39917 © 2007 International Finance Corporation IFC/ The World Bank Group 2121 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20433 Web Page: www.ifc.org All rights reserved. Printed in Lima, Peru A publication of International Finance Corporation The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed here are the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank Group or the governments they represent. The IFC cannot guarantee the accuracy of the data in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations and other information shown in the charts and tables in this work do not imply that the IFC is emitting any judgment of or opinion on the legal system of any country. Rights and Permissions The material in this publication is copyrighted. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or inclusion in any information storage and retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the World Bank Group. The World Bank Group encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA; telephone: 978-750-8400; fax: 978-750-4470; Internet: www.copyright.com. All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Web Site Information An electronic version of this publication can be found at: www.municipalscorecard.org Table of Contents Foreword iii Acknowledgements v Preface 1 Introduction 3 Municipal Scorecard Ranking 5 Operating License 9 Construction Permit 21 How To Reform 33 References 41 Annex 43 Operating License 45 Construction Permit 77 Reformed Municipalities 109 Methodology 113 The Municipalities' Profiles 123 FOREWORD Foreword I n Latin America, municipal-level regulatory procedures are among the most complicated and time-consuming elements in the entire business registration process. Therefore, in its commitment to promote private sector-led growth in developing countries, IFC, through its Office for Advisory Services in Latin America and Caribbean, began efforts to support municipal simplification initiatives. Since its first municipal business simplification pilot in the Municipality of La Paz in Bolivia in 2004, IFC has expanded the program to reach 8 countries in the region. By working with various public and private sector institutions and more than 30 municipalities, IFC has helped to improve the business environment at the municipal level throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. To complement these efforts and expand its impact, IFC has produced the first Municipal Scorecard in 2007, a benchmarking tool that compares municipal-level regulatory processes by measuring efficiency and process in the municipality while identifying best practices and reforms in Bolivia, Brazil, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Peru. Municipal Scorecard 2007 examined the procedures involved in obtaining a Municipal Operating License and a Construction Permit in 65 municipalities. This initiative has been possible thanks to the support of the Swiss Government's State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO). Municipal Scorecard 2007 complements other studies such as the Doing Business Report and the Investment Climate Assessment (ICA) of the World Bank Group. To provide an in-depth examination of regulatory constraints at the municipal level, the report focuses on local surveys of entrepreneurs who have requested licenses and permits as well as the municipal officers in charge of these procedures. The objective is to enable national and local governments and the private sector to better understand the regulatory structure and identify those areas that need to be addressed by municipal reforms. To this end, Municipal Scorecard 2007 provides a ranking to demonstrate best and worst practices at the municipal level that impact on the business climate and the ability to attract investment. The pioneering effort of establishing municipal indicators for 65 municipalities in the region has enabled us to obtain the following insights on improving the efficiency of municipal regulation: i. Neither size nor income level is a significant barrier to reform: The report shows that even small municipalities such as Estelí in Nicaragua and Comayagua in Honduras and municipalities with low levels of per capita income such as Choluteca in Honduras or León and Granada in Nicaragua performed well in the Ranking despite these perceived obstacles. ii. Those municipalities that have implemented reforms consistently placed higher in the ranking: The report found that the 15 municipalities that had completed reforms prior to the study consistently performed better in Municipal Scorecard 2007. iii. There are important lessons that can be replicated across and within countries: The report shows that regulatory barriers at the municipal level vary significantly within countries. Despite these disparities however the report shows that with strong political commitment and creativity municipalities can apply the principles of transparency and efficiency to their application of regulations and that these lessons can be shared and spread across and within countries. Facilitating opportunities for entrepreneurs in Latin America and the Caribbean is essential to ensure job creation and economic growth. IFC looks forward to continue working with the municipalities and the private sector to help improve the investment climate and economic prospects in the region. Atul Mehta Director Latin America and Caribbean Department International Finance Corporation (IFC) World Bank Group iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Acknowledgements T he Municipal Scorecard 2007 was developed by a team led by The surveys in each country were implemented by our the principal authors, Luke Haggarty and Kristtian Rada Operational Partners: with the invaluable advice and guidance of Anita Bhatia, General Manager of the IFC Advisory Services Office for Latin America In Bolivia, Universidad Privada Boliviana (UPB), under the and the Caribbean. direction of Pablo Zegarra. The UPB team members were: Juan Jose Zambrana, Andrea Fernandez, Gloria Lizarraga de Sossa, Kusisami Hornberger, Luis Rivera, Ursula Blotte and Edward Martha Zuleta, Octavio Hinojosa, Guido Cortez, Angela Gallardo, Dohm provided data analysis. Ernesto Franco-Temple, Francisco Cecilia Pinedo, Teofilo Quispe, Teresa Polo and Abel Melgar. Lanza, Ernesto Martin-Montero and Jaime Ortega, IFC Business Enabling Environment Officers, provided insightful and valuable In Brazil, Fundação Escola de Sociologia e Politica de São comments and suggestions. Paulo (FESPSP), under the direction of Aluisio Teixeira Jr. The Fundação team was made up of the following individuals: Jose The editorial team consisted of Eric Palladini as Principal Paulo Martins Jr., Maria da Conceição Gomes do Santos, Editor and Kathleen Gallagher as Content Editor. Luis Francisco Doneux Brunetti, Maria Cristina Barboza, Almiro Malpartida, who collaborated with the Editors, was the lead Vicente Heitor, Luis Fernando Di Pierro, Adeizi Garcia Peres, consultant in Peru and Bolivia, Rosangela Figueroa and Noel Antônia Moura, Irany Padilha Benedito, Ana Elisa Moreira Prado Bermudez were the lead consultants in Brazil and Central Galhano, Dimitry Cunha Barcillos and Marcio Ricchiutti Nigro. America respectively. In Honduras, Universidad José Cecilio del Valle (UJCV). The Valuable comments and contributions were received from a UJCV team was lead by Irma Acosta de Fortin and Maria Helena panel of experts comprising: Hans Shrader, Andrei Mikhnev, Back. The team members were Wilfredo Barahona, Rene Diaz, Mierta Capaul, Zenaida Hernandez Uriz, Luis Aldo Sanchez- Javier Valenzuela and Darwyng Espinoza. Ortega, Igor E. Artemiev, Thomas Davenport, Frank Sader, Yaye Seynabou Sakho, Eleoterio Codato, Carlos Mollinedo and In Nicaragua, Universidad Americana (UAM), under the Arsala Deane. leadership of Ana Maria Hernandez. The team was made up of the following members: Juan Ramon Castillo Barreto, Juan This initiative has been possible thanks to the support of the Ramon Castillo Flores, Harold Murillo, Edwin Calero, and Swiss Government's State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO). Francisco Obando. Different institutions and experts contributed opinions on In Peru, Universidad ESAN, under the direction of Peter the survey design. The Methodology was developed by the Latin Yamakawa and Braulio Vargas. The team was made up of the American Center for Competitiveness and Sustainable following individuals: Carlos del Castillo, Angela Castillo, Development (CLACDS) of INCAE Business School, under the Roberto Claros, Carlos Pereyra, Ursula Carrascal, Yhuseth direction of Dean Arturo Condo and Director Ana Maria Rivasplata and Armando Mujica. Majano. The INCAE team included Professors Luis Figueroa and Luis Reyes as Researchers; Karina Caballero, Julio Sergio We want to give special thanks and recognition to our Ramirez, Carlos Quintanilla, Carlos Salas and Bernard Killian as Institutional Partners without whom this effort would never have Academic Advisors. succeeded. They are: v In Bolivia, José Antonio Terán, Executive Director of the In Peru, José Miguel Morales, President of the Confederación Federación de Asociaciones Municipales (FAM) and Donald Nacional de Instituciones Empresariales Privadas (CONFIEP); Mercado, National Coordinator of Local Economic Ximena Zavala and Otilia Caro, General Manager and Project Development (FAM) from Bolivia. Manager of CONFIEP respectively; Verónica Zavala, Minister of Transport and current leader of the Program for State Reform in In Brazil, Jose Rassier, Director of the Associação Brasileira Peru; Juan Manuel Chau from the Secretaría de Gestión Pública de Municipios (ABM), Armando Monteiro Neto, President of de la Presidencia del Consejo de Ministros (PCM); and Rene the Confederação Nacional da Indústria (CNI) and Jose Augusto Cornejo and Harry Chang, Executive Director and Investment Coelho, Director of the Confederação Nacional da Indústria Promotion Chief respectively, from PROINVERSION. (CNI) from Brasil. We would also like to thank all of the Mayors of the In Honduras, Vilma Sierra, President, and Santiago Herrera municipalities and their staffs for being open to having their Valle, General Coordinator of the UCP-BM Programa Nacional processes measured and benchmarked although they knew that de Competitividad, of Fundación para la Inversión y Desarrollo they might not be among the top ranked in their countries. This de Exportaciones (FIDE); and Fernando Aguilera, Director of takes real vision and courage and shows a great willingness to the Committee for Business Administrative Simplification from learn and measure oneself against top performers, which is Honduras, and Miguel A. Murguia, Executive Director of the crucial to continued improvement. Asociación de Municipios de Honduras (AMHON). Last, but certainly not least, we would like to thank all of the In Nicaragua, José Adán Aguerri, President of the Cámara de business owners and municipal staff who took the time to Comercio de Nicaragua (CACONIC), Patricia Delgado, patiently answer our questions and share their experiences. They Executive Director of the Asociación de Municipios de Nicaragua did this out of a sense of civic duty and a desire to improve the (AMUNIC), and Roberto Bendaña, Director de la Comisión business environment where they live and operate daily. Presidencial de Competitividad (CPC) from Nicaragua. vi PREFACE Preface T he International Finance Corporation (IFC) established the permits over the last year and municipal employees that were Office for Advisory Services in Latin America and the directly in charge of these procedures. Caribbean to promote private sector development and contribute to poverty reduction in the region. The Facility's The Municipal Scorecard 2007 focused on processes at 65 Business Enabling Environment (BEE) program assists countries municipalities in 5 countries: Bolivia (9), Brazil (25), Honduras in improving those areas of the business environment where the (9), Nicaragua (10) and Peru (12). A sample of business owners public sector regulates the private sector. The program is and municipal employees was selected from each of the 65 currently focused on its flagship product, Municipal Business municipalities included in the Municipal Scorecard 2007, and Regulation Simplification, which provides direct advisory each participant was asked to fill out a specific survey between services to municipalities to simplify and improve the efficiency March and July 2006. In the 65 Latin American municipalities, of business regulation and administrative processes. interviews were conducted of: 2768 business owners who had obtained an Operating License or Construction Permit over the To complement the Municipal Simplification program, the last year and 522 employees involved in the Operating License or IFC has created a pilot project called the Municipal Scorecard , a 1 Construction Permit procedures. benchmarking tool that provides comparative information on the quality and efficiency of municipal-level private sector regulation. INCAE Business School, http://www.incae.ac.cr/EN/, a It measures the burden of private sector regulation by focusing on prestigious Latin American business school with in-depth the process to obtain a Municipal Operating License and a knowledge of Latin America and Central America in particular, Construction Permit at the municipal instance only (and does was selected to work with IFC to develop the Municipal not include any measurement relative to state or federal Scorecard's methodology. INCAE has worked on a number of instances), given that the majority of licensing and permitting similar projects, most of which focus on Latin American issues, processes in the 5 countries studied are conducted at this level. for a variety of international organizations. INCAE developed The Municipal Scorecard's comparative measurements facilitate the methodology for the Municipal Scorecard in collaboration national and international benchmarking, help build a larger base with a team from Latin American Center for Competitiveness to drive change and assist municipalities in identifying best and Sustainable Development (CLACDS). The efforts of both practices and areas for improvement. these institutions were complemented by the advisory services of the IFC Office for Advisory Services in Latin America and the The Municipal Scorecard utilized the lessons learned from Caribbean, which possesses invaluable expertise in the area of prior reports produced by the World Bank Group and other work simplification of business procedures at the municipal level. The done by International Organizations but its objective was methodology is based on surveys made of entrepreneurs and unique: understanding and measuring the barriers that the municipal officers to better understand their experiences in the business sector faces at the municipal level. license or permit issuance process. In order to capture up-dated information on the Operating IFC worked with Institutional Partners in each of the License and the Construction Permit, the Municipal Scorecard countries studied. These partners were either from the 2007 surveyed two groups: businessmen that obtained these government, private sector and international cooperation 1 organizations in order to ensure political support for the relevant topics. For example, ESAN recently included an Municipal Scorecard and to promote reforms at the municipal administrative simplification course in its MBA curriculum. level. The Municipal Scorecard is an important Monitoring and In fact, several of the universities involved in the survey Evaluation tool for the Institutional Partners given that the process have reported that they will offer courses to train Report will be produced on an annual basis with the following specialists in simplification. objectives in mind: 3. Are willing to collaborate with public and private sector 1. To help determine which municipalities have obtained the partners to present the results of the Municipal Scorecard and best and worst scores. are considered highly credible sources in their home 2. To promote reform in the countries studied. countries. 3. To monitor and evaluate the progress and setbacks that 4. Have, with IFC's support, established a network to share municipalities experience in attempts to improve the business information with other entities in the Latin American and climate. Caribbean region regarding business environment issues. To implement the Municipal Scorecard in the 5 target The Municipal Scorecard is part of the Facility's effort to create countries, the Facility selected 5 prestigious academic institutions: an inter-institutional network of partners in the academic sector G Fundação Escola de Sociologia e Política de São Paulo that will contribute to our project's sustainability and better position (FESPSP) in Brazil, BEE matters in the Latin American and Caribbean Region. G Universidad Americana (UAM) in Nicaragua, G Universidad ESAN (ESAN) in Peru, The primary goal of Municipal Scorecard 2007 is to provide G Universidad José Cecilio del Valle (UJCV) in Honduras, and information to the municipal authorities to initiate reforms to G Universidad Privada Boliviana (UPB) in Bolivia. enhance the business environment in their jurisdictions. Specifically, the Scorecard: (i) identifies regulations and These institutions formed working teams to cover the 65 procedures that directly influence the investment climate; (ii) cities selected in the 5 countries studied. The teams included a estimates the costs of bureaucracy; (iii) identifies the variables total of 10 national coordinators, 65 regional coordinators, and with the most or least impact on administrative efficiency in 715 surveyors. The work of these academic facilities was terms of process; and (iv) suggests measures to achieve important to the Municipal Scorecard project because they: improvement in the areas studied. 1. Have vast experience in conducting surveys to collect information. 2. Take an active interest in issues related to the business enabling environment and possess significant expertise on Notes 1 Municipal Scorecard 2008 will consider more Municipalities in each of the countries which participated in 2007, and new countries will be included in the study. 2 INTRODUCTION Introduction R egulations protect workers, customers and the general small, less productive, less technologically advanced and grow less public. They help ensure that businesses compete on an quickly, all of which leads to fewer jobs in the community. equal basis and that their activities do no harm. Good regulation encourages orderly development and provides information for Formal businesses benefit from incorporation into and planning and urban development. compliance with regulatory structures because they can grow, have greater access to credit, take advantage of business In Latin America, most municipalities use the Operating opportunities, increase their productivity, improve their License to enforce zoning, health and safety regulations and in technology, and resist the grip of corruption. The municipality some cases to acquire better information about economic benefits because it can ensure the safety and overall welfare of activities in their jurisdictions and improve tax control. An consumers, workers and the general public through an efficient Operating License allows a business to engage lawfully in a regulatory framework and can earn much needed tax revenues particular activity in a particular place, and ensures that necessary that can be used on public projects such as roads, water and sewer inspections have been (or will be) carried out. Similarly, systems or schools. To achieve the advantages of increased municipalities use Construction Permits to ensure that safety formality, governments need to encourage formalization by requirements are met and that building plans coincide with reducing the time and cost associated with procedures and must approved urban development plans and building norms designed improve the quality of service provided to individuals undergoing to guarantee social well being. the licensing and permitting processes. These are logical and beneficial goals, and, if implemented in The objective of the Municipal Scorecard 2007 is to provide a reasonably efficient manner, would raise few objections from municipal authorities with useful information to measure their citizens. Unfortunately however, business owners in many performance and process efficiency and to undertake reform municipalities in Latin America report that current licensing where necessary. If municipal procedures for Operating Licenses procedures are slow, expensive, and highly uncertain. Often, and Construction Permits can be made more efficient, definite business owners can't find the information they need to improvements can be expected in the local business climate. complete the process and/or the paperwork is hard to fill out. These improvements will aid in increasing formality and lead to They wait in long lines and often are told to come back greater social as well as economic inclusion. Next, we will "tomorrow" or some other day. In some municipalities they are provide a brief description of the configuration of the Municipal asked to pay very high fees to obtain a license. To ensure that Scorecard. their request is processed, most business owners have to leave their businesses several times and travel to the municipal offices. Worse yet, in some municipalities business owners report that they are asked for extra payments to speed up the process. To avoid this painful process, many ­particularly micro and small business owners­ prefer to remain unlicensed, that is, informal. Unfortunately, this means that local regulations related to zoning, health or safety are not enforced and society is left without adequate protection. In addition, informal businesses are often 3 MUNICIPAL SCORECARD RANKING Municipal Scorecard Ranking T his chapter explains the reasoning utilized to construct the measures the Process Index and the horizontal axis focuses on the Municipal Scorecard rankings for the Operating License and Performance Index. The figure shows that the majority of Construction Permit and is based on evidence collected from the municipalities that obtained high scores on process also scored 65 municipalities selected for this report. high on performance. The Process Index gives higher scores to the municipalities that perform well by: utilizing process The ranking uses the empirical experience of business owners management tools; providing users with adequate, accurate and and municipal employees who have engaged in either requesting or accessible information; conducting continuous training of issuing the Operating License or Construction Permit within personnel; utilizing adequate inspection processes; and possessing the last year. The survey sample was chosen from a pool of adequate infrastructure to attend to the business owners' needs. businesses that had similar characteristics, meaning they The Performance Index measures four Sub-indices: the time and belonged to similar categories for economic activities and were costs involved in obtaining an Operating License or permit and similar in size. The majority of the businesses were either small or key indicators of efficiency such as the percentage of licenses mediumbusinesses,whicharethemostcommonbusinesstypesinLatin rejected from the overall pool of applications2, and the number America. For further details see the Methodology on page 115. of visits3 that business owners must make to the municipality to fulfill the operating license procedure. An adequate business climate does not consist merely of low times and costs, and neither the existence of one nor the Continuing with the review of Figure 1.1, in the case of combination of both is sufficient to promote formality. Best Operating Licenses, municipalities above the line received better practices in process management are also an essential tool in any scores on the Process Index than on the Performance Index while effort to convince businessmen that entering into the formal those that are below the line obtained better scores on the market is advantageous. These practices include: an efficient Performance Index than on the Process Index. inspection process, clear and precise information on procedures, good customer service, etc. All of these factors were integrated in For example, the Municipality of Lima in Peru and the the process to construct the Municipal Scorecard. Municipality of Comayagua in Honduras (see quadrant 1) received high scores in both Indices in comparison to all of the The best performers in the Municipal Scorecard achieved good municipalities studied. The Municipalities of La Paz and Sucre in results in the Performance Index and demonstrated an Bolivia and Estelí and León in Nicaragua have recently registered adequate management of procedures as measured by the Process reductions in the time, costs and steps associated with license or Index. In theory, if a municipality uses best practices in process permit issuance, but have not yet applied best practices in the use management, it should achieve good results both on the of information, as measured by the consistency of actual processes Performance Index and its Sub-indices such as time and cost. In with the descriptions found in manuals and information provided practice, however, a municipality may perform well on one index on inspection criteria. Although inspection processes have been and poorly on the other. Nevertheless, both indicators must be improved in these municipalities, municipal employees indicated used to measure overall efficiency in the issuance of licenses and deficiencies in the provision of continuous training for personnel. permits. These employees also reported that they lacked up-dated systems for zoning and adequate monitoring and evaluation systems for Figure 1.1 provides an example of the abovementioned procedures. This represents a significant risk to the sustainability relation with regard to the Operating License. The vertical axis of the reforms that have been implemented. 