; elected
members)
0=No; 1=Sex
only;
2=Ethnicity
only; 3=Both
*
**
Gender,
Ethnicity
Also called "A-ratio" (Advantage ratio: Taagepera & Laakso, 1980)
Measured by % of persons of the given group’s ethnicity within the population at that level
In any country having minority ethnic groups (as defined in, e.g., the COE Convention on the
rights of minorities, discussed above), it is worthwhile to provide indicators of the degree to
which the electoral system succeeds in achieving access to such minority groups, to the extent
possible. In the Moldova case, four parties passed the representation threshold in the elections of
November 2010. A party was required to win at least 4 percent of votes to be awarded seats in
parliament (IPU 2012).33
33
“The new electoral code passed by parliament on 19 June 2010 allows multi-party electoral blocs to
participate in the polls. However, they need to surpass a higher threshold to win parliamentary
representation: 7 per cent for electoral blocs comprising two parties, and 9 per cent for those with three or
more parties. In comparison, a political party needs 4 per cent (down from 5%) and independent candidates
need 2 per cent (down from 3%).” IPU (2012)
67
Of the 20 parties running candidates, many were not explicitly representing ethnic groups.
However, on the basis of what is known of ethnic population numbers, it is feasible to present an
index of the “proportionality of representation”. Such an index is simply a ratio of the number of
successful candidates, by ethnic affiliation, to ethnic population shares. A result of 1 represents
perfect proportionality, numbers less than 1 indicate “under-representation”, and a result larger
than 1 indicates “over-representation” or advantage (hence the name A-ratio or Advantage ratio
given to the index; from Protsyk 2010).34
In the case of Romania, a table showing recent election results is given in Annex 3. As the table
shows, Romania’s combined reservation and PR system provided “over-representation” for all
minority groups except the Roma, who although they are the second-largest of the 19 ethnic
minority groups, are the most severely under-represented, with an A-ratio of 0.15. 35
In the Moldova situation, Indicator P2.8 gives the proportionality of representation (or “A-ratio”,
see Indicator group P2 notes) for Roma and other ethnicities in the current assembly at any given
PA at any tier level. To make it feasible for researchers to identify the proportionality of
representation, it is of course necessary that a record is made of the ethnic identification of all
assembly members. This component is tracked by Indicator P2.9. The indicator tracks whether
or not the ethnicity of members is recorded. At the same time, it tracks whether or not the sex of
elected members is recorded by officials. This element makes possible an assessment of whether
any reservation system by ethnicity and/or by sex can be implemented, since it is this record that
allows for comparison of reservation provisions with actual results in elected assembly seats.
As has been noted above, with respect to women’s participation, monitoring the participation of
identified communities may not prove a straightforward task. While recording the sex of
candidates and elected members, and even of voters, may be well accepted in the context of
public advocacy of gender equality considerations, the same may not be said with respect to other
characteristics. It may not be desirable to have electoral commissions questioning potential
candidates as to their religious adherence, disability or other characteristics. A record of the faith
group, ethnicity, ability/ disability or other characteristic among those running for and gaining
representation in assemblies may best be achieved by other means.
These means could include special surveys around election periods with participation of advocacy
groups in the design and execution. Such involvement of advocacy groups could prepare the way
for further development of approaches within the mainstream official household survey and the
Population Census. These mainstream instruments have the mandate to report on vulnerability
dimensions. However to do so effectively, particularly in the areas of faith group and ethnic
identity, they must enjoy the full confidence of all the population.
Other vulnerability dimensions:
In general, countries in Europe tend to address other vulnerability dimensions through measures
other than political representation. The Services section provides indicators for access and quality
of services, with respect to dimensions such as age, income, religion, residence, and ability.
34
Taagepera, Rein and Markku Laakso, 1980: “Proportionality Profiles of West European Electoral
Systems”, European Journal of Political Research, cited in Protsyk (2010), p.6.
35
Parties contesting the 2009 election are listed in: http://www.e-
democracy.md/en/elections/parliamentary/2009/opponents/
68
Assessment:
P.2.5-2.9: These indicators are required but not reported at central and local levels.
Mechanisms for reporting on these indicators by various means require further exploration.
2.3.3 Administrative decentralization
2.3.3.1 Overview: Degree of decentralization
As discussed in the introductory chapter, administrative decentralization refers to how much
autonomy non-central government entities possess relative to central control.
It is therefore relevant to ask how the question: “how much autonomy” can be measured and
monitored. This section begins with an overview of administrative decentralization terms, before
moving to other concepts such as the potential fragmentation of administrative units, efficiency
indicators, and the special issues of public assets as these are distributed from the central
government to local authorities.
As noted already (section 2.3), many international sources have provided terms to describe the
degree (or extent) of decentralization. Going from least to most distributed, the degree of
decentralization of functions is often described in European settings as de-concentration,
delegation, and devolution. (These terms may also apply to any of the components of
decentralization – financial, political, administrative, or services). UNDP in the Europe-CIS
region has used decentralization as a general term, covering three degrees of decentralization of
the administrative authority over functions and services:
De-concentration is the most limited approach to decentralization: responsibility is
assigned by the central government to a sub-national level, while accountability to the
central government ministry or agency is maintained.
Delegation redistributes authority and responsibility to a local unit of government to carry
out a particular function on behalf of the central government in return for a payment, but
the local unit remains accountable to the delegating central unit.
Devolution is the most comprehensive approach to decentralization: authority,
responsibilities, resources and revenue generation are assigned to a local-level public
authority that is autonomous and fully independent of the central government. Ideally,
the authority is elected and accountability is mainly to the local electorate (all definitions
drawn from UNDP Bratislava RC 2008, p. 4).
Moldova’s NDS departs in some ways from the definitions above: in the NDS, the overarching
concept, decentralization, is used – somewhat confusingly – not only for the general term
referring to redistributing functions, but also in Annex I in the explanation of criteria
“differentiating the functional differences between decentralized and de-concentrated
competences”, to denote the greatest degree of decentralization (which in UNDP parlance is
termed “devolution”). 36 The differences in usage can be seen in the following table. (Items in
italics appear so in the original. Emphasis added where shown in bold face.)
36
Some confusion may arise from the fact that the NDS annex (p. 57) discusses the three types of
decentralization in the order, “least, most, intermediate” degree, or what this table identifies as 1 st, 3rd, 2nd
69
Table 2.1 Definitions of decentralization typology, UNDP BRC and Moldova NDS
Degree/
extent
Moldova NDS (2012, pp. 45-51)
UNDP (p. 4)
“... differences between the
decentralized, delegated and deconcentrated competences” [46]
Decentralization: general
term under which the following
degrees are described
General
De-concentration is the most
limited approach to
decentralization:
responsibility is assigned by
the central government to a
sub-national level, while
accountability to the central
government ministry or
agency is maintained.
1 (least)
Delegation redistributes
authority and responsibility
to a local unit of government
to carry out a particular
function on behalf of the
central government in return
for a payment, but the local
unit remains accountable to
the delegating central unit.
2 (inter-
mediate)
Devolution is the most comprehensive
approach to decentralization:
-
3 (most)
authority, responsibilities,
resources and revenue
generation are assigned to a
local-level public authority that is
autonomous and fully
independent of the central
government.
Decentralization: used as a general
term and also applied to the greatest
degree, below
De-concentrated competences are the
services provided by the administrative
structures of the central public authorities
(ministries) located in the country ...
subordinated and under the direct control
of the central public administration –
territorial branches of the central public
administration. The[y]... can either provide
public services to beneficiaries, or perform a
monitoring, control and law enforcement role
for certain decentralized services or other
activities (for example, environment
protection). In this case, the central public
administration uses direct tools for
management and control. [46]
Delegated competences are similar to the deconcentrated ones, having two significant
differences:
They cannot refer to monitoring, control or law
enforcement activities, thus they refer only to
services to beneficiaries;
Due to objective reasons, they cannot be
provided by the territorial structures of the
central public administration, thus the local
public administration acts as agent (without
autonomy). [47]
Decentralized competences are the
responsibilities transferred to the local
governments, to the elected and
autonomous public authorities that possess
democratic legitimacy for providing public
services in accordance with the specific/ local
needs and preferences of the beneficiaries in
a framework regulated by the central
government. In this case, the local public
authorities enjoy autonomy in managing
extent of decentralization. For clarity, both the reference (UNDP) and NDS terms are ordered in the table
as “1 – least, 2 – intermediate, 3 – most”.
70
-
Ideally, the authority is elected
and accountability is mainly to
the local electorate
and delivering these competences – the
central public authorities cannot use direct
management and decision-making tools, but
only indirect tools: develop specific public
policies, and mandatory quality standards;
provide incentives and penalties (particularly
financial), monitor and control, enforce the
law and perform assessments. [46]
Source: (NDS 2012 and Cintora 2009)
The listing of Competencies provided by the SC indicates that the Moldova decentralization
strategy will use, of the above terms, mainly “centralized” and “de-concentrated” in the case of
services that will remain largely under central-level control, and “decentralized” for services
assigned to the LPAs. To some extent, the term “decentralized” is being used to mean that a
service has been “devolved” to the local level (whether to L1 or L2, or to both together).
However, this third degree of decentralization does not, from the definitions given, correspond to
full devolution in the sense used by UNDP BRC. In the Moldova case, in contrast to the UNDP
paper, the specific meaning given to the term “decentralization” – for those services most
decentralized – still retains for the central government the authority to monitor and control,
enforce the law and perform assessments of the local provision of services: via public policy,
mandatory quality standards, incentives and financial penalties. This control is retained by the
central authorities, even though the local level is described as “elected and autonomous” in the
NDS. In the UNDP BRC presentation, the concept of devolution – significant decentralization –
requires not only election of the local administrative unit, which is “fully independent of the
central government”, but means as well that accountability is “mainly to the local electorate”.
This seems to indicate that Moldova’s decentralization strategy does not yet envisage proceeding
to the most comprehensive extent seen in other countries of Europe (Cintora 2009, p. 25).
Generally, devolution denotes a significant transfer of power, by law, to locally elected bodies
(including the raising of revenues and some degree of legislative authority. The characteristics of
a fully devolved service or function are described in a standard reference, as the following:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
powers are transferred to autonomous units governed independently and
separately without the direct control of central government;
the local units enjoy corporate status and powers to secure their own resources to
perform their functions;
the units maintain control over a recognized geographical area;
devolution implies the need to develop local government institutions;
devolution is an arrangement of a reciprocal, mutually beneficial and coordinated
relationship between central and local government (Hossain 2005, p. 4)37
In the report, Decentralization in the Europe and CIS region, UNDP uses an index for the degree
of administrative decentralization in a country. Two indicators make up the index: (1) The
assignment of expenditure responsibilities between the central and the local governments in the
37
This discussion including standard sources and definitions is available on the website of the UN Public
Administration Network (UNPAN); see Hossain in References section.
71
law and actual implementation of the law, and (2) Which level holds the actual primary
responsibility for public service delivery. Rankings, coded from 1 (lowest) to 4 (highest) degree of
decentralization, are shown in the table (UNDP 2008, p. 24).
The index of administrative decentralization consists of the mean of indicators 1 and 2.
Table 2.2 Indicators of degree of administrative decentralization
Indicator 1. Assignment of expenditure responsibilities
between the central and the local governments in the law
and actual implementation of the law
Indicator 2. Actual primary
responsibility for public service
delivery
No specification of different responsibilities
1
Centre
1
Legal framework exists but it is not clear
2
Significant de-concentration
2
Clear legal framework exists but it is not implemented
3
Some devolution
3
Clear legal framework exists and it is implemented
4
Substantial devolution
4
Source: Constructed from UNDP 2008, p. 23
Using this index, the analysis gives Moldova a medium-low score of 2 out of a possible 4. This
indicates that as of writing in 2009, Moldova had not yet reached a significant degree of
devolution of public services to the LPAs.
As the Figure below shows, 18 of 33 countries rank above Moldova, while 3 rank below, and 3 are
tied with Moldova. It will be observed that all of the Central and Eastern European countries
show a high degree of decentralization of services. All of these are EU members, and all are topranked, at 4.
From this index, it can be seen that the EU countries have a high degree of administrative
decentralization, followed by the Western Balkans and Turkey, and the Central Asian republics.
In the Western CIS and Caucasus sub-region, administrative decentralization is the least
developed of all the Eastern Europe and CIS countries.
Figure 2-2 Degree of administrative decentralization, Eastern Europe and CIS countries
72
Degree of decentralization by country and sub-region
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Poland
Romania
Albania
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Croatia
FYR Macedonia
Montenegra
Serbia
Turkey
UN Admin Prov Kosovo
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belorus
Georgia
Moldova
Russian Federation
Ukraine
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyz Republic
Tajikistan
Turkmenistahn
Uzbekistan
0.5
Central and Eastern Europe
Western Balkans and Turkey
Western CIS and
Caucasus
Central Asia
Source: UNDP 2008 and Cintora 2009, p. 25
The COE Charter of Local Self-Government encourages the greatest possible extension of full
devolution, which enables local governments to act with the fullest autonomy possible in the
interests of according both voice and appropriate services to the population. While every country
has its own circumstances, in general the Charter states: “Powers given to local authorities shall
normally be full and exclusive. They may not be undermined or limited by another, central or
regional, authority except as provided for by the law” (Council of Europe 2010, p. 15 Article 4).
The Charter is vigorous in its advocacy of the autonomy of local authorities. In its perspective,
the Charter is a demonstration of commitment, in that it “embodies the conviction that the degree
of self-government enjoyed by local authorities may be regarded as a touchstone of genuine
democracy” (p. 29). Limitations, such as the “monitoring, control, law enforcement and
assessment,” provided for in the Moldova NDS do not seem compliant with the spirit or letter of
the Charter. 38
38
The Charter affirms the importance of local government autonomy as a goal: “The purpose of the
European Charter of Local Self-Government is to make good the lack of common European standards for
measuring and safeguarding the rights of local authorities, which are closest to the citizen and give him the
opportunity of participating effectively in the making of decisions affecting his everyday environment. The
Charter commits the parties to applying basic rules guaranteeing the political, administrative and financial
independence of local authorities. It is thus a demonstration, at European level, of the political will to give
substance at all levels of territorial administration to the principles defended since its foundation by the
Council of Europe, which considers its function to be the keeping of Europe’s democratic conscience and
the defence of human rights in the widest sense. Indeed, it embodies the conviction that the degree of selfgovernment enjoyed by local authorities may be regarded as a touchstone of genuine democracy. (COE
p.29)
73
The indicators and index in this discussion have been used by authors comparing administrative
decentralization among different countries in a region. The second component of the index,
referring specifically to the way in which public services are provided to the population of a
country, can be used to show the degree of decentralization of these services and functions. This
component is discussed in section 2.3.4, Services decentralization.
2.3.3.2 Size of PA units
The NDS discusses the need to develop the administrative capacity of the LPAs, pointing out that
the present division of administrative units is an inheritance from Soviet times, modified
subsequently in the 1990s. In 2003 a further reorganization revived the districts or rayons as
second-level entities, although, the NDS notes, local autonomy was reduced at the same time.
The past decade has seen the number of local municipalities (primarias) increasing, so that by
2011 there were 898 first-level entities. The government cites European experience in
periodically reorganizing TAUs to achieve a target optimum size for the efficient delivery of
services and greater voice for residents (NDS 2012, pp. 12 ff).
At present, the administrative structure suffers from “excessive fragmentation of the
administrative-territorial system”, with 86 percent of municipalities having fewer than 5000
residents. Indeed, more than 25 percent of administrative units have fewer than the legislated
minimum population of 1500 persons. This fragmentation hampers the attainment of growth
levels, economies of scale, and the assurance of local public services. The government notes that
most rural LPAs, representing 94 percent of the population, are unable to provide community
public services (p. 13).
The population indicators, A1, give a concise picture of the relative population size of units at
each PA tier, including the largest, smallest, average size and median size for L2 and L1 units.
The data show that the median population size of L2 (rayon) units is 90,000, while for L1 units the
median size is not yet reported (shown in Table A1). However, it is likely possible to produce the
A1 indicators from the Population Census by calculation – by constructing primarias from the
municipal and commune codes in the Census form (Government of Moldova 2006, p. 486).
A
Administrative decentralization
A1
Population
Remarks
A1.1 Size of PA unit, by population
By calculation
(compilation from
A1.2 Average/ median/ maximum/ minimum size of PA units (L1 and L2)
Census records)
Making a rough calculation for the 890 (of 898) rayon units having fewer than 100,000
inhabitants, it would seem that the population size of most L1 units is approximately 2000 persons
on average – with wide variation likely.
The NDS also notes that while European experience does not indicate any precise optimum size, it
tends to show that a population of 5000 – the number cited above – is the minimum threshold,
“starting from which better perspectives for economic growth and economies of scale in the
production of local public services are assured” (NDS 2011 p. 16). This means that fewer than 14
percent of LPAs as currently constituted can be expected to develop as viable entities with the
capacity to undertake the management and operation of public services.
74
An important consequence of excessive fragmentation – resulting in many small TAUs – is the
reduction in the size of the fiscal base – the volume of taxes and other fees that can be collected
within the territory of the locality. When the revenues collected at the local level are very low, it
is not possible to provide services without the allocation of other revenues by higher level
authorities. In particular, the insufficient revenue base of L1 units places a burden on the L2 tier,
and may, according to the NDS text, render services more costly.
The excessive territorial fragmentation has other consequences on the LPAs and their
activity as well. Thus, the fiscal base and the revenues collected on the territory of a
locality are insufficient to maintain an administrative apparatus capable to provide public
services. The impossibility to obtain economies of scale while providing local public
services due to the reduced population per TAU, unjustifiably assigns the second level
LPAs responsibilities that should be performed by the first level local governments and
increases the price for the public services provided. The reduced territory size, the small
number of inhabitants and the insignificant fiscal base make the implementation of
effective local social and economic development plans impossible (NDS 2012, p. 13,
emphasis in original).
The government notes that TAUs smaller than the necessary threshold population size have a
reduced capacity for strategic and management planning, staff capacity limitations and deficient
practices in the management of human resources, with poor application of policy and guidelines.
The NDS thus refers to potential changes in the organization of the administrative-territorial
units (p. 14), although these are not defined. More specific reference, however, is made in the
discussion of public property assets. The NDS suggests two potential routes for rationalization of
the fragmentation of TAUs and the resulting inefficiency of service delivery: the amalgamation
or consolidation of territorial administrative units, or the development of specific instruments and
financial incentives to facilitate joint provision of some public services (p 29).
Assessment:
A.1.1-1.2: These indicators are required at the central, L2 and L1 levels.
The indicators are reported at central and L2 levels, but not reported at L1 level. The indicators
should be available by calculation from Population Census data, central [L2] listings of LPA
locations, including geographic information systems (GIS). It is recommended that these
indicators be made available on a monitoring of decentralization website.
2.3.3.3 Efficiency indicators
The efficiency of the provision of services is measured by the financial and human resources used
to provide each specific service to the population. Indicator A2.1 will track over time the total
number of staff per resident of the administrative unit; i.e. public sector staff on a per capita basis.
This indicator is then useable to compare staffing among units at the same PA level, and to
compare central-level staff allocation with the allocation of staff at lower levels.
Indicators A2.2-4 will track the numbers and salaries of staff of managerial, technical and general
grades for each service provided at identified administrative levels, and the costs, whether for
personnel or for other components of service delivery, of providing these services. It is
recognized that it will take some time for government to define in detail the meaning of units of
75
services, and the number of staff to be assigned to these units of service. Monitors can be
expected to begin with total costs and a broad categorizing of types of services. With longer
experience definitions will be further detailed. (It will be useful for officials of all levels to have
the opportunity to visit neighbouring countries and service delivery units to observe how services
are defined and how allowable staffing levels and costs are identified.)
A
Administrative
decentralization
A2
Coverage and costs
A2.1 Staff of CPA, LPA per capita
A2.2
Distribution and cost of
CPA, LPA staff *
Remarks
CPA, LPA staff per inhabitant at concerned level
Management, technical and other staff per concerned
PA, by number of persons and by salary
A2.3 Cost of services *
Unit cost of services provided by CPA, LPAs
A2.4 Personnel cost of services*
Cost of staff assigned to each identified service
A2.5
Identified expenditures as a proportion of locally raised
revenues.
*
Cost-efficiency index**
These indicators can be used only once all personnel and services costs are identified.
This indicator requires a rationale for the categories of expenditures included.
**
Indicator A2.5 reports an “administrative-efficiency index” proposed by the State Chancellery (as
coordinating body for the decentralization process). Current legislation states that an LPA may be
considered administratively efficient if its administrative expenditures do not exceed 30% of its
total own [locally raised] revenues.39 That is, in the view of the concerned authorities, an
administrative unit can be deemed sustainable from an administrative point of view, in the sense
that it has under its control the resources necessary to run the administrative functions of the
unit.
This proposed indicator requires definition of the expenditures included in the calculation. It is
important to define the rationale for the indicator; for example, whether the efficiency concept
focuses on personnel, services, or a specific selection of these components. If the indicator
includes all local expenditures, it is equivalent to the reverse of financial indicator F2.1: a
comparison of local revenues and expenditures.
Assessment:
A.2.1-5: These indicators are required but not reported at central or local levels. They can all feasibly
be reported through joint efforts of local and central authorities.
39
Art. 11 of Law No. 435, 2006
76
At present, the component costs of these indicators (staff salaries, other costs of services) are
determined by the central authorities. Decentralization of the authority over wages and various fees
and costs would be necessary to expand the financial autonomy of LPAs.
As with Indicators in A2, monitoring of the next group, A3, is dependent on definitions of a
number of categories. A3.1, for example, is informative only when the required educational
attainment has been defined for each post (for example, post-secondary general technical
diploma, post-secondary technical specialist diploma, undergraduate degree, graduate degree,
etc.). Once the classification of each post by required educational level and type has been
completed, personnel may be graded as holding below-standard, standard and above-standard
educational certification for a given post.
Indicators A3.2 - A3.9 track the continuous process of LPA capacity building, as well the capacity
to attract additional recourses for local development, identification of the local needs and strategic
planning for community development and civic participation, the ability to exercise the delegated
competencies and to cooperate in service provision. These indicators are notional at this time,
because their meaningful definition requires further steps to arrive at working definitions of their
component parts (such as initiative, project, strategic plan, specific competencies, etc.).
A
Administrative
decentralization
A3
Capacity
Capacity, access and
communication
Remarks
A3.1
Educational level of
administrative personnel
(CPA, LPAs) *
Educational attainment, by defined levels, of
personnel at managerial, technical and general
posts (below-standard=0; standard=1; abovestandard=2)
A3.2
Continuing education *
Number of personnel-courses (in person-weeks or
other units of staff and time) completed in a given
period in the concerned PA
A3.3
Local initiatives
Total no. of elaborated, approved and implemented
projects of diverse fields (social, infrastructure,
economic, etc.)
A3.4
Locally funded
programming (per capita)
Total value of implemented projects financed from
local resources / total population
A3.5
Strategic planning
No. of localities having a strategic plan in force as
confirmed by an annual status report by mayor /
Total No. of localities
77
Citizen participation in
decision-making in LPAs
A3.6
Yes/No answers: participation of citizens in LPA
a) Budget process
b) Decisions about municipal services or strategic
planning
A3.7
Participatory strategic
Yes/No answers: LPA community strategic plans
planning at the level of LPA officially adopted by action of the council after a
formal public hearing
A3.8
Executed competencies
No. of executed competencies
[meaning is unclear]
A3.9
Inter-community
cooperation, service
delivery
Number of cases when a public service is provided
together by 2 or more public authorities
* These indicators can be used only once classification of posts, educational standards /// has been
completed for all territorial-administrative units (TAUs).
Assessment:
A.3.1-3.9: These indicators are required but not reported at central or local levels. They can
be reported by all LPAs once definitions and reporting capacities are developed.
2.3.3.5 Ownership of public assets
During the development of the NDS, the government ensured that attention was paid to the need
of local authorities to have full rights to manage public properties on their territory, specifically
where these properties are necessary to service delivery. For example, educational and health
care services are provided by schools, clinics and hospitals distributed throughout the national
territory. Prior to the commencement of the transition to a market economy, these public assets
were in effect owned by the central government. However over the past two decades day-to-day
delivery of many services taking place in these facilities has been increasingly handled by locally
based personnel. The discrepancy between responsibilities for distributing services in a facility
and the ownership and maintenance of that facility by a higher tier often led to friction and
inefficiencies.
The central government undertook privatization of many of its assets, and distribution of others
to local PAs. However, as government underlines in the NDS, these property reforms have not
yet been completed, for various reasons (GM 2012 p. 10).
This section of the Matrix presents indicators of decentralization with respect to publicly owned
real estate and facilities. The A4 group of indicators focuses on the completion of an inventory of
assets on which the public authority may expect to draw for operating or fiscal (tax) revenues.
The planned inventory will therefore cover public, private and joint (public-private) assets,
including real estate (land and buildings) and other items of value. Indicator A4.4 is proposed by
the consultant but not included in the basic Matrix. This indicator would show the progress of
divestiture of state-owned assets by the authorities. Such divestiture is an element of the
78
economic transition process. (See the remarks on sales that did not meet expectations, further in
this section.)
AP
Public assets
A4
Inventory
(cadastre) and
revenues from
properties
A4.1
Share of
inventoried assets
(registered into
cadastre)
Value
Explanatory remarks, points for further consideration
Registered/ inventoried assets/ total assets (by value)
%
[Notes: 1. This indicator needs to show the value of all public
assets registered; a number alone is not workable since the
number of assets does not indicate how significant a stock of
assets this implies
2. The denominator to be used is not clear – whether all
assets, both registered and not yet registered. That is: it is not
likely that the value of those assets that have not yet been
inventoried is known. However, if the value is not known, a
comparison between one LPA and another cannot be made in
this regard. The % of items i.e. 67 out of 84, has no meaning if
we do not know the value of these – this could be a very large
or a very small % of the total value.]
A4.1a
Inventory of
assets (land,
buildings, other
assets)
Has the inventory of all properties been completed at the
concerned level? (This is an indicator, over time, of
progress in inventorying assets.)
Yes/No
A4.2
Value of
inventoried assets
Value of assets registered in the cadastre at each PA
Value
A4.2a
Value of assets
not yet clearly
assigned
ownership
Value not assigned is the other side of value already
assigned. 4.2 + 4.2a enable you to calculate 4.1
Value
Are there any articles of assets not yet clearly assigned
ownership (public, private, joint, upper level ...), e.g.
Infrastructure, utilities, leased properties, etc.
Yes/No
A4.2b Assets with nonassigned
ownership
[this works if you have not yet completed inventory in
this area/district NDS states that inventory has not been
completed]
79
A4.3
Revenue/loss
from operations
of public assets
The total amount of revenues or losses from operation of
public assets (rent, production costs, etc.) located on LPA
territory (not sales), in a given time period (year)
Value
A4.4
Revenue from
sales of public
assets
Total revenue from all sales in a given time period (year)
Value
Since the stock-taking (cadastre) of assets is part of the decentralization process in the NDS, the
above indicators cover, for all LPAs as well as the central PA, information as to whether or not
the stock-taking has been completed, and the value of inventoried assets. Over the period of
monitoring of decentralization, the progress of this part of the process can be assessed. As the
inventory of public assets is completed, the value (in lei and/or Euros) of these assets can be
shown using indicators in this section of the Matrix.
Assessment:
A.4.1-4.4: These indicators are required but not reported at central or local levels
In addition to indicators A4.1 – A4.4, a number of indicators (not presented in the Matrix) should
be agreed and used to monitor progress on specific aspects of public asset decentralization. The
complete registration of public assets, and the divestiture of those assets which are not compatible
with the role of government, will contribute to effective decentralization.
The list of recommended indicators below, A (recommended), tracks the value of assets (which
should represent market value as assessed by independent evaluators), and their operating costs
and revenues. Such information would assist all tiers and the general public to have a realistic
picture of the real value of public assets, including the cost burden they may expect in taking on
any such facilities.
The NDS focuses on the importance of inventorying assets, making decisions as to which assets
are to be transferred from the central level to LPAs, and building capacity within the LPAs to
manage these assets effectively (GM 2011b, pp. 30 ff.). The Strategy only briefly discusses the
recent history of the transition from very extensive state ownership to privatization of housing,
land and production facilities. However, although privatization of state ownership was
undertaken in the 1990s, as noted below, the government continues to be involved in some areas
of production.
In the area of public asset ownership, it is important that public authorities are able to operate
efficiently those assets that are cost-effective and within the mandate of the PA concerned, to sell
those that are not properly the concern of a public sector, and to distinguish between both cases.
The indicators in FP3 and 4 enable the analyst to assess returns to the PA, whether from sales or
operation of public assets.
Government is aware that sales of assets are a one-off benefit, not a continuing source of
revenues. Nor may there be much left to sell off. Most of the assets remaining in the hands of
government are of lower value than those sold over the earlier two decades. Following the initial
privatization phase beginning in 1991, more than 92 percent of residential housing and most
small-scale trade and enterprises were rapidly privatized, and from 1997 to 2000, larger
80
enterprises such as cement, textiles, some hotels and wineries, for a total of 810 million lei.
However, it has been more difficult for government to divest itself of its remaining stakes in
energy and telecoms (World Bank 2002).
Political and market uncertainties have contributed to slow sales in recent years. For example, in
2010 the Government of Moldova planned to earn 150 million lei ($27.5 million) from the
privatization of various assets, including sales of government minority shares in joint stock
companies, state-operated enterprises and unfinished construction projects. Although 350 assets
had been identified, only 50-75 were judged “of particular interest”, by the Public Property
Agency (Infotag (Moldova) 2010). That is, most of the remaining publicly owned assets would
not generate much interest among potential buyers, whether because they were not likely to
operate at a profit, remained debt-ridden, or for whatever reason appeared risky to the market.40
As it turned out, the projected sales did not meet expectations. In 2011, the Agency reported that
its sales amounted to just over 118 million lei, less than half the revenue planned despite repeated
tendering, and despite the Agency’s estimate that saleable properties were valued at over 1 billion
lei. Although sales in 2011 were disappointing, the budget for 2012 nevertheless affirms that the
current deficit will be covered by another 260 million lei that it expects to earn from further
privatization (Moldpres 2012). Moldova’s international partners have called for further
curtailment of the state’s presence in the economy, to accelerate the transition to market and to
wind down poorly performing companies. In its annual meetings with the IMF, the government
has renewed its commitment to expand the list of companies subject to privatization (IMF 2012a).
This is an important engagement for the success of decentralization. Unless the issue of nonperforming assets is seriously examined, it seems likely that a large inventory will continue to sit
on the public books, some of which may represent a drain on rather than an injection of funds
while such assets continue either to be operated or warehoused by the PA left holding them.
LPAs will want to choose whether they wish to take charge of assets located on their territory,
and whether accepting ownership would represent a potential gain or likely burden. The difficult
decision for all three levels of government is that of eventually divesting themselves of some
assets at a loss, or continuing to operate them at a higher cost than they wish to shoulder. The
matrix indicators in the above groups will provide some measures to assist in decision making.
The list of recommended indicators below, A(r – recommended) tracks the value of assets (which
should represent market value as assessed by independent evaluators), and their operating costs
and revenues. Such information would help all tiers to have a realistic picture of the real value of
public assets, including the cost burden they may expect in taking on any such facilities.
40
For example, assets deemed of potential interest to the private sector were several heating stations,
Tutun-CTC (the largest tobacco enterprise), Farmaco, Viorica-Cosmetic, Juvaier (jewellery), RED-Nord and
RED Nord Vest (electrical system operators). The annual IMF mission “welcomed the authorities’ plan to
expand the list of medium-size companies subject to privatization, while actively pursuing divestiture of
key large companies, including the telecommunications operator Moldtelecom, the carrier Air Moldova,
and BEM [bank]” (IMF 2012b, p. 17).
81
A(r)
A(r)
6
Public assets – recommended additional monitoring indicators
Value of [public etc.] assets of the concerned level, separated by land, buildings and
other property, and average value for units of each type, disaggregated as separate
indicators, for each concerned level, as follows:
1
Number of units of land assets
2
Average value of land assets [total value / number of units]
3
Number of units of buildings (immovable) assets
4
Average value of buildings [total value / number of units]
5
Number of units of other assets
6
Average value of other assets [total value / number of units]
7
Value of sales of assets by the concerned level, per year - total and per capita for this
TAU
A(r)
7
Revenue from sales of public assets in the most recent year, disaggregated as above, for
each of the concerned levels, for each category of ownership:
1
Number of units of land assets
2
Average value of land assets
3
Number of units of buildings (immovable) assets
4
Average value of buildings
A(r)
8
Revenue from operation of public assets in the most recent year, disaggregated as above,
for each of the concerned levels, for each category of ownership:
1
Revenue from land assets
2
Revenue from buildings
3
Revenue from other assets
The NDS addresses concerns for developing the administrative capacity of LPAs in the current
context of fragmentation of TAUs. It calls for rationalization of structures (including the TAUs
themselves), and for public consultations on any such proposals, i.e. for amalgamation or intermunicipal cooperation in some service delivery. The Strategy recognizes the importance of
consultation, citing earlier experiences which failed to generate support among LPA officials or
the general public. It also notes the need to develop appropriate incentives to cooperation, and to
work towards a culture of cooperation and compromise (pp. 12-14 and 29-30).
82
In order to adequately monitor a programme to handle these concerns, the NDS will need to
develop a specific consultation, organization and training process. Some initial indicators that
could be used to begin tracking this area include the group of A5 indicators, below. A full process
in this area would require more indicators, including more concrete and specific ones, developed
under a dedicated design and monitoring activity.
A
A5
A5.1
Administrative decentralization
LPA administrative capacity and perspective
Or: How many staff of [legal, technical, other...] categories does the concerned Central
or LPA have (per capita of population?
Does the concerned LPA feel this number is: too many, adequate, or insufficient for the
A5.2 tasks and responsibilities of the concerned level vis-à-vis assets? (From key informant
interviews)
Does the concerned LPA feel (managers and personnel) that consultation on
A5.3 amalgamation or joint provision of services has been: adequate, inadequate, excessive?
(From a constructed government/CSO key informant polling method, to be developed)
A5.4
Does the concerned LPA feel that the legal framework for handling assets is adequate?
Inadequate? (From key informant interviews)
A5.5
Option: Does the concerned LPA have adequate legal, technical and other staff to
handle public asset disputes? (From key informant interviews)
Assessment:
A.5.1-5.5: These indicators are required but not reported at central or local levels. A
programme to assess, develop and monitor various capacities discussed in this section would be
valuable to the decentralization process.
2.3.4 Decentralization of services
2.3.4.1 Monitoring service decentralization
For the people of Moldova and their government and public service, the real meaning of the
decentralization project comes down to the delivery of the services they use in everyday life.
What is the level of government with which ordinary people interact when they use a service –
be it a school, a road or vehicle, whether it means who picks up the garbage and where does one
go to get a marriage license, where is a court case handled, and so on? As we have seen from the
outset, the objective of the decentralization strategy is to make these services better, to make
them accessible to all people regardless of their social stratum or characteristics – and to deliver
them efficiently, at a price the population of Moldova as a country can afford.
83
“Service” is designated as a major section of the Indicators Matrix because it identifies these
activities that are vital to the population, and addresses explicitly issues of vulnerability. In
identifying which level of government holds responsibility for a service, the Indicators Matrix
provides a means to trace where issues of access, quality and effectiveness might best be assessed.
The Indicators in this section are designed to monitor the extent and impact of decentralization.
That is, they enable the analyst to identify what proportion of expenditure is allocated to the
sector or service under it. They can be used to check what proportion of sectoral spending is
handled by the LPA as compared with the central level. What is more, where surveys of the
population indicate some differential access to a service, the Indicators in the Matrix should help
to clarify where improving accessibility is best addressed.
The indicators in this section therefore report on
Access to services (which also refers to Coverage of citizens by the service), and
Quality,
Efficiency and
Responsiveness of services
As part of its process of developing its decentralization programme, the Government of Moldova
has prepared a list of services and their degree of decentralization (shown in Annex II). This
listing is referred to as the “Nomenclature” of public administration powers.41 In Moldova’s
decentralization process, the government is developing and reviewing a series of tables of the
existing functions of the public service. The tables set out the allocation of these functions as they
will stand when the NDS has been fully implemented.
2.3.4.2 Classification of functions and responsibilities
The Nomenclature or Classification document identifies
 some functions as remaining under the aegis (or “competence”) of the central
authorities, even though administered by the L2 and L1 tiers;

