No abstract

The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. substantive and editorial suggestions regarding the paper. We also thank participants and their comments in the World Bank seminar on September 10, 2009, where the findings of the report was discussed, particularly by the two formal discussants: Sumter Lee Travers, Manager of Subnational Finance Group of the World Bank Group; and Christine Kessides, Lead Economist of the Urban, Water and Sanitation Department of the Europe and Central Asia Region of the World Bank. Valuable contributions were made by our colleagues in four countries who provided critical input in assembling the data on Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Serbia, and the UK.

There is a growing recognition of the importance of government-owned capital assets, both conceptually and in practice, in large part due to the 2008 global financial crisis. However, a sizeable gap remains between the academic and professional “universe of knowledge” surrounding government asset management, and the actual asset management practiced by governments. In particular, the majority of governments around the world are wholly uninformed when it comes to good asset management. The purpose of this paper is to reduce this gap and suggest an instrument specifically for local governments, for the evaluation of their asset management, in order to help them to identify the weakest elements of asset management and thus focus limited resources on improving these elements. The instrument consists of essentially a composite image of good asset management practices for three main asset types: buildings, land, and infrastructure. The instrument specifies each asset management practice by its key characteristics and then converts each characteristic into a survey question. Answers are scored and a total score for each asset type is calculated. The assessment instrument can be used by local governments, their advisers, and by researchers interested in comparative analysis of asset management in different jurisdictions or countries.

ABSTRACT. The Urban Institute (UI) worked with fi ve cities in post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan to apply better management practices through the development of Strategic Land Management Plans. Kyrgyzstan transferred property to local governments, but municipal land management had remained poor owing to a proliferation of responsible agencies, lack of rule of law, corruption, and passiveness on the part of local governments. UI worked with local governments to make an inventory of municipal land, publicize the results, and develop a strategy that articulated principles for land management and an implementation plan. This led to several improvements including proper registration of parcels and proactive policies to lease and sell land through open competition. It also established a model for determining public policy that countered corruption and public deliberation of costs and benefi ts in the use of local assets. Donor involvement to promote good land legislation, the property registration system, and decentralization was also critical to success.

No abstract