5 FIGURE 1.1 Operating License Performance Index Vs Process Index Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Curitiba and São Luis in Brazil, which received good scores on of Manaus in Brazil, El Progreso in Honduras and Oruro in Bolivia, the Process Index, have adequate management systems; which are examples of municipalities that need to make an effort to nevertheless, Curitiba could reduce the time it takes to issue an improve in both indices. Operating License and São Luis could reduce its costs, thus improving their results in the Performance Index. Construction of the Municipal Scorecard The Municipalities of Sucre in Bolivia and Masaya in Nicaragua The Municipal Scorecard Ranking, as previously mentioned, is are examples of municipalities that have achieved high scores on the calculated by using a combination of two indices: Performance Performance Index but which need to improve on the Process Index and Process, which when combined measure the municipalities' components. This is achievable if Sucre improves its infrastructure efficiency in issuing Operating Licenses and Construction and services for businessmen and Masaya makes effective changes in Permits. Figure 1.2 provides a breakdown of how the Operating personnel training. In the next quadrant, we find the Municipality License's indices were constructed: FIGURE 1.2 The Municipal Scorecard Structure for Operating License Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 6 MUNICIPAL SCORECARD RANKING If we read Figure 1.2 from top to bottom, the Performance provided by the municipality6. Adequate systems for providing Index was constructed based on four Sub-indices: time, cost, information to businessmen are fundamental to ensuring the percentage of rejections, and number of visits. These Sub-indices procedure's transparency and increasing the possibilities that measure a municipality's efficiency when issuing an Operating applicants have a full understanding of the process. License and provide information on the factors that businessmen consider most important when making a decision to formalize. Next, we constructed the Infrastructure Sub-index. An The time needed to obtain a license or permit is measured in adequate infrastructure is necessary to provide efficient services to calendar days; cost is expressed in US Dollars as a percentage of business owners and the quality of infrastructure can be GDP per capita; the percentage of rejections refers to the measured by the existence and proper implementation of percentage of the entire application pool that was rejected; and customer service counters and the technology used to serve the number of visits is an absolute number. business owners. We added another factor to this concept: the existence and quality of customer opinion systems. The Process Index should be read from left to right. First, the team constructed indices that measure the existence and use of basic Next we will discuss the construction of the Inspection instruments for good processing of the Operating License and the Sub-index. Inspections are generally required by municipalities to Construction Permit. The first component is concerned with the verify that the information included in the license or permit use of monitoring and evaluation tools for processes, based on three request is correct. Municipalities seeking to improve the business survey questions applied to municipal employees to measure: the climate utilize efficient inspection systems, reducing the number existence of internal or external audits in the municipalities and of inspections to the minimum. For example, the simplification private sector participation in the follow up and monitoring of these process implemented in some municipalities produced a processes. A second component, denominated planning and reduction in the duration and costs of procedures over the last zoning, measures the existence and up-dating of systems that year and served as a spring board for an effort to put together a determine the economic activities permissible in specific areas and multi-disciplinary team of technical experts7 to conduct a single, their categorization. These components are combined with 3 other multipurpose inspection. variables to comprise the Tools Sub-index. This Sub-index gives higher scores to those municipalities that use process tools such as: The final Sub-index, pictured in Figure 1.2, is the Training industrial classification4; delegate signing capacities for the approval Sub-index. The quality of human resource training is key to of licenses; use technology to support the digitalization of files to providing efficient process management. For this purpose, we use help maintain well-organized files; monitor and evaluate licensing information from three variables that measure the training level or permitting procedures; and use adequate zoning systems. of municipal employees and the service they provide during the license or permit process. The municipalities with the most The next step was to construct the Information Sub-index, efficient training systems possessed clear and detailed manuals which is based on six points of the survey that measure the ease that were used to continuously train personnel. The processes with which information on procedures can be accessed; the used in these systems positively affected both the internal clarity of the information provided5; the complexity of the forms management of procedures and the quality of service provided to to be filled out; prior knowledge of the inspection process; and customers. the consistency of the actual process with the information Notes 2 In the majority of cases, the requests were denied because the applicants had not with a license, the steps that must be taken for approval, and the type of met requirements or had failed to present all of the elements needed to process inspections that must take place to safeguard the community. A best practice the application. Many of these problems are the result of poor process manage is to utilize the International Index of Industrial Classification combined with ment, beginning with the quality of the information that the business owners risk (security, fire, etc.), environment, and zoning criteria (permitted and receive regarding requirements and the way in which requests must be presented. restricted areas and certain types of activities). In the majority of cases, the A high rejection rate indicates a lack of quality control at municipal counters, municipalities neither possess nor utilize these classification criteria to which accepted non-relevant paperwork or formats that had not been filled out categorize economic activities, and as such all businesses are subject to the correctly. same procedure for an Operating License or Construction Permit. According to IFC experience in procedure simplification in Latin America, the 5 The clarity of the information on the requirements, times and costs of percentage of applications that are rejected can be reduced if improvements are procedures is very important to promote formalization given that many made in the information provided to business owners as well as in the quality businesses are either small or micro in scale and the owners require plain control provided by the municipal employees who receive the documentation. language explanations. For example, in the case of the Municipality of Lima, 77% of applications were rejected prior to the reform. In the majority of cases, this rejection was received 6 In the case of countries such as Peru, manuals have been created, denominated 60 days after the process was initiated. After the reform, this percentage was the "Textos Únicos de Procedimientos Administrativos" TUPA. The purpose of reduced to 6%. these texts is to clearly define the steps, times and costs of procedures. 3 For the purposes of this report, the use of "number of visits" refers to the 7 A best practice in inspection management is to classify businesses according to number of visits made by the business owner to the municipality. risk and the size of their activities. Inspections should be random and multidisciplinary given that in many cases the same business must be inspected 4 An adequate classification system for economic activities allows municipalities to by individuals from different divisions (health, environment, firefighters, establish efficient criteria concerning the quantity of requirements associated safety, etc.). 7 OPERATING LICENSE Operating License Lilia Sanchez, an aspiring businesswoman, decided to open a stationery store in a large city in Honduras. Her goal was to start a small business with possibilities for growth that could provide her with a secure source of income. With this in mind, Lilia inquired about the registration requirements. Lilia's attorney informed her that she must follow at least seven steps at seven different institutions: i) go to a notary to inscribe the business in the public business registry; ii) follow all procedures relative to the publication of the inscription in the official paper of Honduras, "La Gaceta"; iii) inscribe the business in the Public Commercial Registry; iv) request a tax identification number from the Ministry of Finance; v) obtain the Operating License from the municipality; vi) inscribe the business in the National Institute for Professional Training; and vii) register the business with the Social Security Office. According to the attorney, the process would only take two weeks. Lilia decided to begin the process immediately but found that the information provided on how to obtain an Operating License was not clear and that the process would take more than 35 working days and included at least 14 different requirements. Four separate procedures had to be followed: obtain a Certificate of Municipal Solvency; obtain a Certification of Compatibility of Land Use; pass a technical inspection; and finally, obtain a license. Lilia was resolved to fulfill these requirements, but the municipality placed obstacles in her path by arguing that her business was incompatible with municipal zoning. Four inspectors conducted the technical inspections. Each inspector had a different set of criteria, none of which coincided with the information provided by the municipality regarding the process. At the end of the inspections, the conclusions on what must be corrected were often nothing less than absurd. Lilia grew tired of all the hassle and decided to open her business informally, just like a friend of hers a block away had already done. Regulation and Business Licensing Often, business owners can't find the information they need to complete the process and/or the paperwork is hard to fill out. R egulations are essential for a myriad of reasons and, when effective, stimulate fair competition and protect the public They wait in long lines and often are told to come back good. In Latin America, most municipalities use the Operating "tomorrow" or some other day. In some municipalities they are License to enforce zoning, health and safety regulations and in asked to pay very high fees to obtain a license. To ensure that many cases to collect local taxes. An Operating License allows a firm their request is processed, most business owners have to leave to engage lawfully in a particular activity in a specific place, and their business several times and travel to the municipal offices. ensures that necessary inspections have been (or will be) carried out. Even worse, in some municipalities business owners report that they are asked for extra payments to speed up the process. To This is all well and good, but the hitch is that business owners avoid this painful process, many ­particularly micro and small in many municipalities in the region complain that Operating business owners­ prefer to remain unlicensed, that is, informal. License procedures are slow, expensive, and highly uncertain. For Unfortunately, this means that local zoning, health or safety example, it takes more than 30 days to obtain the municipal regulations are not enforced and society is left without adequate Operating License in 39 of the 65 municipalities in this survey. protection. 9 In many countries in Latin America, the results of such responsibility of different departments. As a result, municipal difficult and inefficient regulatory procedures are clear: employees often do not know how long it takes to complete the informality among businesses is common. For example, in entire process. In addition, these individuals see the public as Bolivia and Peru informal activity constitutes over 59 percent of subjects of regulation rather than clients. As such, few efforts are economic activity while in most other countries in the region the made to improve performance and ensure customer satisfaction. figure is between 30 and 50 percent. This perception gap is an open invitation to informality, and These high levels of informality are a direct result of the large informality means that the municipality loses the ability to perception gap between the private sector (those being regulated) enforce zoning, health and safety standards designed to protect and the municipal governments (the regulators) as to the performance the public. This, in turn, undermines the original purpose of of the municipal regulators. Municipal employees often claim that regulation and business licensing. To meet their goals, municipal the licensing process takes only a few days while business owners governments need to find ways to encourage businesses to apply experience a process that takes between 3 and 10 times longer. for licenses and, more importantly, to comply with the According to data gathered for the Municipal Scorecard, this gap municipality's regulations. As part of this process, municipal ranged from zero in Estelí (Nicaragua), where businesses and the employees need to convince business owners of the advantages of municipality agreed that it takes just one day, to 241 days in El formality. Progreso (Honduras). Figure 2.1 contrasts the number of days that business owners reported it took to obtain an Operating License compared to figures reported by municipal employees in selected Why Bother Getting an Operating License? cities. In many cases the perception gap is large ­about one month's difference in Quillacollo (Bolivia) and Tegucigalpa Some business owners see only the supposed advantages of (Honduras)­ to nearly one or two hundred days' difference in informality -not paying taxes or complying with health and safety Oruro (Bolivia), Guarulhos (Brazil) and El Progreso (Honduras). standards- but fail to perceive its potential downside. Informal businesses often can't borrow money from banks to expand their The main reason for this perception gap is that the municipal operations or buy new technology and must rely on more officials lack a complete and accurate vision of the entire process. informal sources (families, informal credit and sometimes Many municipalities report lower times because the process is micro-credit) that lend at higher interest rates. In some countries, broken into two, three or more sub-processes that fall under the these businesses may have reduced access to the judicial system FIGURE 2.1 The Perception Gap : Time to obtain an operating license, selected municipalities Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 10 OPERATING LICENSE FIGURE 2.2 Owner's Reasons for Formalizing Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database and be less able to use legal means to enforce their contracts. The last two reasons mentioned were to "improve access to Informal businesses, as we will see below, may also be subject to credit" and "gain access to the judicial system for contract higher levels of corruption. In contrast, formal businesses that enforcement". Both of these were ranked at 2.8 on the importance possess an Operating License reap significant benefits because scale-versus 3.6 for the highest ranked reason. The lack of a they are in a position to grow, increase their productivity, significant spread between the first and fifth reasons indicates improve their technology and resist corrupt practices. that business owners consider access to credit and possibilities for contract enforcement as important to their businesses. There are many reasons to formalize a firm, as was evident from the business owners' responses to questions regarding why These averages hide some important regional differences. For they applied for an Operating License (See Figure 2.2). The example, in Brazil and Honduras, access to justice for contract respondents used a scale of 1 (unimportant) to 4 (very enforcement was rated fifth most important overall (above 3 for important) to rate reasons to formalize their firm. both) while in Bolivia, Peru and Nicaragua this was the lowest rated reason. It is no surprise that the top two reasons for seeking an Operating License were to comply with the law and avoid paying In general however, the story is fairly straightforward. Newly fines. Despite the long waits, high cost and poor customer registering firms are interested in becoming formal first to avoid service associated with the licensing process, the businesses in being harassed by officials ­whether in the form of fines or question persisted in their efforts to become formal. However the bribes­ and next for the benefits that formalization can bring the third reason for getting a license ­to avoid paying bribes­ is a business, principally the ability to access new customers and direct indictment of the level of corruption found in many cities increase access to credit. in Latin America. The good news is that most of the businesses surveyed viewed formalization (in this case through compliance Whatever the perceived advantages of becoming formal, with licensing requirements) as the best insurance against the municipal governments can encourage informal businesses to corrupt practices to which informal businesses are often subject. apply for licenses by being more efficient and providing better information. An efficient and well-understood registration The fourth reason to obtain an Operating License, which fell process will mean that business owners spend less time at the within the "important range" of the survey scale, was to "gain municipal offices and more time building their businesses. More new clients". The fifth reason, "to operate on a larger scale", formal businesses will result in an improved ability to manage shows the importance of the Operating License as a prerequisite municipal growth; ensure that zoning, health and safety for obtaining contracts with larger firms or with the standards are followed; and, depending on the country, may government-a powerful incentive to formalize. result in higher tax or service revenues for the municipal government. 11 TABLE 2.1 Operating License Ranking Operating License Scorecard Which municipalities are most efficient in providing Operating Country Municipality Rank Licenses? (Pe) Lima 1 (Ho) Choluteca 2 Which municipalities are the most efficient? Which provide (Ho) Choloma 3 the least expensive procedures? Which provide the best service? To (Ho) Comayagua 4 (Ni) Estelí 5 answer these questions, the Municipal Scorecard 2007 surveyed (Ni) Jinotega 6 business owners and municipal employees in 65 municipalities in (Ni) Chinandega 7 Bolivia, Brazil, Honduras, Nicaragua and Peru. The results of this (Ni) Matagalpa 8 (Br) Vitória 9 survey reveal a number of interesting trends and conclusions. (Ho) La Ceiba 10 (Ni) Managua 11 The Municipal Scorecard for the Operating License is (Ho) Santa Rosa de Copán 12 (Br) Londrina 13 composed of two indices: the Performance Index and the Process (Ni) León 14 Index. We will examine these indices and their respective (Ho) Puerto Cortés 15 components in more detail later in this chapter. (Bo) La Paz 16 (Br) Florianópolis 17 (Bo) Cochabamba 18 Although Lima, Peru leads the general ranking (See Table 2.1 (Br) Joinville 19 at right), Honduran and Nicaraguan municipalities, specifically (Ni) Rivas 20 (Ni) Granada 21 Choluteca, Choloma, Comayagua, and Estelí, dominate the top (Br) Curitiba 22 ten. Brazil weighed in with one municipality ­Vitória­ in ninth (Pe) Trujillo 23 place. All of these municipalities ­with the exception of Vitória­ (Ni) San Juan del Sur 24 (Ho) San Pedro Sula 25 have recently undergone reforms that have obviously paid off in (Bo) Tarija 26 terms of both efficiency and quality of service. (Br) São Bernardo do Campo 27 (Bo) Santa Cruz 28 (Br) Porto Alegre 29 While the Central American municipalities occupy the (Ni) Masaya 30 majority of the top 10 positions, the bottom of the ranking is (Pe) Sullana 31 dominated by Peru and Brazil. Bolivia and Honduras have one (Br) Salvador 32 (Br) São Luis 33 municipality each, Oruro and El Progreso respectively, in the (Br) Maceió 34 bottom end of the ranking. It is clear that these municipalities (Bo) Sucre 35 need to take a good look at their processes to see where (Br) Goiãnia 36 (Pe) Piura 37 adjustments can be made to improve overall performance. Several (Br) Diadema 38 of these municipalities, including São Paulo in Brazil, Oruro in (Br) Campo Grande 39 Bolivia and Ica in Peru are currently in the midst of just such an (Ho) Tegucigalpa 40 (Pe) Cajamarca 41 exercise. The results of these efforts should be reflected in the (Br) Belo Horizonte 42 next version of the Municipal Scorecard. (Br) Teresina 43 (Bo) Potosí 44 (Br) Cuiabá 45 (Br) Aracaju 46 Performance Index (Pe) Callao 47 (Bo) Quillacollo 48 The Performance Index measures four different Sub-indices: (Br) Fortaleza 49 (Br) Duque de Caxias 50 1) Time, measured in days to obtain the license from the time the (Br) João Pessoa 51 application is delivered to the municipality to the time the (Bo) El Alto 52 license is issued; 2) Cost, measured as a percentage of GDP per (Pe) Huancayo 53 (Br) Guarulhos 54 capita; 3) Number of visits, measured by the number of times the (Br) Recife 55 entrepreneur had to go to the municipality during the licensing (Br) Belém 56 process; and 4) Rejections, measured by the percentage of all (Pe) Puno 57 (Pe) Chiclayo 58 applications in a year that were rejected. Together, these Sub-indices (Br) São Paulo 59 give a good picture of the efficiency of a municipality's licensing (Pe) Cusco 60 processes. Next, we will look at each in turn. See Table 2.2. (Br) Manaus 61 (Pe) Tumbes 62 (Bo) Oruro 63 Time ­ For the purpose of this Sub-index, time is measured (Pe) Ica 64 in the number of days it takes to obtain an Operating License. (Ho) El Progreso 65 This time reflects the total time for the process beginning when Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database the business owner hands in the application for an Operating 12 OPERATING LICENSE TABLE 2.2 Operating License - Performance Sub-indices. Best and Worst Performers Time (days) Cost (% of GDP per capita) Lowest number of Highest number of Lowest Highest Bolivia Bolivia Sucre Potosí La Paz Potosí La Paz Quillacollo Cochabamba El Alto El Alto Oruro Santa Cruz Tarija Brazil Brazil Vitória Belo Horizonte Porto Alegre Recife Porto Alegre Manaus Diadema Belém Maceió Guarulhos Londrina São Luis Honduras Honduras Choluteca San Pedro Sula Comayagua Tegucigalpa Comayagua Santa Rosa de Copán San Pedro Sula Puerto Cortés Puerto Cortés El Progreso La Ceiba El Progreso Nicaragua Nicaragua Estelí Masaya Managua Matagalpa Chinandega Managua Granada Jinotega Granada Matagalpa León San Juan del Sur Peru Peru Lima Puno Lima Puno Trujillo Callao Trujillo Cajamarca Huancayo Ica Piura Huancayo Number of Visits Rejections (percentage of) Least Most Least Most Bolivia Bolivia La Paz Quillacollo Tarija Cochabamba Sucre Potosi La Paz Oruro Cochabamba Oruro Sucre El Alto Brazil Brazil Campo Grande Manaus João Pessoa Aracaju Cuiabá Recife Teresina Manaus Curitiba Teresina Maceió São Paulo Honduras Honduras Choloma Puerto Cortés Choluteca La Ceiba Choluteca San Pedro Sula El Progreso Tegucigalpa Comayagua Tegucigalpa Puerto Cortés Comayagua Nicaragua Nicaragua Esteli Matagalpa Chinandega Masaya Rivas San Juan del Sur Managua León Chinandega Managua Granada Rivas Peru Peru Lima Puno Cajamarca Puno Sullana Tumbes Sullana Chiclayo Huancayo Cusco Piura Cusco What variables does each Subindex include? Time Number of Visits It measures the total time, in days, to complete the application process. This Sub-index refers to the total number of visits made by the business The time is estimated as the difference between the starting and ending owner to the municipality during the process. It is expected to increase dates of the whole process as indicated by owners. when process management is less efficient. Cost Rejections Cost is an estimate of the sum of fees and municipal taxes paid by the It is the percentage of the whole application pool that corresponds to business owner to fulfill the necessary requirements to complete the requests that were rejected during the previous year. This Sub-index procedure. serves as a proxy for municipal process quality and assumes both an efficient management process and the business owners' adequate understanding of requirements. Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 13 License and ending with the inspection process and issuance of a FIGURE 2.3 license. There is significant variation in results among the Times (days) for Operating License municipalities; interestingly, the fastest and slowest times recorded in the Scorecard are both from the same country, Honduras. While it takes 210 days in Guarulhos (Brazil) to obtain an Operating License and over 367 in El Progreso (Honduras), it takes just 1 day in Choluteca (Honduras) and Estelí (Nicaragua). Figure 2.3 below shows the time in days to obtain a license. Only 12 municipalities take fewer than seven days to grant the Operating License. Most of the quickest performers in the ranking are from Nicaragua, but Honduras is represented by two municipalities and Bolivia by one. There are only five municipalities--three Bolivian and two Nicaraguan--that take between 7 and 15 days. Brazilian and Peruvian municipalities are, on average, the slowest. Vitória, the fastest Brazilian municipality, takes 18 days. In contrast, the slowest Nicaraguan municipality takes only 11 days. Overall the Central American municipalities were fastest, while Brazilian and Peruvian municipalities account for 8 of the bottom 10 municipalities in terms of time to get a license. Bolivian municipalities generally took between two weeks and a month, falling in the middle of the ranking. In many cases, particularly in Brazil and Peru, much of the delay in obtaining the Operating License is associated with delays in the inspection process, which can often take a month or more to be completed. (See Inspections Index in page 19). One of the ways that times can be reduced is to create a system of categorization that assigns each business to a category based on the risk associated with the business's activities. For example, a bookstore poses few risks in terms of safety and public health and as such should be rated as a low risk activity. However, the gas station or a chemical factory poses significant risks for health, safety and disposal of materials, and thus could be assigned to the high risk category. Once the risk categories have been created (many municipalities use three or four categories) and all economic activities have been assigned a category, the municipality can differentiate the process based on risk. This might mean, for example, that businesses rated as low risk would not be inspected prior to being granted the license and instead would be subject to ex-post inspections using a random sample. Since 70-80 percent of the total number of businesses seeking a municipal license would typically be considered low risk (commerce, services, professional offices, etc.), simply moving to an ex-post, random inspection regime would dramatically improve the experience of the vast majority of applicants. This strategy has been employed by many of municipalities, including Choluteca, Comayagua and Lima, and has proven effective in aiding inspectors to focus the majority of their resources on high risk operations. Cost ­ In general, it is good practice that the fee charged for the license should not far exceed the cost incurred by the municipality in providing the service; otherwise the risk of perverse incentives (i.e. raising the price to increase revenues, Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 14 OPERATING LICENSE which risks feeding an increase in evasion and informality) is FIGURE 2.4 strong. It is important to avoid raising fees to a level that creates Cost (% of GDP per Capita) for Operating License disincentives for applicants ­particularly micro and small enterprise owners­ to regularize their business. Figure 2.4 above shows the cost of applying for an Operating License in each of the 65 municipalities. Twenty-three municipalities charge less than the equivalent of 2 percent of annual GDP per capita. Twenty-one municipalities have costs that fall between 2 percent and 5 percent of annual GDP and the same number charge fees above 5 percent. Overall, the municipalities of Bolivia and Nicaragua are the least expensive while those in Brazil and Peru are the most expensive. While the results are more evenly dispersed than those for the time Sub- index, there are still significant variations in cost, even within the same country. Honduras, for example, has four municipalities that charge between 1 and 2 percent while the other