some functions “not really specific to local government, such as those related to
natural protected areas, emergency services and civil protection...”, and

functions “expressly set out [as] the powers of local councils, the mayor, district
chairman and district councils...” (State Chancellery of the Government of
Moldova 2012, hereafter SC 2012).
While the Nomenclature has been used in this report as the source document to verify the current
division of responsibilities across the tiers of government, it provides only the broad strokes so far.
That is, the document provides the reference for the extent of decentralization of overall
responsibilities, in general terms. It does not provide a full or partial description of services, their
component parts, or the level of personnel and financial resources that should properly be assigned
to each component part. Such full definitions of specific services and component tasks will be the
subject of future projects to define in detail: units of service delivery, result expectations, job
descriptions, and progress measures.
41
The term “nomenclature” (from the Latin, “naming”) dates from earlier times when it was used by most
soviet-system countries to designate positions and authorities defined and allocated by the ruling party of
the state.
84
Nevertheless, the Nomenclature has provided guidelines to indicate initial steps. A designation
has been made of 132 services, and the document identifies the PA level responsible for each of
these.
For example, within the heading of Education services, the document indicates that
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Policy and standards for primary, secondary and post-secondary education, as well as
the development of all funding allocation formulae, are entirely the responsibility of
the central government, designated as centralized.
Responsibility for selected teaching materials are decentralized to the local (L1)
authority, and some local policy and legislative compliance monitoring functions have
been decentralized to L2 – although there is no designation of the details.
Monitoring and evaluation of education more broadly come under the central
government, with some de-concentration (which is unspecified), and in-service
teacher training is fully de-concentrated. However, all de-concentrated functions
come under the upper heading, Central Public Authority.
L2 has responsibility (for primary, secondary and post-secondary schooling) for all:
o School management, boards, appointment of directors
o Establishment and control of school networks
o School maintenance
o Staff hiring and promotion
o Related services (transport, meals)
Under the heading of financial and property management, L1 and L2 are assigned
shared development of “Budget development” at the institution level, while L1 is
given exclusive responsibility for budget management and staff payroll at the
institution level.
While in earlier versions of the classification, no authority or responsibility was
assigned to L1, the most recent version now assigns to L1 and L2, as decentralized,
shared responsibilities for “Ongoing procurement procedures for educational
institutions:
property management (including maintenance costs and capital expenditure) of
educational institutions”; and “assurance” of the technical and material development
of educational institutions.
Similar responsibility or assurance is assigned to L1 and L2 for teaching materials and
educational institutions [for]: preschool, primary, secondary and post-secondary
schools and all extracurricular activities. They are also assigned responsibility for
human resource development – although no breakdown of functions is detailed at this
stage.
It can be readily appreciated from this example that the definition of responsibilities raises as
many questions as it answers. Under the major heading of education, which encompasses 30
functions (numbers 49 to 79 in the Nomenclature), we see that enormous authority is vested in
the central government to determine policy, to the extent of the design of curriculum and the
issuing of all textbooks. At the same time, enormous responsibility is vested in the L2 rayon – to
manage and operate all schools at the primary, secondary and post-secondary level, including all
management of school boards, teacher hiring and promotion, and school maintenance, down to
the level of providing school buses and school lunches. It is not clear to what extent the village,
85
and presumably individual schools, are to have their say in some of the large and small matters of
education.
In the light of the array of dimensions of vulnerability, including local ethnic and language issues,
concerns for rural children who are early drop-outs, and the desire to provide better services for
special-needs children, this division of functions has been a subject of discussion. Earlier versions
of the division of functions appeared to fall short, and the most recent versions have changed to
reflect some of local concerns. Education is an area in which local input is vital.
Clearly the designation of 132 functions and services can be seen as a first step. It is valuable as a
broad grouping of services, and a draft of the way responsibilities may be allocated. By proposing
the division of responsibilities, the document helps elicit views from not only LPAs but
communities and advocacy groups. The issuance of revised versions of the Nomenclature appears
to reflect the continuing discussion. Likewise, the expansion of the number of functions in the
past year of from 103 to 132 reflects the government‘s consultations.
To facilitate monitoring and evaluation of the decentralization of Services, as with Administrative
decentralization, a good deal of further work will be needed to define services, quality standards,
qualifications and job descriptions.
As discussed in the previous section on Administrative decentralization (heading 2.3.3.1), the
definitions of degrees of decentralization indicate a fairly limited extension of decentralization in
the Moldova process to date. The process has not proposed to devolve functions fully from the
central tier. Those functions decentralized to the rayons and primarias (L2 and L1) remain under
the central government’s “authority to monitor and control, enforce the law and perform
assessments of the local provision of services: via public policy, mandatory quality standards,
incentives and financial penalties”. Section 2.3.3 discussed the significance of this approach to
Administrative decentralization, which places Moldova in a fairly conservative position with
respect to its European neighbours.
With respect to the present section, the limitation on fuller decentralization of Services leaves the
three tiers in an encumbered position in important areas. Because virtually all of the functions of
service delivery remain essentially tied to the central tier of government (insofar as monitoring,
enforcement and financial controls are concerned), the further work of definition of functions
and units of resource allocation also remains encumbered. That is, every one of the three tiers
remains obliged to involve all the other tiers in this continuing process.
In order to link service indicators in the Matrix to the government’s classification and the degree
of decentralization of any function, the present project notes whether a given service can be
classified as: Centralized, De-concentrated, or Decentralized, as government has used the terms.
The classifications are coded 1 – 6, with 1 being the least and 6 being the greatest degree of
decentralization (or sharing out) of any service or function; that is:
1 = Centralized
2 = De-concentrated
3 = Decentralized to L2
4 = Decentralized to L2 and L1
5 = Decentralized to L1 alone
6 = Shared by all three tiers
86
An illustrative excerpt from the Nomenclature is shown below [Note to Editor: or overleaf]. The
inserted row, “Coding added”, indicates the correspondence between the 1-6 coding used in the
Indicators Matrix and the indication of responsibilities shown under the official Nomenclature
document’s PA-level headings. Below the heading row identifying PA levels, an additional row
provides the categories termed by the government “Decentralized”, “De-concentrated” or
“Centralized”. The row below this gives further sub-categories indicating whether a given
function is exercised solely by the tier shown, or as a shared responsibility with another tier.
Excerpt from the Nomenclature (SC 2012), Public transport and communications
No.
Responsibilities (tasks, functions)
[duty/mandate to perform the respective
functions/]
COMPETENCY
[Authority to execute that responsibility/mandate]
LPA I
(municipality)
LPA II
Central Public Authority
(rayon)
(CPA)
Decentralized
sole
shared
4/5
sole
shared
3
Deconcentrated
Centralized
Deconcentrated
Centralized
sole
sole
2
shared
1
[Coding added]
Shared by all three tiers = 6
II
PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND
COMMUNICATIONS
10
Establishment and implementation of national
policies and specific standards in public
transport;
X
11
Local public transport
12
Public transport between towns in the rayon
(district);
13
Administration, modernization, maintenance
and repair of municipal/ village roads
14
Administration, modernization, maintenance
and repair of rayon (district) roads;
X
X
X
X
2.3.4.3 Indicators of decentralization of services – available and proposed
In constructing the Services section of the Indicators Matrix, the consultants proposed indicators
that would reflect national objectives identified in the NDS programme as well as in other
national development planning objectives such as the national MDGs. National objectives stated
87
shared
in a variety of policy documents, taken as a whole, provide a perspective on the vulnerability
dimensions central to the NDS.
An initial set of indicators was discussed with government authorities, and a more limited list was
retained for the basic Matrix in Annex I. During the practical discussion of the feasibility of
desired indicators, national authorities faced numerous obstacles. They found that there are large
areas of analysis that will be needed for monitoring and evaluation of the baseline and the process
of decentralization. The capacity to identify the best sources and to compile them for analysis of
progress and impact remains under development. It is apparent from the team’s observation that
the statistical authorities on their own are not equipped to produce extensive analysis, and that
much of the job will be best done in cooperation with partners from civil society. CSOs that are
dedicated specialists in sector analysis or advocacy for social groups will be able to take on those
portions of service provision and access rights that fall under their own interests.
This section provides the rationale for selected indicators, including where possible the aspects of
policy objectives and vulnerability monitoring in each group. Indicators are identified in three
areas: (1) sectoral shares measured by expenditure; (2) access and coverage of services, and (3)
indicators of quality, efficiency and responsiveness of public services. The indicators identified by
government as feasible for monitoring in the near term are highlighted with light blue and
marked with a diamond symbol (◊).
Indicators of the share of services measured by expenditure (S1)
Indicators in the S1 group draw attention to the share of expenditure that the budget devotes to
selected sectors. As this stage, elements from four of the 16 categories of the Nomenclature
classification have been included: the sectors of Education, Health, Water and Sanitation, and
Transport Infrastructure. These sectors carry particular importance to demonstrate the priority
that governments attach to spending in areas of high significance for human development.
For example, many countries have for many years maintained “20-20” guidelines on social
spending. The guidelines were established at the 1995 UN World Summit on Social
Development: “a mutual commitment between interested developed and developing country
partners to allocate, on average, 20 per cent of ODA (official development assistance) and 20 per
cent of the national budget, respectively, to basic social programmes” (Reisen 2009, p. 2). These
guidelines have been applied to the education and health sectors, or to social infrastructure as a
broader category.
The indicators on water and roads can be linked to MDG goals and poverty reduction strategies
that focus on bringing the support systems for social and human development into rural and
remote regions.
The indicators are measured in two ways: (1) the share of spending dedicated to the given sector
by the LPA budget, and (2) the share LPAs take on, within total nation-wide expenditure on the
same sector. The first calculation is to be made at the LPA level on the basis of its total budget
combining allocations from the central government and its own revenues. That calculation can
be aggregated for the whole country to provide nation-wide averages. The second calculation
would be made at the central level, using information from the LPAs and its own spending to
produce aggregated expenditure measures.
If information noted previously in the section on Political decentralization is true for all localities,
all LPA budgets are available publicly. This means that the S1 indicators can feasibly be collected,
although central authorities remark that the necessary information is not readily available as yet.
88
It is recommended that the authorities invite the participation of civil society research groups to
verify that these indicators are available.
These measures will be valuable to the decentralization effort as they shed light on the efforts of
local governments to apply priorities to sectors that are strategic for human development goals.
They also enable observers to monitor the growing or declining share of these strategic
expenditures that is taken up by local authorities.
Note: indicators identified by government as feasible for monitoring in the near term are
highlighted with light blue and marked with a diamond symbol (◊).
S
Services
S1
Selected Sectoral Expenditure Measures
S1.1
(◊) Education Share of Sub-National
Spending
Sub-National expenditure on education/
Sub-national expenditure, total
(◊) Sub-National share of Education
S1.2
Spending
Sub-National Education expenditure/
Consolidated total Education expenditure
(all levels)
3
Health Share of Sub-National Spending
Sub-National expenditure on health/ Subnational expenditure, total
4
Sub-National share of Health Spending
Sub-National Health expenditure/
Consolidated total Health expenditure (all
levels)
5
Water Supply and Sanitation Share of
Sub-National Spending
Sub-National expenditure on education/
Sub-national expenditure, total
6
Sub-National share of Water Supply and
Sanitation Spending
Sub-National Education expenditure/
Consolidated total Education expenditure
(all levels)
7
Infrastructure (roads, transport) Share of
Sub-National Spending
Sub-National expenditure on health/ Subnational expenditure, total
8
Sub-National share of Infrastructure
(roads, transport) Spending
Sub-National Health expenditure/
Consolidated total Health expenditure (all
levels)
S1.1. (◊) Share of Social assistance expenditures
3
(cash benefits and services) in subnational spending
Sub-National expenditure on social
assistance/ Sub-national expenditure, total
S1.1. (◊) Per capita expenditure for main
4.
sectoral classifications
Expenditures within main classifications of
the budget of PA X/ no. of population of PA
X
89
S1.2
Expenditure on infrastructure, investments
S1.2. (◊) Share of local long-term investments
9.
in fixed capital
Amount of Investments in fixed capital
financed from administrative-territorial
unit budgets / total investment in fixed
capital, as a percentage
Of the initial eight proposed S1 indicators, government has retained one, expenditure on
education. In addition, SC proposes to monitor social assistance benefits. However, compared to
expenditure on the whole of the education and health sectors, cash payments to beneficiaries is
expected to represent a minor sum. This indicator, S1.1.4, was suggested in discussions with
government staff to show the ‘share of social assistance expenditures in sub-national spending’.
This indicator is of limited value because social assistance represents a small part of the range of
services needed by the vulnerable population, as noted above. It is further limited if it is not
compared with national-level expenditures. (At present, the calculation of the indicator is weakly
defined: it is not clear whether the calculation includes all expenditure, or amounts paid out from
local and/or central funds.)
Further, the government has indicated that it would expect to provide expenditure for all (16)
classifications of the budget, on a per capita basis. Presumably this would be done by dividing any
part of the budget by the count of the whole population. While this calculation can be made, an
exercise of this kind would be of limited value, since it does not add information to the existing
budget numbers. At the same time, central authorities do not feel that at this stage LPAs will be
able to make a similar report.
The importance of the S1 tracking indicators is their use to monitor policy objectives in the course
of the decentralization programme. This means that it will be important to develop within the
country the analytical strengths to monitor expenditures for programmes that are the object of
policies such as national MDGs, the NDS vulnerability concerns, and sectoral policy objectives.
Assessment:
S1 indicators are required at the central and local levels, simultaneously. At present, the
indicators are not available at the local level, and therefore cannot be computed at the central
or local level.
Because these indicators are computed entirely from functional classifications of the budget,
and all LPAs are committed to publication of the budget prior to and after adoption, joint
efforts of all LPAs and the central budget authorities would make these indicator calculations
feasible. Civil society researchers or agencies should be invited to report on the ease of access
to the data needed to calculate these indicators.
Access and Coverage indicators – ask people directly, through official surveys
The Matrix proposes a number of Access and Coverage indicators, S2, calculated for the most part
as the percentage of the identified population group enjoying access to the selected public service
programme. In general, the indicator concepts are drawn from national and international MDG
indicators, and guidelines commonly used in sector support programmes. In addition, they
highlight the access to services of vulnerable groups – a central concern for the decentralization
process.
90
Access to services is best identified by direct surveying of the population, ideally in existing
official multi-purpose household surveys and their periodic specialized modules, as well as
specialized surveys supported by development partner agencies. This methodology is preferred
because the members of the population report directly to the survey their demonstrated access to
a given service. The denominator used in the calculation is the whole population of the identified
group. Administrative data, by comparison, reports services rendered, but in most cases does not
supply a denominator. That is, many administrative units have difficulty ascertaining the number
of constituents their service could or should reach. (This point is discussed further in the next
chapter on data sources.)
Specifically, indicators S2.1and S2.1.2 on safe water and sanitation access, S2.2.3, population with
access to modern fuels, and S2.3.2a, households with secure tenure – should all be asked directly
of the population in the Population Census and, for more frequent reporting, the official
Household Budget Survey (HBS). These are important national MDG indicators. The
administrative data of ministries charged with delivery of such services provide elements of the
picture, but these are partial data at best. For precise information as to the services to which each
resident has effective access (including own-built facilities), survey and census data are the gold
standard of reliability.
These indicators are important particularly as the Moldova MDG Update for 2012 notes that they
are improving more slowly than expected, and that safe water and sanitation are more likely to be
lacking among vulnerable rural populations. 42
Similarly, indicators such as S2.3.9, Internet utilization by the population, can be most reliably
assessed via direct population surveys, which can be estimated on a national and to some extent
on a regional basis. Where policy has put a priority on an access issue, special surveys may be
required to provide data for target areas or groups.
In general, other S2 indicators can be calculated on a national basis from the HBS, and in the case
of community access to services and infrastructure can also be derived from the community
questionnaire of HBS. Other surveys and reports such as the Small Area Deprivation Index, or
SADI, discussed in Chapter 3, could furnish data for these indicators, but are at risk of
disappearing as funding for them is halted.
Government proposes reporting on 9 of the 13 selected indicators retained in the basic Matrix. Of
the indicators suggested, some further development is necessary if these are to be of use to the
monitoring objective. For example, S2.4.1, which reports profit-making enterprises as a share of
all enterprises, is unclear. If the indicator is concerned with public-sector enterprises, the
42
“The progress in expanding access to water and sanitation infrastructure has been quite slow. In 2009, the
proportion of the population with sustainable access to improved water sources was 55 percent (with the
2010 target set at 59 percent). Despite this increase in the population’s access to safe water sources
maintained in recent years, it is difficult to believe that final target for 2010 could be achieved. Another
important problem for the population of Moldova is the construction, development and renovation of
centralized waste water collection systems and waste water treatment stations. As a result of the actions
carried in this period, the proportion of the population with sustainable access to sewerage was just 54.6
percent in 2011. The slow progress recorded in recent years towards the achievement of this target shows
that the desired level for 2015 (65 percent) will probably not be achieved. Moreover, the aggregated data
hides high levels of inequality with respect to access to sewage. Thus, of those with no access to sewage
rural population makes up 90%” (UNDP Moldova 2012c).
91
indicator is unclear as to which activities constitute enterprises, and whether these are expected
to earn profits or break even. If the concept embraces private-sector firms, it is unlikely that
profit data would be available in most cases. Nevertheless, if government uses the indicator with
respect to its own enterprises, such reporting – which would represent a component of
Administrative indicators, i.e. 4.3, revenues from operations of public assets – would shed light
on the potential of such activities for valuation and divestiture, where this is pertinent.
Note: indicators identified by government as feasible for monitoring in the near term are
highlighted with light blue and marked with a diamond symbol (◊).
S
S2
S2.1
Services
Remarks
Access and Coverage
Community public services
Clean water, sanitation and housing
access indicators (as defined in MDG
sources, references in text, modified if
needed for Moldova), major social
sectors 42
All calculations to be made for concerned
level and by vulnerability dimension, as
directed by the indicator designation in the
Matrix
(◊) Water: Proportion of the population
with sustainable access to an improved
water source, urban and rural 42
Ratio of the number of people who use
piped water, public tap, borehole or pump,
protected well, protected spring or
rainwater to the total rural or urban
population, expressed as a percentage
(◊) Sanitation: Proportion of the
population with access to improved
sanitation, urban and rural 42
Ratio of the number of people with access
to improved sanitation facilities to the total
urban or rural population, expressed as a
percentage
S2.1.1
S2.1.2
S2.2
Transport, energy (Transport, roads, energy infrastructure: indicators tbd*)
S2.2.1
Proportion of the population with access
to reliable, affordable transport, tbd*
Define as public, private, or mixed
public-private
S2.2.2
Proportion of the population with access
to all-weather roads within defined
distance from residence tbd*
S2.2.3
Proportion of the population with access
to modern fuels, tbd*
S2.3
Urban and area planning
92
Disaggregate for rural/urban residence,
ethnicity, single and elderly households
S2.3.1
(◊) Coverage of urban plans
Number of localities with
elaborated/updated plans / total number of
localities
S2.3.2
(◊) Proportion of updated urban plans
Share of localities in the rayon which have
developed regulation-compliant urban
infrastructure plans
S2.3.2a
Housing: Proportion of households with
access to secure tenure
1 minus the ratio of the number of
households in urban areas that lack one or
more of the conditions defined for
Moldova to the number of urban
households, expressed as a percentage
S2.3.9
(◊) Internet utilization by population
Ratio between no. of internet users & no.
of resident population, expressed in %.
S2.3.12
(◊) Online access to public services
Ratio between the no. of public services
provided online for citizens & businesses
and total public services, expressed in
percentage
S2.3.13
(◊) The presence of locality web page
A web page for the locality exists (yes/no)
S2.3.14
(◊) Connection to online register of local
documents
A connexion to an online register of local
documents exists (yes/no)
S2.4
Economic local development
S2.4.1
(◊) Profitable entrepreneurial activity
No. of profit-making enterprises / Total no.
of enterprises [public, private sector?]
* tbd: to be defined
Notes to S2 indicators:
S2.1.1 The percentage of the population who use any of the following types of water supply for drinking: piped water,
public tap, borehole or pump, protected well, protected spring or rainwater. Improved water sources do not include
vendor-provided water, bottled water, tanker trucks or unprotected wells and springs.
S2.1.1 Percentage of the population with access to facilities that hygienically separate human excreta from human,
animal and insect contact; includes facilities such as sewers or septic tanks, poor-flush latrines and simple pit or
ventilated improved pit latrines, provided that they are not public
S2.2.3 As compared with solid fuels: Proportion of the population that relies on biomass and coal as the primary
source of domestic energy for cooking and heating
S.2.3.9 Internet user: any person which has used personally one or more internet devices (in any location) within
the last 12 months
S2.3 Urban plans: this indicator is to be reported by the LPA. It is recommended that criteria be developed for
-
Compliance of the plan with basic standards for updating and a definition of elements required
Public access to urban plans to enable local communities to confirm and give opinions on urban plans
93
Assessment:
S2.1, S2.2: These 5 indicators are required and can be computed at the central level, from
existing surveys and the upcoming 2014 Population Census.
The indicators are required and can be computed in selected locations at the LPA level, initially
from the Census, and in future from existing surveys (the required questions to be retained in
the HBS).
S2.2: These 3 indicators are required but are not calculated at the central or LPA level.
S2.3: These 7 indicators, which deal with urban and area planning and IT facilities, are
unevenly defined and reported at present. Specifically:
S.2.3.1 - S2.3.2: These indicators are required and reported at central level but not reported at
local levels, although administrative data is expected to be available (MRDC, MITC).
S 2.3.9. – S2.3.14. Indicators are required but not reported.
S2.4: The indicator is not clearly defined.
Indicators in the S2.6 group on enrolment can be calculated on a national basis from the national
Household Budget Survey (HBS), which is described in the next chapter.
Indicators which specifically measure the access of Roma children and youth to education
unfortunately cannot be tracked at present by the HBS, since ethnicity is not reported by the
survey. This is an important gap, particularly because HBS data allows analysts to link indicators
such as these under Access and Coverage to other circumstances, and therefore to look for factors
that promote or hamper access. This report looks to extending HBS coverage of areas of
importance to the ethnic and language dimensions, and suggests at the same time that other
measures be examined to complement such an extension.
Note: indicators identified by government as feasible for monitoring in the near term are
highlighted with light blue and marked with a diamond symbol (◊).
S
Services
S2
Access and Coverage
S2.6
Education
Number of children, enrolled in primary
school education, regardless of age, as a
share of the school-age population for this
level (7-10) from respective group,
expressed as a percentage
S2.6.1
(◊) Gross enrolment rate in
primary education
S2.6.
1a
Primary GER, female, male, rural/urban
residence
94
at the concerned level
S2.6.1
b
Primary NER, female, male, rural/urban
residence
S2.6.1
c
Secondary GER, female, male,
rural/urban residence
S2.6.1
d
Secondary NER, female, male,
rural/urban residence
S2.6.1
e
Upper Secondary & Vocational GER,
female, male, rural/urban residence
S2.6.1
f
Upper Secondary & Vocational NER,
female, male, rural/urban residence
S2.6.1
g
Primary GER, female, male: Roma
S2.6.1
h
Primary NER, female, male: Roma
S2.6.1
j
Secondary GER, female, male: Roma
S2.6.1
k
Secondary NER, female, male: Roma
S2.6.1
m
Upper Secondary & Vocational GER,
female, male: Roma
S2.6.1
n
Upper Secondary & Vocational NER,
female, male: Roma
S2.7
Social assistance
S2.7.1
(◊) Coverage with social services for
vulnerable groups
Total number of social assistance services
provided at the community level
S2.7.3
(◊) Access of vulnerable groups to social
assistance cash benefits from local
resources
Number of beneficiaries of social assistance
cash benefits paid from local budgets
during the reference year
S2.8
Health
S2.8.1
(◊) Coverage of the population with
family doctors
S2.9
Human rights, gender equality, inclusion
for identified disadvantaged ethnic group,
at the concerned level
Numbers of family doctors per 100,000
inhabitants
95
S2.9.1
(◊) Participation in socio-economic life
Share of women out of total number of
managers and senior officials in public
administration and socio-economic units
S2.9.2
(◊) Employment
Women/men 15 and over, occupied / total
occupied population
S2.9.3
(◊) Facilities for persons with special
needs
No. of public institutions with access
facilities for persons with specific needs
(access tracks, etc.) / total no. of public
institutions
S2.9.4
(◊) Supporting activities for vulnerable
groups in partnership with civil society
Total no. of realised supporting
activities/awareness/ trainings/ promotion/
cultural activities for vulnerable groups
tbd* : Indicator to be determined,
including precise definition of indicator,
and of all components of the definition
and method of computation
Other indicators are variable in quality and coverage. For example, the indicators proposed to
report the coverage and access of vulnerable groups to services and financial support, S2.7.1 and 2,
are flawed as initially proposed. A count of the number of services, or of persons receiving cash
(or other) benefits, has greater meaning if it is shown in relation to the number of persons
needing these supports. This can be shown by calculating the numbers of persons receiving
benefits from the official household survey, as a proportion of persons in the survey meeting a
given income poverty eligibility requirement. Similarly, indicators S2.9.3 and 4, concerning
special needs facilities and activities, fail to show the total population of concern – persons in
need of such services. That is, this indicator should be calculated from the HBS or dedicated
health care survey – and questions identifying special needs or other vulnerability should be
retained in the survey questionnaire over time.
As in other places in this report, we stress that service delivery numbers require denominators.
For this reason, indicators of numbers of persons reached or funds delivered, which are not
reported as ratios, shares or percentages, are not valid for monitoring and assessment of
performance. Equally important, numbers which are reported as ratios, such as available doctors
for 100,000 persons, must be reported throughout the country, and disaggregated to the LPA units
of concern. As national averages they mask regional and other disparities. (The long matrix
proposed by government suggests the inclusion of additional S2.8 (Health) indicators to show
numbers of local clinics, proportions of local populations covered by health insurance, and rates
of home visits by physicians.)
This underscores the recommendation: such indicators are best derived from survey instruments.
It is of vital importance to the monitoring of decentralization that existing surveys are fine-tuned
to ensure reporting of the services of interest, so that the total universe of concern – the
population pertinent to the service in question – enters into the calculation.
96
Gender indicators: Of the numerous indicators that could be made available, only two are
selected by government for inclusion. These are the female share of positions in management and
senior positions in the public sector, and the female share of the labour force (S2.9.1 and 2).
These are valuable indicators. More can be monitored with Moldova’s existing survey
instruments. HBS and the Labour Force Survey, as well as DHS and MICS (see Ch. 3), provide
numerous examples of gender indicators that are priority measures for the concerns of the NDS.
An important example is the supplementary MDG indicator for the gender equality goal:
women’s share of employment in the non-agricultural wage sector. Together with S2.9.2 on
women’s share of employment overall, this indicator helps show the extent to which women have
gained access to the modern sector. Further, monitoring should include wage equality, and access
to senior technical, professional and managerial positions, tracked over time, for the whole
country, not merely the government sector.
Assessment:
S2.6: The 12 indicators for education form an essential core of vulnerability and
decentralization indicators required at the central and local levels.
They are not computed fully at any level at present, but can be derived from the Population
Census and HBS, given the necessary supporting conditions.
S2.7 Indicators are reported, but of limited usefulness.
S2.8 Indicator is reported at the central level, but not disaggregated to local levels.
S.2.9.1; S.2.9.2: Indicators are required and reported at central level, but require expansion and
disaggregation for local levels and the private sector.
S.2.9.3; S.2.9.4: Indicators are not reported, and require revision to be of greater use.
In the S3 group, indicators of Quality, Efficiency and Responsiveness, this Report proposes a
minimum number for the basic Matrix. These indicators are pupil-teacher ratios, mother-tongue
instruction, medical insurance coverage, access to medical care during periods of need, and access
of youth to specific health services.
A larger number of indicators was proposed, dealing with environmental issues, roads,
perceptions of such services as housing assistance, internet and IT, commercial spaces and
services, public utilities, social services, child health and care, incidence of HIV/AIDS and
tuberculosis, and public trust in the police and judiciary services. These indicators are shown in
the long list, and remain for future development as is appropriate.
Government has indicated only one quality indicator from the areas suggested in the long list,
S3.9.3, which is proposed as an indicator of access to justice. However the indicator as now stated
is unclear, and the terms need further definition.
Note: indicators identified by government as feasible for monitoring in the near term are highlighted with
light blue and marked with a diamond symbol (◊).
S
Services
97
S3
Quality, Efficiency, Responsiveness
All calculations to be made for concerned
level and by vulnerability dimension, as
directed by indicator designation
1
Pupil-teacher ratios
Ratio of pupils to teachers, by school, at
concerned level, by language of instruction,
rural/urban residence
Language of instruction
Proportion of pupils receiving instruction
in the given mother tongue at the
concerned PA level (from regular
household survey)
3
Persons having medical insurance
coverage at the concerned level, by sex,
age, ethnicity, rural/urban residence
Ratio of the number of people benefiting
from appropriate medical insurance at the
concerned level to the population of the
concerned level (from regular household
survey)
4
People unable to pay for care desired, at
the concerned level, by sex, age,
ethnicity, r/u residence
Number of people stating they were ill
during previous four weeks / Number of
people who did NOT seek care because of
cost or inadequacy of available services
(from regular household survey, HBS)
2
5
Use of specified health services by youth,
female/male (specify), persons living with
HIV/AIDS, persons affected by TB
tbd*
S3.9. (◊) Decisions approved, rejected or
3
cancelled through administrative
decisions
Selected reproductive health and
related services directed to young persons,
persons affected by TB, malaria, HIV/AIDS,
others
Share of decisions / decisions cancelled by
administrative decisions
Several ministries in Moldova have produced work on measures they have in mind to improve the
quality of their services. For example, in the earlier sector on vulnerability dimensions,
government officials have announced objectives for services provided to the elderly. These
include:




Bringing the pension system into accordance with principles of organization and
functioning of the state system of social insurance and the international standards;
Increasing the financial stability of the system;
Increasing the ratio between average retirement pension and subsistence
minimum for pensioners from 70.6% in 2010 to 85% in 2020;
Reducing the ratio between the number of retired pensioners with pensions under
the subsistence minimum for pensioners and the total number of retired
pensioners from 92% to 84%;
98


Reviewing timeliness for cumulative pension system implementation, and
Development of the labour market and increasing the level of work remuneration
for older workers (all from Buliga 2012).
Assessment:
S3 indicators of the Quality, Efficiency and Responsiveness of services are undeveloped.
Development of indicators in this area should be undertaken in consultation, as a priority, with
ministries signalling an interest in such indicators for their own sectors.
The ability of the project and the Matrix to serve as a monitoring tool for decentralization and
its impact on vulnerability is limited without further development of indicators of the Quality,
Efficiency and Responsiveness of services.
3. Availability of data
3.1 Existing sources, user needs, and the NSS
3.1.1 What bodies make up the NSS?
This section is a brief review of the national statistical system (NSS) and sources of data for
monitoring decentralization and vulnerability. The term, “national statistical system,” is one that
has gained broader acceptance in recent years. Its use recognizes that increasingly, national
official statistics are produced not only by the national statistical office (NSO) in a country, but
also by other government agencies and ministries. On this point, European and OECD
organizations have explained, that: “the NSS is the ensemble of statistical organisations and units
within a country that jointly collect, process and disseminate official statistics on behalf of a
national government.” (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 2002) (See
also, UNECE Secretariat 2009)
The statistical system is usually steered and coordinated by a central organization, the NSO
(which in Moldova is the National Bureau of Statistics), “but the many responsibilities of a
modern democratic state generate an enormous need for information on a multiplicity of topics.
At the same time, many agencies in their administrative functions routinely compile data that can
be used widely by official bodies as well as citizen researchers, and it makes sense to make these
data available to potential users within and outside government.” This point has been widely
discussed by NSOs in Asia-Pacific as well as in Europe (Trewin 2004, p. 1). 43
43
“ ... [T]he meaning of the term "National Statistical System" seems to have gained international
acceptance. It is driven mostly by the fact that an increasing number of statistics are being produced by
agencies other than the National Statistical Office (NSO). This can sometimes be deliberate - other agencies
feel they are better able to conduct the statistical collection, sometimes get frustrated by the lack of
responsiveness of the NSO. On other occasions, the subject matter may be such that it is inappropriate for
the NSO to conduct the collection. But more often it is being driven by the increasing availability of
administrative and transactional data bases to other agencies as a by-product of their own work. They are
often the best placed to produce the statistics from these data bases as long as people with appropriate
statistical skills are deployed on this work” from Trewin, p. 1).
99
This widening use of and demand for high-quality data draws attention to a further point: that
the users of data, as well as the producers, are a part of the whole system. Indeed, the role of data
users in the NSS is that of both constituency and client; that is, the users of data are both the
customers of the NSO and other data producers in the system, and the paymaster – who can be
expected to express needs and render judgment of the data production process and results. This
relationship has been articulated by international organizations alongside advocacy networks.44
Several international organizations have emphasized the role of feedback in improving the
relevance and raising the status of the NSO and NSS.45 An OECD review of models of statistical
systems noted, “The statistical system is there to serve the communal needs of both Government
and the wider populace” and underlined, “Even the best need constant improvement and
refinement, and openness to well informed and positive criticism is probably the best guard
against complacency” (Edmunds 2005, pp. 10, 11). They have also worked with advocacy
networks to show that an NSS needs to reflect its constituency, including its vulnerable groups,
via its policy and outreach practices. That is, the mandate of the NSS should ensure that data
users can be represented in the process of data production as well as in the ongoing use and
feedback on the data produced and needed (Corner 2003).
This highlights the importance of the data producers-users dialogue. An IMF working paper has
underlined the potential for constructive interplay between the two parts of this relationship, and
the need for good legislation to enable the NSS to raise both its resource base and its stature. This
is particularly true, it stated, in under-resourced countries,
...where the vicious circle of lack of resources leading to inferior statistics which lowers
the status and image of the statistical agencies and thence reduces budgets even further
can be broken by strengthening the statistics legislation and raising the status of official
statistics... giving them the necessary authority, legitimacy and credibility (Khawaja and
Morrison 2005, cited in Edmunds, p.7).
The concept of a national statistical system has not attained wide currency in Moldova. The
country’s Law on Official Statistics provides for a “single system of official statistics”, and defines
official statistics as, “the activity of official statistical bodies consisting of individual data collection
and processing, statistical information generalization, storage, and dissemination ...” The concept
of official statistics employed by the legislation, and by NBS (the national statistical office) is itself
fairly restrictive, excluding the country’s administrative data produced by ministries of the
government (Government of the Republic of Moldova 2004, pp. 1-4).46
44
See, for example, a UN Asia-Pacific workshop on developing an integrated approach to gender statistics,
for data producers and users, in Corner 2003, and IMF discussions on effective statistical systems, in
Edmunds 2002, p.7.
45
“...[One speaker emphasized] the need to keep the statistical system relevant to evolving user needs,
exploiting existing data to the utmost to keep down the respondent burden whilst maximising credibility of
the organisation and its outputs. Public trust and support was crucial and was something that had to be
worked on constantly and not simply assumed to be present. Key means of achieving this were a reputation
for good management of the office and a high public profile both to raise awareness of the statistical service
and its products and to encourage mutually beneficial user / systems interactions” (Edmunds, p. 11).
46
The Law on Official Statistics (2004) appears to place materials produced by ministries outside the output
of official statistics: “Administrative data – data obtained by the central and/or local public authorities,
except the official statistical bodies, in order to exercise their administrative duties” (p. 2) “The official
100
The legislation does not, nevertheless, rule out the adoption of a broader concept of a national
system that includes data users. The legislation provides for the creation of a Council on
Statistics, with members from both the official bodies and individual representatives of business,
media, unions and employers’ associations (GM 2004, p. 7). Unfortunately, in the words of a
recent assessment, this Council appears to be “more oriented to public users than to users from
the civil society”, and in any case does not appear to be functional since it is “not possible to find
documents or reports of its activity” (Durr 2012, p. 12). That assessment recommended improving
the representativeness and operation of the Statistical Council to give users a real institution
where they would be able to express their needs.
Such councils are valuable for the improved relevance and responsiveness of NSOs, and as such
are recommended by the European Statistics Code of Practice under its principle 11 (relevance):
“Processes are in place to consult users, monitor the relevance and utility of existing statistics in
meeting their needs, and consider their emerging needs and priorities” (European Statistical
System Committee 2011).
It will be to the advantage of the NSS to revamp the Council on Statistics (1) to be more inclusive
of informal civil society actors, and (2) to become a functioning body that will provide the
feedback of data users to all data producers.
The concept of a national statistical system that encompasses both producers and users of data
should be examined by the agents of the official statistics system, with a view to embracing the
potential for increased responsiveness to the needs of decentralization monitoring.
3.1.2 Survey and administrative data
Before examining the availability of data on decentralization and vulnerability in the NSS, it is
important to explain the distinction between survey and administrative data, as these are used
internationally and in this report. This distinction is made on the basis of how data are gathered
and compiled; it is important because these differences in the data production process and other
elements can affect such matters as the scope, coverage and uses of data. The distinctions are of
particular relevance for data on vulnerability issues.47
Survey data are those collected directly from the individuals in the group or population, and
entered directly by the survey enumerator into the central data collection process. A census is a
particular form, in which by definition every member of the group or population is enumerated.
In a sample survey, a small but representative selection of the population is enumerated (by
interview or mail-in survey form). This procedure allows the statistical agency to reduce the
number of persons who must be enumerated, and therefore allows for a greater number of
statistical bodies are the following: central statistical body and its territorial subdivisions, statistical
departments of the central and local public authorities and of the National Bank of Moldova (hereafter
referred to as official statistical bodies) “ (p. 4).
47
The distinction noted in the previous footnote between official statistics and administrative data creates
an unnecessary confusion. Data may be official and non-official, and they may proceed from survey or
administrative sources. This report makes a functional distinction between survey and official data,
irrespective of the official or non-official production.
101
questions to be asked. A weakness of sample surveys is that they may introduce bias if the
selected sample is not truly representative of the population or group under study.48
Administrative data, by contrast, are collected in the course of an administrative bureau’s day-today work or reported by subordinate units to superior levels. These data may be published by the
responsible ministry or bureau, and/or by the NSO. Data which are collected for one purpose
may serve to provide other information. For example, when people register their marriage, they
may be asked to provide information as to their age, sex, birthplace, residence, and previous
marriages. The marriage register (which may be called the “civil status registry”), can therefore
be used to furnish information on matters other than marital status. Another example of
administrative data is records of the education ministry as to the number of schools, teachers and
pupils in the national or sub-national levels. A health ministry normally produces an enormous
quantity of data on the population it serves and the services it has provided over a given period.
Such information is of great value to planning and budget authorities who are required to make
provisions for services that will be needed in the future expenditure period.
Administrative data, therefore, can be useful in many ways to agencies other than those who have
compiled them. Some of the difficulties encountered in the use of administrative data are that,
while providing information on services that have been delivered, they may have no way of
showing the total numbers of persons who were in need of these services. Or, administrative data
may show services available, without indicating whether or not these services were taken up. A
common example is that of school attendance: while a country’s education ministry data show
the number of children enrolled in schools, they may not indicate how many children failed to
attend school, or dropped out for some reason. In this type of example, a survey of households
which asks all household members directly whether they are attending school at the present time
may provide more accurate indications of enrolment/attendance, as a proportion of those eligible
or of school age.
When dealing with statistics on vulnerability dimensions, it is especially important to be aware of
the strengths and weaknesses of all data, whether these are survey/census or administrative data.
Because information on some aspects of diversity or vulnerability may be sensitive, or may
potentially have stigma associated with certain conditions, various limitations may affect the
validity or reliability of data.
3.2 Survey instruments and administrative registers
Moldova has an effective national statistical office, the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), which
is responsible for the execution, in partnership with concerned line ministries and donors, of a
broad range of surveys, and the publication of reports on administrative data collected by line
ministries or departments. In general, however, the micro data from these instruments are not
made available to academic or non-government researchers. The issue of access to micro data is
discussed in this chapter, and further in the Conclusions and Recommendations chapter.
48
Other biases in using the survey method include non-response (persons who fail to return the survey
form), and respondent fatigue when the same households are asked to fill in long forms, or to respond to
surveys repeatedly in the course of a few years.
102
Some of the most important survey and administrative data instruments in the Republic of
Moldova of relevance to decentralization and vulnerability issues are described in the following
sections (most technical information and metadata drawn from Vremis et al. 2010).
3.2.1 Population Census
The Population Census is unique in that it is the sole instrument that collects information on the
language, ethnicity, religion and citizenship of the population. Moldova’s Population Census was
last conducted in 2004. The previous census was conducted in 1989. NBS has undertaken to
ensure that the international target of a decennial census will be met, and this undertaking is
inscribed in the Law on Official Statistics. In 2011 Moldova conducted a General Agricultural
Census of all households engaged in agriculture.
Use of the Census for “small-area estimation”: Although the Census does not contain an income
well-being or poverty measurement, it can be used in conjunction with the Household Budget
Survey (HBS – see next section) to model households’ level of living. To do so, it is necessary that
a number of key questions in the Census are the same or very similar to questions in the HBS
questionnaire. Questions which may appear in the Population Census and an HBS, and may be
incorporated in a model predicting income wellbeing include: household size, age of head of
household, average educational attainment of working-age household members, rural/urban
residence, area of land ownership, main source of income, selected asset ownership, fuel source,
building materials of dwelling, type of water and sanitation services, among others.
Such estimates can provide detailed estimates for small areas, such as municipalities and rural
villages, of deprivation and factors linked to poverty. This kind of analysis is invaluable in the
design of, for example, area-based development programmes, which can assist vulnerable groups
on the basis of community-level needs, whether or not ethnic vulnerability can be identified, as
in the case of Roma discussed earlier.
The potential of small-area estimation to identify vulnerability factors that influence poverty,
particularly those of concern to the government in its NDS, merits attention at this time. It is
important that key questions in the 2014 Census and the HBS are examined to improve the
precise congruence between them, and the usefulness of both instruments for monitoring.
Detailed guidance and references on this modelling approach are available in materials of the UN
Statistics Division, designed with the particular needs of transition countries (UN DESA Statistics
Division 2005, pp 380 ff.).
Conducting such modelling exercises requires access of the researchers to the micro data of both
the Census and the HBS. This question will be discussed further in the following section, on HBS,
and in Chapter 4.
3.2.2 Household Budget Survey (HBS)
Of particular importance for vulnerability statistics, the Household Budget Survey (HBS) is
conducted annually by NBS. The coverage of the survey includes all persons – citizens of the
Republic of Moldova or foreign nationals – residing permanently in the selected survey centres.
(Information on HBS is drawn from National Bureau of Statistics 2010, last certification of
metadata 15.02.2010.). Only individual households of the population are interviewed; i.e. the
survey does not cover collective residences such as army barracks or prisons. The survey is
conducted throughout the entire country, except the regions on the Left Bank of the Dniester
River and Bender municipality.
103
The HBS is conducted on a sample of households that are randomly drawn from a stratified
selection of 129 districts of the country (on the basis of geography, rural/urban residence, and
population size). The sample includes 9768 households per year. Enumeration is conducted
throughout the year, so that each month 814 households of the sample are interviewed.49 To
collect information, HBS uses a Household Questionnaire, and a Household Record Book. The
main household questionnaire data recording is based on a face-to-face interview and the
household record book is filled in directly by the household.
The Household questionnaire is completed where possible through discussions with each member
of the household, and if this is not possible, information is obtained from a “proxy” respondent:
the head of the household, spouse or other adult who can provide full information about other
persons in the household, and about the household as a whole. The household record book is
normally filled out by an adult household member who is prepared to make an accurate record,
daily or for short periods of time.50
HBS includes groups of indicators covering:





Household composition: size of household, number of children; household members’
characteristics including sex, age, marital status, relationship to head of household,
educational attainment, migration (country and duration of absence), main source of
income (agriculture, non-agriculture, housekeeping, entrepreneurship/ self-employment,
scholarships and state benefits, remittances); type and condition of the dwelling;
ownership of land, livestock and agricultural equipment
Economic activity: economic activity status (in/not in labour force,
employed/unemployed); industry, occupation; status in employment (including employee,
employee, own account, unpaid family worker); hours of work (current job – 7-day
reference period); contract/non-contract status
Perception of living standard: how the respondent subjectively assesses the household’s
living conditions, perceived changes in these conditions, financial difficulties experienced,
and standards of financial adequacy and ease.
Access to social assistance programmes of the government: applications for assistance,
results, amounts and periods of support.
Household expenditure by category of expenditure, such as: food, non-food, durables
(equipment and appliances) and non-durables; services such as education and health care
expenditures. The purpose of the expenditure section of the survey is to enable the
analyst to arrive at a money measure of total and per capita level of consumption of
households. This measure is in turn used to compute the level of living, and rates of poor
and non-poor households from one survey period to the next.
49
Half of households are part of a sample panel, which involves observation of these households in the same
month of the initial selection over 4 consecutive years.
50
In cases where the household members are not able to complete the registration form (e.g. because of old
age, illness or disability) it is completed on the basis of interviews by the enumerator. The reference period
for most HBS data is the previous calendar month. However, information relating to the occupation of
household members has a reference period of the previous 7 days, and for some categories of income and
expenses - the last 6-12 months.
104
The HBS gathers the data to enable the analyst to calculate the extent of poverty with respect to a
nationally determined poverty line, or to international points. For example, Moldova has adopted
an MDG target: Reduce the proportion of people whose consumption is under $4.3 a day/person
(in purchasing power parity terms) from 34.5% in 2006 down to 29% in 2010 and 23% in 2015
(UNDP Moldova 2011a).
Certain limitations of the Survey with respect to analysis of vulnerability include the absence of
questions about ethnicity, language, religion or citizenship. Some improvements in methodology
would also be helpful for the analyst: e.g.: the section on economic activity is directed to persons
15 years of age and above; therefore children’s economic activity is not recorded. Even though
children under 15 are not considered of working age, and some countries do not include children
under 15 in living standards surveys or the labour force survey, it is evident that many children
do take part in economic activity. This activity may or may not affect the normal childhood
schooling activities. It is useful to note that including children in both living standards and
labour surveys is of value to the analyst, particularly because children in vulnerable situations
may be differentially engaged in economic activity. NBS has conducted a separate study on Child
Labour. Linking such a study to the respondents in HBS would be of value.
An additional example: although many questions in HBS are asked of the household as a whole,
some important questions are asked of individuals (such as those on economic activity, schooling,
age and marital status etc.); in these cases, the questionnaire should include a column for each
section indicating whether the individual is answering for her/himself. This is a quality of
response indicator, used in many countries to identify proxy responses where direct information
from each respondent may provide better accuracy.
The NBS publishes a range of reports on the Survey, including:



“Aspects of the standard of living of population”, an annual publication
containing detailed information on methodology and research, tables of average
annual absolute and relative data and information on the evolution in time of the
main indicators of living standards
“Population incomes and expenditures”, quarterly,
other publications such as: Statistical yearbook, Statistics breviary, Males and
females in the Republic of Moldova, and quarterly informative notes.
These reports provide disaggregation as related to vulnerability by categories such as:









Residence area (urban, rural),
Statistical areas (North, Central, South, municipality of Chisinau),
Disability, including degree of disability
Educational attainment
Sex
Age groups
Number of children in the household
Household and per capita income/expenditure status, by quintiles (fifths) and deciles
(tenths) of the population
Poor/non-poor status by population headcount (percent) and by quintiles/deciles
Important dimensions not asked by the questionnaire and thus not reported by the Survey are
ethnicity of respondents, and languages spoken by persons in the household. As noted elsewhere
in the Report, the omission of such items from the questionnaire is understandable, since
105
ethnicity and language are culturally sensitive topics. However, it is precisely in areas of
sensitivity that the risk of exclusion may arise. Countries in the European region are increasingly
aware of the need to report on issues of ethnicity and language, and are finding ways to avoid
omission of sensitive topics from vital official surveys. It is recommended that consultations with
other NSSs be undertaken to identify good practices in addressing topics of ethnicity and
language.
A number of ad-hoc modules have been produced by NBS based on the HBS sample. One that has
proven valuable with respect to analysis of vulnerable groups of population was the module on
“Social exclusion” carried out for the first time in Moldova in the first quarter of 2009. The study
includes a set of indicators referring to the subjective aspect of the social exclusion/inclusion,
confidence in social institutions, decision making factors, and satisfaction level with regard to
living standard, education and other services pertinent to decentralization monitoring.
Other stand-alone surveys have been: the Domestic Violence survey, 2010; Health (2008 and
2010), and Child Development in 2008.
NBS metadata document (2010 update) states that, “the main objective of the HBS is to determine
people’s level of life through incomes, expenses, consumption, living conditions and other
indicators from a multi-aspect perspective. The information collected within this research allows
identifying the categories of disadvantaged households/individuals and analysing the impact of
various programs and policies on the social-economic situation of the population…” (NBS 2010 p.
1). In addition, the HBS provides the necessary information to determine the shares used in the
calculation of the consumer price index (an inflation tracker).
The HBS is unique in that it is the only survey and the only data instrument of any kind that
reports the level of living – the income or expenditure level – of the population. For this reason,
people may refer to their country’s budget survey as the “poverty survey”. For the purposes of
analysing vulnerability, HBS is of great value because it is the only data instrument that allows
users to analyse elements of vulnerability with respect to income poverty. That is, the data in
HBS would allow an analyst to look for so-called determinants of poverty: features or
characteristics that are correlated with poverty (measured by lower or higher per capita
expenditure capacity). As we have noted earlier, the vulnerability characteristics recognized by
the Government’s NDS document are: 1) income, 2) age, 3) disability, 4) language/ethnicity, 5)
religion, 6) rural regions 7) gender and 8) occupation (GM 2011b, p. 79). The data from HBS,
then, could be used to analyse relationships with poverty by any of the vulnerability indicators
included in the Survey, either on a household or individual level, or both in some cases. For
example, poverty levels (shown by the first characteristic, income) could be correlated with
several of the succeeding characteristics or variables. These include age, disability, rural/nonrural residence, sex and occupation, but not, however, as noted above, by language, ethnicity or
religion.
There are two important riders to this assertion. First, because per capita poverty (expenditure) is
reported on a household and not an individual basis in HBS, it is not possible to analyse individual
poverty. Despite this handicap, however, it is nevertheless, possible to conduct valuable analysis
in a number of ways. In the first place, household characteristics may be the same for all
members of the household. For example: rural/non-rural residence, or the ratio of non-workingage household members to working-age household members. The latter example refers to the
“dependency ratio” of households, and indeed we find that HBS data are able to demonstrate a
strong link between households with high dependency ratios and income poverty. That is,
106
poverty is correlated with larger household size and higher numbers of non-earning members
(children and the elderly).
Further, it is possible to examine the link between poverty and the average of a characteristic for
all household members. One example is the link with the average number of years or level of
schooling attainment of all adult household members. For the purposes of gender analysis, an
important approach has been to use the proportion of household members of working age, by sex,
to measure a correlation with poverty. In some Asian countries, for example, it has been shown
that a higher proportion of female working-age members (higher “femaleness”) is strongly
correlated with a higher per capita expenditure level (Prescott and Pradhan 1997, p. 55). This
relationship, demonstrated in Cambodia and Nepal, held despite women’s lower wages and cash
earnings in both countries. The interpretation of the positive relationship between the
“femaleness” of the household and its level of living merits attention, and testifies to the strong
contribution women make to their families’ well-being.51
A second and equally important rider is that, in order to carry out comparative analysis of the
determinants of poverty, or other linked factors, it is necessary to make use of the unit-level data
of the Survey. That is, analysts can conduct various comparisons, such as regression analysis, to
investigate the links between poverty and its possible determinants by vulnerability
characteristics, if and only if they have access to the HBS unit-level or micro data (what some call
the “raw” data). As noted earlier, NBS does not generally provide broad access to the HBS micro
data. This limitation for vulnerability analysis is not unique to Moldova, but it is of concern to
researchers in countries where restrictions apply. The Council of European Statisticians, a UN
European secretariat body, has devoted attention to data access, providing detailed advice on
meeting the concerns of data users and providers, with a view to supporting wider use of official
data by the public. This question is discussed in Chapter 4, on conclusions and recommendations.
3.2.3 Labour Force Survey (LFS)
The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is conducted annually by NBS. As with HBS, permanent residents
are included, whether citizens or foreign nationals, and only private households are interviewed.
Similarly, as well, LFS does not cover the Dniester Left Bank or Bender municipality.52
The sampling framework and enumeration and supervision staff of LFS and HBS are the same, as
is the face-to-face interview method. Although households are drawn from the same primary
sampling unit (e.g. village or town), there is no link beyond this between the actual households
included in one survey with those in the other.
51
This analysis was first done for Cambodia in 1997, and has been repeated with more recent household
expenditure surveys of Cambodia (2004, 2009); it has also been shown for the Nepal household survey of
2005. The relationship may not necessarily hold in other countries, but the methodology pioneered by
Prescott and Pradhan merits attention by poverty and gender analysts. (Author’s unpublished studies,
available on request.)
52
All members of the selected households age 15 and over are covered, including persons absent for long
periods (over 1year), if they keep family relations with the household they are a part of. Not included in
the survey area: Persons that reside permanently in collective housing units (houses for the elderly,
handicapped persons, hostels, health resorts etc.) or in seasonal dwellings not covered in the survey.
107
As with HBS, there are two questionnaire forms, in this case one for each of the dwelling and the
individual. The dwelling questionnaire is completed, as a rule, based on the answers of a
reference person, who is usually deemed the household head. The respondents for the individual
questionnaire are all household members aged 15 and over and resident in the country.
Groups of indicators produced by LFS include:






Demographic indicators:
Labour force: active/not active, employed/unemployed, discouraged worker,
underemployed, job search, unemployment registration
Employment: main and secondary activity, status in employment (employer,
employee, own account, contributing family worker, cooperative member),
occupation, industry, sector (formal, informal, household), size of establishment
Employment history and training, part time work
Employment income and expenses
Inactive population: reasons for not working
Possible disaggregation of the LFS data concerning vulnerable groups includes: age groups,
educational attainment, sex, urban/rural residence, various economic activity dimensions (such as
status, industry, profession/occupation, underemployment), and sector of employment. However,
as with HBS, the LFS does not collect information as to language, religion or nationality of
respondents.
From the questionnaire and the metadata provided by NBS, it appears that some work including
economic activity for own consumption may be inadvertently excluded from the survey. The
questionnaire explicitly excludes “household chores” but does not define them. This allows for the
respondent or the interviewer to assume that certain unpaid work done within the household
does not come within the production boundary – and is not therefore economic activity. The LFS
shows that 55 percent of working-age women are not economically active, i.e. “not in the labour
force” (from Women and Men in Moldova, 2010 data, cited in UNDP Moldova 2011b). However,
it is possible that certain activities, particularly of rural women and some men, have erroneously
been classified as household chores. ILO definitions explicitly include provisioning the rural farm
in fuel and water as economic activity. This is an important gap; a significant number of unpaid
workers and their activity – and this is a particular concern for the activity of women and
children – may go unrecorded.53
A series of reports are provided based on LFS survey data:

Labour Force of the Republic of Moldova, Employment and Unemployment –
annual publication which contains detailed information concerning the
methodology of the survey and disaggregations used
53
“Although not consistently implemented by statistical agencies at the national level, since 1993
activities such as water fetching and firewood collection are counted in principle as part of SNA
work. Inclusion of these activities in the SNA is important, not only because it is one way to make
visible a category of work for which women are primarily responsible, but also because, as the time
use data show, this represents a very substantial time and energy allocation on the part of women.”
(Blackden and Wodon, 2006, p. 19)
108






Labour Force Market in the Republic of Moldova – annual publication which
contains information on changes in the main labour market indicators:
employment, unemployment, labour remuneration etc.
Other publications: Statistical Yearbook; Moldova in figures; Statistical Breviary;
Women and Men in the Republic of Moldova, Socio-economic situation of the
Republic of Moldova; quarterly and annual information notes
Decent labour, ILO (2004)
Young people on the labour market (2004-2006)
Working time arrangements, EU (2007: characteristics of working schedule in the
main activity, working in shifts, atypical labour, type of working schedule)
Labour force migration (2008).
3.2.4 Moldova Demographic and Health Survey
The first Demographic and Health Survey (MDHS) in Moldova was conducted in 2005 by the
National Scientific and Applied Center for Preventive Medicine (NCPM) of the Ministry of
Health and Social Protection (MOHSP) with the support of USAID, UNICEF and UNFPA (ref
MDHS 2006).54
The survey was based on a sample of 11,095 households, including 7440 females aged 15-49 and
2508 males aged 15-59 selected from 400 sample points (clusters), 233 urban and 167 rural,
throughout Moldova, excluding the Transnistria region (National Scientific and Applied Center
for Preventive Medicine (NCPM) [Moldova] and ORC Macro 2006, pp. 10-11). Three
questionnaires used for the 2005 MDHS were: the Household Questionnaire, the Women’s
Questionnaire and the Men’s Questionnaire.
The indicators are disaggregated by individual characteristics of interviewed persons, including:
age, sex, education, and relationship to the head of the household. Also on characteristics of the
household’s dwelling unit, such as the source of water, type of toilet facilities, materials used for
the floor and roof of the house, ownership of various durable goods, etc.
The survey provides the information on: fertility levels, marital status, age at first marriage,
sexual activity, fertility preferences, knowledge and use of family planning methods,
breastfeeding practices, nutritional status of women and young children, childhood mortality,
maternal and child health, and awareness and behaviour regarding AIDS and other sexually
transmitted infections. Additional features of the 2005 DHS included the collection of
information on international migration, domestic violence, and haemoglobin testing to detect the
presence of anaemia.
Because the DHS is highly comparable with the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) a
decision at the national level was taken to include the main DHS indicators and update them
during the second MICS survey (the first one was done in 2000) which is planned for 2012.
During 2011 the national working group representatives (MOH, different national agencies acting
in the field of health and donors community representatives) worked on the methodology and
questionnaires of the survey.
54
Indicators from MDHS are comparable with results from the earlier 1997 Reproductive Health Survey
conducted in Moldova with USAID support, on 11,506 households with 54,012 women age 14-44 years.
http://www.healthmetricsandevaluation.org/ghdx/record/moldova-reproductive-health-survey-1997
109
3.2.5. Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS)
The Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) is a household survey programme developed by
UNICEF to assist countries to fill gaps in data for monitoring the situation of children and
women55. The first survey was conducted in Moldova in 2000 to provide up-to-date information
for on the situation of children and women for the UNICEF end-decade assessment worldwide.
The survey was conducted by NCPM, Ministry of Health (MOH) in collaboration with the
Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and the Family, the Ministry of Education and Youth, and
NBS. UNICEF Moldova provided funding and technical support.
The survey sample included 10,380 households, with 7,781 women aged 15-49 years and 1,661
children under five years. The questionnaires for the Moldova MICS were based on the MICS
Model Questionnaire with two additional modules on safe injections and access to health care
services. The survey provides information about households members disaggregated by: sex, age,
literacy, marital status, and orphan hood status. Also its provide the data about: education, child
labour, water and sanitation, salt iodization, contraceptive use, HIV/AIDS, birth registration and
early learning; care of illness: diarrhoea, ARI, IMCI, immunization.
During 2011 the National Scientific Center for Preventive Medicine (NCPM) of the Ministry of
Health (MoH) with the support of UNICEF and WHO prepared the methodology and
questionnaires for the second MICS survey planned to be carried out by the end of 2012.
According to UNICEF information, the survey sample was to include around 12 thousand eligible
households. The individual interviews will be performed with all women aged 15 to 49 years
(about 9,370 people) who reside in the selected households, all men in the similar age groups
(about 3,100 persons) who reside in every third of the selected households. The interview with
children under five years (about 2,160 children) is administered to mothers of children residing in
the household or to a caretaker if the mother is not listed in the household listing.
Data will be collected to provide a complex set of the indicators (including MDG indicators),
divided into 12 domains and modules, viz: (1) mortality; (2) nutrition; (3) child health; (4)water
and sanitation; (5) reproductive health; (6) child development; (7) literacy and education; (8) child
protection; (9)HIV/AIDS, sexual behaviour and orphans; (10) access to mass media and use of
information/communication technology; (11) subjective well-being; (12) tobacco and alcohol use .
There are also specific modules on tuberculosis, anaemia, reproductive health and migration.
Most of the indicators related to population and demography previously used into the MDHS
2005 will be updated and used within MICS report.
3.2.6. UNDP surveys of Roma people
2005-2006: Carried out by UNDP during the period October 2005-October 2006, this survey
covered 81 localities and 1200 households in total, divided into two sub samples (600 Roma and
600 non-Roma households). It used quantitative sampling and qualitative data collection through
interviews with the representatives of central authorities, with responsibilities in this area, leaders
of Roma NGOs, and donors. The report was published in 2007 (Cace 2007, pp. 29-29).
2011: In May-July 2011, UNDP together with WB and the EC carried out a regional survey on a
random sample of 750 Roma households and 350 non-Roma households in each of 12 countries of
55
Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (2000). http://www.childinfo.org/files/moldova.pdf and
http://www.unicef.org/ceecis/resources_10594.html
110
Europe (all members of the Decade of Roma Inclusion plus Moldova).56 The report was published
in 2012.
The UNDP/WB/EC survey was conducted in May-July 2011 on a random sample of Roma and
non-Roma households living in areas with higher density (or concentration) of Roma populations
in the EU Member States of Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, and the nonEU Member States of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, FYR of Macedonia, Montenegro,
Republic of Moldova and Serbia. In each of the countries, approximately 750 Roma households
and approximately 350 non-Roma households living in proximity were interviewed (UNDP
2012).
These surveys of the Roma people now represent the instrument of choice for assessments of the
progress of decentralization in supporting Roma inclusion efforts.
3.3. Administrative data
Mixed administrative and survey data: SADI database, Ministry of Economy
As a key step towards tackling rural deprivation, the Republic of Moldova’s Ministry of Economy
(MOE) developed a dedicated composite index to analyse the level of rural community
deprivation in Moldova: the Small Area Deprivation Index, or SADI. This index was developed to
gain a better understanding of the observed disparity between urban and rural areas, and the
increase in poverty levels of rural households. 57 SADI is an integrated database that includes
administrative and survey data from different sources and at different levels. Data were collected
at primaria and village levels, and from central sources.
Data were collected from primaria through a special questionnaire “Socio-economic indicators”,
entered by [an officer at the] primaria level using purpose-designed software, which were then
sent on to the rayon level, where ‘an official at the rayon level] merged data from primarias and
submitted these to the Ministry of Economy (MET) in electronic format. MET then merged the
data from the rayons and from the central level into an integrated database.
The SADI database is an important, unique source of data at community level, which covers all
rural communities in Moldova, including the rural communities of metropolitan Chisinau and
56
Moldova initially committed to join the Decade of Roma Inclusion in October 2006, during the
International Steering Committee meeting of the ‘Decade’ in Sofia, but did not ultimately become a
member (Cace 2007).
57
From http://www.devinfo.org/devinfo_in_action/moldova_2.html : In recent years, poverty in Moldova
has declined in urban areas while it has increased in rural regions. This troubling trend was highlighted in
the Second Millennium Development Goals Report for the Republic of Moldova (2010), which attributed
much of the cause to climate-related factors negatively affecting agricultural yields over multiple years. The
SADI combines data from seven indicator categories - income deprivation, economic deprivation,
demographic deprivation, health care deprivation, education deprivation, housing and utility deprivation,
and geographic deprivation – and assigns varying weights to each one. The data used to calculate the SADI
are sourced from central and local administrative records, as well as from other official statistical
repositories. The Ministry of Economy computes the SADI for 843 local communities scattered across the
country and then ranks them in order from lowest (1 = most deprived area) to highest (843 = least deprived
area).
111
Balti. These data can provide a picture of economic development, access to facilities in rural
areas, access to education, the potential impact on the local budget of services for vulnerable
groups: elderly, unemployed, persons with disabilities, families with 3 or more children, and
other useful information. The SADI data base is accessible to the public via the Ministry of
Economy web page. 58
Disaggregation can be produced by: large and small primarias by population size; poor and betteroff primarias as determined by the resulting SADI data. The ease with which unit-level data is
accessible to all is not clear.
With respect to the survey frame and sample: unfortunately, it is not possible to merge the HBS
and SADI databases to calculate additional indicators such as people’s access to services, transport
and roads, disaggregated by vulnerable groups as used in the HBS.
The future of SADI is uncertain. MOE has indicated that the index should be taken over by
other, more relevant potential users, and is of more importance for other purposes than MOE.
Furthermore, the ministry does not have capacities to continue to produce the index.
Social protection administrative indicators
Social protection administrative indicators are managed by the Ministry of Labour Social
Protection and Family (MLSPF) which collect and provide the data about: beneficiaries of social
services, groups at risk by: age, sex, marital status; victims of domestic violence and human
trafficking by: age, sex, marital status; families and children at risk by: age, sex, marital status;
adults with social problems (elderly, disabled) by: age, sex, marital status; people in residential
care institutions by: age, sex, marital status; people who benefit from social support lump sum
benefit by: age, sex, marital status. These data reside in different registers, which may or may not
be accessible. The Ministry of Education also collects data on children in residential care.
MLSPF does not as yet have its own automated data base, but is in the process of developing this
resource. 59 For purposes of social protection cash benefits, MLSPF uses data from NSIH.
It is possible to obtain the following disaggregation for the indicators: By type of social services,
type of beneficiaries, age groups; sex; residence: urban/rural. It is not possible to obtain
information on the religion or ethnicity of beneficiaries.
Republic Fund for Social Support of the Population data
Republic Fund for Social Support of the Population as a body under the MLSPF collects and
provides data regarding vulnerable people who cannot support themselves and need material or
humanitarian support. The information is collected from funds of Chisinau and Balti
municipalities, fund of the TAU of Gagauzia, and 32 local social support funds under the
Directorates/Sections for Social Assistance and Family Protection.
Data are disaggregated by: beneficiaries: pensioners; disabled; families with many children and
those with low incomes; families with disabled children up to 16 years; single parent families;
families who have in their custody non-institutionalized orphan children; unemployed persons
58
Ministry of Economy http://www.mec.gov.md/files/documents/date.xls
59
Informational Automated System “Social assistance”
112
due to the need to take care of children up to 3 years; orphans or children without parental care;
residence: urban/rural; type of support and amount.
Social Insurance register
National House of Social Insurance60 (NHSI) administrates and manages the public system of
social insurance61. From administrative point of view at the local level NHSI is represented by 35
de-concentrated territorial units, and all the information are collected from bottom to top; that is,
from the TAU and then sent to the next level up.
NHSI prepares quarterly and annual administrative indicators regarding: beneficiaries of social
insurance and social assistance cash benefits62, funds63 , amounts of contributions and
contributors, budgetary transfers.
Indicators are disaggregated by: type of benefits: pensions (retirement pensions, disabled pensions,
survivor pensions); allowances for temporary incapacity to work; social assistance benefits; type of
beneficiaries: elderly, disabled, adults, children, age group, sex; residence: urban/ rural;
contributors: natural or legal persons.
There is no information regarding religion or nationality.
Revenues and expenditures are shown by fund: pensions; protection of families with children;
insurance against labour accidents and occupational ailments; indemnity; unemployment and
health recovery; source of payment: social insurance budget or state budget
These indicators are provided to the MLSPF which elaborates the social policies for vulnerable
people and the Annual Social Reports which make a retrospective of the evolution and the impact
of the implemented policies.
Labour Market administrative indicators
Labour Market administrative indicators are managed by the National Employment Agency. The
information is collected monthly from the TEAs (Territorial Employment Agencies) about:
number of unemployed people and reason for unemployment: do not have work card and
contribution period in the social security system; the individual contract of employment was
dissolved due: demission, resignation; circumstances that do not depend on the will of the parties;
contract expiration; has ceased to work up the authorization (license) for an activity-based
entrepreneurial or patent; which has ceased to work abroad under the preliminary conclusion of
an individual contract of social insurance; who returned to the labour market; support measures
60
Government Decision no. 739 din 25.07.2000, concerning the status of the NHSI of the Republic of
Moldova.
61
The NHSI was established in 2001 on basis of Law no. 489-XIV, dated 08.07.1999, on the public system of
state social insurance.
62
For each type of social payment there is a separate data base, the data bases are not linked, which creates
impediments to carrying out evaluations and monitoring the volume of the social assistance granted by the
state to one beneficiary or another.
63
In the frame of the funds the money circulates from one fund to another, thus precluding the possibility
of monitoring the expenditures.
113
for labour marked reinsertion, beneficiaries of unemployment benefits, employed people during
the month and the available jobs.
The indicators can be disaggregated by: sex, age group, education level, occupation, ability;
residence areas urban/ rural.
The data are provided to the MLSPF which monitor the evolution of the policies in the labour
market. Additionally in this context are used the indicators of NBS on labour market calculated
based on the IOM methodologies and LFS data.
Health Care indicators
Health Care indicators are managed by the National Centre for Health Management (NCHM)
which is a public institution under the MOH.
NCHM collect and provide data regarding: demographic evolution (brightness, mortality, natural
growth and life expectancy at birth, at 55 and 60 years); medical personnel and nurses in the
system and the coverage per 10,000 inhabitants; number of beds in the hospitals per 10,000
inhabitants.
The specific data are about: mortality structure, including MDG indicators (infant and under-5
mortality and maternal mortality by cause of death), abortions, morbidity (incidence of illness)
by diseases; incidence and prevalence of diseases including cancer, TB, HIV/AIDS and STI; (adults
and children). The indicators are disaggregated by: rayons, groups of people: adults and children;
sex; age groups; diseases. There is no information on religion or nationality.
Health Insurance register
National Health Insurance Company (NHIC) administrates and manages the health insurance
system, as well its indicators. NHIC collects information monthly regarding the volume of health
care services provided by medical institutions to people with the compulsory health insurance
programme, and to verify compliance with national standards for treatment approved for clinical
cases of insured persons.
The indicators are disaggregated by: number of people registered per medico-sanitary institution,
number of assisted per physician; type of provided services: type of beneficiaries (insured, noninsured, state insured), age groups, sex , residence, urban/rural, contributors; revenues and
expenditures by funds: (i) payment for healthcare services; (ii) reserve fund of mandatory
healthcare insurance; and (iii) prevention actions. There is no information about religion or
nationality.
The indicators are provided by NHIC to the MoH based on request and are used for drafting
policies in the field and elaboration of the Annual Health Reports.
3.3 Assessment of gaps and further requirements
Focusing on vulnerabilities, the resource inventory shows that a wealth of both survey and
administrative data is available, but in some cases is uneven in its application to decentralized
assessment – assessment at the local level. As well, some areas of importance are thinly covered,
or cannot be drawn from administrative data-bases. In these areas survey instruments are of more
feasible and practical use. The priority survey instruments (particularly HBS and the LFS) should
therefore be the focus of resources, support, and wider access for data users.
114
In visits to the various ministries and departments preparing administrative and registry data, it
was noted that staff expressed a reluctance to require registries to include any social
characteristics of citizens beyond a restricted number, such as age and sex. (In the case of political
candidates and voters, even sex is not generally recorded.) The concern is particularly keenly felt
when the registry is a record and basis for delivery of specific services, such as Unemployment or
Social Insurance benefits. Staff and officials felt that requiring applicants to provide information
as to their ethnic, linguistic or religious background could be perceived by registrants as
“discrimination” – and all the more in the event that a benefit was denied. This is a legitimate
concern, particularly with welfare services.
There are two implications of this concern. On one hand, it would be valuable for designers and
users of the major registries to review practice in European and other countries with respect to
those registries which might more commonly be expected to record social characteristics, and
which such characteristics are commonly recorded.
On another level, the legitimate difficulty encountered by registry officials accentuates the role of
the Census and survey instruments, particularly the NBS and LFS. Since census and survey
instruments are not conducted for the purpose of distributing welfare, health or other benefits,
there is less reluctance on the part of respondents to provide socioeconomic, ethnic and other
demographic information. Even here, nonetheless, it is essential to explain the importance of
sensitive information recorded, and to develop good practices for gaining the confidence of
respondents.
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
This Report has been commissioned by the Government of the Republic of Moldova and its
international cooperation partners to support the NDS process. The consultants were asked “to
undertake the assessment of available statistics and improve the statistics framework on
vulnerable groups”. As the Government stated in the TORs for the assignment:
As a necessary step to the further development of the monitoring and evaluation
framework of the National Strategy on Decentralization, as well as to increase the
responsiveness of the decentralization reform to the needs of the people of Moldova,
including vulnerable ones, it is necessary to improve the availability, collection and
analysis of statistical data about [those] categories of people, their status, and factors
which hamper their rights, chances or access to basic public services, which are currently
missing or insufficient (see TORs, Annex III).
The Report has therefore focused on a discussion of indicators that can be analysed not only for
the LPAs as they develop greater autonomy and take on wider responsibilities. Equally
important, the Report discusses indicators that can be used to assess results in terms of the eight
dimensions of vulnerability that are priorities in the NDS. Therefore, the Report discusses the
available data and other data that could be made available with respect to these two needs of the
NDS process: the need to measure the progress of decentralization, and the need to highlight
vulnerability dimensions.
For example, the Report has shown how an official survey such as Moldova’s HBS has unique
value because the variables on which it reports include, unlike all other official surveys, income
poverty of households. Not only is poverty one dimension of vulnerability; this dimension can be
analysed by other dimensions covered in the HBS. That is, the HBS makes possible analysis of the
115
determinants of poverty that may include rural/urban residence, aspects of gender, age and
ethnicity, occupation and so on. More detailed attention is given to the potential of HBS to
provide evidence for policy and advocacy in the following sections.
4.2 Overall conclusions
In the light of these requirements, this report has found in Moldova a richness of sources that can
and are being used to analyse and plan the decentralization strategy, as well as a wealth of
statistical capability in all fields. Because of this richness, Moldova’s decentralization process can
be the occasion to systematically expand and strengthen the responsiveness of the national
statistical system to the needs of its users. There will be more and more groups in government
and civil society who will want to monitor the pace and quality of decentralization. Such users
will readily appreciate the potential resources of their statistical system to provide evidence for
policy and advocacy. The more the NSS can do to make its resource accessible to data users, the
more the institutions of the system will be valued by the population.
There is no doubt that Moldova’s NSS can develop the capacities to provide the basic and
necessary data for constructing indicators on decentralization and vulnerability. At the same
time, the consultant has found significant areas for improvement in the potential of the NSS to
respond to demand. Three areas stand out in strengthening the potential to meet needs:
i.
ii.
iii.
It is important to improve the awareness (of all agencies involved in the NDS
process) of the kinds of indicators needed – from both an analytical and a rightsbased approach – to monitor the decentralization process in the terms the NDS
acknowledges as important
Gaps exist between data users and producers in two areas:
 the awareness of users and potential users of the existence of data
resources and the ways to use them
 data producers and authorities have a limited appreciation of the value to
be derived from making their data widely available to their constituents
(the broad public)
At the L2 and particularly the L1 levels, which the consultant was not able to visit
in the short mission time available, it seems likely that officials
 may not have sufficient awareness of the data and indicators they will
need to master their autonomous powers and the attendant responsibilities
to their constituents
 may themselves have limited capacities to generate flows of data to senior
tiers and to their constituents (the rights holders).
The consultant has encountered, as well, a richness and variety of views and opinions on how to
address these gaps, including better education of users, better information, education and
communications on the part of data producers, and capacity building at all levels. The report
offers some recommendations in this chapter.
Our conclusions have emerged from observation in Moldova as well as other countries of one
guiding principle in striving to strengthen an NSS. When it is necessary to strengthen a statistical
system, especially when financial resource are limited it is vital to develop a nourishing strategy
within the NSS of data producers and users. This strategy relies on creating a “feedback loop” that
uses low-cost inputs to expand high-value outputs. In a feedback loop, any part of the circle can
116
cause a response in the next component, and each part will in turn experience positive change as
demands are placed on it. Any part of the circuit can be viewed as the starting point. If a starting
point is taken to be the decentralization project that calls for more data, then we will observe:





an increasing usage of data by customers (government and non-government) that
in turn
improves the number and usefulness of comments (by data users) on the quality of
data instruments and bases;
which in turn makes data more attractive to the customers and brings it into
greater demand by users –
which in turn gives the national statistical authority a higher profile and
usefulness in the eyes of government and the pop.
All of this benefits increasingly the statistical authority, its constituency, and the NSS as a whole.
Most countries that have improved their NSS have benefited from the working of this kind of
feedback loop to close the gaps enumerated above. Such a loop is illustrated below.
The ongoing NDS
process creates a
need for more data to
be produced and the
NSS publishes data
and reports
Better data "products" lead to
greater customer satisfaction.
As more people understand the
issues there is more knowledge
about 'evidence' and more
demand for the product
Data users see more
information available from their
statistical authorities and have
more understanding about
decentralization and
vulnerabililty
Data producers improve their data
products as they better understand the
"market" for their output
As they see more data, people
comment on its relevance and
timeliness
It can be readily seen from the diagrammatic representation that an increase in activity in any
part of the loop has an effect on the next part. The effect will be all the more positive if more
constituents are brought into the loop. The value of bringing more data users into the loop is
discussed further in section 4.3 and in the Recommendations, 4.4.
4.2 Findings on institutional and data assessment
As the inventory of data instruments in Chapter 3 has shown, the statistical system of Moldova
embraces a rich panoply of survey, census and administrative data. In carrying out the dataassessment exercise of the current project, the team encountered experienced and committed staff
in an NSS that extends from a technically outstanding NBS through numerous central and line
ministry departments. Statistics personnel in these agencies will potentially be able to supply
monitoring data for a large number of proposed indicators. They have been generous with their
117
advice on the meta-data, the uses of indicators, and the potential for the NSS to provide data
proposed in the report.
4.2.1 Financial and fiscal data
In sum, the report finds that Financial and Fiscal data on decentralization issues are generally well
understood, and there is no difficulty in finding or calculating expenditure aggregates relative to
GDP or the budget at the national (central) level. These are standard financial and budget
aggregates that states members of international organizations routinely report to their own
constituency and to the relevant international organizations, such as the IMF and WB. However,
at present the central authorities do not have a system for compiling the same indicators from the
LPAs. It seems likely that preparations to develop capacities at the L2 level – for both compiling
and reporting – are underway, but it is less apparent that these capacities will be built soon at the
L1 level. This is a paradoxical finding, since accounting practices in Moldova are reported to be of
high quality. It is to be expected that allocations – transfers, including equalization payments –
are appropriately accounted for at both central and L2 levels. However, two lacunae seem
apparent:
i.
ii.
such data are not yet being transmitted to officials tasked with the monitoring of
decentralization issues, or are not being prepared at all needed levels of
disaggregation, and
the capacity of LPAs to record and report their own-revenue and expenditure
results are uneven or weak.
4.2.2 Political decentralization data
In the area of indicators of Political decentralization, the report finds that the most easily available
data are those dealing with the electoral framework; that is, the accountability of local officials to
the electorate in the de jure sense. Elections on the basis of universal suffrage are conducted for
the assembly at all levels. (There is un-clarity with respect to the selection process of the
executive.) On the transparency of the budget process, again a paradox is present. It is reported
that the budget at all PA levels is available to the public and subject to civil society review prior to
its passage; however, at the same time officials at the central level judge that they are unable to
compile lower-tier expenditure indicators for various public sector classifications. It is not clear
whether the budget at any tier is gazetted or otherwise made available for public scrutiny.
Concerning indicators of participation and representation: It is difficult to ascertain whether
supportive measures are available to enable the broadest cross-section of society to take part in
elections, and to enable the non-rich, minorities and candidates from vulnerable strata to run for
office. A reporting system for these indicators, which requires the canvassing and compiling of
citizens’ views, is needed. Data on the success in attaining public office on the part of vulnerable
groups are available to some extent, but are variable in quality and coverage. There is no
functional reservation system that results in appropriate representation of Roma people, who
constitute the most vulnerable and excluded ethnic group. Indicators that report the participation
of women, ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities, and of the disabled, are few. Mechanisms
for reporting on these indicators by various means require further exploration.
4.2.3 Administrative decentralization data
Turning to the area of Administrative decentralization, as the section indicates, population data
for LPA units is potentially available. However, at this time only L2 population data are held or
readily available at the central level. Beyond this, no data on personnel or service costs are
118
readily available; however, the team was unable to find out whether this information is
potentially accessible by analysts, inside or outside of government offices. More detailed
information and commitment by officials at all levels will be needed in the future development of
decentralization monitoring and evaluation.



Efficiency indicators include the number and cost of personnel for equivalent LPA units,
using a per capita measure of costs and numbers of personnel. It is clear that such
indicators can be provided only once standards for service costs (in terms of personnel and
money) have been established, at all PA levels. With respect to the cost of services, the
team was unable to determine to what extent services have been defined as to: unit price
that is standard for the service, human resources attached to defined services, or quality
standards for specific service units.
LPA capacities: The report is not able to assess the capacities at LPA levels in practical
detail, and this assessment was outside its mandate. However, officials at the central level
in general appear to have little expectation that LPA authorities have the capacity to
report the data proposed by the present study.
Public assets: While the mandate of the report extended to definition of indicators
required, but not to data collection, it seemed unlikely that at this time there are data to
show the pace of completion of the inventories of public assets of all kinds, and the
revenues from sales and/or operation of publicly owned assets. A near term requirement
of the decentralization monitoring process will be information as to which assets have
been inventoried, and what is their value. Such a value of assets will need to be
standardized, for example, as value of public assets per capita, and broken down by LPA –
at both levels.
As discussed earlier, the benefits from one-off sales of public assets have been fully utilized in the
earlier periods of privatization. Further divestiture of public assets is a subject of discussion with
other cooperation partners, and outside the mandate of this report. However, it is possible that
the clear assignment of ownership of all public assets to the appropriate TAUs will facilitate the
establishment of fair market values, and the divestiture of those which are not appropriate to
government management in a market economy.
4.2.4 Services decentralization data
Turning now to Services decentralization, an initial group of indicators was selected to highlight
the share of public spending on key sectors – the social sectors prioritized by various objectives
such as national MDGs, or other targets. With respect to the share of spending on the key social
sectors of Health, Education, Water and Sanitation, indicators for expenditure as a share of the
budget may not yet be readily available at central and L2 levels. To make the aggregations needed
to compute decentralization of service expenditures, data are required at the central and local
levels, simultaneously, but are not available. This appears to be a situation that can be remedied
in the near term. Because these indicators are computed entirely from functional classifications of
the budget, and all LPAs are committed to publication of the budget prior to and after adoption,
joint efforts of all LPAs and the central budget authorities would make these indicator
calculations feasible.
Indicators of access and coverage of services are among the most important for the monitoring of
the progress and contributions of decentralization. They are nevertheless the most uneven. Of 16
initial indicators for a range of services, in addition to 12 focusing on education, only a small
number are reported to some extent. None are reported at the L1 tier, and few at L2.
119
Nevertheless, most of the proposed indicators feasibly can be produced in future, because they are
reported in the HBS, principally, or the Census or existing official surveys – by use of small-area
estimation and other techniques.
This point does not imply, however, that it is the authorities responsible for the execution of the
HBS or other surveys who are to be tasked with satisfying the growing demand for analysis. As
we discuss further in 4.3, the decentralization experience will bring more actors into the arena of
data analysis, monitoring, and the study of vulnerability and inclusiveness.
The consultants found that some groups in civil society assume that indicators of access and
coverage are difficult to find or to verify. In some cases this experience arises from data clients’
belief that such data are best sourced from the ministry responsible for delivery of the service.
The report has demonstrated repeatedly that ministry (administrative) data alone cannot meet the
requirement of monitoring service delivery – and this is true of most countries; it is not a
deficiency of the Moldova system.
In all countries, the instrument of choice for access to services – of the whole population and subgroups – is the household survey, HBS or its equivalent. This finding highlights the importance of
strengthening HBS to incorporate and retain vital indicators for monitoring the impact of
decentralization on vulnerable people and groups. It also highlights the importance of making
HBS data available to researchers in all sectors, so that they – not NBS alone – can carry the
burden of analysis.
A major area that confirms this finding is the area of indicators of gender equality and women’s
empowerment. Although Moldova publishes excellent materials on the status of women and
men, the decentralization process has not yet incorporated a stock of gender indicators. The
following section shows ways in which vulnerability indicators can be constructed on the basis of
unit-level data in household surveys. All survey and census instruments record the sex of every
respondent as a matter of course. The production of gender indicators will make a leap forward
when line ministry and CSO advocacy groups undertake analysis of the data latent in the HBS and
its companion instruments.
Indicators of the quality, efficiency and responsiveness of services are undeveloped. The report
finds that ministries and advocacy groups championing quality assessment can be ideal partners in
developing these indicators fully.
4.3 Assessing existing data bases and instruments for monitoring
vulnerability
4.3.1 Instruments of choice
A large number of existing registers and survey/census instruments exist to respond to the need to
monitor social inclusion and exclusion. In addition to the Population Census and the major
periodic surveys, such as HBS, LFS, MICS and MDHS, which are instruments of choice for
monitoring vulnerability dimensions, several of the periodic surveys routinely add one or more
specialized modules. Some of these are conducted on a one-off basis, while some are run on a
rotating cycle – this latter depending particularly on donor cooperation. That is, some modules in
HBS and other surveys have been provided on the request of government or donor partners, and
these survey components have been conducted with special funding provided by the requesting
party. (Modules or linked surveys of interest to include in future for vulnerability and
120
decentralization include, for example, health system quality study, HIV/AIDS special surveys, a
study of Domestic Violence.)
Several important constraints limit the ability of HBS and its partners to include specialized
modules in the regular survey cycle. One limitation, of course, is respondent fatigue – the risk of
reduced ability of survey respondents to provide information when surveys become excessively
long or are repeated at short intervals with the same sample of households. An additional issue is
the dependence on the demand of users and donor partners – who are often the funders of
specialized modules. This relationship is natural, particularly in the case of a small country and in
the all-too-common situation where the NSO is not rich in budget resources. Indeed, the
recommendations in the following section speak to the vital need for any NSO and NSS to
demonstrate their value to their own citizens – through expanding accessibility and willingness to
provide service to the public – in part so as to ensure the statistical agency appropriate, possibly
expanding budget support of government.
The strengths of the national system notwithstanding, the government and its donor partners
have expressed a need for fuller information in certain areas. These areas are particularly
important where there is a need to monitor progress of public policies with respect to vulnerable
groups. Areas where data are not easily found or calculated from administrative data-bases are
precisely issues of vulnerability – simply because these areas are by their nature sensitive topics.
Sensitivities are common with respect to poverty, gender issues, religious and ethnic identities,
ability and functioning issues, and stigmatized age and illness characteristics.
Analysis in these areas relies most effectively on multi-purpose surveys designed for coverage of
the whole population. As members of the whole surveyed population, persons in vulnerable
positions need not feel specially targeted by survey exercises. A key role of multi-purpose or
living-standard-type surveys is to enable inter-dependent characteristics to be analysed as a
complex of factors. In the discussion of concepts of vulnerability and exclusion (in Chapter 2), it
was pointed out that the separate dimensions of vulnerability are often mutually reinforcing.
Poor people have less access to resources or services, they may self-exclude from feelings of
shame, limited access results in low acquisition of skills and social capital, which then exacerbates
income-earning difficulties and continuing poverty, and so on.
In assessing better service delivery to vulnerable people, in top place among multi-purpose survey
instruments, the HBS represents the only body of data that provides an income/wellbeing
indicator (“poverty measure”). As a consequence, HBS presents a unique potential for users of its
data. HBS data make possible the tabulation of all individual variables for any vulnerability
dimension: to produce tables disaggregated by age, sex, marital status, rural or urban residence,
occupation, disability, ethnicity (once revised), language, religion. Such tables can be ordered in
relation to each other characteristic, and in relation to household income/consumption level. We
will see as well that the unit-level data in an HBS-type survey make even more useful analysis
possible for data users.
This unique position places enormous value and responsibility on the HBS – for its users as well
its producing body. In the context of government’s objectives for monitoring decentralization, it
places on the agenda further evolution of a practical and realistic access policy for this and other
NBS data bases. This point is discussed following the explanation of the limitations of official
registers for vulnerability studies.
121
4.3.2 Constraints on registers in recording client characteristics
An important finding of the report has been the difficulty for official registers to maintain
information on the personal and demographic characteristics of service clients. This reticence is
natural and to be expected. When clients may fear that access to a benefit is at risk if the ethnic,
gender, or other characteristic could be subject to discrimination, persons in charge reasonably
avoid the appearance of bias. Given this concern, officials give precedence to reducing the
number of characteristics that are recorded and the potential for discrimination.
In the context of this concern, two measures are in order: (1) Discussion with the offices in
charge of selected registers to decide on the value of including in register forms certain additional
indicators where appropriate. In the examples seen in the report, in the case of registers of voters,
candidates for elective office, and public officials, it is important to record characteristics such as
gender, age and ethnic identification (all of which become evident to the voting and client
public). Additional examples can be identified, where characteristics can appropriately be
recorded.
(2) Although some greater recording of vulnerability dimensions can be expected with effective
consultation between register officials and data user groups, it is nevertheless clear that this
solution cannot on its own meet the need for improved reporting of some vulnerability
characteristics. For several reasons, including the difficulties faced by official registries, we have
earlier affirmed that survey instruments provide the instruments of choice to monitor
vulnerability measures.
4.3.3 The value of using micro-data
An example of the kind of analysis that can be done using micro data was given in the section on
gender in Chapter 2, regarding women’s unrecorded contribution to household income and
consumption standards. A further example of the kinds of manipulations and analysis made
possible with micro data in studying vulnerability and the interplay of multiple factors is given in
a study of outcomes in conditions of community deprivation. Geoffrey St. Bernard has written
extensively on measuring social vulnerability. He proposed an index of vulnerability that made
use of indicators of poverty and the availability of resources for families. Within a small nation he
made use of five “sub-national domains": he gave this description to measures of education,
health, security, social order and governance, and communications architecture. To produce his
index he made calculations based on available indicators calculations: poverty headcounts,
population, household headship, age, health care insurance, and access to a set of social resources.
Survey tables alone cannot enable the researcher to carry out this type of analysis. The indicators
suggested for the vulnerability included combining, among other measures:
-
the proportion of all children (under 15 years) belonging to the two poorest quintiles,
their household educational attainment, and employment status
the proportion of the working age population (15-64) belonging to the two poorest
quintiles with no more than primary school education
the proportion of the population (15 years and over) belonging to the two poorest
quintiles with no medical insurance coverage
the proportion of the population belonging to the two poorest quintiles and living in
households where the head was not employed (St. Bernard 2007, p. 8).
122
The author also used community indicators of factors such as educational attainment, criminality
rates and computer literacy. His objective was to identify communities and age groups at risk of
social exclusion.
The potential for analysis using unit-level data is best explored by researchers in academe and
advocacy groups (often working together) who are motivated to use data for policy and advocacy
purposes. Supporting such motivated researchers is one of the highest achievements of national
statistical systems.
4.3.4 Limitations on access to micro data
As a general rule, any NSS needs to provide data in a wide range of fields. In this instance, the
NSS is asked to meet two major requirements: (1) to measure and track conditions of
vulnerability of various kinds, and (2) to enable researchers to identify the determinants of
vulnerability; that is, the causes or correlates of vulnerability, so as to open the way for policy
recommendations (to mitigate or alleviate those identified determining factors).
However, vulnerability analysis, like many other topics, requires the opportunity for the
researcher to handle the data her or himself. As we have seen in some examples, the type of
manipulation needed to conduct multivariate or regression analysis is not satisfied by the release
of tabulations.
In addition, NSOs are encountering the demand for data access where international comparisons
are needed, for example among EU and ECE member countries, in support of international
convention implementation, and among researchers at home and abroad. As the UN Economic
Commission for Europe has pointed out:
There is a great deal of international collaboration among members of the research
community, and the researchers can be very critical towards different access rules in
different countries. Furthermore, researchers are often not allowed to access other
countries’ microdata for fear that confidentiality protection cannot be guaranteed.
Nevertheless, cross-country comparisons can be a very important part of a research
project. This is not only of interest to academic researchers. International agencies are
among those who want to use microdata for research purposes, particularly cross-country
comparisons. Such studies are usually of great interest and relevance to the participating
countries (UNECE 2007, p. 1).
The report team found that in Moldova, the NSS does not generally accord access to micro data,
whether from the survey or administrative registers. Many individual and NGO researchers, for
example, would not be accorded access to the data. Under Moldova’s national legislation, the
decision to provide access to data is an important responsibility. The policy on data access is
therefore a new challenge for a country engaged in a transition and decentralization process. One
of the most important considerations for an NSO is that of the tremendous benefit gained by the
agency when micro data are made widely accessible to institutional and individual clients of its
services. In addition to the feedback loop that becomes vital to sustaining the NSO’s quality
standards, release of unit-level or micro data reduces the burden (in financial and human
resources) on the NSO of providing all the specialized analyses for its national clientele.
The issue of enabling access to researchers is one that has been discussed widely in Europe, North
and South America and many Asian countries, and micro data are increasingly available in many
countries. For the past decade, the Conference of European Statisticians (CES) has provided
strong encouragement to NSOs to make their micro data more widely available. It has produced
123
informative reports and advice on providing access without breaching confidentiality
commitments. In its 2003 conference, CES asserted that making micro data accessible is part of
the duties of NSOs, and an important way for them to serve their communities. Its guideline
report on data access states, “support for research is an important activity of the National
Statistical Offices (NSOs), and generally NSOs could do more to satisfy these needs. Doing more
includes providing access to micro data which is the main focus of these principles and guidelines”
(UNECE 2007, p. 1). A UNECE assessment of Moldova’s social statistics including HBS concluded
that Moldova’s NBS already achieves high standards in assuring the confidentiality of its survey
and census data (Harrmann et al. 2013).
The CES report recognized that some Eastern European countries would need to prepare new
legislation to be able to ensure both confidentiality and broad access.64
Modifying policies to broaden access to micro data is clearly a matter of concern to both
producers and users of data. Box 4.1 summarizes some of the concerns expressed by NSOs, and
those of researchers. UNECE has provided useful guides to addressing these legitimate concerns,
in the best interests of all.
Box 4.1 Concerns of NSOs and researchers with respect to micro data access
Point of view of NSOs
Point of view of
researchers 66
Authority to release micro data
Trust of respondents
Adequate quality of data for disaggregation
Cost – little budget from government, researchers cannot defray full
cost
Value to NSO 65
Enables analysis of complex questions
Enables calculation of marginal rather than only average effects
Enables replication of important research findings
64
“We should also be mindful that not all countries are coming from the same position. Some countries,
particularly from Eastern Europe, have traditionally not had strong legislation supporting confidentiality.
This is being changed in many cases but the cultural change to support the legislative change can take
longer.” (p. 1)
65
“NSOs are increasingly recognising the importance of supporting the research community, and of the
additional value that is provided to NSO data collection and processing effort through effective use of its
data for research. Specifically, it is in the public interest that insights, which can be provided from the data,
can be made available to decision makers and the public. Furthermore, if survey data are used more
extensively in this way, it can provide an extra level of protection against budget reductions to these
statistical programmes.” (UNECE p. 4)
66
… Lack of access to microdata may result in researchers developing and conducting their own statistical
collections, adding to the reporting burden imposed on the community. As well as the cost involved (to the
collector as well as the respondents), the collections will usually be of inferior quality and with smaller
samples than official surveys. This will lead to lower quality research results. There are benefits from
having an accepted and authoritative, as well as high quality, data source for all analysis compared with the
alternative of researchers using different data sets to analyse particular topics. NSOs can play a very useful
role in this respect. (UNECE p. 5)
124
Use and feedback facilitate improvement of data
Increases range of outputs from statistical data, raises value of these
collections
Source: Based on UNECE 2007
4.4 Recommendations and tasks for further indicators of decentralization
The recommendations in this section are grouped generally around the outcomes expected from
the Indicators Matrix development project (as indicated in the TORs, Annex III). Not all the
expected outcomes proved feasible, and the time needed for the vast scope of consultations
demanded by the Matrix development was longer than originally expected.
1. In order to improve the national system of statistical indicators on housing, education, health,
employment, access to services and facilities, social protection, etc. relevant for the Republic
of Moldova to measure and monitor progress in relation to the government response to the
basic needs of vulnerable groups this report recommends:


Focus on developing the capacity to produce the indicators identified in the basic Indicators
Matrix (while leaving those indicators of the comprehensive matrix for a second phase of
capacity development).