five municipalities charge between 4 and 7 percent of GDP per capita for the Operating License. Brazil, which has a larger sample, shows even greater dispersion, between 0.2 percent and 9.3 percent; worst of all, the most expensive municipalities are clustered in the poor north and northeast of the country. Many municipalities find that when they reform the licensing process and make it quicker and simpler, their processing costs drop dramatically as well. For example, a process that used to be reviewed multiple times for the same requirement can now be reviewed just once, saving the staff time and reducing the cost of each permit issued. Similarly, the categorization exercise mentioned above can save large amounts of staff time by removing superfluous revisions and inspections, which will further reduce the cost of processing a license. It will be necessary to include a cost study in any reform to ensure that the prices charged are in line with actual costs (many municipalities vary charges according to the risk category). Number of visits ­ The number of times a business owner has to lock up her business and go to the municipality, either to move the process along by physically taking her application from one department to another or to plead with municipal employees for either information or results (which sometimes must be paid for), is an indication that there are serious problems. These situations can provide municipalities with information on two critical areas. The first involves non- monetary costs (the opportunity cost of the owners' time is very high), which adversely affect small business owners in particular. The second is associated with the fact that more visits to the municipality can be equated with increased opportunities for corruption. The good news is that business owners in nearly half the municipalities in the sample (28 municipalities) reported that they had to visit the municipalities just one or two times. Nicaraguan, Honduran and Brazilian municipalities make up the bulk of this list, and both Peru and Bolivia have two representatives. In another 19 municipalities, three visits were necessary. The most problematic category includes 18 municipalities where business owners reported a need to make Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 15 FIGURE 2.5 four or more visits. Peruvian municipalities did particularly Number of Visits for Operating License poorly, occupying 5 positions of the ranking's bottom 10, which also included several Bolivian and Brazilian municipalities. Obviously, business owners who must visit the municipality seven or eight times during the process ­as is the case in Oruro (Bolivia) and Cusco (Peru)­ will find the process onerous and the chances of being asked for payments to speed the process will be much higher. Rejections ­ The Performance Index also measures the percentage of applications that is rejected over the course of a year. If this percentage is high, it is a sure sign of unclear information or poor communication. Typically, high figures are also indicative of a convoluted and opaque process. Eleven municipalities had rejection rates under 4 percent; sixteen municipalities weighed in at 4 and 9 percent, and another 16 showed figures between 10 and 19 percent. The remaining 22 had rejection rates ranging from 20 to 50 percent. All five countries had municipalities in the top five (lowest) and four of the five had municipalities in the bottom ten (highest rates). This indicates that many municipalities in each of the countries studied could do a much better job of communicating requirements to entrepreneurs. If improvements are to be made, a targeted communications campaign must be initiated to ensure that business owners understand requirements prior to submitting an application. All too often processes have been reformed but communication about the change has been neglected. This can lead to high rejection rates and feed business owners´ perceptions that the process lacks transparency. Nearly all of the top ten spots in the Performance Ranking were Nicaraguan, with the exception of La Paz (Bolivia) and Sucre (Bolivia), Lima (Peru) and Londrina (Brazil). This result may be explained, in part, by the small size of the municipalities sampled in Nicaragua but is also partially due to the fact that Nicaraguan municipalities (as well as those in Honduras and Bolivia) are responsible for a smaller proportion of the business registration process in comparison with municipal counterparts Brazil or Peru. The Operating License is one component of registering a business, but the extent of the municipal government's responsibilities and the seriousness with which employees take these responsibilities can differ substantially across countries. For example, in some countries the municipality is responsible for health and safety inspections or environmental monitoring while in other countries this responsibility falls to the state or central government. Some municipal employees may not fulfill all of their responsibilities as stipulated by the law. For example, businesses in one of the fastest municipalities received their Operating Licenses quickly and at a low cost but were never inspected. Although this municipality can be congratulated for being fast and cheap, it is failing to fulfill its role of protecting the public Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database through minimal health and safety inspections. 16 OPERATING LICENSE FIGURE 2.6 Rejections (% of total pool) for Operating License Process Index The Process Index is designed so that municipalities that: 1) provide users with adequate, accurate and accessible information; 2) have adequate infrastructure to attend to the business owners' needs; 3) utilize process management tools; 4) have adequate inspection processes; and 5) provide continuous training to personnel score higher. Table 2.3 shows the highest and lowest scoring municipalities in each Sub-index. This does not necessarily mean that a municipality did poorly on each part of the Sub-index (some have up to 5 variables), so it is important to refer to the Sub-index tables and individual municipal diagnostic graphs in the "The Municipalities' Results" Annex for a more complete picture. We will examine each of the five Sub-indices below. Information ­ This Sub-index measures the availability and clarity of information provided; if the forms are easy to fill out; whether or not the process followed the information provided; and finally if businesses were given information about the inspection process. Entrepreneurs registering in municipalities such as Belo Horizonte, Manaus (Brazil) and Tumbes (Peru) found that the information was both difficult to find and hard to understand. Those registering their business in Belo Horizonte (Brazil), Tumbes and Ica (Peru) found the application form very difficult to fill out. Business owners in Matagalpa (Nicaragua) and Tumbes (Peru) reported that the process they went through was not very consistent with the information they were given at the beginning of the process. Business owners in Santa Cruz and El Alto (Bolivia) reported that they were not given much information on what to expect during the inspection process and therefore did not know how to comply. In contrast, entrepreneurs in Choluteca (Honduras) reported that the information on the process was clear and could often be obtained from either municipal offices or via Internet. Choluteca also received high marks from business owners on the consistency of process with the information provided by the municipality and on the information business owners received about what to expect during inspections. Infrastructure ­ This Sub-index covers three related but distinct aspects: the quality of the physical infrastructure; the use of information systems; and the existence of a customer opinion system. Together these three variables help shed light on the level of customer focus by determining the quality of the infrastructure (from the users' perspective); the use of technology to improve the speed and efficiency of a service; and whether or not there is a system in place to collect and act on information about users' experiences, complaints or suggestions. Customer service, although not generally dealt with in comparative studies, is often a determining factor in generating trust between business owners and the government and plays a significant role in efforts to increase formalization. Municipalities such as Oruro (Bolivia) ­which ranked 65th in Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database two Sub-indices and 63rd on the other­ need to focus on this area 17 TABLE 2.3 Operating License - Process Sub-indices. Best and Worst Performers Information Sub-index Infrastructure Sub-index Most Least Most Least Bolivia Bolivia La Paz Potosí Cochabamba Sucre Quillacollo El Alto La Paz Quillacollo Tarija Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Oruro Brazil Brazil Vitória Cuiabá Recife Campo Grande Florianópolis Manaus Curitiba Diadema Joinville Belo Horizonte Vitória Cuiabá Honduras Honduras Choluteca Santa Rosa de Copán La Ceiba Tegucigalpa Choloma Tegucigalpa Choloma San Pedro Sula Comayagua El Progreso Comayagua El Progreso Nicaragua Nicaragua Jinotega Rivas León Masaya Matagalpa Granada Estelí Rivas Managua León San Juan del Sur Granada Peru Peru Lima Chiclayo Lima Chiclayo Sullana Ica Piura Callao Trujillo Tumbes Cusco Puno Tools Sub-index Training Sub-index Most Least Most Least Bolivia Bolivia Tarija La Paz Cochabamba Potosí Cochabamba Sucre Santa Cruz Sucre Santa Cruz Quillacollo Tarija Oruro Brazil Brazil Curitiba Salvador São Luis Diadema Goiãnia Belém Londrina São Paulo Vitória São Paulo Guarulhos João Pessoa Honduras Honduras Santa Rosa de Copán Tegucigalpa Santa Rosa de Copán San Pedro Sula Comayagua San Pedro Sula Comayagua El Progreso La Ceiba El Progreso Choloma Tegucigalpa Nicaragua Nicaragua Estelí Granada Matagalpa Rivas León Managua Chinandega Masaya Jinotega San Juan del Sur Estelí Masaya Peru Lima Ica Peru Trujillo Huancayo Cusco Huancayo Sullana Chiclayo Lima Ica Cajamarca Tumbes Inspections Sub-index Most Least What variables does each Sub-index include? Bolivia Santa Cruz Quillacollo Information Sub-index Cochabamba El Alto Potosí Tarija Complexity of application forms, Clarity of information, Accesibility of information, Brazil Consistency of process with information and Knowledge of inspection criteria Porto Alegre Guarulhos Vitória Duque de Caxias Infrastructure Sub-index Florianópolis Campo Grande Quality of facilities, Use of Infomation Technology and Customer opinion system Honduras Choluteca La Ceiba Tools Sub-index Puerto Cortés Santa Rosa de Copán Industry classification, Use of Information Technology, Delegation of signing Comayagua El Progreso authority, Zoning, Categorization by Economic Activities, Internal audits, External Nicaragua audits and Private sector participation Jinotega San Juan del Sur Managua Masaya Estelí León Inspections Sub-index Number of Inspections, Conformity with Inspections, Transparency of Inspections Peru Lima Ica Callao Sullana Training Sub-index Puno Piura Process Training, Customer Service Training and Availability of Manuals Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 18 OPERATING LICENSE in order to improve their image with the business community and simple and basic management tools that can be applied to gauge provide better customer service. They might benefit from the how the process is truly functioning. The fact that the vast experiences of municipalities which, although not large, did well majority of municipalities fail to use these tools speaks volumes in the Infrastructure Sub-index. For example, small Honduran about the attention that is being paid to ensuring client satisfaction. municipalities like Comayagua and La Ceiba were amongst the top three municipalities for the quality of facilities and customer Inspections ­ Efficient and transparent inspections are a opinion systems respectively while the municipality of Tarija in necessary component of simple and effective processes and fulfill Bolivia tied for the top ranking in use of information technology. a wider function of protecting social well being. This index is composed of three variables: the number of inspections, the Tools ­ The tools Sub-index measures the existence and use of transparency of the inspection process (from the business owner's tools that help improve process management. The variables that perspective) and whether or not the applicant felt the inspections comprise this Sub-index reflect best practice among municipalities were reasonable. Interestingly, the number of inspections did not worldwide and include the following: a) clear zoning rules that vary tremendously between municipalities; all respondents make it easy for investors to understand which activities are reported from one to three inspections during the application allowed where; b) risk-based classifications for economic activities approval process. However, the business owners' perception of the to differentiate between businesses according to the actual risk transparency of the inspections varied substantially. Insufficient posed by an activity (and thus low risk operations do not have to transparency in the inspection process is typically due to two go through more extensive inspections that are reserved for high factors: a lack of information about what is expected from the risk categories); c) the use of technology to make the process business and/or a lack of clear procedures. quicker and less prone to undue delays or discretion on the part of municipal staff; d) delegation of signing authority to avoid the It is noteworthy that several of the lowest ranking municipalities bottlenecks created when one individual, is overworked or absent; in inspection transparency also ranked poorly in knowledge of e) the use of internal and external process audits to ensure that the inspection criteria (from the Information Index). This is the case process is functioning as it should and to detect any irregularities in the Municipalities of Ica (Peru), el Alto (Bolivia), El Progreso or look for opportunities for improvement; f) the extent to which (Honduras), León (Nicaragua) and Duque de Caxias (Brazil), all the private sector ­which is the client in this process and the best of which would benefit from a concerted effort to better inform source of feedback­ is consulted. businesses about their responsibilities and what will be reviewed in the inspection process. Unclear procedures can be rectified by This Sub-index includes a large number of best practice areas using simple yes or no checklists for inspection; ensuring training and so it is not surprising that no one municipality effectively for inspectors; and using random follow-up calls to ask owners applies all of the same. However, the results do lead us to some about the inspections. broad conclusions on the countries' strengths and weaknesses. It is clear that the Central American municipalities in the survey are As mentioned in the Time Sub-index, much of the delay in more advanced in the application of these tools than their South obtaining the Operating License is associated with delays in the American counterparts. In fact, nine of the top ten municipalities inspection process, which can often take a month or more to be in the ranking for this Sub-index are from Honduras (5) and completed. See Figure 2.7. Nicaragua (4). Bolivia took the only spot left in the top ten and neither Brazil nor Peru made it in the top ten at all. The bottom FIGURE 2.7 of the ranking tells a different story however: Brazil holds five of Number of Inspection Visits Vs Time the bottom ten positions, Bolivia occupies three positions, and Peru and Honduras are represented by one municipality each. The municipalities in all of the countries performed particularly poorly with regard to clear zoning rules, clear categorization of economic activities and auditing (internal or external). Clear and easy to access zoning rules are essential if potential business owners are to understand where they can legally establish operations. When the rules are unclear or the information is difficult to access, problems arise. This is even worse if members of the municipal staff or inspectors use discretion to apply rules, a practice that adds significant uncertainty and risk for the entrepreneur. Additionally, business categorization must be standardized and facilitated if processes are to be streamlined. Allowing each businessperson to classify his or her own business is an open invitation to chaotic classification, which impedes effective regulation. Lastly, internal and external audits constitute Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 19 Training ­ Adequate training of municipal employees helps to these points, it should be able to elevate compliance with legal guarantee appropriate management of procedures and a precise obligations while maintaining high quality service. application of both manuals and norms. The Training Sub-index measures three factors: the availability and utility of procedural This Sub-index clearly shows that across the region, and manuals; the training the staff received on the Operating License particularly in Peru, Bolivia and much of Brazil, municipal process; and the training received on customer service. It is staff training on customer service is the exception rather than particularly important to disseminate manuals, familiarize the norm. Staff rotation in many municipalities is 30% or employees with norms, and establish training programs on both more every year. As such, training plays a critical role in processes and customer services due to the fact that there is a high ensuring that multiple members of the staff are familiar with turnover rate amongst municipal staff (particularly during processes and are able to contribute to the continuity of any administration changes). If the municipality can accomplish reforms undertaken. 20 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Construction Permit Jose Alamo, a young businessman who lives in one of Peru's most populated cities, identified a potentially profitable opportunity to open a restaurant. His intention was to start a business that would provide him with sustainable income and allow him to hire several family members. Jose decided to build a 2 floor structure, of at least 200 square meters, on a vacant lot registered in his name. Jose's first move was to ask a contractor to prepare the building project. This cost him US$800. Jose wanted to build legally, so he approached the Municipality to find out about the urban regulations governing this type of construction. At the Municipality, Jose encountered a hostile environment and interminable lines. The information he received was generally incomprehensible, but Jose was able to make out that he had to pay $180 for the right to an "Informative File on the Procedure" in order to initiate the process. An additional $55 was needed to obtain the Certificate of Urban Parameters. In total, Jose had to pay $235 just to obtain information. The file contained a long list of paperwork that needed to be presented to the municipality, including some documents that were either very difficult or costly to obtain. Jose gave up trying to understand the municipality's requirements, and decided to hire an architect to do all of the studies. This cost an additional $625. Once Jose presented his project draft, the Municipality took another 45 days to tell him that he could apply for the permit. Municipal employees told Jose that his permit would be issued in 20 days (as specified in TUPA8). However, in reality, Jose's paperwork got caught up in the municipal bureaucracy and he had to wait 135 days to find out that his file was in the process of being reviewed by the Commission for Technical Qualification of Projects. To Jose's surprise, the result of this evaluation was that his application was denied due to technical observations. He was told to make the necessary modifications and resubmit his request. Jose had already spent 6 months of his time on procedures and had laid out approximately US$780 on paperwork and additional fees. In sum, Jose's investment was US$ 2.440, which represents 94% of the GDP per capita in Peru. Jose finally gave up his quest for a permit and decided to build informally like many of his neighbors. Even if Jose had been lucky enough to obtain a Construction Permit, he would have had to wait an additional three months to register the building as his property in public registries. C ases like Jose's are repeated on a daily basis throughout Latin parties, and is in keeping with the city's urban planning. In a America. Many entrepreneurs, daunted by a seemingly perfect world, these goals are met efficiently. In reality however, insurmountable bureaucracy, prefer to build informally. Although many municipalities have built an insurmountable bureaucracy the Construction Permit process is subject to national approval that discourages many property owners from formalizing their instances in all the countries studied, the bulk of permitting constructions, making the lure of informality even harder to combat. occurs at the municipal level and as such any efforts to measure the extent and weight of bureaucracy must be concentrated here. To measure the efficiency with which municipalities issue the Construction Permit, the Municipal Scorecard interviewed The Construction Permit is used by the municipality to verify businessmen who had obtained this permit over the last year that a new construction fulfills the technical, urbanistic and safety (generally for small constructions9, which are the most requirements stipulated by urban development norms. The common building type in Construction Permit requests) and issuance of a Construction Permit indicates that the building municipal employees from the departments of Urban complies with legal requirements, does not adversely affect third Development, Cadastral Evaluation, and Territorial 21 Planning. By interviewing business owners and municipal the reach of public institutions. As such, little effective control is employees, the Municipal Scorecard Report sought to collect exercised over new buildings. The remaining informal constructions information that best reflects reality. belong to what are euphemistically known as "pueblos jóvenes" or "favelas", meaning marginal urban neighborhoods.These settlements, Owners of large businesses, although not included in the which have been common over the last 40 years, are the result of survey sample, were directly interviewed by the Municipal squatting efforts on public or private land by peasants from rural areas. Scorecard. The results of these interviews led to the following observation: although these individuals were capable of paying the What are the benefits of formalizing constructions? elevated cost of procedures and could wait longer to begin construction, the uncertainty of permit request results often Both the construction's owner and the community benefit paralyzed investment for weeks or months, generating considerable from construction formalization, which encourages ordered financial and opportunity costs capable of producing sizable losses. urban growth. Figure 3.1 shows how a municipal Construction Permit can eventually lead to the construction's inscription in the Public Registry as a property asset. This registration increases the The importance of formal construction value of the construction and improves the owner's possibilities of utilizing the building as collateral to access financing. This is true According to several studies conducted in Latin America, the of all 65 municipalities studied in the Municipal Scorecard 2007. current level of informality hovers around 60% of the total pool of constructions. This is particularly evident in Brazil, Peru and Although informal constructions may have access to financing Bolivia. There are many reasons behind this elevated degree of from microfinance institutions or money lenders outside the informality, but one of the most pressing issues is the cumbersome formal, regulated finance system, in general the interest rates bureaucracy that must be faced to formalize buildings. As such, applied are much higher than those obtainable when a the excessive level of bureaucracy in the process to issue construction is formal. Although informal constructions may Construction Permits acts to discourage new investment and may have access to some public services, the quality of these services is have collateral adverse effects on employment and income.10 rarely comparable to that available to formal buildings. In cities such as Lima and Ica in Peru, El Alto in Bolivia, and São By promoting formal construction, municipal governments Paulo in Brazil, much of the geographic area has been developed ensure that urban development plans are fulfilled and guarantee completely outside of the law. In a large percentage of cases, this that the buildings' quality is optimal (and thus beneficial to the informality is concentrated along the cities' periphery and outside of community). If informality levels are reduced, the municipalities FIGURE 3.1 Example of Typical Procedure to Formalize Construction and Register it as an Asset PROCEDURE TO FORMALIZE CONSTRUCTION (Advanteges of the Construction Permit) Municipality Public Registry Viability study of the Certificate of Inscription in Public Project License construction Finalization of work Registry This is a project draft that has been This is the authorization that the Municipal certificate that construction Legal Recognition of the existence of a submitted to the Municipality to serve Municpality gives to intiate constuction has been concluded according to the building. When a building is legally as the basis for determining the work. Construction Permit requirements. recognized, it becomes an asset that construction's viability (it does not - Once the project draft is approved, the This certificate may indicate that the owner can leverage. authorize the initiation of construction municipality will examine the technicals modifications have been made that are given the safety, sanitary, and electrical aspects of the construction by inspecting in keeping wih urbanistic requirements lans must still be approved) the structure and ensuring that urbanistic and zoning regulations. and building standards have been met with regard to safety, environmental, sanitary and electrical aspects. -Once the application has been reviewed by the municipality, it is submitted to commitee (which is generally made up of individuals from professional associations and technical experts). -Once the project is approved by the technical commission, the owner can begin construction. Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 22 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT will be able to increase their tax bases and use these new TABLE 3.1 resources to improve health, education and infrastructure. Construction Permit Regional Ranking Without a doubt, the construction sector plays an important role in a country's economic growth. This is particularly true in Country Municipality Rank Latin America, where construction activities have increased significantly (Ho) Comayagua 1 over the last decade. Over the past five years, this sector has grown (Ho) Choluteca 2 (Ho) Puerto Cortés 3 by 20% on average. In Brazil in 2005, the construction sector (Ho) Choloma 4 represents 7.3% of GDP11 . Construction stimulates investment for (Ni) Estelí 5 the formation of capital and generates employment. In Bolivia, (Ni) Masaya 6 (Br) Curitiba 7 8.3% of the economically active population works in construction, (Ni) Chinandega 8 in Honduras this figure is 7.1% and in Nicaragua 6.4%. (Ni) León 9 (Ni) Rivas 10 (Ni) Matagalpa 11 The Construction Permit Scorecard (Ni) Managua 12 (Br) Vitória 13 Which municipalities are most efficient in providing (Br) Salvador 14 Construction Permits? (Bo) Cochabamba 15 (Ni) Jinotega 16 (Br) Maceió 17 Which municipalities are the most efficient? Which provide (Ho) La Ceiba 18 the least expensive procedures? Which provide the best service? To (Ho) Santa Rosa de Copán 19 answer these questions, the Municipal Scorecard 2007 surveyed (Br) Duque de Caxias 20 (Ho) Tegucigalpa 21 business owners and municipal employees in 65 municipalities in (Br) Joinville 22 Bolivia, Brazil, Honduras, Nicaragua and Peru. The results of this (Br) Campo Grande 23 survey reveal a number of interesting trends and conclusions. (Br) São Luis 24 (Ho) San Juan del Sur 25 (Ni) San Pedro Sula 26 The Construction Permit Scorecard was calculated by using (Br) Guarulhos 27 the simple average of two indices, the Performance Index and the (Br) Belo Horizonte 28 (Br) São Paulo 29 Process Index. The Performance Index measures time, cost, (Br) Belém 30 number of visits and rejections; the Process Index measures (Br) Diadema 31 information, infrastructure, tools, inspections, and training. (Pe) Callao 32 (Pe) Sullana 33 Next, we will look at the results for these Indices. (Br) Manaus 34 (Bo) Santa Cruz 35 The results shown in Table 3.1 refer to the Municipal (Br) Recife 36 (Br) Londrina 37 Scorecard Construction Permit. The top positions were occupied (Br) Goiãnia 38 by Honduran and Nicaraguan Municipalities while the bottom (Pe) Cusco 39 spots went to Peruvian and Bolivian Municipalities. (Bo) La Paz 40 (Br) Cuiabá 41 (Br) Florianópolis 42 The Municipalities of Comayagua and Choluteca in (Pe) Trujillo 43 Honduras and Estelí and Masaya in Nicaragua have recently (Br) São Bernardo do Campo 44 (Pe) Piura 45 conducted reforms that have allowed them to significantly (Br) João Pessoa 46 simplify the Construction Permit, which undoubtedly contributed (Ni) Granada 47 to their top ten positions in the ranking. Examples of (Bo) Sucre 48 (Ho) El Progreso 49 municipalities that could benefit from reform include Oruro and (Bo) El Alto 50 Potosí in Bolivia and Chiclayo and Puno in Peru, which occupied (Bo) Quillacollo 51 the lowest positions in the Construction Permit Regional Ranking. (Br) Aracaju 52 (Br) Porto Alegre 53 (Br) Fortaleza 54 (Bo) Tarija 55 PERFORMANCE INDEX (Br) Teresina 56 (Pe) Lima 57 In each country studied, there were good and bad examples of (Pe) Tumbes 58 (Pe) Huancayo 59 what "Performance" should mean with regard to the (Pe) Cajamarca 60 Construction Permit. Next, we will look at the best and worst (Pe) Ica 61 performers on the Construction Permit Performance Index. (Pe) Puno 62 (Pe) Chiclayo 63 (Bo) Potosí 64 (Bo) Oruro 65 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 23 TABLE 3.2 Construction Permit - Performance Sub-indices. Best and Worst Performers Time (days) Cost (% of GDP per capita) Lowest number of Highest number of Lowest Highest Bolivia Bolivia La Paz El Alto Sucre El Alto Cochabamba Potosí Cochabamba Oruro Santa Cruz Oruro La Paz Potosí Brazil Brazil São Luis Florianópolis Recife São Bernardo do Campo Vitória Porto Alegre Porto Alegre Belém Joinville Goiãnia Diadema Teresina Honduras Honduras Comayagua Tegucigalpa Choloma Choluteca Choluteca Santa Rosa de Copán La Ceiba Santa Rosa de Copán Choloma San Pedro Sula Comayagua El Progreso Nicaragua Nicaragua Estelí Matagalpa León Estelí Rivas Managua Rivas San Juan del Sur Chinandega Granada Managua Granada Peru Peru Piura Cajamarca Piura Cajamarca Sullana Huancayo Huancayo Puno Trujillo Lima Callao Tumbes Number of Visits Rejections (percentage of) Least Most Least Most Bolivia Bolivia La Paz Tarija Sucre Quillacollo Santa Cruz Potosí Oruro Santa Cruz Sucre Oruro La Paz Tarija Brazil Brazil São Bernardo do Campo Porto Alegre Recife Salvador Belém Aracaju Fortaleza Florianópolis Curitiba Manaus Guarulhos Porto Alegre Honduras Honduras Choluteca Santa Rosa de Copán Comayagua La Ceiba Choloma San Pedro Sula Santa Rosa de Copán San Pedro Sula Comayagua Tegucigalpa Tegucigalpa Choloma Nicaragua Nicaragua San Juan del Sur Matagalpa Matagalpa Rivas Estelí Rivas Jinotega Granada Jinotega Granada Estelí Managua Peru Peru Chiclayo Cusco Tumbes Chiclayo Piura Lima Piura Cajamarca Sullana Puno Callao Ica What variables does each Subindex include? Time Number of Visits It measures the total time, in days, to complete the application process. This Sub-index refers to the total number of visits made by the business The time is estimated as the difference between the starting and ending owner to the municipality during the process. It is expected to increase dates of the whole process as indicated by owners. when process management is less efficient. Cost Rejections Cost is an estimate of the sum of fees and municipal taxes paid by the It is the percentage of the whole application pool that corresponds to business owner to fulfill the necessary requirements to complete the requests that were rejected during the previous year. This Sub-index procedure. serves as a proxy for municipal process quality and assumes both an efficient management process and the business owners' adequate understanding of requirements. Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 24 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT The Performance Index measures four different Sub- TABLE 3.3 indices: 1) Time, measured in days to obtain the permit from What municipalities provide good examples of Best Practice the time the application is delivered to the municipality to in Construction Permit issuance? the time the permit is issued; 2) Cost, measured as a Canada is one of the countries that applies best practices in Construction Permit issuance. It percentage of GDP per capita; 3) Number of Visits, takes only 20 days to obtain a Construction Permit from the Municipality of Toronto in Canada. measured by the number of times the entrepreneur had to go Toronto and Ontario are good examples of efficiency in Construction Permit issuance. In to the municipality during the process; and 4) Rejections, Ontario, a system known as the "Building Code" is used to categorize the different construction and land use permits, making the process faster and more efficient. The building measured by the percentage of all applications in a year that division is interconnected to an on-line zoning system that verifies compliance with urbanistic were rejected. Together, these Sub-indices give a good and building parameters in less than five days. Next, building plans are checked by experts picture of the efficiency of a municipality's process. Next, we within 15 days of receipt. This system permits the legalization of a building in less than 77 days. Ontario has also made progress in eliminating the need to obtain Construction Permits will look at each in turn. See Table 3.2. for minor modifications or remodeling. Source: Municipality of Ontario, Canada Time ­ For the purpose of this Sub-index, time is measured in the number of days it takes to obtain a Construction Permit. This and three Nicaraguan- that take between 7 and 15 days. Brazilian time reflects the total time for the process beginning when the business and Peruvian municipalities are, on average, the slowest. São owner hands in the application for a Construction Permit and Luis, the fastest Brazilian municipality, takes 24 days and Piura, ending with the inspection process and issuance of the permit itself. in Peru, takes only 18 days. In contrast, nine of the ten Nicaraguan municipalities take less than 10 days. In terms of the time it takes to obtain a Construction Permit, the Municipalities of Estelí, Rivas and Chinandega in The time it takes to obtain a Construction Permit in the Nicaragua and Comayagua in Honduras are the most efficient. main cities (with the highest levels of urban development) of In Estelí and Rivas, a business owner can obtain a permit in 3 each of the five countries studied is highly variable. While it days and in Chinandega and Comayagua, the wait is only one takes less than 11 days to obtain a Construction Permit in day more. Entrepreneurs in other municipalities, however, the Municipalities of La Paz in Bolivia and Managua in must face cumbersome bureaucracy to obtain the same permit. Nicaragua, the same process takes more than a year in Lima. For example, in the Municipalities of Goiãnia in Brazil, The Municipality of São Paulo, which serves the largest city Huancayo and Lima in Peru, the wait to obtain a Construction in Brazil, takes 92 days to issue a Construction Permit, Permit can run anywhere from 219 to 378 days, which is 100 which shows that the size of the city and the number of permits times longer than the time it takes in Estelí. Understandably, requested are not determining factors in explaining why it many business owners are put off by the long waits and takes so long for some municipalities to issue a Construction choose the "ease" of informality. In general, the municipalities Permit. If we look at municipalities in countries outside of that show higher levels of informality experience more this report's sample, Ontario and Toronto in Canada stand problems in controlling urban development. out as prime examples of the use of best practices in the issuance of Construction Permits. See Table 3.3. Most of the quickest performers in the ranking are from Nicaragua, but Honduras is represented by two municipalities. Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3 compare the time it takes to obtain There are only six municipalities -one Bolivian, two Honduran a Construction Permit in Peru and Honduras. The figures show FIGURE 3.2 FIGURE 3.3 Days to apply for a Construction Permit in Peru Days to apply for a Construction Permit in Honduras Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 25 that the duration of the process depends on the magnitude and FIGURE 3.4 type of construction undertaken. In both countries, smaller Times (days) for Construction Permit projects (remodeling, reparation and minor buildings) tend to require, on average, less time than other projects such as new building construction. The explanation for this lies in the fact that smaller projects require fewer inspections, steps, and approvals than larger endeavors. In Honduras, permits for enlargement or modifications take 11 days while a go-ahead for the same takes 45 days to obtain in Peru. A new building in Honduras is approved in about 41 days while the same procedure takes 174 days in Peru. It is also important to note that many discrepancies exist between the time it takes to obtain an Operating License and the time needed to achieve a Construction Permit in the same municipality. In the Municipality of Lima, the time to obtain an Operating License is only 6 days and costs the equivalent of 1.7 percent of GDP per capita. In contrast, the Construction Permit takes 378 days to secure and costs the equivalent of 11.6 percent. This difference is a result of the Operating License reforms that Lima recently implemented. At the time of this report, no reforms had been made to the Construction Permit procedure. If we take the success of the Operating License reform as a proxy, we can assume that the simplification of Construction Permit processes could improve Lima's scores dramatically. Cost ­ For the purpose of this Sub-index, cost is measured as a percentage of GDP per capita. This cost considers only the official cost of the procedure. The municipalities of Nicaragua show the highest costs relative to obtaining a Construction Permit. The cost in some municipalities, including Granada (the Historic Center of Nicaragua), can reach the equivalent of 70% of GDP per capita. In the Municipality of El Progreso in Honduras, the cost represents 19% of GDP per capita while the smallest municipality in the country ­Comayagua­ shows costs equivalent to 2.3%. Nineteen municipalities charge fees that are the equivalent of less than 4 percent of GDP per capita. Twenty municipalities charge fees that are the equivalent of between 4 percent and 10 percent of the same base figure; twenty one municipalities stipulate fees that are the equivalent of between 10 and 20 percent; and the rest of the municipalities charge figures that fall between the equivalent of 23 and 70 percent. While the results are more evenly dispersed than those for the time Sub-index, there are still significant variations in cost, even within the same country. In general, it is good practice that the fee charged for the permit should not far exceed the cost incurred by the municipality in providing the service. Without a doubt, it is significant that the highest costs for the Construction Permit procedure can be found in some of the poorest municipalities in the sample. Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 26 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FIGURE 3.5 FIGURE 3.6 Cost (% of GDP per Capita) for Construction Permit Number of Visits for Construction Permit Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 27 FIGURE 3.7 In the majority of cases, the high costs of the Construction Rejections (% of total pool) for Construction Permit Permit are associated with the need to hire specialized personnel, meet specific requirements and pay fees that frequently depend on the size of the construction. All of these factors tend to discourage instead of promote formalization.12 Number of visits ­ The number of visits that an entrepreneur must make to the municipality to obtain a Construction Permit is a vital indicator of a municipality's performance. Theoretically, better performers require business owners to make fewer visits to the municipality to complete the permit process. As such, fewer visits are equated with greater efficiency and elevated performance. While in the Municipalities of Comayagua, Estelí and Piura a business owner must visit the municipality two or three times, applicants in the Municipalities of Oruro, Potosí and Tarija in Bolivia, and Lima and Puno in Peru must make at least ten trips to municipal offices. Excessive bureaucracy and cumbersome procedures tend to significantly increase the number of visits required. It is important to remember that many studies have shown that the greater the contact that municipal employees have with users, the higher the probability that "extra legal" payments will be either requested or offered. Rejections ­ The Performance Index also measures the percentage of applications that is rejected over the course of a year. If this percentage is high, it is a sure sign that information is unclear or poorly communicated to applicants. Eleven municipalities had rejection rates under 6 percent; twenty one municipalities showed figures between 7 and 10 percent. Another twelve municipalities had rates between 12 and 19 percent. The remaining twenty-one showed rejection rates ranging from 20 to 75 percent (three municipalities did not collect this data). One of the most important reasons behind the high percentage of rejections in the Municipalities of Porto Alegre in Brazil and Ica in Peru is that clear information is not provided on the procedure. Process Index The Process Index is designed so that municipalities that: 1) provide users with adequate, accurate and accessible information; 2) have adequate infrastructure to attend to the business owners' needs; 3) utilize process management tools; 4) have adequate inspection processes; and 5) provide continuous training to personnel score higher. Table 3.4 shows the highest and lowest scoring municipalities in each Sub-index. This does not necessarily mean that a municipality did poorly on each part of the Sub-index (some have up to 5 variables), so it is important to refer to the Sub-index tables and individual municipal diagnostic graphs in the The Municipalities' Results Annex for a more complete picture. We will examine each of the five Sub-indices below. Information ­ In this Sub-index, the Scorecard measures the availability and clarity of information provided; if the forms are Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database easy to fill out; whether or not the process followed the 28 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TABLE 3.4 Construction Permit - Process Sub-indices. Best and Worst Performers Information Sub-index Infrastructure Sub-index Most Least Most Least Bolivia Bolivia Cochabamba La Paz Cochabamba Tarija Santa Cruz Oruro La Paz Oruro Quillacollo Potosí Potosí Quillacollo Brazil Brazil Duque de Caxias Fortaleza Curitiba São Bernardo do Campo Curitiba Campo Grande Maceió Fortaleza Vitória Londrina Joinville Cuiabá Honduras Honduras Choloma Tegucigalpa Choluteca Santa Rosa de Copán Comayagua San Pedro Sula Comayagua Tegucigalpa Puerto Cortés El Progreso Choloma El Progreso Nicaragua Nicaragua Estelí León San Juan del Sur Rivas Masaya Chinandega Estelí Chinandega Managua Jinotega Masaya Matagalpa Peru Peru Piura Trujillo Trujillo Chiclayo Lima Tumbes Lima Puno Callao Chiclayo Ica Piura Tools Sub-index Training Sub-index Most Least Most Least Bolivia Bolivia Cochabamba Oruro Cochabamba Oruro Santa Cruz Quillacollo Santa Cruz Potosí Sucre Tarija El Alto Sucre Brazil Brazil Salvador Fortaleza São Paulo Teresina Curitiba Diadema Belo Horizonte Aracaju Campo Grande São Bernardo do Campo Curitiba João Pessoa Honduras Honduras Choluteca La Ceiba Comayagua La Ceiba Puerto Cortés San Pedro Sula Choluteca El Progreso Comayagua El Progreso San Pedro Sula Santa Rosa de Copán Nicaragua Nicaragua Masaya Managua Masaya Managua Rivas San Juan del Sur Estelí Matagalpa Chinandega Jinotega Chinandega San Juan del Sur Peru Peru Callao Huancayo Cusco Cajamarca Lima Tumbes Trujillo Huancayo Cusco Chiclayo Lima Chiclayo Inspections Sub-index Most Least What variables does each Sub-index include? Bolivia Cochabamba Sucre Information Sub-index Quillacollo Oruro Complexity of application forms, Clarity of information, Accesibility of information, Santa Cruz La Paz Consistency of process with information and Knowledge of inspection criteria Brazil Maceió Teresina Infrastructure Sub-index São Luis Recife Quality of facilities, Use of Infomation Technology and Customer opinion system Curitiba Fortaleza Honduras Tools Sub-index Puerto Cortés Tegucigalpa Construction Classification, Use of Information Technology, Delegation of signing Comayagua La Ceiba Choluteca El Progreso authority, Zoning, Categorization by Construction Type, Internal audits, External audits and Private sector participation Nicaragua Estelí Masaya Inspections Sub-index Jinotega Rivas Chinandega San Juan del Sur Number of Inspections, Conformity with Inspections, Transparency of Inspections Peru Training Sub-index Callao Lima Trujillo Chiclayo Process Training, Customer Service Training and Availability of Manuals Puno Piura Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 29 information provided; and finally if businesses were given although not generally dealt with in comparative studies, is often information about the inspection process. a determining factor in generating trust between business owners and the government. It also plays a significant role in efforts to Bolivia, Peru and Brazil received the worst scores from business increase formalization and is particularly relevant to the owners for this Sub-index. In the Municipalities of Potosí and La Construction Permit process. Paz in Bolivia, Piura and Puno in Peru and Londrina in Brazil, business owners report that the information provided on the In this Sub-index, Bolivia and Peru received the lowest scores Construction Permit process is unclear; the formats are hard to overall. The Municipalities of Quillacollo, Oruro and Tarija were fill out; and the procedure fails to coincide with the information the worst performers in Bolivia, while Chiclayo, Tumbes and initially provided by the municipality. On the other hand, Trujillo were Peru's stragglers. The Municipality of Curitiba in business owners in Comayagua in Honduras, Estelí in Nicaragua Brazil was the best performer in the region. and Curitiba in Brazil reported that the information received was precise and consistent with the actual procedure. In the Tools ­ The tools Sub-index measures the existence and use Municipality of Curitiba, the information is clear and the details of tools that help improve process management. The variables of norms and procedures relative to the Construction Permit are that comprise this Sub-index reflect best practice among municipalities available on Internet. Providing good information is an essential worldwide and include the following: a) clear zoning rules that component of good service and is also an effective mechanism for make it easy for investors to understand which constructions are reducing the high number of rejections associated with allowed where; b) risk-based classifications for construction types information that is poor in quality and/or poorly communicated. to differentiate between businesses according to the actual risk posed by building (and thus low risk operations do not have to If a municipality wishes to promote formal constructions, it go through more extensive inspections that are reserved for high must provide specific and clear information on the procedure to risk categories); c) the use of technology to make the process obtain a Construction Permit. Given the technical nature of the quicker and less prone to undue delays or discretion on the part procedure, simplicity is of the essence. The information that the of municipal staff; d) delegation of signing authority to head off business owner receives should synthesize components of the the bottlenecks created when only one individual, who may also city's urban development plan, local plans and the urbanistic and be overworked, is absent; e) the use of internal and external building parameters that determine the construction's boundaries process audits to ensure that the process is functioning as it and characteristics. should to detect any irregularities and look for opportunities for improvement; f) the extent to which the private sector ­which is Infrastructure ­ This Sub-index covers three related but the client in this process and the best source of feedback­ is distinct aspects: the quality of the physical infrastructure; the use consulted. of information systems; and the existence of a customer opinion system. Together these three variables help shed light on the level Peruvian municipalities received poor scores in Planning and of customer focus by determining the quality of the infrastructure Zoning with the exception of Lima, where most business owners (from the users' perspective); the use of technology to improve and municipal employees reported that the categorization and the speed and efficiency of the service; and whether or not there zoning procedures used were good. The Municipality of Chiclayo is a system in place to collect and act on information about users' in Peru received particularly low marks due to the fact that experiences, complaints or suggestions. Customer service, business owners felt that neither zoning nor categorization was applied during the process to obtain a Construction Permit. FIGURE 3.8 Consistency of Process with Information Inspections ­ Efficient and transparent inspections are a necessary component of simple and effective processes and fulfill a wider function of protecting social well being. This Sub-index is composed of three variables: the number of inspections; the transparency of the inspection process (from the business owner's perspective); and whether or not the applicant felt the inspections were reasonable. Bolivia and Peru were the poorest performers on the Inspection Sub-index. The Municipalities of Chiclayo in Peru, La Paz and Oruro in Bolivia, and Fortaleza in Brazil received the lowest scores of all the municipalities surveyed. In many of the countries studied, inspections processes are efficiently outsourced to professional associations of architects and engineers. Other municipalities, including Maceió and São Luis in Brazil, have Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database improved performance in this area by developing efficient 30 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FIGURE 3.9 Is it possible to simplify the Construction Permit? Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database systems of urban control in collaboration with national entities simplify the Construction Permit. (See Annex on Reformers). The for environmental protection and public safety. evidence collected indicates that the municipalities that have begun reforms on the Construction Permit have effectively reduced the It is notable that, similar to the situation found for the time and cost of the procedure by three fold. See figure 3.9. Operating License, several of the lowest ranking municipalities in inspection transparency also ranked poorly in knowledge of inspection criteria (from the Information Index). This applied to Historic Centers and the Construction Permit municipalities such as Piura (Peru), Oruro (Bolivia), El Progreso (Honduras), San Juan del Sur (Nicaragua) and Fortaleza (Brazil), Historic centers are an important part of a city's cultural all of which would benefit from a concerted effort to inform heritage. Their monuments, buildings, and man-made or natural businesses about their responsibilities and what will be reviewed sites are part of the universal heritage. The United Nations has in the inspection process. recognized the value of these sites under the Convention for the Protection of the World's Cultural and Natural Heritage. This In the case of the Construction Permit, efficient inspections convention, overseen by UNESCO's World Heritage program13, ensure that a building is well made. In general, these inspections seeks to protect historic centers from decay and disappearance. should be focused on three stages: the process to verify information included on the Construction Permit application; There are several recognized world heritage sites in Latin the inspection conducted at the beginning of the project to verify America. For example, Lima, founded in 1535, was the center of that construction is taking place according to the plans the Spanish empire in South America. Its historic center is an submitted and approved; and the inspection conducted at the excellent example of Spanish colonial urban and architectural end of the construction process to ensure that work has concluded design. Granada, one of the oldest cities in Central America, according to the specifications approved in the Construction Permit. boasts a number of buildings representative of architectural styles common in the 16th-19th centuries. Lima was declared a world Training ­ This Sub-index measures three factors: the heritage site in 1988 and again in 1991, and Granada is under availability and utility of procedural manuals; the training the consideration for recognition. staff received on the Operating License process; and the training received on customer service. If these areas are adequately The challenge for municipal authorities is to find a balance covered, municipalities can elevate compliance with legal between the preservation of this cultural heritage and the need to obligations while maintaining high quality service. promote valuable business activity. This balancing act can result in unavoidable restrictions for businesses. Although restrictions Three Nicaraguan and five Honduran municipalities occupied may exist, clear and easy-to-understand regulations can promote the top positions in the ranking. The remaining spots in the top orderly business development. Uncoordinated efforts among range of the ranking went to municipalities from Brazil and Bolivia. municipal offices only make matters worse. On the other end of the spectrum, the bottom 10 positions went to Peru and Brazil, with 4 and 6 municipalities respectively. Several of the municipalities in the Municipal Scorecard Report 2007 have Historic Centers or areas that have been Is it possible to simplify the Construction Permit? declared architectural heritage. In the majority of these municipalities, municipal regulation has been tightened to The Municipal Scorecard 2007 gathered information on the prevent the deterioration of cultural heritage and impede the municipalities in the survey that have conducted reforms to overcrowding caused by informal constructions. 