Emphasis on upgrading the existing survey and census instruments of the NSS (rather than
proposing new instruments) to review, modify and augment (to a limited extent) these
instruments to produce the indicators proposed in the basic Indicators Matrix, all of which
are feasible in the near term.

Identification of the HBS as the instrument of choice, together with the upcoming Census,
for ensuring the inclusion of as many as possible of the indicators proposed in this report
within these two key instruments (and a small number of additional instruments as noted,
including LFS, MICS, and DHS).

At the same time, emphasizing the inclusion of data user groups such as research
organizations to undertake analysis, rather than relying on the stretched resources of the
NBS.

Engagement with the Roma community and faith communities to jointly tackle approaches
to improving self-identification in the Census and HBS, and to ensure the presence of Roma
and minority faith communities on the survey and Census design and execution staff.
Similarly, engagement with advocacy groups linked to other groups at risk of exclusion,
such as the disabled, HIV-affected, and elderly, and with women and youth within the same
groups.

Work with donor partners to ensure that specialized modules of HBS are coherently
integrated into the objectives of decentralization monitoring to avoid duplication, gaps and
excessive burdening of the NSS survey capacity.

Discussion with NBS on mechanisms to progressively expand existing access to HBS unitlevel micro data to bona fide researchers in government and civil society, ensuring rapid
and easy access while at the same time ensuring the use of record-anonymizing techniques
to protect the confidentiality of data.

Clarification of the status of the SADI monitoring instrument, ideally to retain or revise
such an instrument to complement the community questionnaire role of living standards
125
survey approaches; or incorporate the SADI monitoring tools into a community
questionnaire in HBS.
2. To build national ownership and capacity in policy monitoring at local and central levels, the
NDS requires the creation of a monitoring coordination unit. (Such a unit could be part of a
reactivated national Council on Statistics, or another autonomous body. 67) This unit should be
drawn from government, including SC, NBS and key data-producing ministries such as Finance,
as well as senior persons in local government associations and independent research COs. The
unit should:

Ensure support from government at the highest levels in its creation and
continuing work
 Engage closely with associations of local government at the national and European
level to identify good practices in developing indicators and building statistical
literacy among local government partners in Moldova.
 Focus on consultation with ministries and CSOs engaged in policy and advocacy
development to tap their own interest in service improvement and quality
standards
 Use the above consultation mechanisms to refine and enhance the usefulness of
administrative databases by:
o Examining ways that key databases can be used jointly with survey and
census data to triangulate and verify the information produced in related
fields
o Discuss with key registry- producing authorities (including electoral
commissions at all levels) the potential to include selected vulnerability
dimensions in their templates, particularly age and sex where appropriate
 Identify the existing platform[s] – possibly within NBS – on which to build a
dedicated decentralization monitoring platform to be used by all three tiers of PA
and accessible by their constituencies. (Such a platform could be built on the
model of DevInfo, already used in Moldova, among other uses for the SADI data
base.)
3. To strengthen the mainstreaming within the national monitoring and reporting system on
decentralization of: human rights, gender equality, social inclusion and vulnerability awareness,
NDS process leadership should:
 Carry the discussion of data access to NGOs and communities to make them aware
of the potential inherent in existing data to inform their issues of interest – to
provide evidence for advocacy
 Produce a concise guide to survey and administrative data instruments on
vulnerability dimensions (not an exhaustive inventory, but a one-to-five-page,
user-friendly tool), including metadata – for wide use with LPAs, CSOs and
ministry staff.
 Work with government and donor partners to develop data literacy and statistical
analysis short courses for government and non-government researchers
67
The revitalizing of the Council on Statistics was recommended by the UNECE assessment of the Moldova
NSS. See Herrmann et al. 2003.
126
o
To equip them to use existing data of Moldova to carry out analysis,
improve their planning processes, and enable them to better contribute to
policy advocacy
o To bring them as partners into the major task of monitoring
decentralization and its contributions to social inclusion
4. Gaps, unevenness as well as strengths that have been identified by the Indicators Matrix and this
report should be used as a guideline to focus attention on available statistics, emphasizing the areas
of concern and needs for further improvement highlighted, including:
 Accelerated attention to upgrading financial monitoring and compilation at all
levels, particularly by engaging existing budget monitoring personnel and finding
low-impact reporting mechanisms that do not increase their burden of work (e.g.
by creating modalities for sharing reporting between Finance and NDS
mechanisms)
 Opening and renewing discussion of the potential values of adopting reservation
and proportional representation mechanisms to improve the representation of
women and Roma persons in all three tiers of government
 Revision of the approach to monitoring access and quality indicators – from
emphasis on administrative databases to exploration of direct survey analysis
methods.
References
Alexander, Patricia. 2008. "Investing in gender equality: Global evidence and the Asia-Pacific
setting." Colombo: UNDP Asia Pacific Regional Centre. http://www.snapundp.org/elibrary/Publication.aspx?id=573
Ali, A.K. 2003. "Measuring Decentralization." Tallahassee: Florida State University.
http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-06232003-113718/unrestricted/AKA02.Introduction.pdf
Bivol, Stela and Natalia Vlădicescu. 2010. "Women’s Vulnerability to HIV and Aids in the
Republic of Moldova 2010." Chisinau: UNAIDS Moldova.
http://aids.md/aids/files/1019/Republic%20of%20Moldova_HIV%20AIDS_womens%20vulnerability.
pdf
Blackden, Mark and Q. Wodon (eds). 2006. “Gender, Time Use and Poverty in Sub-Saharan
Africa.” Washington DC: World Bank.
http://elibrary.worldbank.org/content/book/9780821365618
Blagojevic, Marina. 2006. "Gender Analysis in Local Development Area." Chisinau: UNDP
Moldova.
http://www.europeandcis.undp.org/upload/public/File/gender/Gender_COP_MOLDOVA_UNDP_
Bouton, Laurent, Marjorie Gassnera and Vincenzo Verardia. 2008. "Redistributing income under
fiscal vertical imbalance." Boston: Boston University. 23 October 2012
http://people.bu.edu/lbouton/RED_FVI.pdf
Budapest Times. 2012. "Laws for Roma: survey." in The Budapest Times.
http://www.budapesttimes.hu/2012/07/29/laws-for-roma-survey/
127
Buliga, Valentina. 2012. "Creating an Enabling Environment for Health, Independence and
Ageing in Dignity." in UNECE Ministerial Conference on Ageing, 19-20 September 2012. Vienna.
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/pau/age/Ministerial_Conference_Vienna/Information/Speec
hes/Ministers/13Moldova_presentation_Mrs_Buliga_eng.pdf
Cace, Sorin, Vasile Cantarji, Nicolae Sali and Marin Alla. 2007. "Roma in the Republic of
Moldova." Chisinau: UNDP Moldova.
http://www.undp.md/publications/roma%20_report/Roma%20in%20the%20Republic%20of%20Mol
dova.pdf
Center for Legal Assistance for Persons with Disabilities. 2011. "Report on the analysis of the
situation regarding the rights of persons with disabilities in the Republic of Moldova." Geneva:
Documents, Session 12, UN Human Rights Council, Working Group on the Universal Periodic
Review, Republic of Moldova 2011.
http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/session12/MD/CLAPDCenterLegalAssistancePersonsDisabilities-eng.pdf
Centre for Human Rights of the Republic of Moldova. 2012. "Report on the observance of human
rights in the Republic of Moldova in 2011." Chisinau: Parliament of the Republic of Moldova.
http://www.ombudsman.md/en/anuale/
Chiriac, Cristina. 2004. "Autonomy of Local Governments in Moldova: A Financial Perspective."
Moscow: Institute for Public Finance Reform.
http://www.publicfinance.ru/filemanager/files/article_moldova.pdf
Cintora, Emily. 2009. "Democratic Governance in Eastern Europe: Analysis and
Recommendations for the UNDP Country Programs in Belarus, Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine."
Boston: UNDP Bratislava Regional Office.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/DPI403%20Fall09/Emily%20Cintora%20Report%20Democra
tic_Governance_in_Eastern_Europe.pdf
Corner, Lorraine. 2003. "Engendered National Statistical System." in UNIFEM/ESCAP Training
Workshop on an Integrated Approach to Gender Statistics Bangkok: UN Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific. http://www.unescap.org/stat/meet/iags/ and
http://www.unescap.org/stat/meet/iags/iags_engender_nss.pdf
Council of Europe. 1992. "European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages." 148.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe. http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/148.htm
—. 2010. "European Charter of Local Self-Government and Explanatory Report." Strasbourg:
Council of Europe. http://www.coe.int/t/congress/sessions/18/Source/CharteEuropeenne_en.pdf
—. 2011. "Working with Roma to improve their own lives." Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/romatravellers/default_en.asp
Cruc, Olesea, Onorica Banciu, Iurie Brinişter, Maria Vremiş, Viorica Craievschi-Toartă and
Alexandru Sinchetru. 2009. "Study on Social Protection and Social Inclusion in Moldova."
Chisinau: Institute for Development and Social Initiatives “Viitorul”.
http://www.viitorul.org/lib.php?l=en&idc=299&t=/IDIS-Studies/Social&
Duflo, Esther. 2004. "Why Political Reservations?" Boston: Department of Economics and Poverty
Action Lab, MIT http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/stm103%20articles/WhyPolitical-Reservations-9-21-04.pdf
128
Durr, Jean-Michel. 2012. "In-depth assessment of Population Statistics of the Republic of Moldova
and its adherence to the EU Statistical Requirements Compendium." Chisinau: UNDP Moldova.
http://www.statistica.md/public/files/SeminareConferinte/Evaluare_demografie_raport_2011/Rapo
rt_evaluare_demograf_2011.pdf
EC. 2011. "Implementation of the European Neighbourhood Policy in 2010. Country report:
Republic of Moldova." COM(2011) 303. SEC(2011) 643. Brussels: European Commission (EC),
High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/progress2011/sec_11_643_en.pdf
Edmunds, Roger. 2005. "Models of Statistical Systems." Paris: Partnership in Statistics for
Development in the 21st Century and OECD. http://www.paris21.org/sites/default/files/2101.pdf
EU. 2011. "An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020:
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: ." Fundamental Rights
Agency: European Union (EU) Eur-lex: Brussels.
http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/roma/roma_en.htm
Europa. 2011. "European Commission calls on Member States to set national strategies for Roma
integration." Strasbourg: European Commission.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/400&format=HTML&aged=1&lang
uage=EN&guiLanguage=en
European Commission. 2011. "Roma Education Fund." Brussels: European Commission. July 2011
http://www.romaeducationfund.hu/ , www.romaeducationfund.org,
http://www.romaeducationfund.hu/ref-approved-projects
European Roma Rights Centre. 2010. "The situation of Roma children in Moldova." Chisinau:
European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC, Budapest, Hungary).
http://s3.amazonaws.com/rcpp/assets/attachments/1217_2008_001_Eng_Roma_Children_original.
pdf
European Statistical System Committee. 2011. "European Statistics Code of Practice for the
National and Community Statistical Authorities Adopted by the European Statistical System
Committee 28th September 2011." Brussels: Eurostat and European Statistical System.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-32-11-955/EN/KS-32-11-955-EN.PDF
Flaman, Richard. 1999. "Decentralization: A Sampling of Definitions ". Working paper prepared
in connection with the Joint UNDP-Government of Germany evaluation of the UNDP role in
decentralization and local governance. New York: UNDP.
http://web.undp.org/evaluation/documents/decentralization_working_report.PDF
GM and UN Moldova. 2010. "The Second Millennium Development Goals Report, Republic of
Moldova." Chisinau.
http://www.undp.md/presscentre/2010/MDG%20Report%20II/MDG2_RM.pdf
Government of Moldova. 2006. "Population Census 2004. Statistical compilation." Statistical
compilation Volume I. Chisinau: National Bureau of Statistics.
—. 2010. "Rethink Moldova. Priorities for Medium Term Development ". Chisinau: Report for
the Consultative Group Meeting in Brussels 24 March 2010.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTMOLDOVA/Resources/Rethink-Moldova-2010-2013-Finaledit-110310.pdf
129
—. 2011. "Activity Program. Government of the Rebublic of Moldova. "European Integration:
Freedom, Democracy, Welfare” 2011-2014." http://www.gov.md/lib.php?l=en&idc=445
—. 2012. "Own Powers Nomenclature LPA I, LPA II, CPA (Nomenclatorul Competenţelor APL
I/II, APC)." Chisinau: State Chancellery.
Government of Moldova and UN Moldova. 2011. "Violenta faţă de femei în familie (Domestic
violence against women)." Moldova: Government of Moldova.
http://www.undp.md/presscentre/2011/ViolenceWomen_12Dec/01_Pliant_VIOLENTA_03-122011_CORECT_Final.pdf
Government of the Republic of Moldova. 2004. "Law on Official Statistics." vol. No. 412-XV from
09.12.2004: National Bureau of Statistics.
http://www.statistica.md/public/files/despre/legi_hotariri/Legea_statistica_oficiala_en.pdf
—. 2011a. "The Government adopted the Decision “On approval of the draft law for approving
the National Decentralization Strategy” " in Decentralization and Local Autonomy. Chisinau. 7
January 2012 http://www.descentralizare.gov.md/libview.php?l=en&idc=249&id=886
—. 2011b. "National Decentralization Strategy [draft]." Chisinau.
http://www.descentralizare.gov.md/public/files/temp/The_draft_National_Decentralization_Strateg
y_eng.pdf
—. 2012. "National Decentralization Strategy (English version)." Chisinau. English draft version
at:
http://www.descentralizare.gov.md/public/files/temp/The_draft_National_Decentralization_Strateg
y_eng.pdf
Hogan-Brun, Gabrielle and Stefan Wolff. 2010. "Minority Languages in Europe: Frameworks,
Status, Prospects ". Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?is=1403903964
Herrmann, Vera; Claudia Junker, Bronislava Kaminskiene, Günter Kopsch, Jason Schachter.
2013. Adapted Global Assessment of the National Statistical System of Moldova. UNECE.
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/publications/Moldova_global_Eng.pdf
Hossain, Md. Awal. 2005. "Administrative Decentralization: A Framework for Discussion and Its
Practices in Bangladesh." Rajshahi: University of Rajshahi.
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNPAN/UNPAN019445.pdf
Htun, Mala. 2004. "Is Gender like Ethnicity? The Political Representation of Identity Groups."
Perspectives on Politics 2:439-458. http://www.quotaproject.org/other/HtunPOP2004.pdf
IMF. 2012a. "Moldova–2012 Article IV Consultation, Concluding Statement." Washington DC:
International Monetary Fund (IMF). http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2012/051712.htm
—. 2012b. "Republic of Moldova: Staff Report for the 2012 Article IV Consultation." Washington
DC: International Monetary Fund (IMF).
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2012/cr12288.pdf
Infotag (Moldova). 2010. "Moldova plans to earn $28 million from privatization in 2010 " in
moldova.org/economie. http://economie.moldova.org/news/moldova-plans-to-earn-28-millionfrom-privatization-in-2010-207032-eng.html
130
IPU. 2011. "Women in Parliament in 2011: The Year in Perspective." Geneva: International
Parliamentary Union (IPU). http://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/wmnpersp11-e.pdf
—. 2012. "Women in National Parliaments." Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union. 12 September
2012 http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/world.htm
ISHR. 2011. "UPR of Moldova: discrimination faced by ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities." in
Universal Periodic Review, Human Rights Council. Geneva: International Service for Human
Rights ISHR). 20 October 2011 http://www.ishr.ch/council/376-council/1183-upr-of-moldovadiscrimination-faced-by-ethnic-religious-and-sexual-minorities
JILDP (Joint Integrated Local Development Programme). 2011. "Who is missing from local
development?" Chisinau: Government of the Republic of Moldova, United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of
Women (UN Women) and Embassy of Sweden.
http://descentralizare.gov.md/public/publications/810268_en__fotokatalog.pdf
Joy, Leonard. 2003. "Decentralization and Human Rights: A Systemic Approach ". New York:
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme).
http://www.pogar.org/publications/other/undp/decentralization/decent-hr-03e.pdf
Kauzya, John-Mary. 2005. "Decentralization: Prospects for Peace, Democracy and Development."
New York: Division for Public Administration and Development Management, United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan021510.pdf
Khawaja, Sarmad and Thomas K. Morrison. 2005. "Statistical Legislation: Towards a more General
Framework, IMF Working paper, WP/02/179." Washington DC: International Monetary Fund
(IMF).
McGowan, Lisa and Pamela Sparr. 2005. "Gender Programming Manual." Washington DC:
Solidarity Center. http://www.solidaritycenter.org/content.asp?contentid=930
Moldova.org > Economie. 2010. "Premier chairs first meeting of the Parity Commission on
Decentralization." http://economie.moldova.org/news/premier-chairs-first-meeting-of-the-paritycommission-on-decentralization-211235-eng.html
Moldpres. 2012. "Moldova earns 118 million lei from privatization in 2011." in Moldova's news.
http://allmoldova.md/en/moldova-news/1249052393.html
Munteanu, Igor. 2007. "Local Finances Decentralization." Chisinau: Center for Economic Policies,
Institute for Development and Social Initiatives (IDSI) “Viitorul”. http://pasos.org/wpcontent/archive/CPE_newsletter_descentralizare_engl.pdf
National Bureau of Statistics. 2009. "Harmonised Set of Development Indicators in a Gender
Sensitive Manner in the context of the Millennium Development Goals (Short version)." UNDP,
UNIFEM, UNFPA Joint Project on Strengthening National Statistical System. Chisinau: SIDA and
UNDP Moldova.
http://www.statistica.md/public/files/publicatii_electronice/Set_armoniz_indic/1_full_EN_final_pub
licata.pdf
—. 2010. "People’s incomes and expenditure (Household Budget Survey) Metadata." Last
certification of metadata 15.02.2010. Chisinau: National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) of the Republic
of Moldova.
131
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2002. "National Statistical System." in
Glossary of Statistical Terms. Paris: OECD. February 04, 2004
http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=1726
Ostaf, Serghei. 2011. "Vulnerability Study. Taxonomy and possible decentralization policy
implications for vulnerable groups in Moldova." Chisinau: Government of Moldova, Sida, UN
Women, UNDP Moldova. http://www.credo.md/pageview?id=249?&lang=en
Petcut, Petre. 2007. "Wallachia and Moldavia." 2.2. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/roma/Source/FS/2.2_wallachia-moldavia.pdf and
http://romani.uni-graz.at/romani/index.en.shtml
Prescott, Nicholas and Menno Pradhan. 1997. "A Poverty Profile of Cambodia." WDP373.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank. http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1997/10/01/000009265_397112
6124351/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf
Protsyk, Oleh. 2010. "Representation of minorities in the Romanian parliament." Geneva and
New York: IPU and UNDP. http://www.ipu.org/splz-e/chiapas10/romania.pdf
Richardson, Erica, Bayard Roberts, Valeriu Sava, Rekha Menon and Martin McKee. 2011. "Health
insurance coverage and health care access in Moldova." Health Policy and Planning 2011; 1–9.
Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine. http://heapol.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/03/26/heapol.czr024.full.pdf+html
Ringold, Dena, Mitchell A. Orenstein and Erika Wilkens. 2005. "Roma in an Expanding Europe:
Breaking the Poverty Cycle." Washington DC: World Bank.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTROMA/Resources/roma_in_expanding_europe.pdf
Roma National Center. 2011a. "Report on the situation of Roma. Submission Prepared by Roma
National Center on the Implementation of the International Pact on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights in the Republic of Moldova." Chisinau: Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/cescrs46.htm
—. 2011b. "Report on the situation on Roma Rights." Chisinau.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/ngos/RNC_Moldova78.pdf
Schneider, Aaron. 2003. "Decentralization: Conceptualization and Measurement." Studies in
Comparative International Development 38:32-56.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/stm103%20articles/Schneider_Decentralization.pdf
St.Bernard, Godfrey. 2007. "Measuring social vulnerability in Caribbean states." in 8th SALISES
Annual Conference Crisis, Chaos and Change: Caribbean Development Challenges in the 21st
Century. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago: The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine.
http://sta.uwi.edu/conferences/salises/documents/St%20Bernard%20%20G.pdf
Stoianova, Anastasia. 2002. "National Minorities Education in Moldova: The Legal Framework
and Practice." in World Congress on Language Policies. Barcelona.
http://www.linguapax.org/congres/taller/taller3/article23_ang.html
Trewin, Dennis. 2004. "The Role of the National Statistical Office in the Broader National
Statistical System - Some New Opportunities and Challenges ". Bangkok: UNESCAP.
http://www.unescap.org/stat/apex/1/background_paper_session1_ABS.pdf
132
UN DESA Statistics Division. 2005. "Household Sample Surveys in Developing and Transition."
Studies in Methods, Series F NKo. 96, edited by Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New
York: United Nations. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/hhsurveys/pdf/Household_surveys.pdf
UN Moldova. 2011. "Summary of issues for the Committee on Elimination of Racial
Discrimination to consider regarding the current state of ICERD implementation in the Republic
of Moldova." Chisinau.
UNDP. 2012. "Data on Roma." New York: United Nations Development Programme.
http://europeandcis.undp.org/data/show/D69F01FE-F203-1EE9-B45121B12A557E1B
UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre. 2008. "Decentralization in the Europe and CIS region."
Bratislava: Democratic Governance Practice.
http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF8&rlz=1T4SKPB_enCA340CA340&q=political+decentralization+indicators
UNDP FRA. 2012. "The situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States. Survey results at a glance."
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights,.
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/Poverty%20Reduction/UNDP_Roma_Poverty_Red
uction_Roma_Survey.pdf
UNDP Moldova. 2011a. "MDGs in Moldova ". Chisinau: United Nations Development Program,
Republic of Moldova. http://www.undp.md/mdg/MDG1/poverty.shtml
—. 2011b. "Moldova’s jobless recovery: “Fast facts” from Moldova’s official socio-economic data."
edited by Office of the Senior Economist. Chisinau.
http://europeandcis.undp.org/uploads/public1/files/vulnerability/Data%20bases/Fast%20facts/Mol
dova%20fast%20facts_July%202011.pdf
—. 2012a. "MDGs in Moldova ". Chisinau: United Nations Development Program, Republic of
Moldova. http://www.undp.md/mdg/MDG1/poverty.shtml
—. 2012b. "Promote gender equality and empower women ". Chisinau: United Nations
Development Programme Moldova. http://www.undp.md/mdg/MDG3/gender.shtml
UNDP Regional Centre Bangkok. 2005. "Fiscal Decentralization and Poverty Reduction."
Bangkok: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
http://regionalcentrebangkok.undp.or.th/practices/governance/documents/Primer_FDPR200511.pdf
UNECE. 2007. "Managing Statistical Confidentiality & Microdata Access. Principles and
Guidelines of Good Practice." New York and Geneva: United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe. Conference of European Statisticians.
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/publications/Managing.statistical.confidentiality.and.m
icrodata.access.pdf
UNECE Secretariat. 2009. "What makes an effective and efficient statistical system." in
Management Seminar on Global Assessments. Yalta: OECD, Paris.
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/documents/ece/ces/ge.61/2009/mtg1/zip.2.e.pdf
UNESCO. 2011. "Republic of Moldova." VII. Ed. No. 2010/11. Geneva: United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/WDE/2010/pdfversions/Republic_of_Moldova.pdf
133
Vremis, Maria, Viorica Craievschi-Toarta, Anatolii Rojco and Diana Cheianu-Andrei. 2010.
"Approaches to social exclusion in Moldova. Methodological and analytical aspects." Chisinau:
UNDP Moldova, UNIFEM, Statistica Moldovei (National Bureau of Statistics of the Republic of
Moldova).
http://www.statistica.md/public/files/publicatii_electronice/Excluziune_soc/Excluziune_soc_ENG.pd
f
World Bank. 2002. "Privatization in Moldova. Country Fact Sheet."
http://www.fdi.net/documents/WorldBank/databases/plink/factsheets/moldova.htm
—. 2007. "Improving Public Expenditure Efficiency for Growth and Poverty Reduction: A Public
Expenditure Review for the Republic of Moldova." Report No. 37933 - MD. Washington DC:
Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit, Europe and Central Asia Region, World
Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTMOLDOVA/Resources/MDPEReng.pdf
—. 2011a. "The Decade of Roma Inclusion." Washington DC: The World Bank Group.
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/EXTROMA/0,,contentMDK:2075
4751~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:615987,00.html
—. 2011b. "Decentralization & Subnational Regional Economics." in Public Sector Governance,
edited by D. a. S. T. Group. Washington DC: The World Bank. 2011
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPUBLICSECTORANDGOVERNANCE/EXTDS
RE/0,,menuPK:390249~pagePK:149018~piPK:149093~theSitePK:390243,00.html
World Bank and International Monetary Fund. nd. "Fiscal Decentralization Indicators." in The
Political Economy of Decentralization Reforms. Washington DC: WB, IMF.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDSRE/.../WBFDIdefinitions.doc
World Bank and Silaka et al. nd. "Decentralization Matrix and Its Indicators." Phnom Penh:
Silaka. www.silaka.org/current/pecsa/sas3/2a_dmi_eng.pdf
134
Alexander, Patricia. 2008. "Investing in gender equality: Global evidence and the Asia-Pacific
setting." Colombo: UNDP Asia Pacific Regional Centre. http://www.snapundp.org/elibrary/Publication.aspx?id=573
Ali, A.K. 2003. "Measuring Decentralization." Tallahassee: Florida State University.
http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-06232003-113718/unrestricted/AKA02.Introduction.pdf
Bassiouni, David S., Mathew Varghese, Thomas Otter, Lilit Melikyan, Andrea Esser, Camelia
Gheorghe and Ion Osoian. 2011. "Evaluation Report, United Nations Development Assistance
Framework - Moldova." Chisinau: UN Moldova.
http://www.un.md/un_res_coord_sys/docs/UNDAF%20Evaluation%20Report%20-%20Moldova.pdf
Bivol, Stela and Natalia Vlădicescu. 2010. "Women’s Vulnerability to HIV and Aids in the
Republic of Moldova 2010." Chisinau: UNAIDS Moldova,.
http://aids.md/aids/files/1019/Republic%20of%20Moldova_HIV%20AIDS_womens%20vulnerability.
pdf
Blagojevic, Marina. 2006. "Gender Analysis in Local Development Area." Chisinau: UNDP
Moldova.
http://www.europeandcis.undp.org/upload/public/File/gender/Gender_COP_MOLDOVA_UNDP_
Bouton, Laurent, Marjorie Gassnera and Vincenzo Verardia. 2008. "Redistributing income under
fiscal vertical imbalance." Boston: Boston University. 23 October 2012
http://people.bu.edu/lbouton/RED_FVI.pdf
Budapest Times. 2012. "Laws for Roma: survey." in The Budapest Times.
http://www.budapesttimes.hu/2012/07/29/laws-for-roma-survey/
Buliga, Valentina. 2012. "Creating an Enabling Environment for Health, Independence and
Ageing in Dignity." in UNECE Ministerial Conference on Ageing, 19-20 September 2012. Vienna.
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/pau/age/Ministerial_Conference_Vienna/Information/Speec
hes/Ministers/13Moldova_presentation_Mrs_Buliga_eng.pdf
Cace, Sorin, Vasile Cantarji, Nicolae Sali and Marin Alla. 2007. "Roma in the Republic of
Moldova." Chisinau: UNDP Moldova.
http://www.undp.md/publications/roma%20_report/Roma%20in%20the%20Republic%20of%20Mol
dova.pdf
Center for Legal Assistance for Persons with Disabilities. 2011. "Report on the analysis of the
situation regarding the rights of persons with disabilities in the Republic of Moldova." Geneva:
Documents, Session 12, UN Human Rights Council, Working Group on the Universal Periodic
135
Review, Republic of Moldova 2011.
http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/session12/MD/CLAPDCenterLegalAssistancePersonsDisabilities-eng.pdf
Centre for Human Rights of the Republic of Moldova. 2012. "Report on the observance of human
rights in the Republic of Moldova in 2011." Chisinau: Parliament of the Republic of Moldova.
http://www.ombudsman.md/en/anuale/
Chiriac, Cristina. 2004. "Autonomy of Local Governments in Moldova: A Financial Perspective."
Moscow: Institute for Public Finance Reform.
http://www.publicfinance.ru/filemanager/files/article_moldova.pdf
Cintora, Emily. 2009. "Democratic Governance in Eastern Europe: Analysis and
Recommendations for the UNDP Country Programs in Belarus, Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine."
Boston: UNDP Bratislava Regional Office.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/DPI403%20Fall09/Emily%20Cintora%20Report%20Democra
tic_Governance_in_Eastern_Europe.pdf
Corner, Lorraine. 2003. "Engendered National Statistical System." in UNIFEM/ESCAP Training
Workshop on an Integrated Approach to Gender Statistics Bangkok: UN Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific. http://www.unescap.org/stat/meet/iags/ and
http://www.unescap.org/stat/meet/iags/iags_engender_nss.pdf
Council of Europe. 1992. "European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages." 148.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe. http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/148.htm
—. 2010. "European Charter of Local Self-Government and Explanatory Report." Strasbourg:
Council of Europe. http://www.coe.int/t/congress/sessions/18/Source/CharteEuropeenne_en.pdf
—. 2011. "Working with Roma to improve their own lives." Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/romatravellers/default_en.asp
Cruc, Olesea, Onorica Banciu, Iurie Brinişter, Maria Vremiş, Viorica Craievschi-Toartă and
Alexandru Sinchetru. 2009. "Study on Social Protection and Social Inclusion in Moldova."
Chisinau: Institute for Development and Social Initiatives “Viitorul”.
http://www.viitorul.org/lib.php?l=en&idc=299&t=/IDIS-Studies/Social&
Duflo, Esther. 2004. "Why Political Reservations?" Boston: Department of Economics and Poverty
Action Lab, MIT http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/stm103%20articles/WhyPolitical-Reservations-9-21-04.pdf
136
Durr, Jean-Michel. 2012. "In-depth assessment of Population Statistics of the Republic of Moldova
and its adherence to the EU Statistical Requirements Compendium." Chisinau: UNDP Moldova.
http://www.statistica.md/public/files/SeminareConferinte/Evaluare_demografie_raport_2011/Rapo
rt_evaluare_demograf_2011.pdf
Dutcher, Nadine. 2004. "Expanding Educational Opportunity in Linguistically Diverse Societies."
Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL).
http://www.cal.org/resources/pubs/homelang_eng.pdf and
http://www.cal.org/resources/pubs/fordreport_040501.pdf
EC. 2011. "Implementation of the European Neighbourhood Policy in 2010. Country report:
Republic of Moldova." COM(2011) 303. SEC(2011) 643. Brussels: European Commission (EC),
High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/progress2011/sec_11_643_en.pdf
Edmunds, Roger. 2005. "Models of Statistical Systems." Paris: Partnership in Statistics for
Development in the 21st Century and OECD. http://www.paris21.org/sites/default/files/2101.pdf
EU. 2011. "An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020:
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: ." Fundamental Rights
Agency: European Union (EU) Eur-lex: Brussels.
http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/roma/roma_en.htm
Europa. 2011. "European Commission calls on Member States to set national strategies for Roma
integration." Strasbourg: European Commission.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/400&format=HTML&aged=1&lang
uage=EN&guiLanguage=en
European Commission. 2011. "Roma Education Fund." Brussels: European Commission. July 2011
http://www.romaeducationfund.hu/ , www.romaeducationfund.org,
http://www.romaeducationfund.hu/ref-approved-projects
European Roma Rights Centre. 2010. "The situation of Roma children in Moldova." Chisinau:
European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC, Budapest, Hungary).
http://s3.amazonaws.com/rcpp/assets/attachments/1217_2008_001_Eng_Roma_Children_original.
pdf
European Statistical System Committee. 2011. "European Statistics Code of Practice for The
National and Community Statistical Authorities Adopted by the European Statistical System
137
Committee 28th September 2011." Brussels: Eurostat and European Statistical System.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-32-11-955/EN/KS-32-11-955-EN.PDF
Flaman, Richard. 1999. "Decentralization: A Sampling of Definitions ". Working paper prepared
in connection with the Joint UNDP-Government of Germany evaluation of the UNDP role in
decentralization and local governance. New York: UNDP.
http://web.undp.org/evaluation/documents/decentralization_working_report.PDF
GM and UN Moldova. 2010. "The Second Millennium Development Goals Report, Republic of
Moldova." Chisinau.
http://www.undp.md/presscentre/2010/MDG%20Report%20II/MDG2_RM.pdf
Government of Moldova. 2006. "Population Census 2004. Statistical compilation." Statistical
compilation Volume I. Chisinau: National Bureau of Statistics.
—. 2010. "Rethink Moldova. Priorities for Medium Term Development ". Chisinau: Report for
the Consultative Group Meeting in Brussels 24 March 2010.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTMOLDOVA/Resources/Rethink-Moldova-2010-2013-Finaledit-110310.pdf
—. 2011. "Activity Program. Government of the Rebublic of Moldova. "European Integration:
Freedom, Democracy, Welfare” 2011-2014." http://www.gov.md/lib.php?l=en&idc=445
—. 2012. "Own Powers Nomenclature LPA I, LPA II, CPA (Nomenclatorul Competenţelor APL
I/II, APC)." Chisinau: State Chancellery.
Government of Moldova and UN Moldova. 2011. "Violenta faţă de femei în familie (Domestic
violence against women)." Moldova: Government of Moldova.
http://www.undp.md/presscentre/2011/ViolenceWomen_12Dec/01_Pliant_VIOLENTA_03-122011_CORECT_Final.pdf
Government of the Republic of Moldova. 2004. "Law on Official Statistics." vol. No. 412-XV from
09.12.2004: National Bureau of Statistics.
http://www.statistica.md/public/files/despre/legi_hotariri/Legea_statistica_oficiala_en.pdf
—. 2011a. "The Government adopted the Decision “On approval of the draft law for approving
the National Decentralization Strategy” " in Decentralization and Local Autonomy. Chisinau. 7
January 2012 http://www.descentralizare.gov.md/libview.php?l=en&idc=249&id=886
—. 2011b. "National Decentralization Strategy [draft]." Chisinau.
http://www.descentralizare.gov.md/public/files/temp/The_draft_National_Decentralization_Strateg
y_eng.pdf
138
—. 2012. "National Decentralization Strategy (English version)." Chisinau. English draft version
at:
http://www.descentralizare.gov.md/public/files/temp/The_draft_National_Decentralization_Strateg
y_eng.pdf
Hogan-Brun, Gabrielle and Stefan Wolff. 2010. "Minority Languages in Europe: Frameworks,
Status, Prospects ". Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?is=1403903964
Hossain, Md. Awal. 2005. "Administrative Decentralization: A Framework for Discussion and Its
Practices in Bangladesh." Rajshahi: University of Rajshahi.
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNPAN/UNPAN019445.pdf
Htun, Mala. 2004. "Is Gender like Ethnicity? The Political Representation of Identity Groups."
Perspectives on Politics 2:439-458. http://www.quotaproject.org/other/HtunPOP2004.pdf
IMF. 2012a. "Moldova–2012 Article IV Consultation, Concluding Statement." Washington DC:
International Monetary Fund (IMF). http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2012/051712.htm
—. 2012b. "Republic of Moldova: Staff Report for the 2012 Article IV Consultation." Washington
DC: International Monetary Fund (IMF).
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2012/cr12288.pdf
Infotag (Moldova). 2010. "Moldova plans to earn $28 million from privatization in 2010 " in
moldova.org/economie. http://economie.moldova.org/news/moldova-plans-to-earn-28-millionfrom-privatization-in-2010-207032-eng.html
IPU. 2011. "Women in Parliament in 2011: The Year in Perspective." Geneva: International
Parliamentary Union (IPU). http://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/wmnpersp11-e.pdf
—. 2012. "Women in National Parliaments." Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union. 12 September
2012 http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/world.htm
ISHR. 2011. "UPR of Moldova: discrimination faced by ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities." in
Universal Periodic Review, Human Rights Council. Geneva: International Service for Human
Rights ISHR). 20 October 2011 http://www.ishr.ch/council/376-council/1183-upr-of-moldovadiscrimination-faced-by-ethnic-religious-and-sexual-minorities
139
JILDP (Joint Integrated Local Development Programme). 2011. "Who is missing from local
development?" Chisinau: Government of the Republic of Moldova, United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of
Women (UN Women) and Embassy of Sweden.
http://descentralizare.gov.md/public/publications/810268_en__fotokatalog.pdf
Joy, Leonard. 2003. "Decentralization and Human Rights: A Systemic Approach ". New York:
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme).
http://www.pogar.org/publications/other/undp/decentralization/decent-hr-03e.pdf
Kauzya, John-Mary. 2005. "Decentralization: Prospects for Peace, Democracy and Development."
New York: Division for Public Administration and Development Management, United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan021510.pdf
Khawaja, Sarmad and Thomas K. Morrison. 2005. "Statistical Legislation: Towards a more General
Framework, IMF Working paper, WP/02/179." Washington DC: International Monetary Fund
(IMF).
McGowan, Lisa and Pamela Sparr. 2005. "Gender Programming Manual." Washington DC:
Solidarity Center. http://www.solidaritycenter.org/content.asp?contentid=930
Moldova.org > Economie. 2010. "Premier chairs first meeting of the Parity Commission on
Decentralization." http://economie.moldova.org/news/premier-chairs-first-meeting-of-the-paritycommission-on-decentralization-211235-eng.html
Moldpres. 2012. "Moldova earns 118 million lei from privatization in 2011." in Moldova's news.
http://allmoldova.md/en/moldova-news/1249052393.html
Munteanu, Igor. 2007. "Local Finances Decentralization." Chisinau: Center for Economic Policies,
Institute for Development and Social Initiatives (IDSI) “Viitorul”. http://pasos.org/wpcontent/archive/CPE_newsletter_descentralizare_engl.pdf
National Bureau of Statistics. 2009. "Harmonised Set of Development Indicators in a Gender
Sensitive Manner in the context of the Millennium Development Goals (Short version)." UNDP,
UNIFEM, UNFPA Joint Project on Strengthening National Statistical System. Chisinau: SIDA and
UNDP Moldova.
http://www.statistica.md/public/files/publicatii_electronice/Set_armoniz_indic/1_full_EN_final_pub
licata.pdf
140
—. 2010. "People’s incomes and expenditure (Household Budget Survey) Metadata." Last
certification of metadata 15.02.2010. Chisinau: National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) of the Republic
of Moldova.
National Scientific and Applied Center for Preventive Medicine (NCPM) [Moldova] and ORC
Macro. 2006. "Moldova Demographic and Health Survey 2005." Calverton: National Scientific and
Applied Center for Preventive Medicine of the Ministry of Health and Social Protection and ORC
Macro. http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR178/FR178.pdf
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2002. "National Statistical System." in
Glossary of Statistical Terms. Paris: OECD. February 04, 2004
http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=1726
Ostaf, Serghei. 2011. "Vulnerability Study. Taxonomy and possible decentralization policy
implications for vulnerable groups in Moldova." Chisinau: Government of Moldova, Sida, UN
Women, UNDP Moldova.
Petcut, Petre. 2007. "Wallachia and Moldavia." 2.2. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/roma/Source/FS/2.2_wallachia-moldavia.pdf and
http://romani.uni-graz.at/romani/index.en.shtml
Prescott, Nicholas and Menno Pradhan. 1997. "A Poverty Profile of Cambodia." WDP373.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank. http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1997/10/01/000009265_397112
6124351/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf
Protsyk, Oleh. 2010. "Representation of minorities in the Romanian parliament." Geneva and
New York: IPU and UNDP. http://www.ipu.org/splz-e/chiapas10/romania.pdf
Reisen, Mirjam van. 2009. "The 20% Benchmark: EU support for social sector spending." Briefing
Paper 46. Brussels: Europe External Policy Advisors (EEPA) and Eurostep
http://www.eurostep.org/wcm/dmdocuments/BP_46_Social_sector_spending.pdf
Richardson, Erica, Bayard Roberts, Valeriu Sava, Rekha Menon and Martin McKee. 2011. "Health
insurance coverage and health care access in Moldova." Health Policy and Planning 2011; 1–9.
Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine. http://heapol.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/03/26/heapol.czr024.full.pdf+html
Ringold, Dena, Mitchell A. Orenstein and Erika Wilkens. 2005. "Roma in an Expanding Europe:
Breaking the Poverty Cycle." Washington DC: World Bank.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTROMA/Resources/roma_in_expanding_europe.pdf
141
Roma National Center. 2011a. "Report on the situation of Roma. Submission Prepared by Roma
National Center on the Implementation of the International Pact on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights in the Republic of Moldova." Chisinau: Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/cescrs46.htm
—. 2011b. "Report on the situation on Roma Rights." Chisinau.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/ngos/RNC_Moldova78.pdf
Schneider, Aaron. 2003. "Decentralization: Conceptualization and Measurement." Studies in
Comparative International Development 38:32-56.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/stm103%20articles/Schneider_Decentralization.pdf
St.Bernard, Godfrey. 2007. "Measuring social vulnerability in Caribbean states." in 8th SALISES
Annual Conference Crisis, Chaos and Change: Caribbean Development Challenges in the 21st
Century. Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago: The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine
http://sta.uwi.edu/conferences/salises/documents/St%20Bernard%20%20G.pdf
Stoianova, Anastasia. 2002. "National Minorities Education in Moldova: The Legal Framework
and Practice." in World Congress on Language Policies. Barcelona.
http://www.linguapax.org/congres/taller/taller3/article23_ang.html
Trewin, Dennis. 2004. "The Role of the National Statistical Office in the Broader National
Statistical System - Some New Opportunities and Challenges ". Bangkok: UNESCAP.
http://www.unescap.org/stat/apex/1/background_paper_session1_ABS.pdf
UN DESA Statistics Division. 2005. "Household Sample Surveys in Developing and Transition."
Studies in Methods, Series F NKo. 96, edited by Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New
York: United Nations. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/hhsurveys/pdf/Household_surveys.pdf
UN Moldova. 2011. "Summary of issues for the Committee on Elimination of Racial
Discrimination to consider regarding the current state of ICERD implementation in the Republic
of Moldova." Chisinau.
UNDP. 2012. "Data on Roma." New York: United Nations Development Programme.
http://europeandcis.undp.org/data/show/D69F01FE-F203-1EE9-B45121B12A557E1B
UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre. 2008. "Decentralization in the Europe and CIS region."
Bratislava: Democratic Governance Practice.
142
http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF8&rlz=1T4SKPB_enCA340CA340&q=political+decentralization+indicators
UNDP FRA. 2012. "The situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States. Survey results at a glance."
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights,.
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/Poverty%20Reduction/UNDP_Roma_Poverty_Red
uction_Roma_Survey.pdf
UNDP Moldova. 2011a. "MDGs in Moldova ". Chisinau: United Nations Development Program,
Republic of Moldova. http://www.undp.md/mdg/MDG1/poverty.shtml
—. 2011b. "Moldova’s jobless recovery: “Fast facts” from Moldova’s official socio-economic data."
edited by Office of the Senior Economist. Chisinau.
http://europeandcis.undp.org/uploads/public1/files/vulnerability/Data%20bases/Fast%20facts/Mol
dova%20fast%20facts_July%202011.pdf
—. 2012a. "MDGs in Moldova ". Chisinau: United Nations Development Program, Republic of
Moldova. http://www.undp.md/mdg/MDG1/poverty.shtml
—. 2012b. "Promote gender equality and empower women ". Chisinau: United Nations
Development Programme Moldova. http://www.undp.md/mdg/MDG3/gender.shtml
__. 2012c. “Analysis of the key achievements and challenges in the implementation of the
national MDGs agenda. http://www.undp.md/mdg/moldova.shtml
UNDP Regional Centre Bangkok. 2005. "Fiscal Decentralization and Poverty Reduction."
Bangkok: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
http://regionalcentrebangkok.undp.or.th/practices/governance/documents/Primer_FDPR200511.pdf
UNECE. 2007. "Managing Statistical Confidentiality & Microdata Access. Principles and
Guidelines of Good Practice." New York and Geneva: United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe. Conference of European Statisticians.
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/publications/Managing.statistical.confidentiality.and.m
icrodata.access.pdf
UNECE Secretariat. 2009. "What makes an effective and efficient statistical system." in
Management Seminar on Global Assessments. Yalta: OECD, Paris.
.
UNESCO. 2011. "Republic of Moldova." VII. Ed. No. 2010/11. Geneva: United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/WDE/2010/pdfversions/Republic_of_Moldova.pdf
143
Vremis, Maria, Viorica Craievschi-Toarta, Anatolii Rojco and Diana Cheianu-Andrei. 2010.
"Approaches to social exclusion in Moldova. Methodological and analytical aspects." Chisinau:
UNDP Moldova, UNIFEM, Statistica Moldovei (National Bureau of Statistics of the Republic of
Moldova).
http://www.statistica.md/public/files/publicatii_electronice/Excluziune_soc/Excluziune_soc_ENG.pd
f
World Bank. 2002. "Privatization in Moldova. Country Fact Sheet."
http://www.fdi.net/documents/WorldBank/databases/plink/factsheets/moldova.htm
—. 2007. "Improving Public Expenditure Efficiency for Growth and Poverty Reduction: A Public
Expenditure Review for the Republic of Moldova." Report No. 37933 - MD. Washington DC:
Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit, Europe and Central Asia Region, World
Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTMOLDOVA/Resources/MDPEReng.pdf
—. 2011a. "The Decade of Roma Inclusion." Washington DC: The World Bank Group.
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/EXTROMA/0,,contentMDK:2075
4751~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:615987,00.html
—. 2011b. "Decentralization & Subnational Regional Economics." in Public Sector Governance,
edited by D. a. S. T. Group. Washington DC: The World Bank. 2011
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPUBLICSECTORANDGOVERNANCE/EXTDS
RE/0,,menuPK:390249~pagePK:149018~piPK:149093~theSitePK:390243,00.html
World Bank and International Monetary Fund. nd. "Fiscal Decentralization Indicators." in The
Political Economy of Decentralization Reforms. Washington DC: WB, IMF.
siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDSRE/.../WBFDIdefinitions.doc
World Bank and Silaka et al. nd. "Decentralization Matrix and Its Indicators." Phnom Penh:
Silaka. www.silaka.org/current/pecsa/sas3/2a_dmi_eng.pdf
144
Annex I. Matrix of Indicators on Decentralization and Vulnerabilities
[The Matrix is inserted in this annex]
Annex II. Services: level of decentralization
Services, level of decentralization - by responsibility *
I
1
PA
level *
Community Public Services
Policy
1
2,3
Drinking water, transport and treatment
4
4,5
Household waste, collection, management
4
6
Green spaces and cemeteries
3
II
10
Public transport
National policy and standards
1
11, 12
Local and regional transport services
4
13, 14
Local and regional management, roads, maintenance
4
III
Urban and Territorial (Regional) Planning
15
National policies and standards
1
16, 17
Urban and area compliance
4
18
Social housing
4
19
Public project construction
4
20
Street lighting and maintenance
4
IV
[ tbc...]
Local Economic Development
Strategic planning
4
Management of local enterprises
3
145
Services, level of decentralization - by responsibility *
V
VI
PA
level *
Public and private property management
4
Market and commercial space management
4
Concessions management
4
Public Utilities
Policies and standards, electrical and gas
2
Central heating and hot water management
5
Participate in gas, electrical network development
3
Gas network development and supply and mntnc
1
Education
National policy and standards, all levels
1
Primary schooling
School management, boards, appointment of directors
3
Establishment and control of school networks
3
School maintenance
3
Staff hiring and promotion
3
Related services (transport, meals)
3
Curricula and textbooks
≤ 1
In-service teacher training
2
Monitoring, evaluation of education
1, 2
Secondary schooling
School management, boards, appointment of directors
3
Establishment and control of school networks
3
School maintenance
3
146
Services, level of decentralization - by responsibility *
PA
level *
Staff hiring and promotion
3
Related services (transport, meals)
3
Curricula and textbooks
≤ 1
In-service teacher training
2
Monitoring, evaluation of education
1, 2
Upper secondary and vocational training
School management, boards, appointment of directors
3
Establishment and control of school networks
3
School maintenance
3
Staff hiring and promotion
3
Related services (transport, meals)
3
Curricula and textbooks
VII
≤ 1
In-service teacher training
2
Monitoring, evaluation of education
1, 2
Social Services
National policy and standards
1
Identification of vulnerable persons, social issues
4
Local community services, inclusion, political support [??]
3
L1 community services, planning, financing, delivery
?
L2 community services, planning, financing, delivery
?
Moniroring private and NGO delivery of social services
3
Implementing specific programs and support disadvantaged groups, including
price subsidies to essential public services provided by the TAU 1,2;
147
2
Services, level of decentralization - by responsibility *
Monitoring, control, evaluation of community social and specialized services
Planning, financing, supplying highly specialized social and residential
services
VIII
IX
X
PA
level *
2,3
1,2
Health
Participation in development of primary care - family doctors and preventive
medicine
3
Participation in public health education
2, 3
Implementation of strategic plans for developing local health services, local
health programs and participation in strengthening the technical and material
health care institutions
2, 3
Development, approval and funding of local public health programs
5
Exercise response and control of complex measures for public health
emergencies: disasters, natural disasters, epidemics, epizootics
2, 5
Monitoring community services for public health insurance
2
Human Rights, Gender, Inclusion
Integration of the principle of equality between women and men in public
policies, programs, legislation and local investment
3
Collaboration with various organizations on issues of equality between women
and men
3
Monitoring the activity of LPAs in the field
2
Facilities for other socially vulnerable groups
5
Civil Registry
Issuance and maintenance of records
3
Maintenance of databases of civil status documents
3
Monitoring, control
2,3
148
Services, level of decentralization - by responsibility *
XI
XII
XIII
PA
level *
Civil Protection
Specifically legislated civil defence and emergency management tasks and
services
4
Emergency management
2
Development, planning, implementation and financing of emergency and
management intervention
1,2
Notifying the population of dangers and emergencies, rules of behaviour and
actions to be taken
3
Environmental Protection
Compliance with national environmental standards in relation to services
provided by the TAU 1,2, specifically in the collection, transport and storage of
household waste
4
Compliance with national environmental standards in the administration of
public domain of TAU 1,2
4
Monitoring and control of environmental legislation
2
Establishment, funding and implementation of environmental protection
policies
1,2
Rehabilitation, reconstruction, restoration of severely affected ecological areas
and prevention of environmental damage
2,4
Public ecological expertise involving matters affecting the environment
5
Compliance with environmental legislation
2
Security, protection, ecological restoration and funds for protected areas
2
Public Order
Establishment, organization and funding of community police
4
LPA administrative commission
4
Home guard and commissionaires
5
149
Services, level of decentralization - by responsibility *
XIV
PA
level *
Agriculture and Extension Services
XV
Planning and financing of extension services
3
Planning and financing of veterinary services
3
Decentralized cooperation with public and veterinary health for food safety,
epidemics and epizootics
2,4
Culture, Youth, Sports
Establishment, organization, funding of L1,2 libraries, cultural centres,
theatres, museums
4
Establishment, construction, maintenance of sports facilities
2,4
Planning, financing of cultural, sports and youth activities
2,4
Protection of intellectual property
2
XVI
National Defence
131
Training citizens, economy and territory for defence and military service
1,2,4
131
Delivery of production, water supply, heat and electricity provided by
communications, utilities and military units
4
132
Granting of land for defence needs and exercise of control over their use
4
*
Public Administration (PA)-level code
1 = Centralized
2 = De-concentrated
3 = Decentralized to L2
4 = Decentralized to L2 and L1
150
Services, level of decentralization - by responsibility *
PA
level *
5 = Decentralized to L1
6 = Shared by all 3 tiers
Source: Author’s codes applied to Government of Moldova 2012, pp. 4-14
Annex III. Terms of Reference
The Terms of Reference of the international consultant are given here. The assignment was
initially planned for an input of 30 working days over a period of several months. It was later
extended to incorporate an additional week to provide for preparation of guidelines for use of the
Indicators Matrix.
Terms of References
INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANT
TO UNDERTAKE THE ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABLE STATISTICS AND IMPROVE STATISTICS FRAMEWORK
ON VULNERABLE GROUPS in the Republic of Moldova
Job Title:
One international consultant (under IC modality)
Duration:
July- October, 2011 (up to 30 working days)
Beneficiary:
State Chancellery, National Bureau of Statistics
Contracting Authority:
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)/UN Women funds
Duty station:
Chisinau
BACKGROUND and CONTEXT
Joint UN Project on Strengthening the National Statistical System of RM (Statistics Project) is currently implemented by the
UNDP, UN Women, UNICEF, UNFPA and ILO, in partnership with the National Bureau of Statistics and aims at improving
data collection, production, dissemination and use of statistical information with particular attention to national needs and
overall conformity of official statistics with international standards. One of the Statistics Project’s intended results is the
improved capacity of the National Bureau of Statistics and other line ministries, involved in production of information
(through administrative reporting system, surveys and censuses) to produce, in a timely manner, data of appropriate quality
being multi-dimensionally disaggregated. The second expected result would be the improved use of available disaggregated
151
statistics by different categories of data users in particular for evidence-based monitoring of policies, development
strategies, programmes, etc.
In parallel, UNDP and UN Women, in partnership with the Government of Moldova (State Chancellery), with financial support
from SIDA, are implementing another Joint Integrated Local Development Programme (JILDP), which was designed to
improve the policy framework, as well as to support the administrative systems and procedures focused on decentralization
and promotion of LPAs’ role in decision making. It also helps in building the capacity of LPAs to plan, implement and monitor
their strategic plans and improve local public service delivery, involving civil society and community efforts and participation.
The JILDP advocates for using Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA) and Gender equality mainstreaming (GE) takes
special measures to focus on the vulnerable and marginalized population in order to ensure that they are not excluded from
local development processes.
A core activity of the Joint Integrated Local Development Programme under its Policy Advisory and Advocacy Component is
to support the government in implementation of the Decentralization reform on the basis of the National Decentralization
Strategy68.
Decentralization and local autonomy, as a part of the Responsible and Effective Governance, are one of the priorities of the
Activity Program of the Government of the Republic of Moldova “European Integration: Freedom, Democracy, Welfare” for
2011-2014. In this respect, the priority actions among the rest include creation of institutional and legal systems providing
efficient instruments for increased responsibility of the local public authorities towards the population; creation of mechanisms
facilitating participation of the population in the decision making, fight against corruption, securing equality and elimination of
discrimination, etc.
While starting the decentralization reform, the Government of the Republic of Moldova has made a clear statement to have a
Human Rights Based Approach a key instrument throughout the planning and implementation. The principle of equity between
men and women as well as HRBA principles - participation, non-discrimination, transparency and accountability - will help
improving the living-conditions of the population, by good quality, equal access to public services, enhancing the democracy
through increased public participation, well-functioning accountability mechanisms and transparency in local politics and
administration.
In Moldova there are certain societal groups, which more than others excluded from decision-making processes and
development benefits, with less access to fundamental rights such as health care, employment, education etc., which
consequently makes them more vulnerable and marginalized. In Moldova, in the context of the Decentralization Strategy, the
vulnerability of population groups has been identified along the lines of: 1) income, 2) age, 3) disability, 4) language/ethnicity,
5) religion, 6) rural regions 7) gender, 8) occupation. At the same time the statistical data about the vulnerable groups
disaggregated by territory, gender, age, ethnicity, language, religion, disability, health status and other categories available at
the moment is not sufficient for evidence based policy making, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the
Decentralization Reform as well as assessing its impact on particular vulnerable groups. The efforts of decentralization reform
will focus on the inclusion of vulnerable and marginalized persons or groups, with a view to their empowerment vis-à-vis local,
regional and national authorities, and inclusion in policymaking and implementation. This reform is an opportunity for the
Republic of Moldova to address inequalities and to tackle long-term issues of social exclusion of vulnerable groups.
The strategic planning and administration of public resources at any level of decision-making becomes efficient when needs
and rights of the population, in particular vulnerable ones, are properly secured and addressed, and when the public authorities
have sufficient capacities to justify their decisions and actions by relevant evidences. On the other hand, population, being
sufficiently informed and willing to take use of the available evidence for their own benefit, has more opportunities to participate
and influence decision-making and hold the authorities accountable for their actions.
An important tool for increased efficiency and responsiveness of decentralization reform, which can ensure human rights
gender responsive policy planning and resource allocation, as well as service access and delivery, is statistics
disaggregated by multiple parameters/dimensions: territory, ethnicity, age, sex, disabilities and other types of vulnerabilities.
Different communities and groups of men and women in Moldova have diverse needs (based on their different roles and
responsibilities in society) and unequal access to opportunities and resources, including capacities and means by which
they can support various local services financially.
The collection and analysis of data disaggregated by multiple forms of vulnerabilities helps to examine differences in
women's and men's lives, including those which lead to social and economic inequity for vulnerable people, to apply this
understanding to national, sectoral and local policy development and service delivery and to achieve positive change for
people subject to discrimination based on gender, income, ethnic or religious identity, disability or other factors, which make
68 The Strategy paper has been approved by the Parity Committee, http://www.descentralizare.gov.md/libview.php?l=ro&idc=249&id=760
152
them vulnerable. Thus, applying analysis based on the multiple disaggregations of data at the very early stage and
throughout the whole process of decentralization reform, including monitoring and evaluation, removes the probability of
eventual policy planning and resource management on the basis of wrong or assumptions and inaccurate/confusing
stereotypes.
Government Parity Committee for Decentralization is to carry out the overall coordination of the Decentralization Strategy’s
monitoring and evaluation, while the State Chancellery will play the role of inter-sector coordinator of the Strategy’s
implementation and monitoring. The Strategy monitoring 69 will be performed on the basis of performance and impact
indicators, revealing the implementation progress and, respectively, the obtained results, which still should be elaborated.
As a necessary step to the further development of the monitoring and evaluation framework of the National Strategy
on Decentralization, as well as to increase responsiveness of the decentralization reform to the needs of the people of
Moldova, including vulnerable ones70, it is necessary to improve the availability/collection and analysis of statistical data
about such categories of people, their status and factors which hamper their rights, chances or access to basic public
services, which are currently missing or insufficient.
The Programme’s initiative on improvement of the statistical data about vulnerable groups is in line with the
Recommendations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to the Government of the Republic of
Moldova: “6. The Committee is concerned about the absence of disaggregated data on the effective realization of Covenant
rights for disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups, in particular by the Roma, persons with disabilities,
persons living with HIV/AIDS and non-citizens. The Committee recommends that the State party take urgent measures to
establish a system for the collection and monitoring of annual data on Covenant rights, disaggregated by disadvantaged and
marginalized individuals and groups, including (though not exclusively) the Roma, persons with disabilities, persons living
with HIV/AIDS and non-citizens.71”
UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women expressed concern with “the limited availability of
statistical data disaggregated by sex, ethnicity and age, and by urban and rural areas” and provided recommendation for
improvement of such data72.
Given this situation and the identified needs, the partnership between those two Joint UN Projects is proposed under the
overall guidance of and in cooperation with the State Chancellery and the National Bureau of Statistics.
OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSULTANCY
The United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women (UN Women) and the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) Moldova, through the Joint Project on Strengthening the National Statistical System, are
seeking to employ one international consultant with relevant international experience in fields related to the present
assignment, who would undertake the assessment of the national statistics and improve statistics framework on
vulnerable groups in the Republic of Moldova, identified in the context of Decentralization Strategy.
The overall objective of the assignment is to provide national stakeholders with a comprehensive assessment/review,
through gender lens and other disaggregation dimensions, of statistical data which measure the degree of vulnerability,
marginalization and exclusion of particular groups of population of the country, describe the factors and determinants causing
such a status, side effects/impact resulted, etc., by data sources (official, administrative and other, at national and/or sectoral
level). The respective assessment will also conclude with description of the current status/sitation regarding in mentioned
data collection and analysis, and possible improvements in this respect. The obtained result would serve as the basis for
the elaboration of the monitoring and evaluation framework of the National Decentralization Strategy.
The practical component of the assignment/assessment will include the compilation of a complex set of indicators on
vulnerable groups to measure and monitor progress in relation to social inclusion, gender balance, equity, women
69 Decentralization Strategy of the Republic of Moldova, chapter “Strategy monitoring and evaluation”, page 49: “Monitoring will be based on a relevant set of indicators that
reflect the direct achievements/ outputs as well as their outcomes and impact. The set of indicators will be proposed by the Division of Decentralization Policies, discussed with all
stakeholders and adopted by the Parity Commission. The data collection process will be done by the same Division in cooperation with Local Government Division.”
70 Decentralization Strategy of the Republic of Moldova, Annex 4: “Classification of the vulnerable groups include: 1. Poverty: a) elderly, b) large households, c) children; 2. Ag: a)
elderly, b) young people; 3. Disability: a) persons with mental disability, b) Children with disability, c) Elderly with disability; 4. Language/ethnicity: a) Roma, b) Bulgarians, c)
Ukrainians, d) Gagauz, e) Moldovans in Transnistria. 5. Religion: a) Muslims, b) Non-orthodox Christian, c) Jews. 6. Rural regions: a) children of educational age, b) active part of
population. 7. Gender (stigma, employment, level of pay): a) women, b) LGBTI, c) trafficking, domestic violence. 8. Occupation: a) agricultural entrepreneurs”.
71 P.2 E/C.12/MDA/CO/2 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Forty-sixth session, Geneva, 2-20 May 2011
72
P.34 CEDAW/C/MDA/CO/3, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Thirty-sixth session, 7-25 August 2006
153
empowerment, equal access to public services, respect for human rights and other dimensions, at the national and
local/regional level.
The International Consultant will provide conceptual and methodological guidance and support for the achievement of the
assignment’s general objective and will be assisted by the National Consultants mainly being responsible for the
technical/practical and field work.
Under the current assignment the International Consultant is expected:
(A) To develop conceptual framework and lead the mapping of (a) available and (b) possible (to produce) statistics
measuring vulnerability of the population of the Republic of Moldova, to be collected on the permanent basis, by
vulnerability dimensions and by sectors of national economy;
(B) To undertake an overall institutional assessment of capacities and potential in collection and analysis of statistical
data mentioned under point A above;
(C) To develop a list of priority needs related to strengthening the national capacity in improving such statistics and in using
it in the framework of policy monitoring and evaluation, including the estimation of development assistance required;
(D) To develop a list of recommendations on further improvement of the availability and quality of statistical information
measuring the vulnerability on the population.
In the context of the present assignment areas of concern are determined by the vulnerability factor/dimension, while the
mapping, analysis and other work components will be undertaken by sectors of the economy. Thus, the given assignment
should result in a cross-sectorial and multi-aspectual data assessment.
EXPECTED OUTCOMES
In the medium run, the successful accomplishment of the present assignment’s targets should lead to:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
improvement of the national system of statistical indicators on housing, education, health, employment, access to
services and facilities, social protection, etc. relevant for the Republic of Moldova to measure and monitor progress
in relation to the government response to the basic needs of vulnerable groups;
strengthening the regional/local statistics, but also building of the national ownership and capacity in policy
monitoring at the local level;
establishment of a comprehensive and multi-dimensional platform for the further monitoring at the national and
regional levels;
enhancement of usage of administrative sources of information for production of reliable and disaggregated
statistical data needed for the operation of LPAs;
mainstreaming of gender dimension into national strategic and policy papers and strengthening the national
monitoring and reporting system on decentralization, human rights, gender equality, social inclusion, etc. in the
Republic of Moldova.
identification of gaps regarding the quality of available statistics, specify areas of concern and needs for further
improvement in this respect;
help to central and local authorities to build their capacities and gather knowledge on related topics.
increase of the awareness of data users to enable them to better understand the contents of statistics and to improve
their planning processes and to refine the policy measures promoted by them at national/local/regional levels;
The Consultant shall ensure a high level of analytical thinking, efficient communication and cooperation with the State
Chancellery, NBS, line ministries, UN Women and UNDP and other relevant institutions and is expected to perform a teamwork together with the two National Consultants and the specialists of named institutions for the successful fulfilment of the
set tasks.
TASKS and RESPONSIBILITIES
In order to achieve the envisaged objectives, the International Consultant, with the support of National Consultants and under
supervision of the UNDP and UN Women, will have the following major responsibilities and will perform the following activities:
1. Desk review:
 Get acquainted with the results of previous activities undertaken by the Projects and their counterparts in the fields of
concern, analysis of the background and reference materials;
 Analyze available resources with indicators available in the areas covered by the present assignment: printed and
electronic publications, reports, methodologies, relevant legislative and policy documents for sectors to be covered;
 Undertake a one-week familiarization mission to Moldova comprising meetings with the National Consultants,
concerned UN Projects’ teams and experts, relevant national stakeholders;
154
2. Provide methodological and conceptual framework and guidance for the inventory of the existing systems of
data collection per each area of concern
2A. Mapping of the available data (in consultation with data providers)
 Propose own approach and vision for the expected intersectorial data assessment, working methodology and
guidelines, and draft a detailed action plan, which will correlate with the plan of National Consultants;
The methodology and guidelines to be developed (for application by the National Consultants) will aim at collection
of information regarding:









status and characteristics of the vulnerable groups of population;
difficulties encountered by men and women representing vulnerable groups of the population while accessing
the local public services;
special measures addressed to the vulnerable groups, as a part of the enabling and non-discriminative
policies;
transparency of and access to information, participation and channels of influence, enabling of accountability;
participation of men and women representing vulnerable groups, minorities, disabled persons and others in
the decision-making local process and their representation within the LPAs;
amplitude of discrimination;
available measures to protect the most vulnerable groups;
resources of LPAs to provide public services according to needs and requirements of the beneficiaries in
terms of efficiency, effectiveness, equity, including in terms of rights of vulnerable groups, and financial
discipline;
other important dimensions and aspects of vulnerability from the perspective of Decentralization Strategy.
 Develop and provide the structure & necessary templates of the indicators’ matrix to be used by the National
Consultants for the inventory of statistics on vulnerable groups taking into consideration the multiple dimensions to
be covered.
The developed templates should facilitate the work of National Consultants and comply with all requirements
towards the statistics’ inventory, which will comprise:
 Statistical data collected by the relevant institutions/ministries (inc. disaggregation dimensions);
 Status of data (open or limited access for use);
 Data suppliers, data sources and data producers and their number per each area of concern;
 Information flows and exchange and/or sharing of statistics between institutions/ ministries;
 Data collection & production (modalities, periodicity) & methodological aspects;
 Differences in definitions and terminology used by different data producers for the same/similar
indicators/data;
 Legal/regulatory framework;
 Assistance provided by development partners on the improvement of certain statistics.
Informative: Relevant information will be gathered by National Consultants in the framework of Thematic Working
Groups, consisting of the representatives of data producers, created under the leadership of the State Chancellery.
2B. Cross checking of the undertaken inventory (in consultations with data users)
 Develop a questionnaire (and instructions) aimed to identify the extent of inventoried (=available) statistical data use
and additional needs of disaggregated data at national/regional/local level which could be missed or insufficiently
addressed during the inventory. Questionnaire will be filled in by sectorial data users and serve as a basis for Activity
no.4.
3. Develop new (missing) indicators
 Propose the list and description of the new indicators (with possible dimensions for data disaggregation) relevant for
the addressed thematic which are not available in the national statistical system of the Republic of Moldova and
supplement the matrix of inventoried indicators by them.
The new indicators will be complemented by the (rough) estimation on their feasibility (in terms of resources and
implementation timeframe).
4. Develop the assessment report of capacities and potential in collection and analysis of statistical data measuring
vulnerability of the population of the Republic of Moldova, by vulnerability dimensions and by sectors
155
 Develop the outline and structure of cross-sectorial assessment of all data sources, both official, but mostly
administrative registers and data-bases, and their content, including statistical data which measure and describe the
vulnerability (from the perspective of Decentralization Strategy) of country’s population.
 Develop the report on institutional assessment of capacities and potential in collection and analysis of statistical data
on vulnerable groups in the Republic of Moldova, relevant for the measurement and monitoring of progress in relation
to the government response to the basic needs of vulnerable groups.
Inputs of the National Consultants, namely factual description of the existing systems and process of collection,
production and use of statistics on vulnerable groups by Moldovan government institutions and description of gaps
in data collection, as well as typology of resources and capacities which are lacking but are needed to overcome the
weaknesses and shortcomings, will be used to elaborate on the report.
The report will include a list of priority needs to further strengthen the national capacity to update these statistics and
use it in the policy monitoring and evaluation, list of recommendations on improvement of the availability and quality
of statistical information in the respective fields, including the estimation of development assistance required (incl.
costs estimation and tentative calendar for implementation).
The Report shall include and Annex comprising the comprehensive set of statistical indicators to be used by the
concerned counterparts for measurement of the social inclusion, gender balance, equity, women empowerment,
respect for human rights, equal access to public services and other facilities, at the national and local/regional level.
The indicators will be grouped by objectives/components of the Decentralization strategy, by vulnerable groups, by
sectors of economy, and/or any other criteria (to be determined by the International consultant) which will facilitate
their usage in practice by the policy and decision-makers and ensure the sustainability of undertaken effort.
The report will be fine-tuned after the processing of comments received from involved partners and concerned
stakeholders.
5. Make the presentation of the produced Report


Publicly present the Report, findings and recommendations for the national partners from the State Chancellery,
ministries, National Bureau of Statistics, donors and CSOs;
Familiarize the audience with other similar experiences of collection and analysis of statistical data about vulnerable
groups and its application for policy development and implementation, which are the regional best practices.
6. Develop the Final Activity Report on undertaken consultancy, including attained outputs, conclusions and next
stage recommendations.
All activities under the present assignment will be correlated to the needs of key-stakeholders and in compliance with the
international standards and best practices, relevant national and sector policy documents (ensured by national consultants)
and will be built on the previous and on-going activities undertaken by the Projects, national counterparts (State Chancellery,
NBS, line-ministries) and development partners.
DELIVERABLES and TIMEFRAME
The Consultant will be responsible for delivering of the following outputs, comprising the main milestones:
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
Deliverable
Tentative timeframe
One-week familiarization mission to Moldova
In 1 week from contract date
Overall approach and vision on assessment, working methodology and guidelines,
Action Plan including detailed timeline (using relevant inputs from National
Consultants)
In 1 week after mission to
Moldova
Supporting documents to be used for consultations with data producers: Structure
& template of the matrix to be used by the National Consultants for the inventory of
statistics on vulnerable groups taking into consideration the multiple dimensions to
be covered
3rd week from contract date
Supporting documents to be used for consultations with data users (aimed to
measure the use of available statistical data and needs for improved statistics)
156
In 1 week from
draft of inventoried
indicators (provided by
Nat.Cons.)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Outline and structure of cross-sectorial assessment report
In 2 weeks from the 1st draft
of inventoried indicators
List and description of the new indicators (incl. possible dimensions for data
disaggregation, feasibility) to be added to the matrix of inventoried indicators
In 1 week from the finetuned matrix of inventoried
indicators
Draft report on assessment of capacities and potential in collection and analysis of
statistical data on vulnerable groups in the Republic of Moldova, including priority
needs and recommendations on improvement of the availability and quality of
statistical information in the concerned areas
13th week from contract date
Final assessment report
15th week from contract date
Public presentation of assessment report
16th week from contract date
Final report on undertaken assignment (including stages passed, inventory of
resources used, results obtained versus expected, impact of obtained results, risks
overcome and problems faced, lessons learned, recommendations etc.) plus
documentation related to the conducted work
In 1 week from acceptance
of all previous deliverables
All the deliverables should be agreed with the Coordination Team (incl. State Chancellery, NBS, MLSPF, UN Women,
UNDP) and be provided in English, in electronic format.
The timeframe for the work of the International Consultant is July through end of October, 2011. The consultancy
presumes up to 30 working days. The consultant will be assisted in her/his work by the staff of the UN Projects and
counterparts for conceptual and technical aspects of the assignment.
INSTITUTIONAL and MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
The Consultant is expected to work in a close cooperation with the national counterparts at the State Chancellery, National
Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and Family, Ministry of Economy and the UN Women and UNDP
staff, and regularly keep them updated on the progress.
The Projects and their national partners will be supporting the International Consultant by nominating the responsible
persons on behalf of each partner to be included in the Coordination Team (created for the purpose of coordinating this
assignment), and providing them with the relevant regulatory acts, results of previous work, and with the guidelines on the
legal and institutional framework of the partner institutions thus ensuring that the undertaken assignment conforms with
sectorial and national priorities.
The International Consultant is expected to coordinate his/her work with the National consultants involved in supporting the
present assignment and guide their work.
QUALIFICATIONS AND COMPETENCIES
The following qualification criteria will be applied during the selection of the consultant:
Education:


Advanced degree in social sciences, human rights and/or other science related to areas relevant for the assignment;
Other formal education relevant for the assignment;
Experience:



At least 5 years of international experience of working with marginalized groups, human rights framework, social
inclusion;
Proven experience in areas of gender equality and gender mainstreaming;
Proven experience in undertaking of analytical work (analysis, research, policy monitoring, etc.) in the fields of gender
issues, employment, social protection, business development, human rights, etc. based on use of statistical data;
157


Previous international (including CIS and CEE countries) experience in areas of social, in particular gender, statistics
production and use;
Experience in working with international organizations and UN agencies in particular;
Competencies and Skills:






Good knowledge of European/international standards and best practices on monitoring and legal framework related to
the areas of concern for the present assignment;
Knowledge of statistical concepts and definitions, methods and data sources at the international/EU level (related to
the areas of concern for the present assignment);
Familiarity with European/international standards and best practices, but also UN Women/UN mandate and work in
the area of gender equality;
Excellent computer skills, knowledge of data base applications, ability to work with large datasets or even use of
statistical analysis software (i.e. SPSS, STATA);
Strong analytical, writing and communication skills;
Fluency in English;
Personal Qualities and other requirements:





Good interpersonal skills, solid judgment/decision making, initiative and creativity;
Ability to analyse, plan, communicate effectively orally and in writing, draft report, solve problems, organize and meet
expected results, adapt to different environments (cultural, economic, political and social);
Ability to effectively handle multiple tasks under time constraint;
Availability to work with UNDP & UN Women and Projects’ national stakeholders during the indicated/approved period;
Cultural and gender sensitivity.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Contractor’s performance will be evaluated against such criteria as: timeliness, responsibility, initiative, communication,
accuracy, and quality of the products delivered.
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Upon request, the Consultant will submit Project Progress Reports (PPR) at appropriate intervals during the assignment.
The progress reports should summarize in project progress, timesheets, difficulties encountered, results accomplished as
well as recommendations, any requests and plans for project activities for the forthcoming reporting period. Reports should
be shared with all partners involved and could be discussed during regular working meetings.
All reports shall in be submitted to the Project Manager who is responsible for approving the reports and deliverables (with
prior coordination with the Coordination Team created under the present assignment).
FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Payments will be disbursed in installments upon submission and approval of deliverables and certification by Project
Manager/National Coordinator, that the services have been satisfactorily performed.
158