31 Many of these regulations have generated phenomena such as How can historic preservation contribute to growth? increases in abandoned property and overall neglect of cultural heritage sites. There are approximately 1.5 million square meters Aside from their intrinsic cultural value, historical sites can of empty buildings in the historic center of Lima, not including serve as engines for growth. For example, a heritage tourism those that are currently under-used. According to data provided program can encourage preservation of historic buildings and a by PROLIMA14 on 570015 buildings in Lima, 671 are considered revival of local authentic culture. An effective heritage tourism Architectural Heritage, 1,200 have value as monuments, and program requires collaboration; balancing the needs of residents 1,334 are derelict and in need of significant investment to make and visitors; lively programs with a focus on quality and them habitable. authenticity; and a goal to preserve and protect. This approach demands an understanding of the needs of both residents and According to Defensa Civil, in the Historic Center alone, tourists. The cooperation and participation of local community 17,223 derelict units must either be destroyed or restored in the groupswillresultinarealisticplanthatincludespreservationandgrowth.16 short term to prevent disasters in the immediate future. How can historic centers meet current needs? The age and deteriorated state of these buildings have led many occupants to abandon the premises because of fear of Another way to encourage historic preservation while possible structural collapses. Furthermore, the overall deterioration improving the business environment is by engaging in adaptive of the historic center has frightened off potential investors. re-use. This process adapts older buildings for new or expanded purposes while retaining their original character. In some cases, These problems are common in the historic centers of other historic buildings undergo major renovations. In other cases, the cities, including Potosí in Bolivia, Salvador in Brazil, and changes are minimal. In all cases, however, the goal is to preserve Tegucigalpa in Honduras. There are, however, several positive the original structure. The Estação Commercial Center in examples of successful preservation efforts by municipalities that Curitiba serves as an example of this approach, and as an example manage to attract investment to historic centers to restore the of cooperation between municipal authorities and private investors. exteriors of area buildings. Good examples of this type of The challenge was to up-date the existing building and improve endeavor can be found in São Luis in Brazil and Comayagua in access for visitors. Cooperation between the government and the Honduras. private sector revitalized a previously neglected historic center and resulted in an active shopping and entertainment area.17 TABLE 3.5 Historic Centers and Construction Permits BOLIVIA BRAZIL HONDURAS NICARAGUA PERU Comayagua León High Performance on Time Sub-index São Luis Choluteca Masaya Rivas Trujillo Chiclayo Cusco (*) Sucre(*) Tegucigalpa Puno Low Performance on Time Sub-index Potosí (*) Salvador (*) Santa Rosa de Copán Granada Callao Ica Cajamarca Huancayo Lima (*) (*)Citites that have sites that have been declared Universal Heritage Cultural by UNESCO Source: UNESCO's website: http://whc.unesco.org/ Notes 8 Sole Text for Administrative Procedures (Texto Único de Procedimientos 14 Metropolitan Municipality of Lima's Program to Recover the Historic Center of Administrativos). Lima. 9 Buildings no bigger than 100 m2 and 2 floors. 15 Through the Mayor's Decree Nº 177, published on 11/13/2003, identified Microzones for Urban Renewal with 1325 buildings and pertinent 10 Foreign Investment Advisory Service 2003, Banco Mundial, Barreras surrounding areas. Administrativas Municipales a la Inversión. 16 See the National Trust for Historic Preservation's website: 11 IPEA Data, Ministério do Planejamento, Orçamento e Gestao, Brazil. http://www.culturalheritagetourism.org/fourSteps.htm http://www.ipeadata.gov.br/ 17 Heritage tourism and adaptive re-use can be controversial. See, for 12 The cost of the Construction Permit should be associated with the cost of the example, Joseph L. Scarpacci, Plaza and Barrios: Heritage Tourism and procedure and not the size of the construction. In many cases, this cost Globalization in the Latin American Centro Histórico. Tucson: discourages construction formalization. The University of Arizona Press, 2005. 13 See UNESCO's website: http://whc.unesco.org/; and Ramon Gutierrez's article on the world heritage list. http://www.icomos.org/studies/latin-towns.htm#6. 32 HOW TO REFORM How to Reform L ooking at some of the data in this report, a municipal official and cost, and, more importantly, may increase the number of could be forgiven for feeling overwhelmed by the need for businesses that decide to apply for the license. In many reform, what to do and how to begin. In this chapter we will municipalities, the reforms have resulted in a 20-to-60 percent review some of the strategies and particular reforms that jump in business registrations. In a few municipalities, the results municipalities have used to improve performance. The intention have been even stronger. In Lima, for example, a reform of the is to give readers some ideas on what reforms may be applicable licensing procedure has reduced processing time to two or three in their municipalities. days and the cost by 60 percent for the smallest businesses. During the first six months after completing the reform, 3,700 The good news is that reforms are possible and relatively businesses obtained an Operating License, an increase of 263 quick and cheap. Many municipalities across Latin America have percent over the same period in 2005.18 reformed or are now in the process of doing so. Reformers range from the very small cities, like Comayagua (Honduras) and The 16 municipalities in this survey that applied simplification Masaya (Nicaragua), to large capital cities like Lima in Peru, and reforms did substantially better than those that did not. Figure Managua in Nicaragua. Even large cities (meaning those with 4.1 compares all Performance Index variables for municipalities populations over 12 million people) like São Paulo and Mexico that reformed and those that did not. The municipalities with City are reforming their processes. These reforms, depending on simplified processes average 5 days to get an Operating License at their depth and coverage, usually take between 9 and 16 months a cost equivalent to 1.6 percent of GDP per capita while the 51 and are not expensive given the benefits generated. municipalities that have not simplified take an average of 56 days and charge the equivalent of 4.1 percent of GDP per capita. Reform results can be dramatic. Adequate and comprehensive Similarly, reformers report lower average number of visits during reforms can generate impressive results, such as lowering time the licensing process (2 visits versus 3 for non-reformer); lower FIGURE 4.1 Performance Sub-indices: Municipalities that have and have not reformed the Operating License Process Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 33 rejection rates (7.3% vs. 15.3%); and slightly lower numbers of In the sections below we will discuss some strategies commonly inspections (1.3 versus 1.8). used by reformers in each of the five Process Sub-indices and list the leading municipalities in these areas in each country studied The Municipal Scorecard can be a very valuable tool in any (for both Operating License and Construction Permit). This effort to learn about best practice and can be used as a basis for information will help municipal authorities to better analyze the enlightening discussion amongst municipal counterparts both areas that require reform and develop corresponding strategies. locally and abroad. To facilitate analysis, we examined the different Process Sub-indices and their correlation with the Information ­ The Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 show that Performance Sub-indices. In this section, we will provide a quick Information Sub-index has the highest correlation with the summary of our findings and will give some examples and ideas Performance and Process Indices. When a municipality needs to for effective reforms. improve the flow of information to business owners, there are several areas that need to be considered. First, prior to any communications campaigns, the municipality needs to ensure ¿What changes must be made to improve in that the information that it is giving to the public is correct and the Performance Index? easy to understand and that forms are easy to fill out. This will require a review and modification of the application form to The data collected by the Municipal Scorecard 2007 may lack ensure it is intelligible (we suggest using some focus groups to robust statistical backing to determine the dependency of the ensure vocabulary is easily understood) and that the target variables, but it is still possible to venture an analysis of the population finds them user-friendly. All of the countries studied correlations that exist between the Sub-indices of the had municipalities that were highly rated on these aspects, and it Performance and Process Indices for both the Operating License might be useful to see what the application form in the leading and the Construction Permit. Table 4.1 and Table 4.2. show the municipality in your country looks like. most significant (darker black) correlations. Next, the municipality can make the information about the What becomes immediately clear is that information is the process, requirements, application form and any inspections most critical component of any effort to improve performance in available on the Internet and in print at no cost. There are a few both procedures, followed by tools, inspections and training. The things to keep in mind here. First, if you make the license Performance Sub-indices that had the lowest correlations with the application form available on the Internet, it should be Process Sub-indices were cost (which is logical given that in most downloadable and forms from a personal computer printer municipalities the cost to applicants does not reflect the cost should be acceptable. Another option would be to set up Internet incurred by the municipality to provide the service) and rejections. kiosks in the municipality where users can directly fill out TABLE 4.1 Correlations: Performance and Process Sub-indices for the Operating License INFORMATION SUB-INDEX INFRASTRUCTURE SUB-INDEX TOOLS SUB-INDEX INSPECTIONS SUB-INDEX TRAINING SUB-INDEX PERFORMANCE INDEX 53% 7% 43% 28% 27% Time 44% 21% 41% 37% 11% Cost 25% -11% 20% 17% 22% Number of Visits 46% 16% 32% 25% 31% Rejection Rate 25% -7% 22% -5% 9% Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database TABLE 4.2 Correlations: Performance and Process Sub-indices for the Construction Permit INFORMATION SUB-INDEX INFRASTRUCTURE SUB-INDEX TOOLS SUB-INDEX INSPECTIONS SUB-INDEX TRAINING SUB-INDEX PERFORMANCE INDEX 32% 21% 32% 27% 37% Time 31% 11% 29% 25% 37% Cost 3% 2% 13% 3% 17% Number of Visits 39% 29% 21% 28% 23% Rejection Rate 8% 10% 17% 12% 15% Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 34 HOW TO REFORM application forms and check on the status of their paperwork. TABLE 4.3 Second, while having information on the Internet is good, it may Best Information Sub-index Performers not be enough. If Internet options are not available to the majority (or even a large minority) of users, then alternative Operating License Construction Permit coverage must be sought. This may include printing flyers or brochures that clearly spell out the documentation needed. All of Bolivia La Paz Cochabamba these documents should be available in most government offices Brazil Vitória Duque de Caxias and should be placed in areas frequented by business owners Honduras Choluteca Choloma (business associations, training institutes, clubs, etc.). Nicaragua Jinotega San Juan del Sur The Municipality of La Paz in Bolivia is a perfect example of Peru Lima Trujillo how change can positively affect, for instance, the Operating License procedure. The Municipality currently offers guidance to Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database investors through its SITRAM (Sistema de Trámites Municipales) division. Services include a detailed explanation Sub-index, the first step should be to look at what successful of the procedure, its requirements, costs and technical counterparts are doing. The first rule is "focus on the customer", specifications. This effort has significantly reduced the meaning that all of your attention should be aimed at making it easy percentage of applications that is rejected due to for applicants to register their businesses. If this is where your focus misunderstandings regarding how to fill out the application or is, then you must ensure that sufficient computers and appropriate which requirements must be met. software (workflow) are available to make the process quick; place adequate signage throughout the facility; and equip the physical It is also critical to have a targeted communications infrastructure to ensure client comfort. Last but not least, you will campaign, particularly after a reform. This effort should be aimed need a system to "naturally" capture your clients' input. at ensuring that entrepreneurs have heard about reforms through print, TV or radio communications. These efforts should focus Examples of an effective focus on these areas can be found in on explaining the new procedures, how business owners can the Municipality of Lima (Peru), which instituted a reform of the comply with the new requirements, and the benefits that will be procedure to obtain an Operating License in 2005. As part of reaped from doing so. Campaigns of this nature work best if they that reform, the municipality introduced new modules with clear are conducted in alliance with the local chamber of commerce or signs to direct the public to the appropriate counter. Computer other business group and are particularly effective when terminals were installed in various city offices that allow users to undertaken with local micro and small enterprise associations. log on to an Internet site using an individual tracking number to check on the exact status of an application. In the Municipality It is essential that the information in the material distributed is of Piura (Peru), a terminal was set up (manned by a trained staff correct. Any mistakes tend to contribute to feelings of disillusionment member) that has a digital map of the city with zoning codes so and suspicion within the private sector. The Scorecard has shown that any entrepreneur can check zoning specifications (for ­as is further detailed in Chapters 1 and 2 of this report­ that construction or operating) prior to investing. If reforms relative many municipalities fail to correlate the information provided on to Construction Permits are to be successful, zoning rules must the procedure with the actual procedure as conducted. be clear and information on the same must be easy to access. Lastly, the information "package" that the business owners One should also not underestimate the effect of an improved receive must specifically state responsibilities and what will be work area on staff and the general public. In many municipalities, inspected. Too many municipalities do a poor job of telling small investments in upgrading office infrastructure have led to owners what they need to do. In some municipalities, this happier and more motivated staff, better customer service and a information is included in the packet that the business owner much better image among private sector users. This generally receives when he initiates the licensing process. Regardless, the takes place in the form of new or upgraded working modules that business owner must be made specifically aware of the fact that provide sufficient space and storage areas for both customer he will be subject to inspections, what the inspections entail, and information and documents received. Many municipalities that how to prepare for the process. Typically, this includes a list of reform divide the work area into two: a front office to receive things that establishments need to have (e.g. fire extinguisher, customers and a back office to process paperwork. This division marked emergency exits, first aid kit, etc.) and information on also helps staff, and particularly front line personnel dealing with what the inspector will be looking at or for. clients, to focus on customer service. For the information Sub-index the leading municipalities in It is clear that the majority of the municipalities studied for each country are shown in Table 4.3 below. the Scorecard need to develop systems to capture and act on client feedback. Municipalities should be talking to their users Infrastructure ­ If a municipality wants to improve in this (and voters) more about how services can be improved. Efforts of 35 this kind need to go beyond a simple suggestion box on the wall TABLE 4.4 but needn't be excessively complex to be effective. For example, Best Infrastructure Sub-index Performers an alternative might be to include conducting random client satisfaction surveys or interviews in person or on the phone. The Operating License Construction Permit Municipality of Lima, which recently reformed, developed a Bolivia Cochabamba Cochabamba multi-tiered system to collect user opinions that includes a complaint box and a telephone hotline number (mainly for inspection Brazil Recife Curitiba complaints) that people can use to make complaints, suggestions Honduras La Ceiba Choluteca for improvement or praise service. The Municipality was aware of Nicaragua León Estelí the fact that a system is only as good as its ability to respond to user concerns. Consequently, it created a policy of "rapid Peru Lima Piura response" to any complaints received that is handled by the "Citizens Defense Office" in the municipality. The Municipality Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database of Curitiba (Brazil) took a different approach and installed a digital platform and a suggestion box to improve customer service. economic activities given that the availability of infrastructure; the impact on traffic; and the size of the structure are also Leading municipalities in the infrastructure Sub-index for the important factors in the zoning equation. To provide solutions to Operating License are shown in Table 4.4 below. these information needs, municipalities can create a specialized dataset that builders can consult at a central location. The Tools ­ This index includes six areas where municipalities can Municipalities of Callao and Lima (both in Peru) are good make important changes that can have significant effects on examples of just such an effort, as both have included performance. construction parameters on their websites. 1) Zoning - Clear zoning rules make it easy for investors to 2) Classification System ­ Classification systems must be determine which activities are allowed where and are a basic developed that differentiate applications according to the risk ingredient in expediting administrative processes. In many posed by the request. This applies, in a slightly different manner, municipalities however, unclear zoning rules are the biggest cause to both the Construction Permit and the Operating License. For of delays as business owners are forced to wander about the many municipalities, applying this tool can lead to very large municipality "collecting" information and must wait a month or savings in time for processes involving low risk businesses or more to receive a zoning certificate (known as the "certificado de construction proposals (which constitute the majority of aptitude" or "certificado de uso de suelo," among other names). applications received). Generally, this certificate is not part of the licensing process itself but instead is a pre-requisite to the entire process. Any effective In the case of the Construction Permit, categorization normally reform in this area must integrate zoning clearance and its time differentiates between varying types of building projects (rehabilitation, and cost into the license/permit process (rather than issuing a demolition, new construction, etc.), which allows for separate certificate). quicker approval of low risk (refurbishing/rehabilitation) projects and the use of a stepped approach to higher risk projects. Similarly, In terms of the Operating License, the direction to take is the categorization in the Operating License generally differentiates straightforward: municipalities should make sure that their between low risk (commerce, services, etc.) and higher risk zoning plans are up-to-date and reasonable (if they are not they activities (industrial production, flammables, chemicals, etc.). may need to be reviewed and modified, which should be done Through this approach, municipalities´ can focus their limited through an open process with ample citizen participation). Next, inspection capacity on efforts that protect the public good from information on zoning plans, regulations and modifications high risk activities rather than honing in on low-risk proposals. By should be made readily available to users on appropriate formats better directing inspection efforts, municipalities can avoid the that include maps showing color-coded zoning areas. allegations of harassment and corruption so frequently associated Information can also be compiled on a database that can be easily with poorly defined inspection systems. Model efforts in consulted by the public (see the description of the case of the inspection system development can be found in many municipalities, Municipality of Piura (Peru) in section on Infrastructure above). including Comayagua, Masaya, (Nicaragua), and Lima (Peru). Some municipalities may decide to put this information on a public website to make it even easier for potential investors to 3) The Use of Information Technology ­ This refers to the use determine where they can operate. The Municipality of Curitiba of technology to make the process quicker and less prone to (Brazil), for example, has developed a system for business owners undue delays or discretion on the part of municipal staff. In to check municipal zoning requirements on-line. general, this means digitizing and automating the process to the fullest extent possible. Many municipalities have converted their In the case of Construction Permits, the situation is more licensing process from a completely paper based system to a complicated. Builders need more than just the codes for digital format. Typically this is accomplished by installing a 36 HOW TO REFORM work-flow program which helps manage the flow of work by the best source of feedback­ is consulted. The reason for this is automatically forwarding the file to the next process point while simple: a given administration will only be in office for a short simultaneously copying others as necessary. Such a system period of time, so a durable reform will need to survive a removes, to a very large extent, the "human factor" and number of administrations. This is particularly difficult if you dramatically reduces the possibility of holding up approvals in have polarized political parties, as is often the case in Latin return for payments or favors. One of the other advantages to America. Therefore, to ensure that the reform in sustainable it implementing a system of this nature is that it allows for a periodic must have an identified, interested constituency that is actively analysis of the process. For example, municipal managers can lobbying for the maintenance of the reform. If this is lacking the count on a monthly report that shows average overall times for reform is likely to be overturned or simply ignored by the next each step in the process as well as an analysis of outliers. This administration. Many municipalities have conducted isolated information can be used to review the process and staff productivity reforms that have not involved the private sector; in fact, business and make changes or improvements as necessary to ensure a associations are often unaware that any reform has taken place, smooth process and consistent product delivery. Municipalities and are thus incapable of disseminating information or defending that have installed such systems include La Paz (Bolivia), Piura the reform. (Peru), León (Nicaragua), Salvador (Brazil) and Choluteca (Honduras). Some municipalities have succeeded in actively engaging the 4) Delegation of signing authority ­ The delegation of signing private sector as a partner in establishing and maintaining authority to avoid the bottlenecks created by the absence of (or reforms. For example, the Municipalities of Lima (Peru) and excessive workload) of a single person is another tool that can Comayagua (Honduras) have worked in conjunction with the greatly reduce time and increase efficiency. In a number of private sector on developing administrative simplification municipalities, studies have shown that days and even weeks are reforms. routinely lost in approval processes because the designated final approver is traveling or overloaded. The concept may be simple, In the tools Sub-index, the top rated municipalities for the but to make a change work, it would be advisable to institute a Operating License and Construction Permit are shown in risk categorization first to quickly determine low-risk categories Table 4.5 below. that can be handled by lower-level authorities. The highest risk categories can still be controlled by the current approver (often Inspections ­ Municipalities that are interested in improving the department manager), thus maintaining appropriate their inspection process should take a look at the information safeguards for potentially sensitive situations. Municipalities such being given to entrepreneurs, the formats used for inspection as Masaya (Nicaragua), Comayagua (Honduras), Callao (Peru) reports and inspection procedures. A lack of good information and Belo Horizonte (Brazil) have all instituted just such a system about what is expected of entrepreneurs is one of the biggest for at least one of their licensing or permitting processes. issues in inspections. Improving in this area might entail giving each applicant for the license or permit a folder that includes a 5) Internal and external Audits ­ Municipalities can use copy of the relevant section of the law as well as specific details internal and external process audits to ensure that the process is on what a business owner needs to do to comply with the law. A functioning as it should and to detect any irregularities and look significant problem in many municipalities is the level of discretion for opportunities for improvement. This can be done internally present in business inspections. To reduce discretionality, by having a taskforce, or a different part of the municipality (such municipalities can employ three strategies. First, they can as Client Services), review a sample of cases on a periodic basis implement a central system to set each inspector's agenda and report the results. Alternatively, the municipality could hire according to high probability cases (i.e. easiest if a risk an external consultant to review its processes from an impartial categorization has been put in place). This reduces the ability of standpoint. Local universities or business schools can often individual inspectors to target particular businesses as a tactic to provide this service at a low cost. TABLE 4.5 Best Tools Sub-index Performers However, there are other ways to invite external scrutiny. For example, in Lima (Peru) the leading private sector association, Operating License Construction Permit which is part of a joint "advisory committee" overseeing the simplification reforms, has agreed to fund a local university effort Bolivia Tarija Cochabamba to conduct yearly surveys of recently licensed businesses as part of Brazil Curitiba Salvador the reform's monitoring and evaluation. These interviews can be a Honduras Santa Rosa de Copán Choluteca rich source of feedback and learning about how the process is working and how to further improve processes and customer service. Nicaragua Estelí Masaya Peru Lima Callao 6) Private sector involvement ­ In studying what helps a reform succeed we have noted the importance of the extent to Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database which the private sector ­the beneficiaries of these reforms and 37 TABLE 4.6 TABLE 4.7 Best Inspections Sub-index Performers Best Training Sub-index Performers Operating License Construction Permit Operating License Construction Permit Bolivia Santa Cruz Cochabamba Bolivia Cochabamba Cochabamba Brazil Porto Alegre Maceió Brazil São Luis São Paulo Honduras Choluteca Puerto Cortés Honduras Santa Rosa de Copán Comayagua Nicaragua Jinotega Estelí Nicaragua León Masaya Peru Lima Callao Peru Cusco Cusco Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database elicit bribes. Second, municipalities can review the format used Obviously, the content of the training is critical to improving to record an inspection to ensure that it uses clear yes/no performance. In the Municipality of São Luis (Brazil), technical questions and easy-to-understand criteria of evaluation. and management staffs participate in customer service and Discretionality can also be reduced by instituting client follow up process management training courses every three months. programs to ensure that inspections procedures have been correctly applied. The top rated municipalities in the training Sub-index for the Operating License and the Construction Permit are shown inTable 4.7. The top rated municipalities in the inspection Sub-index are shown in Table 4.6 below. It is evident that many of the municipalities studied apply some good practices in process management (see Table 4.8). Training ­ Training was highlighted in the correlation tables However, if municipalities are to reap the full benefits of reform, (See Table 4.1 and Table 4.2) as particularly important in reducing they must concentrate on incorporating a set of best practices (as the number of times the client needed to visit the municipality. opposed to concentrating exclusively on disaggregated This is not surprising since having well trained staff who can give components) into licensing and permitting processes . The Table out correct information and then revise applications to ensure 4.9 provides a list of best practices that, if effectively combined, they are complete and correctly filled out should dramatically should positively impact on Performance and Process at a increase the quality of applications submitted. Training can also municipal level. significantly reduce time and ensure higher quality service. TABLE 4.8 Summary of Municipal Best Practices OPERATING LICENSE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Bolivia Brazil Honduras Nicaragua Perú Bolivia Brazil Honduras Nicaragua Perú Performance Index Time Sucre Vitória Choluteca Estelí Lima La Paz São Luis Comayagua Estelí Sullana Cost La Paz Porto Alegre Comayagua Managua Lima Sucre Recife La Ceiba Managua Piura Number of Visits La Campo Choloma Estelí Lima Santa Cruz Londrina Comayagua San Juan del Sur Sullana Rejections Tarija João Pessoa Choluteca Chinandega Cajamarca La Paz Recife Comayagua Matagalpa Tumbes Process Index Information La Paz Vitória Choluteca Jinotega Lima Cochabamba Duque de Caxias Choloma San Juan del Sur Trujillo Infrastructure Cochabamba Recife La Ceiba León Lima Cochabamba Curitiba Choluteca Estelí Piura Tools Tarija Curitiba Santa Rosa de Copán Estelí Lima Cochabamba Salvador Choluteca Masaya Callao Inspection Santa Cruz Porto Alegre Choluteca Jinotega Lima Cochabamba Maceió Puerto Cortés Estelí Callao Training Cochabamba São Luis Santa Rosa de Copán León Cusco Cochabamba São Paulo Comayagua Masaya Cusco Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Notes 18 Kronberger, Benedikt, "Business Simplification in Lima: An Evaluation of the Reform of Licensing Procedures", IFC unpublished report, July 2006. 38 HOW TO REFORM TABLE 4.9 List of Municipal Best Practices PERFORMANCE INDEX 1 The number of visits that the user makes to the municipality to complete the procedure is not higher than three (finding out about the procedure, submitting documents, picking up the license). Internet allows for on-line processing of licenses and may reduce the number of visits to zero. 2 The cost of the license reflects the real cost of providing the service. 3 The licensing process is shaped in a way the whole duration is the least possible, without compromising the quality of procedures. 4 The evaluation of an application is objective, formal and conform to law and therefore minimize opportunities for an application to be wrongly approved or rejected. PROCESS INDEX Information 5 The information on the procedure is provided in language that is easy for the user to understand. 6 The information on the procedure is easy to access and coincides with the real procedure. 7 The license application formats are provided free of charge and are easy to fill out. 8 Municipal employees receive a license request and ensure that all requirements have been fulfilled and the information on the application is right. 9 Information, which is already available in the Municipality, is not requested to a businessman. 10 Information, which is not neccesary for proceedings, is not requested to a businessman. 11 Requirements and procedures are consistent with the information received by the businessman at the beginning of the process. Infrastructure 12 The municipality has comfortable facilities and signage is both visible and clear. 13 Location of departments involved in the license procedures in convenient to the user. 14 The system for opinions and complaints is available to users and the municipality uses the information gathered to improve service. 15 Users get a prompt answer on their complaints and opinion. Tools 16 The Operating License procedure is differentiated according to the complexity of the economic activity. 17 The Construction Permit procedure is differentiated according to the complexity of the construction. 18 The municipality delegates signing authority to employees to approve or deny applications. 19 The municipality incorporates information technologies to achieve improvement in process efficiency. Planning and Zoning 20 Information on the territorial or zoning regulations applied by the municipality is available to users and is easy to understand. 21 The categorization of economic activities reflects the economic reality of the city and the activities that take place there. 22 The categorization of construction types reflects the urban reality of the city and the activities that take place there. Monitoring and Evaluation 23 Internal audits are regularly carried on the licencing process to improve it. 24 External audits are carried on the licencing process to improve it and encourage tranparency. 25 Private sector proposals are considered in the design and improvement of the licensing process. Inspections 26 The municipality provides complete information on the procedure and inspection criteria. 27 The inspection procedure complies with norms and is not discretional in nature. 28 The number of visits to a business, carried out by municipal dependencies, for inspections is the minimum possible. 29 Whenever is possible, municipal inspectors agree to schedule their inspections on the same visit. 30 Punctuality, efficiency on inspection procedure, formality, cordiality and prompt and accurate feedback to the businessman is encourage. Training 31 The municipality provides training to employees on the license process and customer service. 32 Municipal employees provide good customer service to users. 33 The procedure applied coincides in its entirety with the manuals and procedures approved by the municipality. 39 REFERENCES References Aureo de Paula and Jose A. Scheinkman. 2006. "The Informal De Soto, Hernando. 2003. "The Mystery of Capital: Why Sector", Levine's Bibliography, UCLA Department of Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Economics. Else". Basic Books. New York. Banerjee, Abhijit. 1997. "A Theory of Misgovernance". Quarterly De Soto, Hernando. 1990. "The Other Path". Harper and Row, Journal of Economics 112, 1289-1332. New York. Benavides, Juan. 2003. "Can Reforms be Made Sustainable? Djankov, Simeon; McLiesh, Caralee and Ramalho, Rita. 2006. Analysis and Considerations for the Electricity Sector". "Regulation and Growth", The World Bank. Inter-American Development Bank, Sustainable Development Technical papers series, IFM-134. Djankov, Simeon; La Porta, Rafael; Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio Washington D.C. and Shleifer, Andrei. 2002. "The Regulation of Entry". The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. CXVII. Berry, Albert. 2002. "Valoración de políticas de apoyo a la pequeña empresa: primera aproximación a una metodología Erickson, Lennart. 2002. "Informality, Firm Size and Economic regional". MSM 115, Sustainable Development Growth: testing de Soto Hypothesis", Brown University, Department, Inter American Development Bank, Department of Economics. Providence, Rhode Island. Washington D.C. Farrell, Diana. 2004. "The hidden dangers of the informal Carrión, Fernando. 2003. "Los Centros Históricos en la Era economy", The McKinsey Quarterly, Number 3. Digital en América Latina". Paper presented at the conference Cities, Inequality and Subjectivity in the Foreign Investment Advisory Service. 2003. "Barreras Americas. FLACSO Ecuador. Administrativas Municipales a la Inversión", Banco Mundial. Chen, Martha. "Rethinking the Informal Economy: Linkages Gutierrez, Ramón, "The Urban Architectural Heritage of Latin with the Formal Economy and the Formal Regulatory America". The World Heritage List. Environment", UNU WIDER Conference, Unlocking Human Potential: Linking the Informal and Formal Sector, Hahn, R.W. 1998. "Government Analysis of the Benefits and September 2004, Helsinki. Costs of Regulation", Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(4), 201-10. Coolidge, Jacquelin. 2006. "Reforming Inspections". World Bank Group PSD Note Number 308. Haggarty, Luke; Rada, Kristtian and Dohm E. "Cutting Red Tape, Simplifying Regulation at the Municipal Level in Córdova, César. 2005. "Diagnóstico para el Diseño de un Latin America: Lessons from IFC's experience in Peru and esquema Institucional de Calidad y Filtro de Regulaciones Nicaragua". International Finance Corporation. 2006. en el estado Peruano". Jacobs & Associates. Report prepared for the Ministry of Economy and Finances of Peru. International Finance Corporation. 2006. "Good Practices for Business Inspections: Guidelines for Reformers". 41 International Finance Corporation. 2006. "Business Licensing Solís, A. and Angelelli, P. 2002. "Políticas de Apoyo a la Empresa Reform: A Toolkit for Development Practitioners". Pequeña en 13 Países de América Latina". Informe de trabajo. IADB, Washington D.C. International Labor Organization, ILO, Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean. 2005. "Labour Overview Stigler, George. 1971. "The Theory of Economic Regulation", Bell 2005. Latin America and the Caribbean. First Semester Journal of Economics and Management Science II, 3-21. Advance". Lima. Straub, Stephane. 2005. "Informal sector: The credit market Jacobs, Scott and Astrakhan, Irina. 2006. "Effective and channel", Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 78, Sustainable Regulatory Reform: The Regulatory Guillotine 299-321. in Three Transition and developing Countries". Jacobs and Associates, Washington, D.C. The World Bank and International Finance Corporation. 2006. "Doing Business in 2007: How to Reform". Kaufmann, Daniel; Kraay, Aqart and Mastruzzi, Massimo. 2005. "Governance Matters IV: Governance Indicators for 1996- The World Bank and International Finance Corporation. 2006. 2004". Policy Research Working Paper 3630. World Bank, "Doing Business no Brasil". Washington, D.C. The World Bank and International Finance Corporation. 2005. Kronberger, Benedikt. "Business Simplification in Lima: An "Doing Business in 2006: Creating Jobs". Evaluation of the Reform of Licensing Procedures", IFC unpublished report. July 2006. The World Bank and International Finance Corporation. 2004. "Doing Business in 2005: Removing Obstacles to Growth". Kunita, Sukeri; Kenyon, Thomas and Palmade, Vincent. 2006. Oxford University Press. "Reforming the Investment Climate". The World Bank and International Finance Corporation. The World Bank and International Finance Corporation. 2003. "Doing Business in 2004: Understanding Regulation". Levine, Ross. 2005. "Law, Endowments and Property Rights", Oxford University Press. Brown University. The World Bank Group. "Doing Business in Brazil 2006". McPherson, G. 2001. "Applying and interpreting statistics: a http://www.doingbusiness.org/ExploreEconomies/Default.a comprehensive guide". 2nd Edition. Springer Verlag. New York. spx?economyid=28 Morris, Felipe. "Develando el Misterio, La Formalización de la The World Bank. 2005. "World Development Report 2005. A Propiedad en el Perú". COFOPRI, Lima. Better Investment Climate for Everyone". Oxford University Press. Pratt, L. J. Büchert and L. Rivera. 2003. "Análisis de Mecanismos para el Financiamiento de la Producción más Limpia en la United Nations Development Programme, UNDP, Human Pequeña y Mediana Empresa Latinoamericana". Working Development Reports. paper, Multilateral Investment Fund, Inter American Development Bank, Washington D.C. United States Agency for International Development, USAID. 2005. "Removing Barriers to Formalization: The Case for Rada, Kristtian; Gomez, R., and Isusi, P. 2006. "Reforma de Reform and Emerging Best Practice". Simplificación de Trámites en la Municipalidad de Tegucigalpa y San Pedro Sula: Honduras". International Webb, Richard; Beuermann, Diether and Revilla, Carla. 2006. Finance Corporation. "La Construcción del Derecho de Propiedad, El caso de los asentamientos Humanos en el Perú". Colegio de Notarios Rojas, Eduardo. 2002. "Urban Heritage Conservation in Latin del Perú. America and the Caribbean. A task for All Social Actors". Inter-American Development Bank, Sustainable Wimmer, Andreas; I. de Soysa and C. Wagner. 2002. "Political Development Department Technical Papers Series. Science Tools for Assessing Feasibility and Sustainability of Washington D.C. Reforms". Research paper prepared for the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund. Scarpacci, Joseph L. 2005. "Plaza and Barrios: Heritage Tourism University of Bonn, Center for Development Research, and Globalization in the Latin American Centro Histórico". Department of Political and Cultural Change. The University of Arizona Press. Tucson. World Economic Forum. 2005. "The Global Competitiveness Schneider, Friedrich and Enste, Dominik. 2000. "Shadow Report 2005-2006. Policies Underpinning Rising Economies, Causes and Consequences", Journal of Prosperity". Geneva, Switzerland. Economic Literature 38, 77-114. 42 ANNEX Annex 43 OPERATING LICENSE I - Operating License 45 1.0 OPERATING LICENSE INDEX The Operating License Index is composed of 1/2 of the Process Index score and 1/2 of the Performance Index. Rank Municipality Country Index 1 Lima (Pe) 1.12 2 Choluteca (Ho) 1.03 3 Choloma (Ho) 0.93 4 Comayagua (Ho) 0.91 5 Estelí (Ni) 0.83 6 Jinotega (Ni) 0.75 7 Chinandega (Ni) 0.67 8 Matagalpa (Ni) 0.66 9 Vitória (Br) 0.65 10 La Ceiba (Ho) 0.61 11 Managua (Ni) 0.61 12 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 0.58 13 Londrina (Br) 0.57 14 León (Ni) 0.54 15 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 0.49 16 La Paz (Bo) 0.49 17 Florianópolis (Br) 0.47 18 Cochabamba (Bo) 0.46 19 Joinville (Br) 0.43 20 Rivas (Ni) 0.39 21 Granada (Ni) 0.36 22 Curitiba (Br) 0.36 23 Trujillo (Pe) 0.33 24 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 0.30 25 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 0.26 26 Tarija (Bo) 0.23 27 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 0.23 28 Santa Cruz (Bo) 0.21 29 Porto Alegre (Br) 0.20 30 Masaya (Ni) 0.15 31 Sullana (Pe) 0.12 32 Salvador (Br) 0.06 33 São Luis (Br) 0.00 34 Maceió (Br) 0.00 35 Sucre (Bo) -0.04 36 Goiãnia (Br) -0.14 37 Piura (Pe) -0.15 38 Diadema (Br) -0.22 39 Campo Grande (Br) -0.24 40 Tegucigalpa (Ho) -0.25 41 Cajamarca (Pe) -0.27 42 Belo Horizonte (Br) -0.28 43 Teresina (Br) -0.28 44 Potosí (Bo) -0.28 45 Cuiabá (Br) -0.29 46 Aracaju (Br) -0.30 47 Callao (Pe) -0.34 48 Quillacollo (Bo) -0.34 49 Fortaleza (Br) -0.34 50 Duque de Caxias (Br) -0.39 51 João Pessoa (Br) -0.41 52 El Alto (Bo) -0.43 53 Huancayo (Pe) -0.51 54 Guarulhos (Br) -0.51 55 Recife (Br) -0.52 56 Belém (Br) -0.61 57 Puno (Pe) -0.80 58 Chiclayo (Pe) -0.81 59 São Paulo (Br) -0.81 60 Cusco (Pe) -0.94 61 Manaus (Br) -0.94 62 Tumbes (Pe) -1.01 63 Oruro (Bo) -1.12 64 Ica (Pe) -1.16 65 El Progreso (Ho) -1.26 -1.50 0.00 1.50 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 46 OPERATING LICENSE I - Operating License Performance Index 47 2.0 OPERATING LICENSE - PERFORMANCE INDEX The Performance Index is a simple average of four Sub-indices: Time, Cost, Number of Visits and Rejections. Rank Municipality Country Index 1 Rivas (Ni) 0.98 2 Estelí (Ni) 0.90 3 La Paz (Bo) 0.90 4 Granada (Ni) 0.90 5 Chinandega (Ni) 0.87 6 Sucre (Bo) 0.84 7 León (Ni) 0.82 8 Lima (Pe) 0.77 9 Masaya (Ni) 0.71 10 Londrina (Br) 0.70 11 Managua (Ni) 0.70 12 Matagalpa (Ni) 0.67 13 Jinotega (Ni) 0.63 14 Choluteca (Ho) 0.62 15 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 0.54 16 Trujillo (Pe) 0.54 17 Choloma (Ho) 0.53 18 Sullana (Pe) 0.48 19 Santa Cruz (Bo) 0.43 20 Porto Alegre (Br) 0.40 21 Joinville (Br) 0.37 22 Cochabamba (Bo) 0.37 23 Tarija (Bo) 0.34 24 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 0.31 25 Comayagua (Ho) 0.30 26 Florianópolis (Br) 0.27 27 Vitória (Br) 0.25 28 Diadema (Br) 0.21 29 Cuiabá (Br) 0.21 30 Quillacollo (Bo) 0.19 31 La Ceiba (Ho) 0.18 32 Campo Grande (Br) 0.17 33 Piura (Pe) 0.11 34 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 0.10 35 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 0.10 36 El Alto (Bo) 0.01 37 Maceió (Br) 0.01 38 Salvador (Br) -0.05 39 Potosí (Bo) -0.05 40 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) -0.06 41 Duque de Caxias (Br) -0.06 42 João Pessoa (Br) -0.08 43 Curitiba (Br) -0.09 44 Belo Horizonte (Br) -0.26 45 Huancayo (Pe) -0.27 46 Tegucigalpa (Ho) -0.34 47 Cajamarca (Pe) -0.35 48 Teresina (Br) -0.41 49 Goiãnia (Br) -0.42 50 Fortaleza (Br) -0.43 51 Callao (Pe) -0.47 52 São Luis (Br) -0.57 53 Chiclayo (Pe) -0.65 54 Tumbes (Pe) -0.65 55 Aracaju (Br) -0.70 56 Belém (Br) -0.85 57 São Paulo (Br) -0.87 58 Guarulhos (Br) -0.92 59 Puno (Pe) -1.07 60 Ica (Pe) -1.07 61 Recife (Br) -1.10 62 Oruro (Bo) -1.10 63 El Progreso (Ho) -1.25 64 Manaus (Br) -1.32 65 Cusco (Pe) -1.97 -2.00 0.00 2.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 48 OPERATING LICENSE 2.1 2.2 OPERATING LICENSE - TIME (DAYS) OPERATING LICENSE - COST (EXPRESSED AS % OF GDP PER CAPITA) Measures the total time, in calendar days, to complete the Measures the total cost paid to the municipality to fulfill the application process. requirements stipulated. % of GDP Rank Municipality Country Days Rank Municipality Country per capita 1 Choluteca (Ho) 1 1 La Paz (Bo) 0 2 Estelí (Ni) 1 2 Porto Alegre (Br) 0.2% 3 Chinandega (Ni) 3 3 Cochabamba (Bo) 0.3% 4 Granada (Ni) 3 4 Santa Cruz (Bo) 0.5% 5 León (Ni) 3 5 Aracaju (Bo) 0.8% 6 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 3 6 Managua (Ni) 0.8% 7 Sucre (Bo) 3 7 Granada (Ni) 0.9% 8 Rivas (Ni) 4 8 Diadema (Br) 1.0% 9 Comayagua (Ho) 5 9 León (Ni) 1.1% 10 Jinotega (Ni) 5 10 Rivas (Ni) 1.1% 11 Lima (Pe) 6 11 Comayagua (Ho) 1.1% 12 Masaya (Ni) 6 12 Londrina (Br) 1.2% 13 La Paz (Bo) 7 13 Quillacollo (Bo) 1.3% 14 El Alto (Bo) 9 14 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 1.3% 15 Managua (Ni) 9 15 Oruro (Bo) 1.4% 16 Matagalpa (Ni) 11 16 Chinandega (Ni) 1.4% 17 Cochabamba (Bo) 12 17 La Ceiba (Ho) 1.5% 18 Santa Cruz (Bo) 17 18 Cuiabá (Br) 1.7% 19 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 18 19 Lima (Pe) 1.7% 20 Vitória (Br) 18 20 Potosí (Bo) 1.7% 21 Trujillo (Pe) 20 21 Choloma (Ho) 1.7% 22 Choloma (Ho) 24 22 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 1.8% 23 Tarija (Bo) 25 23 Trujillo (Pe) 1.9% 24 La Ceiba (Ho) 29 24 El Alto (Bo) 2.0% 25 Potosí (Bo) 29 25 Piura (Pe) 2.2% 26 Huancayo (Pe) 30 26 Masaya (Ni) 2.3% 27 Porto Alegre (Br) 31 27 Chiclayo (Pe) 2.4% 28 Maceió (Br) 32 28 Estelí (Ni) 2.5% 29 Campo Grande (Br) 32 29 Belo Horizonte (Br) 2.6% 30 Florianópolis (Br) 32 30 Matagalpa (Ni) 2.6% 31 João Pessoa (Br) 32 31 Curitiba (Br) 2.7% 32 Londrina (Br) 32 32 Guarulhos (Br) 2.8% 33 Recife (Br) 32 33 Joinville (Br) 3.0% 34 Teresina (Br) 34 34 Florianópolis (Br) 3.0% 35 Joinville (Br) 34 35 Jinotega (Ni) 3.2% 36 Tumbes (Pe) 34 36 Manaus (Br) 3.6% 37 Cajamarca (Pe) 36 37 Campo Grande (Br) 3.6% 38 Quillacollo (Bo) 38 38 Sullana (Pe) 3.7% 39 São Luis (Br) 38 39 Callao (Pe) 3.9% 40 Sullana (Pe) 40 40 Choluteca (Ho) 4.2% 41 Goiãnia (Br) 41 41 Tarija (Bo) 4.2% 42 Salvador (Br) 47 42 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 4.5% 43 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 49 43 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 4.5% 44 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 53 44 São Paulo (Br) 4.6% 45 Duque de Caxias (Br) 56 45 Vitória (Br) 5.1% 46 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 57 46 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 5.1% 47 Aracaju (Br) 58 47 Duque de Caxias (Br) 5.2% 48 Chiclayo (Pe) 61 48 Aracaju (Br) 5.3% 49 São Paulo (Br) 61 49 Goiãnia (Br) 5.5% 50 Cuiabá (Br) 62 50 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 6.2% 51 Curitiba (Br) 62 51 El Progreso (Ho) 6.3% 52 Piura (Pe) 68 52 João Pessoa (Br) 6.5% 53 Cusco (Pe) 69 53 Fortaleza (Br) 6.9% 54 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 72 54 Maceió (Br) 7.0% 55 Diadema (Br) 75 55 Salvador (Br) 7.5% 56 Puno (Pe) 84 56 Ica (Pe) 7.8% 57 Fortaleza (Br) 86 57 Tumbes (Pe) 7.8% 58 Callao (Pe) 90 58 Teresina (Br) 7.9% 59 Belém (Br) 104 59 Recife (Br) 7.9% 60 Belo Horizonte (Br) 111 60 Cusco (Pe) 8.4% 61 Manaus (Br) 123 61 Puno (Pe) 8.5% 62 Ica (Pe) 124 62 Belém (Br) 9.2% 63 Oruro (Bo) 154 63 Cajamarca (Pe) 9.3% 64 Guarulhos (Br) 210 64 São Luis (Br) 9.3% 65 El Progreso (Ho) 367 65 Huancayo (Pe) 9.7% 0 400 0.0 10.0 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 49 2.3 2.4 OPERATING LICENSE - NUMBER OF VISITS OPERATING LICENSE - REJECTIONS (% OF TOTAL POOL) Measures the total number of visits made to the municipality. Measures the percentage of businesses that requested an Operating License and have been rejected (within the past year). Rank Municipality Country Visits Rank Municipality Country Percentage 1 Estelí (Ni) 1 1 João Pessoa (Br) 1.0% 2 Rivas (Ni) 1 2 Cajamarca (Pe) 1.5% 3 Campo Grande (Br) 2 3 Tarija (Bo) 1.5% 4 Chinandega (Ni) 2 4 Chinandega (Ni) 2.0% 5 Choloma (Ho) 2 5 Choluteca (Ho) 2.0% 6 Choluteca (Ho) 2 6 Teresina (Br) 2.0% 7 Comayagua (Ho) 2 7 Managua (Ni) 2.5% 8 Cuiabá (Br) 2 8 Granada (Ni) 3.0% 9 Curitiba (Br) 2 9 Sullana (Pe) 3.0% 10 Diadema (Br) 2 10 Piura (Pe) 3.5% 11 El Progreso (Ho) 2 11 Trujillo (Pe) 3.5% 12 Florianópolis (Br) 2 12 Maceió (Br) 4.0% 13 Granada (Ni) 2 13 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 4.4% 14 Jinotega (Ni) 2 14 Matagalpa (Ni) 4.5% 15 Joinville (Br) 2 15 El Progreso (Ho) 5.0% 16 La Paz (Bo) 2 16 Estelí (Ni) 5.0% 17 León (Ni) 2 17 Fortaleza (Br) 5.0% 18 Lima (Pe) 2 18 Jinotega (Ni) 5.0% 19 Londrina (Br) 2 19 Lima (Pe) 5.0% 20 Masaya (Ni) 2 20 Londrina (Br) 5.0% 21 Matagalpa (Ni) 2 21 Masaya (Ni) 5.0% 22 Salvador (Br) 2 22 La Paz (Bo) 5.7% 23 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 2 23 Huancayo (Pe) 6.0% 24 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 2 24 León (Ni) 6.0% 25 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 2 25 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 6.0% 26 Sucre (Bo) 2 26 Sucre (Bo) 6.0% 27 Sullana (Pe) 2 27 Rivas (Ni) 6.5% 28 Vitória (Br) 2 28 Callao (Pe) 10.0% 29 Aracaju (Br) 3 29 Duque de Caxias (Br) 10.0% 30 Belém (Br) 3 30 Quillacollo (Bo) 10.0% 31 Belo Horizonte (Br) 3 31 Salvador (Br) 10.0% 32 Cochabamba (Bo) 3 32 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 10.0% 33 Duque de Caxias (Br) 3 33 Choloma (Ho) 12.5% 34 El Alto (Bo) 3 34 Joinville (Br) 12.5% 35 Huancayo (Pe) 3 35 Potosí (Bo) 12.5% 36 La Ceiba (Ho) 3 36 Vitória (Br) 12.5% 37 Maceió (Br) 3 37 Tumbes (Pe) 13.4% 38 Managua (Ni) 3 38 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 13.8% 39 Porto Alegre (Br) 3 39 Ica (Pe) 15.0% 40 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 3 40 Porto Alegre (Br) 15.0% 41 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 3 41 Santa Cruz (Bo) 15.0% 42 Santa Cruz (Bo) 3 42 Florianópolis (Br) 17.5% 43 São Luis (Br) 3 43 Belo Horizonte (Br) 19.0% 44 São Paulo (Br) 3 44 Belém (Br) 20.0% 45 Tarija (Bo) 3 45 Campo Grande (Br) 20.0% 46 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 3 46 Cochabamba (Bo) 20.0% 47 Trujillo (Pe) 3 47 Cuiabá (Br) 20.0% 48 Cajamarca (Pe) 4 48 Diadema (Br) 20.0% 49 Chiclayo (Pe) 4 49 Goiãnia (Br) 20.0% 50 Fortaleza (Br) 4 50 Guarulhos (Br) 20.0% 51 Goiãnia (Br) 4 51 La Ceiba (Ho) 20.0% 52 Guarulhos (Br) 4 52 Oruro (Bo) 20.0% 53 João Pessoa (Br) 4 53 Puno (Pe) 20.0% 54 Piura (Pe) 4 54 São Luis (Br) 20.0% 55 Quillacollo (Bo) 4 55 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 25.0% 56 Callao (Pe) 5 56 Comayagua (Ho) 30.0% 57 Ica (Pe) 5 57 Curitiba (Br) 30.0% 58 Manaus (Br) 5 58 El Alto (Bo) 30.0% 59 Potosí (Bo) 5 59 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 30.0% 60 Puno (Pe) 5 60 Recife (Br) 35.0% 61 Recife (Br) 5 61 Aracaju (Br) 40.0% 62 Teresina (Br) 5 62 Chiclayo (Pe) 40.0% 63 Tumbes (Pe) 5 63 Cusco (Pe) 40.0% 64 Oruro (Bo) 7 64 Manaus (Br) 45.0% 65 Cusco (Pe) 8 65 São Paulo (Br) 50.0% 0 10 0.0% 60.0% Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 50 OPERATING LICENSE I - Operating License Process Index 51 3.0 OPERATING LICENSE - PROCESS INDEX The Process Index is a simple average of five Sub-indices: Information, Infrastructure, Tools, Inspections and Training. Rank Municipality Country Index 1 Comayagua (Ho) 1.52 2 Lima ( Pe) 1.46 3 Choluteca (Ho) 1.44 4 Choloma (Ho) 1.33 5 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 1.07 6 Vitória (Br) 1.05 7 La Ceiba (Ho) 1.03 8 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 0.88 9 Jinotega (Ni) 0.86 10 Curitiba (Br) 0.80 11 Estelí (Ni) 0.76 12 Florianópolis (Br) 0.66 13 Matagalpa (Ni) 0.65 14 São Luis (Br) 0.56 15 Cochabamba (Bo) 0.55 16 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 0.52 17 Managua (Ni) 0.51 18 Joinville (Br) 0.49 19 Chinandega (Ni) 0.48 20 Londrina (Br) 0.43 21 León (Ni) 0.27 22 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 0.21 23 Salvador (Br) 0.17 24 Goiãnia (Br) 0.15 25 Trujillo ( Pe) 0.13 26 Tarija (Bo) 0.12 27 Aracaju (Br) 0.10 28 Cusco ( Pe) 0.09 29 La Paz (Bo) 0.07 30 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 0.06 31 Recife (Br) 0.05 32 Porto Alegre (Br) 0.01 33 Santa Cruz (Bo) -0.01 34 Maceió (Br) -0.02 35 Guarulhos (Br) -0.10 36 Teresina (Br) -0.14 37 Tegucigalpa (Ho) -0.16 38 Cajamarca ( Pe) -0.18 39 Granada (Ni) -0.18 40 Rivas (Ni) -0.20 41 Callao ( Pe) -0.21 42 Sullana ( Pe) -0.24 43 Fortaleza (Br) -0.26 44 Belo Horizonte (Br) -0.29 45 Belém (Br) -0.37 46 Masaya (Ni) -0.40 47 Piura ( Pe) -0.41 48 Potosí (Bo) -0.52 49 Puno ( Pe) -0.53 50 Manaus (Br) -0.57 51 Campo Grande (Br) -0.64 52 Diadema (Br) -0.66 53 Duque de Caxias (Br) -0.71 54 João Pessoa (Br) -0.74 55 São Paulo (Br) -0.75 56 Huancayo ( Pe) -0.75 57 Cuiabá (Br) -0.79 58 Quillacollo (Bo) -0.87 59 El Alto (Bo) -0.88 60 Sucre (Bo) -0.93 61 Chiclayo ( Pe) -0.97 62 Oruro (Bo) -1.14 63 Ica ( Pe) -1.25 64 El Progreso (Ho) -1.28 65 Tumbes ( Pe) -1.37 -2.00 0.00 2.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 52 OPERATING LICENSE I - Operating License Information 53 3.1 3.1.1 OPERATING LICENSE - INFORMATION OPERATING LICENSE - COMPLEXITY OF APPLICATION FORMS The Information Sub-index is a simple average of: Complexity of Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how easy it is to complete the Application Forms, Clarity of Information, Accessibility of application form. Information, Consistency of Process with Information and 1= low, 5 = high Knowledge of Inspection Criteria. Rank Municipality Country Index Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Choluteca (Ho) 2.26 1 Choloma (Ho) 4.52 2 Choloma (Ho) 2.07 2 Choluteca (Ho) 4.39 3 Comayagua (Ho) 1.79 3 Matagalpa (Ni) 4.39 4 Lima (Pe) 1.70 4 Jinotega (Ni) 4.30 5 Jinotega (Ni) 1.62 5 Estelí (Ni) 4.11 6 Matagalpa (Ni) 1.38 6 La Ceiba (Ho) 4.04 7 Vitória (Br) 1.29 7 Lima (Pe) 4.03 8 Managua (Ni) 1.15 8 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 4.03 9 La Ceiba (Ho) 1.14 9 Salvador (Br) 4.00 10 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 1.03 10 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 3.97 11 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 1.03 11 Porto Alegre (Br) 3.97 12 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 1.02 12 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 3.93 13 La Paz (Bo) 0.95 13 Comayagua (Ho) 3.92 14 Florianópolis (Br) 0.92 14 Vitória (Br) 3.82 15 Chinandega (Ni) 0.90 15 Curitiba (Br) 3.81 16 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 0.80 16 Santa Cruz (Bo) 3.81 17 Joinville (Br) 0.64 17 São Paulo (Br) 3.81 18 Sullana (Pe) 0.58 18 Joinville (Br) 3.79 19 Curitiba (Br) 0.57 19 Chinandega (Ni) 3.77 20 Estelí (Ni) 0.54 20 Managua (Ni) 3.77 21 Salvador (Br) 0.46 21 Huancayo (Pe) 3.73 22 São Paulo (Br) 0.41 22 La Paz (Bo) 3.73 23 Trujillo (Pe) 0.39 23 Granada (Ni) 3.73 24 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 0.37 24 Masaya (Ni) 3.69 25 Masaya (Ni) 0.34 25 Florianópolis (Br) 3.67 26 Quillacollo (Bo) 0.25 26 Quillacollo (Bo) 3.65 27 São Luis (Br) 0.19 27 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 3.64 28 Rivas (Ni) 0.17 28 Callao (Pe) 3.60 29 Granada (Ni) 0.15 29 Sucre (Bo) 3.54 30 Tarija (Bo) 0.11 30 São Luis (Br) 3.45 31 Aracaju (Br) 0.05 31 Trujillo (Pe) 3.39 32 Callao (Pe) 0.00 32 Teresina (Br) 3.37 33 León (Ni) -0.02 33 Puno (Pe) 3.33 34 Porto Alegre (Br) -0.05 34 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 3.32 35 Puno (Pe) -0.12 35 Rivas (Ni) 3.32 36 Cochabamba (Bo) -0.16 36 Belém (Br) 3.29 37 Cajamarca (Pe) -0.20 37 Potosí (Bo) 3.29 38 Belém (Br) -0.25 38 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 3.28 39 Sucre (Bo) -0.26 39 León (Ni) 3.23 40 Huancayo (Pe) -0.35 40 Sullana (Pe) 3.21 41 Piura (Pe) -0.38 41 Manaus (Br) 3.19 42 Oruro (Bo) -0.48 42 Diadema (Br) 3.17 43 Tegucigalpa (Ho) -0.52 43 Fortaleza (Br) 3.17 44 Potosí (Bo) -0.52 44 Cajamarca (Pe) 3.17 45 Maceió (Br) -0.53 45 Chiclayo (Pe) 3.17 46 Recife (Br) -0.53 46 Tarija (Bo) 3.10 47 Guarulhos (Br) -0.54 47 Cuiabá (Br) 3.05 48 Teresina (Br) -0.57 48 Guarulhos (Br) 3.03 49 Diadema (Br) -0.57 49 Goiãnia (Br) 3.00 50 Fortaleza (Br) -0.58 50 Londrina (Br) 3.00 51 Goiãnia (Br) -0.61 51 Maceió (Br) 3.00 52 Londrina (Br) -0.72 52 Recife (Br) 2.97 53 Cusco (Pe) -0.73 53 Aracaju (Br) 2.96 54 Duque de Caxias (Br) -1.06 54 El Progreso (Ho) 2.96 55 El Alto (Bo) -1.18 55 João Pessoa (Br) 2.92 56 Chiclayo (Pe) -1.28 56 Oruro (Bo) 2.89 57 Campo Grande (Br) -1.32 57 Cusco (Pe) 2.77 58 João Pessoa (Br) -1.32 58 Duque de Caxias (Br) 2.67 59 Cuiabá (Br) -1.37 59 Cochabamba (Bo) 2.60 60 El Progreso (Ho) -1.45 60 El Alto (Bo) 2.60 61 Manaus (Br) -1.55 61 Piura (Pe) 2.60 62 Santa Cruz (Bo) -1.56 62 Campo Grande (Br) 2.58 63 Belo Horizonte (Br) -1.76 63 Ica (Pe) 2.40 64 Ica (Pe) -1.80 64 Tumbes (Pe) 2.37 65 Tumbes (Pe) -1.94 65 Belo Horizonte (Br) 2.33 -3.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 54 OPERATING LICENSE 3.1.2 3.1.3 OPERATING LICENSE - CLARITY OF INFORMATION OPERATING LICENSE - ACCESSIBILITY OF INFORMATION Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, the clarity of the information provided by Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, the accessibility of information about the the municipality. process. 1= low, 5 = high 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Score Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Choluteca (Ho) 4.40 1 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 4.82 2 Comayagua (Ho) 4.22 2 Choloma (Ho) 4.61 3 Choloma (Ho) 4.22 3 Choluteca (Ho) 4.55 4 Lima (Pe) 4.22 4 Jinotega (Ni) 4.50 5 Jinotega (Ni) 4.08 5 Chinandega (Ni) 4.38 6 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 4.03 6 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 4.37 7 Chinandega (Ni) 4.00 7 Lima (Pe) 4.36 8 Managua (Ni) 3.99 8 Managua (Ni) 4.34 9 Matagalpa (Ni) 3.97 9 León (Ni) 4.33 10 Vitória (Br) 3.95 10 Matagalpa (Ni) 4.28 11 La Paz (Bo) 3.92 11 Comayagua (Ho) 4.25 12 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 3.88 12 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 4.20 13 La Ceiba (Ho) 3.86 13 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 4.14 14 Sullana (Pe) 3.86 14 Rivas (Ni) 4.08 15 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 3.78 15 Sullana (Pe) 4.05 16 Tarija (Bo) 3.74 16 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 4.04 17 Trujillo (Pe) 3.68 17 Masaya (Ni) 3.99 18 São Luis (Br) 3.61 18 La Ceiba (Ho) 3.94 19 Rivas (Ni) 3.58 19 La Paz (Bo) 3.93 20 Florianópolis (Br) 3.57 20 Estelí (Ni) 3.92 21 Cochabamba (Bo) 3.54 21 Vitória (Br) 3.91 22 Guarulhos (Br) 3.50 22 Florianópolis (Br) 3.88 23 Masaya (Ni) 3.48 23 Tarija (Bo) 3.88 24 Joinville (Br) 3.47 24 Cajamarca (Pe) 3.80 25 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 3.47 25 São Luis (Br) 3.77 26 León (Ni) 3.45 26 Granada (Ni) 3.75 27 Salvador (Br) 3.45 27 Piura (Pe) 3.73 28 Oruro (Bo) 3.43 28 Quillacollo (Bo) 3.73 29 Piura (Pe) 3.41 29 Salvador (Br) 3.72 30 Aracaju (Br) 3.40 30 Joinville (Br) 3.72 31 Estelí (Ni) 3.38 31 Trujillo (Pe) 3.72 32 Maceió (Br) 3.38 32 Puno (Pe) 3.67 33 Londrina (Br) 3.37 33 Curitiba (Br) 3.65 34 Curitiba (Br) 3.36 34 Callao (Pe) 3.61 35 Cajamarca (Pe) 3.36 35 Guarulhos (Br) 3.60 36 Callao (Pe) 3.35 36 Aracaju (Br) 3.58 37 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 3.31 37 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 3.53 38 Cusco (Pe) 3.29 38 Belém (Br) 3.48 39 Granada (Ni) 3.29 39 Cochabamba (Bo) 3.43 40 Sucre (Bo) 3.26 40 El Alto (Bo) 3.39 41 São Paulo (Br) 3.25 41 Duque de Caxias (Br) 3.37 42 Belém (Br) 3.23 42 Londrina (Br) 3.33 43 Goiãnia (Br) 3.19 43 Potosí (Bo) 3.33 44 Huancayo (Pe) 3.18 44 Oruro (Bo) 3.30 45 Porto Alegre (Br) 3.15 45 Maceió (Br) 3.29 46 Potosí (Bo) 3.14 46 São Paulo (Br) 3.27 47 Recife (Br) 3.13 47 Sucre (Bo) 3.24 48 Diadema (Br) 3.11 48 Cusco (Pe) 3.23 49 Puno (Pe) 3.10 49 Fortaleza (Br) 3.23 50 Duque de Caxias (Br) 3.10 50 Diadema (Br) 3.21 51 El Alto (Bo) 3.09 51 Goiãnia (Br) 3.18 52 Fortaleza (Br) 3.05 52 Huancayo (Pe) 3.17 53 Quillacollo (Bo) 3.04 53 Recife (Br) 3.10 54 Teresina (Br) 2.97 54 Porto Alegre (Br) 3.05 55 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 2.97 55 Teresina (Br) 3.00 56 Campo Grande (Br) 2.88 56 Campo Grande (Br) 2.88 57 João Pessoa (Br) 2.82 57 Ica (Pe) 2.73 58 Chiclayo (Pe) 2.73 58 Belo Horizonte (Br) 2.61 59 Belo Horizonte (Br) 2.73 59 Chiclayo (Pe) 2.55 60 El Progreso (Ho) 2.72 60 Santa Cruz (Bo) 2.52 61 Ica (Pe) 2.62 61 Cuiabá (Br) 2.51 62 Cuiabá (Br) 2.50 62 João Pessoa (Br) 2.46 63 Tumbes (Pe) 2.47 63 El Progreso (Ho) 2.33 64 Santa Cruz (Bo) 2.35 64 Manaus (Br) 2.33 65 Manaus (Br) 2.26 65 Tumbes (Pe) 2.28 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 55 3.1.4 3.1.5 OPERATING LICENSE - CONSISTENCY OF PROCESS WITH OPERATING LICENSE - KNOWLEDGE OF INSPECTION CRITERIA INFORMATION Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how much information the municipality Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how consistent the information given to gives about the inspection before the process begins. business owners is with the real procedure. 1= low, 5 = high 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Score Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Comayagua (Ho) 4.76 1 Comayagua (Ho) 3.52 2 Choluteca (Ho) 4.60 2 Choluteca (Ho) 3.43 3 La Ceiba (Ho) 4.54 3 Vitória (Br) 3.42 4 Granada (Ni) 4.50 4 Florianópolis (Br) 3.33 5 Chinandega (Ni) 4.48 5 São Paulo (Br) 3.25 6 Sullana (Pe) 4.46 6 Lima (Pe) 3.17 7 Campo Grande (Br) 4.43 7 Choloma (Ho) 3.15 8 León (Ni) 4.38 8 Curitiba (Br) 3.00 9 Salvador (Br) 4.35 9 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 3.00 10 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 4.34 10 Joinville (Br) 2.94 11 João Pessoa (Br) 4.31 11 Quillacollo (Bo) 2.93 12 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 4.30 12 La Ceiba (Ho) 2.91 13 Belo Horizonte (Br) 4.30 13 Aracaju (Br) 2.90 14 Belém (Br) 4.28 14 La Paz (Bo) 2.88 15 Goiãnia (Br) 4.25 15 Cochabamba (Bo) 2.81 16 Maceió (Br) 4.23 16 Jinotega (Ni) 2.75 17 Jinotega (Ni) 4.21 17 Managua (Ni) 2.70 18 Oruro (Bo) 4.21 18 Matagalpa (Ni) 2.65 19 Porto Alegre (Br) 4.18 19 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 2.63 20 Chiclayo (Pe) 4.16 20 Trujillo (Pe) 2.62 21 Florianópolis (Br) 4.15 21 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 2.59 22 Cuiabá (Br) 4.12 22 Sullana (Pe) 2.57 23 Londrina (Br) 4.09 23 Recife (Br) 2.56 24 Santa Cruz (Bo) 4.09 24 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 2.52 25 Potosí (Bo) 4.09 25 Puno (Pe) 2.50 26 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 4.08 26 Porto Alegre (Br) 2.46 27 Piura (Pe) 4.07 27 Teresina (Br) 2.43 28 Curitiba (Br) 4.06 28 Estelí (Ni) 2.37 29 Joinville (Br) 4.05 29 Salvador (Br) 2.37 30 El Progreso (Ho) 4.04 30 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 2.32 31 Cochabamba (Bo) 4.00 31 Fortaleza (Br) 2.27 32 Huancayo (Pe) 4.00 32 Sucre (Bo) 2.27 33 Rivas (Ni) 3.98 33 Piura (Pe) 2.25 34 Callao (Pe) 3.97 34 Belém (Br) 2.24 35 Recife (Br) 3.92 35 Granada (Ni) 2.23 36 Manaus (Br) 3.89 36 Cuiabá (Br) 2.22 37 São Luis (Br) 3.79 37 Goiãnia (Br) 2.21 38 Lima (Pe) 3.74 38 Diadema (Br) 2.20 39 Ica (Pe) 3.70 39 Manaus (Br) 2.20 40 Choloma (Ho) 3.67 40 São Luis (Br) 2.20 41 Trujillo (Pe) 3.66 41 Masaya (Ni) 2.20 42 Masaya (Ni) 3.61 42 Tumbes (Pe) 2.19 43 El Alto (Bo) 3.60 43 Callao (Pe) 2.15 44 Tarija (Bo) 3.57 44 Oruro (Bo) 2.14 45 Diadema (Br) 3.53 45 Tarija (Bo) 2.14 46 Cajamarca (Pe) 3.52 46 Chinandega (Ni) 2.11 47 Cusco (Pe) 3.40 47 João Pessoa (Br) 2.08 48 Aracaju (Br) 3.40 48 Cusco (Pe) 2.07 49 Estelí (Ni) 3.35 49 Cajamarca (Pe) 2.04 50 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 3.29 50 El Progreso (Ho) 2.03 51 Puno (Pe) 3.27 51 Maceió (Br) 2.00 52 Fortaleza (Br) 3.19 52 Potosí (Bo) 2.00 53 Guarulhos (Br) 3.18 53 Rivas (Ni) 2.00 54 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 3.15 54 Huancayo (Pe) 1.97 55 Managua (Ni) 3.13 55 Campo Grande (Br) 1.94 56 São Paulo (Br) 3.13 56 Chiclayo (Pe) 1.92 57 Vitória (Br) 3.08 57 Belo Horizonte (Br) 1.80 58 Duque de Caxias (Br) 2.92 58 Ica (Pe) 1.70 59 La Paz (Bo) 2.91 59 Duque de Caxias (Br) 1.67 60 Quillacollo (Bo) 2.87 60 León (Ni) 1.64 61 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 2.83 61 Londrina (Br) 1.60 62 Teresina (Br) 2.70 62 Guarulhos (Br) 1.53 63 Sucre (Bo) 2.50 63 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 1.53 64 Matagalpa (Ni) 2.23 64 El Alto (Bo) 1.45 65 Tumbes (Pe) 1.91 65 Santa Cruz (Bo) 1.24 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 56 OPERATING LICENSE I - Operating License Infrastructure 57 3.2 3.2.1 OPERATING LICENSE - INFRASTRUCTURE OPERATING LICENSE - QUALITY OF FACILITIES Infrastructure Sub-index is a simple average of: Quality of Facilities, Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how adequate the municipality's infrastructure Use of Information Technology and Customer Opinion System. is for users in terms of signage and comfort. 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Index Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Lima (Pe) 2.60 1 Lima (Pe) 4.46 2 La Ceiba (Ho) 1.62 2 Comayagua (Ho) 4.19 3 Piura (Pe) 1.51 3 Salvador (Br) 4.14 4 Recife (Br) 1.41 4 Choloma (Ho) 4.07 5 Curitiba (Br) 1.25 5 Florianópolis (Br) 4.05 6 Vitória (Br) 1.24 6 Guarulhos (Br) 4.01 7 Salvador (Br) 1.21 7 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 3.98 8 São Luis (Br) 1.21 8 Joinville (Br) 3.87 9 Florianópolis (Br) 1.12 9 Porto Alegre (Br) 3.83 10 Choloma (Ho) 1.12 10 La Ceiba (Ho) 3.81 11 Londrina (Br) 0.99 11 Recife (Br) 3.74 12 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 0.98 12 Vitória (Br) 3.71 13 Joinville (Br) 0.91 13 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 3.65 14 Comayagua (Ho) 0.90 14 Sullana (Pe) 3.65 15 Cusco (Pe) 0.77 15 La Paz (Bo) 3.64 16 León (Ni) 0.74 16 Londrina (Br) 3.61 17 Choluteca (Ho) 0.72 17 São Luis (Br) 3.60 18 Cochabamba (Bo) 0.71 18 Piura (Pe) 3.51 19 Aracaju (Br) 0.66 19 João Pessoa (Br) 3.45 20 La Paz (Bo) 0.64 20 Diadema (Br) 3.44 21 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 0.58 21 Cusco (Pe) 3.42 22 João Pessoa (Br) 0.56 22 Aracaju (Br) 3.37 23 Guarulhos (Br) 0.55 23 Curitiba (Br) 3.30 24 Maceió (Br) 0.49 24 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 3.28 25 Porto Alegre (Br) 0.48 25 León (Ni) 3.23 26 Sullana (Pe) 0.47 26 São Paulo (Br) 2.98 27 Fortaleza (Br) 0.44 27 Estelí (Ni) 2.98 28 Teresina (Br) 0.36 28 Belo Horizonte (Br) 2.95 29 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 0.31 29 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 2.93 30 Duque de Caxias (Br) 0.14 30 Santa Cruz (Bo) 2.91 31 Belo Horizonte (Br) 0.06 31 Goiãnia (Br) 2.89 32 Estelí (Ni) -0.16 32 Choluteca (Ho) 2.89 33 Manaus (Br) -0.18 33 Maceió (Br) 2.88 34 Cajamarca (Pe) -0.23 34 Cochabamba (Bo) 2.86 35 Ica (Pe) -0.24 35 Duque de Caxias (Br) 2.85 36 Santa Cruz (Bo) -0.29 36 Masaya (Ni) 2.83 37 Belém (Br) -0.30 37 Trujillo (Pe) 2.79 38 San Juan del Sur (Ni) -0.35 38 Fortaleza (Br) 2.77 39 Tarija (Bo) -0.35 39 Teresina (Br) 2.75 40 São Paulo (Br) -0.37 40 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 2.75 41 Tegucigalpa (Ho) -0.37 41 Huancayo (Pe) 2.63 42 Goiãnia (Br) -0.39 42 Cajamarca (Pe) 2.51 43 San Pedro Sula (Ho) -0.40 43 Jinotega (Ni) 2.47 44 Jinotega (Ni) -0.42 44 Belém (Br) 2.46 45 Managua (Ni) -0.43 45 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 2.41 46 Trujillo (Pe) -0.47 46 Managua (Ni) 2.38 47 Campo Grande (Br) -0.51 47 Manaus (Br) 2.27 48 Tumbes (Pe) -0.51 48 Granada (Ni) 2.26 49 Matagalpa (Ni) -0.53 49 Chiclayo (Pe) 2.16 50 Huancayo (Pe) -0.56 50 Rivas (Ni) 2.15 51 Chinandega (Ni) -0.64 51 Campo Grande (Br) 2.14 52 Diadema (Br) -0.68 52 Cuiabá (Br) 2.09 53 Chiclayo (Pe) -0.70 53 Puno (Pe) 2.08 54 Masaya (Ni) -0.83 54 Ica (Pe) 2.07 55 Callao (Pe) -0.99 55 Matagalpa (Ni) 2.00 56 Potosí (Bo) -1.00 56 Callao (Pe) 1.92 57 Puno (Pe) -1.19 57 Sucre (Bo) 1.87 58 Cuiabá (Br) -1.41 58 El Progreso (Ho) 1.83 59 El Alto (Bo) -1.43 59 Tumbes (Pe) 1.75 60 Rivas (Ni) -1.47 60 Potosí (Bo) 1.52 61 Granada (Ni) -1.49 61 El Alto (Bo) 1.49 62 El Progreso (Ho) -1.57 62 Tarija (Bo) 1.41 63 Sucre (Bo) -1.64 63 Chinandega (Ni) 1.28 64 Quillacollo (Bo) -1.96 64 Quillacollo (Bo) 1.27 65 Oruro (Bo) -2.71 65 Oruro (Bo) 1.10 -3.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 58 OPERATING LICENSE 3.2.2 3.2.3 OPERATING LICENSE - USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OPERATING LICENSE - CUSTOMER OPINION SYSTEM Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how much the use of information Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how much the municipality uses the information technologies improves the municipality's efficiency. gathered by the user opinion system to improve its systems. 1= low, 5 = high 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Score Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Piura (Pe) 5.00 1 Lima (Pe) 3.97 2 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 5.00 2 Recife (Br) 3.30 3 Tarija (Bo) 5.00 3 La Ceiba (Ho) 3.30 4 Vitória (Br) 4.75 4 Curitiba (Br) 3.18 5 Chinandega (Ni) 4.50 5 Fortaleza (Br) 3.08 6 León (Ni) 4.50 6 La Paz (Bo) 3.07 7 Lima (Pe) 4.50 7 Piura (Pe) 3.03 8 Salvador (Br) 4.33 8 Cochabamba (Bo) 3.02 9 Aracaju (Br) 4.25 9 Londrina (Br) 2.98 10 Campo Grande (Br) 4.25 10 Maceió (Br) 2.96 11 Curitiba (Br) 4.25 11 Joinville (Br) 2.92 12 Jinotega (Ni) 4.25 12 São Luis (Br) 2.91 13 La Ceiba (Ho) 4.25 13 Florianópolis (Br) 2.90 14 Matagalpa (Ni) 4.25 14 Choluteca (Ho) 2.90 15 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 4.25 15 Duque de Caxias (Br) 2.76 16 São Luis (Br) 4.25 16 São Paulo (Br) 2.76 17 Choloma (Ho) 4.00 17 Cusco (Pe) 2.72 18 Choluteca (Ho) 4.00 18 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 2.70 19 Comayagua (Ho) 4.00 19 Guarulhos (Br) 2.69 20 Manaus (Br) 4.00 20 Teresina (Br) 2.66 21 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 4.00 21 Vitória (Br) 2.66 22 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 4.00 22 João Pessoa (Br) 2.65 23 Cajamarca (Pe) 3.75 23 Porto Alegre (Br) 2.63 24 Cochabamba (Bo) 3.75 24 Sullana (Pe) 2.62 25 Cusco (Pe) 3.75 25 Tumbes (Pe) 2.59 26 Managua (Ni) 3.75 26 Choloma (Ho) 2.58 27 Recife (Br) 3.75 27 Ica (Pe) 2.56 28 Teresina (Br) 3.75 28 Salvador (Br) 2.50 29 Londrina (Br) 3.50 29 León (Ni) 2.47 30 Trujillo (Pe) 3.50 30 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 2.46 31 Florianópolis (Br) 3.33 31 Aracaju (Br) 2.38 32 Ica (Pe) 3.33 32 Belo Horizonte (Br) 2.36 33 Belo Horizonte (Br) 3.25 33 Belém (Br) 2.36 34 Chiclayo (Pe) 3.25 34 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 2.36 35 El Alto (Bo) 3.25 35 Santa Cruz (Bo) 2.28 36 Estelí (Ni) 3.25 36 Comayagua (Ho) 2.23 37 João Pessoa (Br) 3.25 37 Manaus (Br) 2.20 38 Maceió (Br) 3.25 38 Huancayo (Pe) 2.14 39 Belém (Br) 3.00 39 Potosí (Bo) 2.13 40 Fortaleza (Br) 3.00 40 Tarija (Bo) 2.12 41 Goiãnia (Br) 3.00 41 Callao (Pe) 2.09 42 Joinville (Br) 3.00 42 Chinandega (Ni) 2.08 43 Masaya (Ni) 3.00 43 Cajamarca (Pe) 2.07 44 Potosí (Bo) 3.00 44 Estelí (Ni) 2.07 45 Tumbes (Pe) 3.00 45 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 2.00 46 Duque de Caxias (Br) 2.75 46 Quillacollo (Bo) 1.99 47 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 2.75 47 Chiclayo (Pe) 1.95 48 Sullana (Pe) 2.75 48 Goiãnia (Br) 1.95 49 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 2.67 49 Puno (Pe) 1.94 50 Callao (Pe) 2.50 50 Managua (Ni) 1.91 51 Cuiabá (Br) 2.50 51 Matagalpa (Ni) 1.82 52 Huancayo (Pe) 2.50 52 Diadema (Br) 1.76 53 Porto Alegre (Br) 2.50 53 Campo Grande (Br) 1.75 54 Santa Cruz (Bo) 2.50 54 Trujillo (Pe) 1.69 55 Rivas (Ni) 2.33 55 El Progreso (Ho) 1.64 56 Guarulhos (Br) 2.25 56 Sucre (Bo) 1.64 57 La Paz (Bo) 2.25 57 Jinotega (Ni) 1.64 58 El Progreso (Ho) 2.00 58 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 1.54 59 Granada (Ni) 2.00 59 El Alto (Bo) 1.49 60 Puno (Pe) 2.00 60 Granada (Ni) 1.45 61 Diadema (Br) 1.75 61 Cuiabá (Br) 1.44 62 Sucre (Bo) 1.75 62 Masaya (Ni) 1.44 63 Oruro (Bo) 1.25 63 Rivas (Ni) 1.39 64 São Paulo (Br) 1.13 64 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 1.29 65 Quillacollo (Bo) 1.00 65 Oruro (Bo) 1.04 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 59 OPERATING LICENSE I - Operating License Tools 61 3.3 3.3.1 OPERATING LICENSE - TOOLS OPERATING LICENSE - INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION The Tools Sub-index is a simple average of: Industry Classification, Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how well the municipality's industry Use of Information Technology, Delegation of Signing Authority, classification system works. Zoning, Categorization of Economic Activities, Internal Audits, 1= low, 5 = high External Audits and Private Sector Participation. Rank Municipality Country Index Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 2.37 1 Choloma (Ho) 5.00 2 Comayagua (Ho) 2.19 2 Comayagua (Ho) 5.00 3 La Ceiba (Ho) 1.65 3 Goiãnia (Br) 5.00 4 Estelí (Ni) 1.58 4 La Ceiba (Ho) 5.00 5 Tarija (Bo) 1.48 5 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 5.00 6 Choloma (Ho) 1.42 6 Tarija (Bo) 5.00 7 Matagalpa (Ni) 1.38 7 Chinandega (Ni) 4.75 8 Chinandega (Ni) 1.29 8 Matagalpa (Ni) 4.75 9 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 1.23 9 Puno (Pe) 4.67 10 Managua (Ni) 1.15 10 Cochabamba (Bo) 4.50 11 Curitiba (Br) 1.07 11 Estelí (Ni) 4.50 12 León (Ni) 1.04 12 Joinville (Br) 4.50 13 Lima (Pe) 1.00 13 Managua (Ni) 4.50 14 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 0.96 14 Rivas (Ni) 4.33 15 Goiãnia (Br) 0.91 15 León (Ni) 4.25 16 Choluteca (Ho) 0.85 16 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 4.25 17 Trujillo (Pe) 0.84 17 Vitória (Br) 4.25 18 Vitória (Br) 0.81 18 El Alto (Bo) 4.00 19 Cochabamba (Bo) 0.80 19 Granada (Ni) 4.00 20 Londrina (Br) 0.62 20 Oruro (Bo) 4.00 21 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 0.52 21 Recife (Br) 4.00 22 Joinville (Br) 0.37 22 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 4.00 23 São Luis (Br) 0.24 23 Sullana (Pe) 4.00 24 Jinotega (Ni) 0.22 24 Trujillo (Pe) 4.00 25 Sullana (Pe) 0.16 25 Santa Cruz (Bo) 3.81 26 Teresina (Br) 0.15 26 Curitiba (Br) 3.75 27 Recife (Br) 0.13 27 El Progreso (Ho) 3.75 28 Maceió (Br) 0.09 28 La Paz (Bo) 3.75 29 Granada (Ni) 0.06 29 Teresina (Br) 3.75 30 Santa Cruz (Bo) 0.00 30 Choluteca (Ho) 3.60 31 Rivas (Ni) -0.02 31 Callao (Pe) 3.50 32 Tegucigalpa (Ho) -0.04 32 Guarulhos (Br) 3.50 33 Masaya (Ni) -0.04 33 Jinotega (Ni) 3.50 34 Florianópolis (Br) -0.11 34 Masaya (Ni) 3.50 35 Cusco (Pe) -0.18 35 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 3.50 36 Cajamarca (Pe) -0.22 36 Campo Grande (Br) 3.25 37 Potosí (Bo) -0.31 37 Cusco (Pe) 3.25 38 Oruro (Bo) -0.39 38 Lima (Pe) 3.25 39 Belo Horizonte (Br) -0.41 39 Potosí (Bo) 3.25 40 San Pedro Sula (Ho) -0.44 40 Cajamarca (Pe) 3.00 41 Aracaju (Br) -0.45 41 Florianópolis (Br) 3.00 42 Callao (Pe) -0.53 42 Londrina (Br) 3.00 43 Manaus (Br) -0.53 43 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 3.00 44 Campo Grande (Br) -0.55 44 Tumbes (Pe) 3.00 45 Piura (Pe) -0.55 45 Chiclayo (Pe) 2.75 46 Puno (Pe) -0.58 46 Diadema (Br) 2.75 47 El Alto (Bo) -0.62 47 Duque de Caxias (Br) 2.75 48 João Pessoa (Br) -0.70 48 Huancayo (Pe) 2.75 49 Duque de Caxias (Br) -0.70 49 Quillacollo (Bo) 2.75 50 Guarulhos (Br) -0.80 50 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 2.75 51 Porto Alegre (Br) -0.85 51 Sucre (Bo) 2.75 52 Tumbes (Pe) -0.93 52 Aracaju (Br) 2.50 53 Cuiabá (Br) -0.95 53 Cuiabá (Br) 2.50 54 Ica (Pe) -0.95 54 Maceió (Br) 2.50 55 Huancayo (Pe) -0.96 55 São Luis (Br) 2.50 56 Fortaleza (Br) -1.01 56 Manaus (Br) 2.40 57 Diadema (Br) -1.04 57 Ica (Pe) 2.33 58 Salvador (Br) -1.04 58 Belém (Br) 2.25 59 La Paz (Bo) -1.10 59 Belo Horizonte (Br) 2.25 60 Belém (Br) -1.14 60 João Pessoa (Br) 2.25 61 El Progreso (Ho) -1.37 61 Fortaleza (Br) 2.00 62 Sucre (Bo) -1.47 62 São Paulo (Br) 1.93 63 Chiclayo (Pe) -1.56 63 Porto Alegre (Br) 1.75 64 Quillacollo (Bo) -2.00 64 Piura (Pe) 1.00 65 São Paulo (Br) -2.06 65 Salvador (Br) 1.00 -2.50 2.50 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 62 OPERATING LICENSE 3.3.2 3.3.3 OPERATING LICENSE - USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OPERATING LICENSE - DELEGATION OF SIGNING AUTHORITY Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how much the use of information Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how the delegation of decision-making technologies improves the municipality's efficiency. authority cuts process time. 1= low, 5 = high 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Score Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Piura (Pe) 5.00 1 Comayagua (Ho) 5.00 2 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 5.00 2 Goiãnia (Br) 5.00 3 Tarija (Bo) 5.00 3 Managua (Ni) 5.00 4 Vitória (Br) 4.75 4 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 5.00 5 Chinandega (Ni) 4.50 5 Tumbes (Pe) 5.00 6 León (Ni) 4.50 6 Chinandega (Ni) 4.75 7 Lima (Pe) 4.50 7 Curitiba (Br) 4.75 8 Salvador (Br) 4.33 8 Estelí (Ni) 4.75 9 Aracaju (Br) 4.25 9 Matagalpa (Ni) 4.75 10 Campo Grande (Br) 4.25 10 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 4.75 11 Curitiba (Br) 4.25 11 Tarija (Bo) 4.75 12 Jinotega (Ni) 4.25 12 Trujillo (Pe) 4.75 13 La Ceiba (Ho) 4.25 13 Rivas (Ni) 4.67 14 Matagalpa (Ni) 4.25 14 Londrina (Br) 4.50 15 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 4.25 15 Porto Alegre (Br) 4.50 16 São Luis (Br) 4.25 16 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 4.50 17 Choloma (Ho) 4.00 17 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 4.33 18 Choluteca (Ho) 4.00 18 Choloma (Ho) 4.25 19 Comayagua (Ho) 4.00 19 Cusco (Pe) 4.25 20 Manaus (Br) 4.00 20 La Ceiba (Ho) 4.25 21 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 4.00 21 León (Ni) 4.25 22 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 4.00 22 Lima (Pe) 4.25 23 Cajamarca (Pe) 3.75 23 Piura (Pe) 4.25 24 Cochabamba (Bo) 3.75 24 Cajamarca (Pe) 4.00 25 Cusco (Pe) 3.75 25 Cochabamba (Bo) 4.00 26 Managua (Ni) 3.75 26 Granada (Ni) 4.00 27 Recife (Br) 3.75 27 Oruro (Bo) 4.00 28 Teresina (Br) 3.75 28 Belém (Br) 3.75 29 Londrina (Br) 3.50 29 Belo Horizonte (Br) 3.75 30 Trujillo (Pe) 3.50 30 Jinotega (Ni) 3.75 31 Florianópolis (Br) 3.33 31 São Luis (Br) 3.75 32 Ica (Pe) 3.33 32 Choluteca (Ho) 3.60 33 Belo Horizonte (Br) 3.25 33 Huancayo (Pe) 3.50 34 Chiclayo (Pe) 3.25 34 Manaus (Br) 3.40 35 El Alto (Bo) 3.25 35 Puno (Pe) 3.33 36 Estelí (Ni) 3.25 36 Callao (Pe) 3.00 37 João Pessoa (Br) 3.25 37 Diadema (Br) 3.00 38 Maceió (Br) 3.25 38 El Progreso (Ho) 3.00 39 Belém (Br) 3.00 39 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 3.00 40 Fortaleza (Br) 3.00 40 Vitória (Br) 3.00 41 Goiãnia (Br) 3.00 41 Masaya (Ni) 2.75 42 Joinville (Br) 3.00 42 Sucre (Bo) 2.75 43 Masaya (Ni) 3.00 43 Teresina (Br) 2.75 44 Potosí (Bo) 3.00 44 Cuiabá (Br) 2.50 45 Tumbes (Pe) 3.00 45 Joinville (Br) 2.50 46 Duque de Caxias (Br) 2.75 46 Potosí (Bo) 2.50 47 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 2.75 47 Quillacollo (Bo) 2.50 48 Sullana (Pe) 2.75 48 Sullana (Pe) 2.50 49 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 2.67 49 Santa Cruz (Bo) 2.35 50 Callao (Pe) 2.50 50 Florianópolis (Br) 2.33 51 Cuiabá (Br) 2.50 51 Chiclayo (Pe) 2.25 52 Huancayo (Pe) 2.50 52 El Alto (Bo) 2.25 53 Porto Alegre (Br) 2.50 53 Aracaju (Br) 2.00 54 Santa Cruz (Bo) 2.50 54 Duque de Caxias (Br) 2.00 55 Rivas (Ni) 2.33 55 Guarulhos (Br) 2.00 56 Guarulhos (Br) 2.25 56 Maceió (Br) 2.00 57 La Paz (Bo) 2.25 57 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 2.00 58 El Progreso (Ho) 2.00 58 Campo Grande (Br) 1.75 59 Granada (Ni) 2.00 59 São Paulo (Br) 1.67 60 Puno (Pe) 2.00 60 La Paz (Bo) 1.50 61 Diadema (Br) 1.75 61 João Pessoa (Br) 1.25 62 Sucre (Bo) 1.75 62 Fortaleza (Br) 1.00 63 Oruro (Bo) 1.25 63 Ica (Pe) 1.00 64 São Paulo (Br) 1.13 64 Recife (Br) 1.00 65 Quillacollo (Bo) 1.00 65 Salvador (Br) 1.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 63 3.3.4 3.3.5 OPERATING LICENSE - ZONING OPERATING LICENSE - CATEGORIZATION OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how clear the municipality's zoning plan is. Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how adequate (useful, modern and adjusted 1= low, 5 = high to reality) the classification system is. 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Score Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Estelí (Ni) 4.19 1 Londrina (Br) 4.21 2 Comayagua (Ho) 4.15 2 Comayagua (Ho) 4.16 3 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 4.05 3 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 4.05 4 Londrina (Br) 3.97 4 Lima (Pe) 4.03 5 Matagalpa (Ni) 3.93 5 Curitiba (Br) 3.96 6 Fortaleza (Br) 3.92 6 Managua (Ni) 3.89 7 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 3.91 7 Santa Cruz (Bo) 3.79 8 Granada (Ni) 3.91 8 Estelí (Ni) 3.67 9 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 3.85 9 Vitória (Br) 3.59 10 Lima (Pe) 3.83 10 Aracaju (Br) 3.56 11 Vitória (Br) 3.78 11 Recife (Br) 3.56 12 Belo Horizonte (Br) 3.75 12 São Luis (Br) 3.53 13 La Ceiba (Ho) 3.74 13 Goiãnia (Br) 3.53 14 Managua (Ni) 3.74 14 Maceió (Br) 3.53 15 Choloma (Ho) 3.69 15 Florianópolis (Br) 3.52 16 Joinville (Br) 3.65 16 La Ceiba (Ho) 3.51 17 Trujillo (Pe) 3.64 17 Teresina (Br) 3.48 18 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 3.63 18 Choloma (Ho) 3.46 19 Teresina (Br) 3.62 19 Choluteca (Ho) 3.45 20 Campo Grande (Br) 3.57 20 Masaya (Ni) 3.43 21 Curitiba (Br) 3.54 21 Joinville (Br) 3.43 22 León (Ni) 3.49 22 Tarija (Bo) 3.41 23 Cochabamba (Bo) 3.31 23 Salvador (Br) 3.40 24 Santa Cruz (Bo) 3.30 24 Chinandega (Ni) 3.40 25 Recife (Br) 3.28 25 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 3.39 26 Florianópolis (Br) 3.28 26 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 3.38 27 Maceió (Br) 3.25 27 Cochabamba (Bo) 3.37 28 Masaya (Ni) 3.24 28 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 3.37 29 Goiãnia (Br) 3.20 29 Ica (Pe) 3.33 30 Cuiabá (Br) 3.18 30 Callao (Pe) 3.31 31 Huancayo (Pe) 3.14 31 Jinotega (Ni) 3.28 32 Jinotega (Ni) 3.10 32 Sullana (Pe) 3.23 33 Potosí (Bo) 3.09 33 Diadema (Br) 3.19 34 São Luis (Br) 3.08 34 Piura (Pe) 3.19 35 Choluteca (Ho) 3.08 35 Trujillo (Pe) 3.18 36 João Pessoa (Br) 3.04 36 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 3.18 37 Guarulhos (Br) 3.04 37 Fortaleza (Br) 3.10 38 Tarija (Bo) 2.99 38 João Pessoa (Br) 3.08 39 Duque de Caxias (Br) 2.95 39 Matagalpa (Ni) 3.04 40 Salvador (Br) 2.94 40 León (Ni) 3.02 41 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 2.93 41 Oruro (Bo) 2.99 42 Porto Alegre (Br) 2.93 42 Cuiabá (Br) 2.99 43 Sullana (Pe) 2.93 43 Potosí (Bo) 2.97 44 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 2.90 44 Duque de Caxias (Br) 2.96 45 Sucre (Bo) 2.89 45 Porto Alegre (Br) 2.90 46 Belém (Br) 2.85 46 Cusco (Pe) 2.88 47 São Paulo (Br) 2.85 47 Guarulhos (Br) 2.79 48 Manaus (Br) 2.84 48 Cajamarca (Pe) 2.77 49 Rivas (Ni) 2.78 49 El Alto (Bo) 2.77 50 Cusco (Pe) 2.76 50 Tumbes (Pe) 2.73 51 Diadema (Br) 2.76 51 Belo Horizonte (Br) 2.70 52 Callao (Pe) 2.75 52 Granada (Ni) 2.69 53 La Paz (Bo) 2.73 53 Sucre (Bo) 2.64 54 Aracaju (Br) 2.63 54 São Paulo (Br) 2.61 55 Quillacollo (Bo) 2.61 55 Rivas (Ni) 2.57 56 Chinandega (Ni) 2.56 56 Campo Grande (Br) 2.54 57 Puno (Pe) 2.43 57 Puno (Pe) 2.49 58 Ica (Pe) 2.40 58 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 2.40 59 El Alto (Bo) 2.38 59 Manaus (Br) 2.37 60 Oruro (Bo) 2.34 60 Belém (Br) 2.36 61 Cajamarca (Pe) 2.33 61 La Paz (Bo) 2.35 62 Piura (Pe) 2.19 62 Huancayo (Pe) 2.26 63 Chiclayo (Pe) 2.18 63 Quillacollo (Bo) 2.19 64 El Progreso (Ho) 2.11 64 El Progreso (Ho) 2.09 65 Tumbes (Pe) 1.28 65 Chiclayo (Pe) 2.08 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 64 OPERATING LICENSE 3.3.6 3.3.7 OPERATING LICENSE - INTERNAL AUDITS OPERATING LICENSE - EXTERNAL AUDITS Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, the frequency and thoroughness of Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, the frequency and thoroughness of external internal audits. audits. 1= low, 5 = high 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Score Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 5.00 1 Maceió (Br) 4.25 2 Comayagua (Ho) 4.67 2 Sullana (Pe) 3.67 3 Duque de Caxias (Br) 4.50 3 Choluteca (Ho) 3.25 4 Jinotega (Ni) 4.33 4 Oruro (Bo) 3.25 5 Cusco (Pe) 4.25 5 Recife (Br) 3.00 6 Callao (Pe) 4.00 6 Chinandega (Ni) 2.75 7 Choloma (Ho) 4.00 7 Choloma (Ho) 2.75 8 Cochabamba (Bo) 4.00 8 Estelí (Ni) 2.75 9 Lima (Pe) 4.00 9 João Pessoa (Br) 2.75 10 Piura (Pe) 4.00 10 Potosí (Bo) 2.75 11 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 4.00 11 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 2.75 12 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 4.00 12 La Ceiba (Ho) 2.67 13 La Ceiba (Ho) 3.75 13 La Paz (Bo) 2.33 14 Managua (Ni) 3.75 14 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 2.33 15 Chinandega (Ni) 3.50 15 Comayagua (Ho) 2.25 16 Goiãnia (Br) 3.50 16 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 2.25 17 Matagalpa (Ni) 3.50 17 Duque de Caxias (Br) 2.00 18 Choluteca (Ho) 3.33 18 Florianópolis (Br) 2.00 19 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 3.25 19 Ica (Pe) 2.00 20 Santa Cruz (Bo) 3.25 20 León (Ni) 2.00 21 Sullana (Pe) 3.25 21 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 2.00 22 Trujillo (Pe) 3.25 22 Tarija (Bo) 2.00 23 El Alto (Bo) 3.00 23 Cajamarca (Pe) 1.75 24 Estelí (Ni) 3.00 24 El Progreso (Ho) 1.50 25 Fortaleza (Br) 3.00 25 Salvador (Br) 1.50 26 León (Ni) 3.00 26 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 1.33 27 Londrina (Br) 3.00 27 Lima (Pe) 1.25 28 Maceió (Br) 3.00 28 Vitória (Br) 1.25 29 Quillacollo (Bo) 3.00 29 Aracaju (Br) 1.00 30 Tumbes (Pe) 3.00 30 Belém (Br) 1.00 31 Vitória (Br) 3.00 31 Belo Horizonte (Br) 1.00 32 El Progreso (Ho) 2.75 32 Callao (Pe) 1.00 33 Belo Horizonte (Br) 2.50 33 Campo Grande (Br) 1.00 34 Cuiabá (Br) 2.50 34 Chiclayo (Pe) 1.00 35 Granada (Ni) 2.50 35 Cochabamba (Bo) 1.00 36 La Paz (Bo) 2.50 36 Cuiabá (Br) 1.00 37 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 2.50 37 Curitiba (Br) 1.00 38 Tarija (Bo) 2.50 38 Cusco (Pe) 1.00 39 Florianópolis (Br) 2.33 39 Diadema (Br) 1.00 40 Puno (Pe) 2.33 40 El Alto (Bo) 1.00 41 Chiclayo (Pe) 2.25 41 Fortaleza (Br) 1.00 42 Curitiba (Br) 2.25 42 Goiãnia (Br) 1.00 43 Masaya (Ni) 2.25 43 Granada (Ni) 1.00 44 Potosí (Bo) 2.25 44 Guarulhos (Br) 1.00 45 Cajamarca (Pe) 2.00 45 Huancayo (Pe) 1.00 46 Joinville (Br) 2.00 46 Jinotega (Ni) 1.00 47 Porto Alegre (Br) 2.00 47 Joinville (Br) 1.00 48 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 2.00 48 Londrina (Br) 1.00 49 São Luis (Br) 2.00 49 Managua (Ni) 1.00 50 Aracaju (Br) 1.75 50 Manaus (Br) 1.00 51 Campo Grande (Br) 1.75 51 Masaya (Ni) 1.00 52 Guarulhos (Br) 1.75 52 Matagalpa (Ni) 1.00 53 João Pessoa (Br) 1.75 53 Piura (Pe) 1.00 54 Sucre (Bo) 1.75 54 Porto Alegre (Br) 1.00 55 Teresina (Br) 1.75 55 Puno (Pe) 1.00 56 Rivas (Ni) 1.67 56 Quillacollo (Bo) 1.00 57 São Paulo (Br) 1.53 57 Rivas (Ni) 1.00 58 Recife (Br) 1.50 58 Santa Cruz (Bo) 1.00 59 Ica (Pe) 1.33 59 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 1.00 60 Huancayo (Pe) 1.25 60 São Luis (Br) 1.00 61 Oruro (Bo) 1.25 61 São Paulo (Br) 1.00 62 Belém (Br) 1.00 62 Sucre (Bo) 1.00 63 Diadema (Br) 1.00 63 Teresina (Br) 1.00 64 Manaus (Br) 1.00 64 Trujillo (Pe) 1.00 65 Salvador (Br) 1.00 65 Tumbes (Pe) 1.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 65 3.3.8 OPERATING LICENSE - PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, the private sector's involvement in projects to improve process efficiency. 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Choluteca (Ho) 5.00 2 Comayagua (Ho) 5.00 3 Estelí (Ni) 5.00 4 Granada (Ni) 5.00 5 Guarulhos (Br) 5.00 6 Ica (Pe) 5.00 7 João Pessoa (Br) 5.00 8 Joinville (Br) 5.00 9 Maceió (Br) 5.00 10 Manaus (Br) 5.00 11 Masaya (Ni) 5.00 12 Matagalpa (Ni) 5.00 13 Rivas (Ni) 5.00 14 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 5.00 15 Santa Cruz (Bo) 5.00 16 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 5.00 17 São Luis (Br) 5.00 18 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 5.00 19 Trujillo (Pe) 5.00 20 Cajamarca (Pe) 4.00 21 Cochabamba (Bo) 4.00 22 Duque de Caxias (Br) 4.00 23 La Ceiba (Ho) 4.00 24 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 4.00 25 Salvador (Br) 4.00 26 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 4.00 27 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 4.00 28 Sullana (Pe) 4.00 29 Aracaju (Br) 3.67 30 Chinandega (Ni) 3.67 31 Florianópolis (Br) 3.67 32 León (Ni) 3.67 33 Oruro (Bo) 3.67 34 Puno (Pe) 3.67 35 Diadema (Br) 3.56 36 Belo Horizonte (Br) 3.00 37 Cuiabá (Br) 3.00 38 Curitiba (Br) 3.00 39 El Alto (Bo) 3.00 40 Fortaleza (Br) 3.00 41 Goiãnia (Br) 3.00 42 Huancayo (Pe) 3.00 43 Porto Alegre (Br) 3.00 44 Potosí (Bo) 3.00 45 Recife (Br) 3.00 46 São Paulo (Br) 3.00 47 Tarija (Bo) 3.00 48 Callao (Pe) 2.33 49 Choloma (Ho) 2.33 50 La Paz (Bo) 2.33 51 Lima (Pe) 2.00 52 Piura (Pe) 2.00 53 Teresina (Br) 1.80 54 Belém (Br) 1.00 55 Campo Grande (Br) 1.00 56 Chiclayo (Pe) 1.00 57 Cusco (Pe) 1.00 58 El Progreso (Ho) 1.00 59 Jinotega (Ni) 1.00 60 Londrina (Br) 1.00 61 Managua (Ni) 1.00 62 Quillacollo (Bo) 1.00 63 Sucre (Bo) 1.00 64 Tumbes (Pe) 1.00 65 Vitória (Br) 1.00 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 66 OPERATING LICENSE I - Operating License Inspections 67 3.4 3.4.1 OPERATING LICENSE - INSPECTIONS OPERATING LICENSE - NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS Inspections Sub-index a simple average of: Number of Inspections, Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, the total number of inspections conducted of a Reasonable Inspections, Transparency of Inspections. business's installation by municipal inspectors. 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Index Rank Municipality Country Number 1 Choluteca (Ho) 2.52 1 Campo Grande (Br) 1 2 Jinotega (Ni) 1.41 2 Chinandega (Ni) 1 3 Porto Alegre (Br) 1.27 3 Choluteca (Ho) 1 4 Vitória (Br) 1.26 4 Cochabamba (Bo) 1 5 Florianópolis (Br) 1.23 5 Cuiabá (Br) 1 6 Santa Cruz (Bo) 1.23 6 Curitiba (Br) 1 7 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 1.16 7 El Alto (Bo) 1 8 Aracaju (Br) 1.16 8 Estelí (Ni) 1 9 Lima (Pe) 1.10 9 Florianópolis (Br) 1 10 Comayagua (Ho) 1.05 10 Granada (Ni) 1 11 Salvador (Br) 0.98 11 Jinotega (Ni) 1 12 Managua (Ni) 0.96 12 João Pessoa (Br) 1 13 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 0.93 13 La Paz (Bo) 1 14 Cuiabá (Br) 0.90 14 León (Ni) 1 15 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 0.83 15 Oruro (Bo) 1 16 Choloma (Ho) 0.80 16 Porto Alegre (Br) 1 17 Cochabamba (Bo) 0.79 17 Rivas (Ni) 1 18 Teresina (Br) 0.74 18 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 1 19 Estelí (Ni) 0.71 19 Santa Cruz (Bo) 1 20 Curitiba (Br) 0.67 20 Sucre (Bo) 1 21 Matagalpa (Ni) 0.64 21 Trujillo (Pe) 1 22 Diadema (Br) 0.53 22 Vitória (Br) 1 23 Joinville (Br) 0.49 23 Aracaju (Br) 2 24 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 0.44 24 Belém (Br) 2 25 Maceió (Br) 0.29 25 Belo Horizonte (Br) 2 26 Callao (Pe) 0.26 26 Cajamarca (Pe) 2 27 Potosí (Bo) 0.23 27 Callao (Pe) 2 28 Chinandega (Ni) 0.22 28 Choloma (Ho) 2 29 Fortaleza (Br) 0.19 29 Comayagua (Ho) 2 30 Londrina (Br) 0.17 30 Cusco (Pe) 2 31 Sucre (Bo) 0.15 31 Diadema (Br) 2 32 Belém (Br) 0.09 32 Duque de Caxias (Br) 2 33 La Paz (Bo) 0.01 33 El Progreso (Ho) 2 34 São Paulo (Br) -0.03 34 Fortaleza (Br) 2 35 Puno (Pe) -0.06 35 Goiãnia (Br) 2 36 Goiãnia (Br) -0.10 36 Guarulhos (Br) 2 37 Belo Horizonte (Br) -0.13 37 Huancayo (Pe) 2 38 Granada (Ni) -0.29 38 Joinville (Br) 2 39 Huancayo (Pe) -0.31 39 La Ceiba (Ho) 2 40 São Luis (Br) -0.32 40 Lima (Pe) 2 41 Oruro (Bo) -0.33 41 Londrina (Br) 2 42 João Pessoa (Br) -0.34 42 Maceió (Br) 2 43 Recife (Br) -0.38 43 Managua (Ni) 2 44 Quillacollo (Bo) -0.43 44 Manaus (Br) 2 45 Trujillo (Pe) -0.44 45 Masaya (Ni) 2 46 Rivas (Ni) -0.45 46 Matagalpa (Ni) 2 47 Manaus (Br) -0.45 47 Potosí (Bo) 2 48 La Ceiba (Ho) -0.46 48 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 2 49 San Juan del Sur (Ni) -0.52 49 Puno (Pe) 2 50 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) -0.52 50 Quillacollo (Bo) 2 51 Cusco (Pe) -0.58 51 Recife (Br) 2 52 Masaya (Ni) -0.59 52 Salvador (Br) 2 53 El Alto (Bo) -0.67 53 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 2 54 Guarulhos (Br) -0.77 54 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 2 55 Tarija (Bo) -0.78 55 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 2 56 Duque de Caxias (Br) -0.84 56 São Luis (Br) 2 57 Cajamarca (Pe) -0.93 57 São Paulo (Br) 2 58 Chiclayo (Pe) -1.09 58 Sullana (Pe) 2 59 Campo Grande (Br) -1.14 59 Tarija (Bo) 2 60 Tumbes (Pe) -1.42 60 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 2 61 Ica (Pe) -1.57 61 Teresina (Br) 2 62 León (Ni) -2.03 62 Tumbes (Pe) 2 63 Sullana (Pe) -2.22 63 Chiclayo (Pe) 3 64 El Progreso (Ho) -2.33 64 Ica (Pe) 3 65 Piura (Pe) -2.89 65 Piura (Pe) 3 -3.00 0.00 3.00 0 5 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 68 OPERATING LICENSE 3.4.2 3.4.3 OPERATING LICENSE - REASONABLE INSPECTIONS OPERATING LICENSE - TRANSPARENCY OF INSPECTIONS Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how reasonable the inspections process is. Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how transparent and objective the inspections 1= low, 5 = high are. 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Score Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Choluteca (Ho) 4.43 1 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 4.48 2 Aracaju (Br) 3.97 2 Choluteca (Ho) 4.43 3 Vitória (Br) 3.94 3 Porto Alegre (Br) 4.25 4 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 3.90 4 Jinotega (Ni) 4.13 5 Lima (Pe) 3.88 5 Comayagua (Ho) 4.00 6 Santa Cruz (Bo) 3.85 6 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 4.00 7 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 3.84 7 Lima (Pe) 3.96 8 Choloma (Ho) 3.81 8 Aracaju (Br) 3.93 9 Comayagua (Ho) 3.80 9 Managua (Ni) 3.93 10 Salvador (Br) 3.80 10 Salvador (Br) 3.93 11 Managua (Ni) 3.79 11 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 3.91 12 Florianópolis (Br) 3.78 12 Cochabamba (Bo) 3.89 13 Jinotega (Ni) 3.71 13 Florianópolis (Br) 3.88 14 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 3.68 14 Matagalpa (Ni) 3.85 15 Joinville (Br) 3.68 15 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 3.84 16 Teresina (Br) 3.67 16 Teresina (Br) 3.84 17 Diadema (Br) 3.66 17 Santa Cruz (Bo) 3.81 18 Londrina (Br) 3.64 18 Estelí (Ni) 3.80 19 Cuiabá (Br) 3.63 19 Curitiba (Br) 3.78 20 Matagalpa (Ni) 3.58 20 Choloma (Ho) 3.75 21 Fortaleza (Br) 3.53 21 Vitória (Br) 3.75 22 Maceió (Br) 3.53 22 Cuiabá (Br) 3.73 23 Belo Horizonte (Br) 3.46 23 Puno (Pe) 3.67 24 Porto Alegre (Br) 3.45 24 Diadema (Br) 3.66 25 Belém (Br) 3.42 25 Callao (Pe) 3.65 26 Callao (Pe) 3.41 26 Potosí (Bo) 3.64 27 Potosí (Bo) 3.39 27 Joinville (Br) 3.60 28 Estelí (Ni) 3.38 28 Goiãnia (Br) 3.57 29 Cochabamba (Bo) 3.37 29 Maceió (Br) 3.56 30 Curitiba (Br) 3.36 30 La Paz (Bo) 3.53 31 São Paulo (Br) 3.33 31 Sucre (Bo) 3.52 32 Manaus (Br) 3.32 32 Chinandega (Ni) 3.50 33 La Ceiba (Ho) 3.26 33 Quillacollo (Bo) 3.50 34 Chinandega (Ni) 3.22 34 Belém (Br) 3.48 35 São Luis (Br) 3.21 35 Fortaleza (Br) 3.47 36 Recife (Br) 3.21 36 São Paulo (Br) 3.46 37 Goiãnia (Br) 3.17 37 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 3.41 38 Sucre (Bo) 3.14 38 Huancayo (Pe) 3.40 39 Huancayo (Pe) 3.13 39 Londrina (Br) 3.33 40 Puno (Pe) 3.10 40 Chiclayo (Pe) 3.32 41 João Pessoa (Br) 3.08 41 São Luis (Br) 3.32 42 Granada (Ni) 3.07 42 Tarija (Bo) 3.27 43 Cusco (Pe) 3.07 43 Recife (Br) 3.26 44 Masaya (Ni) 3.04 44 Cajamarca (Pe) 3.25 45 Oruro (Bo) 3.03 45 Guarulhos (Br) 3.24 46 Campo Grande (Br) 3.00 46 Belo Horizonte (Br) 3.23 47 Duque de Caxias (Br) 3.00 47 Masaya (Ni) 3.23 48 La Paz (Bo) 3.00 48 Cusco (Pe) 3.21 49 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 3.00 49 Trujillo (Pe) 3.21 50 Quillacollo (Bo) 2.93 50 Rivas (Ni) 3.21 51 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 2.93 51 Oruro (Bo) 3.18 52 Trujillo (Pe) 2.90 52 Granada (Ni) 3.17 53 Rivas (Ni) 2.89 53 La Ceiba (Ho) 3.14 54 Guarulhos (Br) 2.87 54 João Pessoa (Br) 3.12 55 Tarija (Bo) 2.83 55 El Alto (Bo) 3.10 56 El Alto (Bo) 2.80 56 Manaus (Br) 3.07 57 Chiclayo (Pe) 2.79 57 Duque de Caxias (Br) 3.04 58 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 2.77 58 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 3.04 59 Cajamarca (Pe) 2.71 59 Ica (Pe) 2.97 60 Ica (Pe) 2.70 60 Tumbes (Pe) 2.83 61 Tumbes (Pe) 2.67 61 Sullana (Pe) 2.52 62 El Progreso (Ho) 2.45 62 Campo Grande (Br) 2.45 63 Sullana (Pe) 2.24 63 León (Ni) 2.45 64 León (Ni) 2.18 64 Piura (Pe) 2.27 65 Piura (Pe) 2.17 65 El Progreso (Ho) 2.21 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 69 OPERATING LICENSE I - Operating License Training 71 3.5 3.5.1 OPERATING LICENSE - TRAINING OPERATING LICENSE - PROCESS TRAINING The Training Sub-index is a simple average of: Process Training, Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how well municipal employees have been Customer Service Training, and Availability of Manuals. trained in the process. 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Index Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 2.12 1 Comayagua (Ho) 4.08 2 Comayagua (Ho) 1.67 2 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 4.02 3 León (Ni) 1.62 3 Estelí (Ni) 3.92 4 São Luis (Br) 1.50 4 La Ceiba (Ho) 3.91 5 Jinotega (Ni) 1.46 5 Choloma (Ho) 3.88 6 Choloma (Ho) 1.27 6 Rivas (Ni) 3.78 7 La Ceiba (Ho) 1.19 7 Jinotega (Ni) 3.77 8 Cusco (Pe) 1.16 8 Belo Horizonte (Br) 3.73 9 Estelí (Ni) 1.15 9 São Luis (Br) 3.68 10 Londrina (Br) 1.11 10 León (Ni) 3.68 11 Guarulhos (Br) 1.04 11 Joinville (Br) 3.67 12 Goiãnia (Br) 0.92 12 Guarulhos (Br) 3.65 13 Lima (Pe) 0.90 13 Florianópolis (Br) 3.58 14 Choluteca (Ho) 0.86 14 Londrina (Br) 3.54 15 Belo Horizonte (Br) 0.78 15 Curitiba (Br) 3.50 16 Rivas (Ni) 0.77 16 Vitória (Br) 3.47 17 Cajamarca (Pe) 0.70 17 Matagalpa (Ni) 3.46 18 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 0.66 18 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 3.44 19 Granada (Ni) 0.65 19 Cajamarca (Pe) 3.41 20 Vitória (Br) 0.62 20 Chinandega (Ni) 3.39 21 Chinandega (Ni) 0.62 21 Cusco (Pe) 3.37 22 Cochabamba (Bo) 0.59 22 Goiãnia (Br) 3.25 23 Santa Cruz (Bo) 0.55 23 Choluteca (Ho) 3.24 24 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 0.46 24 Callao (Pe) 3.23 25 Curitiba (Br) 0.46 25 Cochabamba (Bo) 3.18 26 Matagalpa (Ni) 0.37 26 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 3.17 27 Trujillo (Pe) 0.32 27 Lima (Pe) 3.14 28 El Progreso (Ho) 0.30 28 Quillacollo (Bo) 3.10 29 Campo Grande (Br) 0.29 29 El Progreso (Ho) 3.05 30 Piura (Pe) 0.28 30 Salvador (Br) 3.05 31 Callao (Pe) 0.22 31 La Paz (Bo) 3.02 32 Tarija (Bo) 0.16 32 Campo Grande (Br) 2.98 33 Florianópolis (Br) 0.16 33 Managua (Ni) 2.98 34 Joinville (Br) 0.02 34 Piura (Pe) 2.96 35 Manaus (Br) -0.12 35 Maceió (Br) 2.94 36 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) -0.13 36 Porto Alegre (Br) 2.92 37 La Paz (Bo) -0.15 37 Santa Cruz (Bo) 2.88 38 Sullana (Pe) -0.18 38 Manaus (Br) 2.84 39 Quillacollo (Bo) -0.19 39 Trujillo (Pe) 2.83 40 Chiclayo (Pe) -0.20 40 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 2.80 41 Belém (Br) -0.24 41 Sullana (Pe) 2.77 42 Managua (Ni) -0.25 42 Granada (Ni) 2.76 43 Fortaleza (Br) -0.33 43 Aracaju (Br) 2.74 44 Recife (Br) -0.37 44 Belém (Br) 2.70 45 Maceió (Br) -0.44 45 Recife (Br) 2.65 46 El Alto (Bo) -0.50 46 Tarija (Bo) 2.65 47 Puno (Pe) -0.67 47 Chiclayo (Pe) 2.59 48 Salvador (Br) -0.73 48 Fortaleza (Br) 2.57 49 Tegucigalpa (Ho) -0.78 49 Cuiabá (Br) 2.46 50 Porto Alegre (Br) -0.79 50 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 2.33 51 San Juan del Sur (Ni) -0.85 51 Potosí (Bo) 2.26 52 Masaya (Ni) -0.90 52 Masaya (Ni) 2.24 53 Aracaju (Br) -0.93 53 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 2.21 54 Potosí (Bo) -0.97 54 Puno (Pe) 2.18 55 Duque de Caxias (Br) -1.10 55 Duque de Caxias (Br) 2.05 56 Cuiabá (Br) -1.14 56 Teresina (Br) 1.96 57 Teresina (Br) -1.38 57 Sucre (Bo) 1.91 58 Sucre (Bo) -1.42 58 Ica (Pe) 1.77 59 Diadema (Br) -1.51 59 Huancayo (Pe) 1.73 60 Huancayo (Pe) -1.56 60 El Alto (Bo) 1.65 61 Ica (Pe) -1.67 61 Oruro (Bo) 1.57 62 São Paulo (Br) -1.69 62 João Pessoa (Br) 1.56 63 Oruro (Bo) -1.78 63 Diadema (Br) 1.50 64 João Pessoa (Br) -1.91 64 São Paulo (Br) 1.40 65 Tumbes (Pe) -2.04 65 Tumbes (Pe) 1.37 -2.50 0.00 2.50 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 72 OPERATING LICENSE 3.5.2 3.5.3 OPERATING LICENSE - CUSTOMER SERVICE TRAINING OPERATING LICENSE - AVAILABILITY OF MANUALS Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how well the municipal employees have Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, the availability of process manuals. been trained in customer service. 1= low, 5 = high 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Score Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 5.00 1 Choluteca (Ho) 5.00 2 León (Ni) 4.75 2 Cusco (Pe) 5.00 3 São Luis (Br) 4.50 3 Florianópolis (Br) 5.00 4 Comayagua (Ho) 4.25 4 Huancayo (Pe) 5.00 5 Choloma (Ho) 4.00 5 Jinotega (Ni) 5.00 6 Cusco (Pe) 4.00 6 Recife (Br) 5.00 7 Goiãnia (Br) 4.00 7 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 5.00 8 Granada (Ni) 4.00 8 Chiclayo (Pe) 4.75 9 Jinotega (Ni) 4.00 9 Maceió (Br) 4.75 10 Lima (Pe) 4.00 10 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 4.75 11 Londrina (Br) 4.00 11 Fortaleza (Br) 4.50 12 Estelí (Ni) 3.75 12 Granada (Ni) 4.50 13 Guarulhos (Br) 3.75 13 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 4.50 14 Santa Cruz (Bo) 3.75 14 Sullana (Pe) 4.50 15 Choluteca (Ho) 3.60 15 Campo Grande (Br) 4.33 16 Cajamarca (Pe) 3.50 16 Callao (Pe) 4.25 17 Cochabamba (Bo) 3.50 17 Lima (Pe) 4.25 18 El Alto (Bo) 3.50 18 Oruro (Bo) 4.25 19 La Ceiba (Ho) 3.50 19 Tarija (Bo) 4.25 20 Piura (Pe) 3.50 20 Aracaju (Br) 4.00 21 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 3.50 21 Cuiabá (Br) 4.00 22 Trujillo (Pe) 3.50 22 El Alto (Bo) 4.00 23 Chinandega (Ni) 3.25 23 El Progreso (Ho) 4.00 24 Tarija (Bo) 3.25 24 La Ceiba (Ho) 4.00 25 Vitória (Br) 3.25 25 Managua (Ni) 4.00 26 Belo Horizonte (Br) 3.00 26 Santa Cruz (Bo) 4.00 27 Campo Grande (Br) 3.00 27 Comayagua (Ho) 3.80 28 Curitiba (Br) 3.00 28 Belo Horizonte (Br) 3.75 29 El Progreso (Ho) 3.00 29 Diadema (Br) 3.75 30 Matagalpa (Ni) 3.00 30 Duque de Caxias (Br) 3.75 31 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 3.00 31 Goiãnia (Br) 3.75 32 Puno (Pe) 3.00 32 León (Ni) 3.75 33 Rivas (Ni) 3.00 33 Quillacollo (Bo) 3.75 34 Belém (Br) 2.75 34 Salvador (Br) 3.75 35 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 2.75 35 São Luis (Br) 3.75 36 Manaus (Br) 2.60 36 Chinandega (Ni) 3.50 37 Callao (Pe) 2.50 37 Cochabamba (Bo) 3.50 38 Chiclayo (Pe) 2.50 38 Londrina (Br) 3.50 39 La Paz (Bo) 2.50 39 Manaus (Br) 3.50 40 Fortaleza (Br) 2.33 40 Trujillo (Pe) 3.50 41 Sullana (Pe) 2.33 41 Guarulhos (Br) 3.33 42 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 2.25 42 Rivas (Ni) 3.33 43 Managua (Ni) 2.00 43 Tumbes (Pe) 3.33 44 Masaya (Ni) 2.00 44 João Pessoa (Br) 3.25 45 Potosí (Bo) 2.00 45 Masaya (Ni) 3.25 46 Quillacollo (Bo) 2.00 46 Cajamarca (Pe) 3.00 47 Recife (Br) 2.00 47 Joinville (Br) 3.00 48 São Paulo (Br) 1.80 48 Porto Alegre (Br) 3.00 49 Diadema (Br) 1.75 49 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 3.00 50 Duque de Caxias (Br) 1.75 50 Sucre (Bo) 3.00 51 Joinville (Br) 1.75 51 Vitória (Br) 3.00 52 Teresina (Br) 1.75 52 Belém (Br) 2.75 53 Florianópolis (Br) 1.67 53 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 2.75 54 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 1.67 54 Choloma (Ho) 2.67 55 Maceió (Br) 1.50 55 São Paulo (Br) 2.67 56 Sucre (Bo) 1.50 56 La Paz (Bo) 2.52 57 Ica (Pe) 1.33 57 Curitiba (Br) 2.50 58 Porto Alegre (Br) 1.25 58 Estelí (Ni) 2.50 59 Aracaju (Br) 1.00 59 Ica (Pe) 2.50 60 Cuiabá (Br) 1.00 60 Potosí (Bo) 2.50 61 Huancayo (Pe) 1.00 61 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 2.50 62 João Pessoa (Br) 1.00 62 Piura (Pe) 2.25 63 Oruro (Bo) 1.00 63 Matagalpa (Ni) 2.00 64 Salvador (Br) 1.00 64 Teresina (Br) 2.00 65 Tumbes (Pe) 1.00 65 Puno (Pe) 1.33 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 73 TABLE A.1 Operating License Performance Index and Sub-indices Number of Rejections Rank Municipality Country Performance Index Time Sub-index Cost Sub-index Visits Sub-index Sub-index 1 Rivas (Ni) 0.98 0.78 0.98 1.53 0.66 2 Estelí (Ni) 0.90 0.83 0.48 1.53 0.78 3 La Paz (Bo) 0.90 0.72 1.38 0.78 0.73 4 Granada (Ni) 0.90 0.79 1.06 0.78 0.95 5 Chinandega (Ni) 0.87 0.79 0.85 0.78 1.03 6 Sucre (Bo) 0.84 0.79 1.08 0.78 0.70 7 León (Ni) 0.82 0.79 1.00 0.78 0.70 8 Lima (Pe) 0.77 0.74 0.78 0.78 0.78 9 Masaya (Ni) 0.71 0.74 0.53 0.78 0.78 10 Londrina (Br) 0.70 0.28 0.96 0.78 0.78 11 Managua (Ni) 0.70 0.69 1.07 0.03 0.99 12 Matagalpa (Ni) 0.67 0.65 0.43 0.78 0.83 13 Jinotega (Ni) 0.63 0.76 0.21 0.78 0.78 14 Choluteca (Ho) 0.62 0.83 -0.15 0.78 1.03 15 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 0.54 0.79 -0.26 0.78 0.83 16 Trujillo (Pe) 0.54 0.50 0.69 0.03 0.91 17 Choloma (Ho) 0.53 0.42 0.74 0.78 0.16 18 Sullana (Pe) 0.48 0.14 0.04 0.78 0.95 19 Santa Cruz (Bo) 0.43 0.55 1.19 0.03 -0.05 20 Porto Alegre (Br) 0.40 0.30 1.30 0.03 -0.05 21 Joinville (Br) 0.37 0.25 0.30 0.78 0.16 22 Cochabamba (Bo) 0.37 0.64 1.28 0.03 -0.47 23 Tarija (Bo) 0.34 0.41 -0.15 0.03 1.08 24 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 0.31 -0.08 0.91 0.03 0.36 25 Comayagua (Ho) 0.30 0.77 0.97 0.78 -1.31 26 Florianópolis (Br) 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.78 -0.26 27 Vitória (Br) 0.25 0.53 -0.47 0.78 0.16 28 Diadema (Br) 0.21 -0.48 1.03 0.78 -0.47 29 Cuiabá (Br) 0.21 -0.25 0.78 0.78 -0.47 30 Quillacollo (Bo) 0.19 0.18 0.92 -0.71 0.36 31 La Ceiba (Ho) 0.18 0.33 0.83 0.03 -0.47 32 Campo Grande (Br) 0.17 0.28 0.08 0.78 -0.47 33 Piura (Pe) 0.11 -0.35 0.58 -0.71 0.91 34 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 0.10 0.53 -0.87 0.03 0.70 35 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 0.10 -0.16 -0.27 0.78 0.05 36 El Alto (Bo) 0.01 0.69 0.64 0.03 -1.31 37 Maceió (Br) 0.01 0.29 -1.15 0.03 0.87 38 Salvador (Br) -0.05 0.02 -1.36 0.78 0.36 39 Potosí (Bo) -0.05 0.33 0.77 -1.46 0.16 40 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) -0.06 -0.42 0.72 0.78 -1.31 41 Duque de Caxias (Br) -0.06 -0.14 -0.50 0.03 0.36 42 João Pessoa (Br) -0.08 0.28 -0.99 -0.71 1.12 43 Curitiba (Br) -0.09 -0.25 0.41 0.78 -1.31 44 Belo Horizonte (Br) -0.26 -1.11 0.44 0.03 -0.39 45 Huancayo (Pe) -0.27 0.33 -2.12 0.03 0.70 46 Tegucigalpa (Ho) -0.34 -0.02 -0.48 0.03 -0.89 47 Cajamarca (Pe) -0.35 0.21 -1.99 -0.71 1.08 48 Teresina (Br) -0.41 0.26 -1.48 -1.46 1.03 49 Goiãnia (Br) -0.42 0.12 -0.62 -0.71 -0.47 50 Fortaleza (Br) -0.43 -0.66 -1.13 -0.71 0.78 51 Callao (Pe) -0.47 -0.74 -0.04 -1.46 0.36 52 São Luis (Br) -0.57 0.18 -2.01 0.03 -0.47 53 Chiclayo (Pe) -0.65 -0.23 0.50 -0.71 -2.15 54 Tumbes (Pe) -0.65 0.25 -1.46 -1.46 0.08 55 Aracaju (Br) -0.70 -0.17 -0.53 0.03 -2.15 56 Belém (Br) -0.85 -0.98 -1.97 0.03 -0.47 57 São Paulo (Br) -0.87 -0.23 -0.29 0.03 -2.98 58 Guarulhos (Br) -0.92 -2.86 0.35 -0.71 -0.47 59 Puno (Pe) -1.07 -0.64 -1.71 -1.46 -0.47 60 Ica (Pe) -1.07 -1.34 -1.44 -1.46 -0.05 61 Recife (Br) -1.10 0.28 -1.50 -1.46 -1.73 62 Oruro (Bo) -1.10 -1.87 0.88 -2.95 -0.47 63 El Progreso (Ho) -1.25 -5.64 -0.92 0.78 0.78 64 Manaus (Br) -1.32 -1.33 0.09 -1.46 -2.57 65 Cusco (Pe) -1.97 -0.37 -1.67 -3.70 -2.15 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 74 OPERATING LICENSE TABLE A.2 Operating License Process Index and Sub-indices Information Infrastructure Tools Inspections Training Rank Municipality Country Process Index Sub-index Sub-index Sub-index Sub-index Sub-index 1 Comayagua (Ho) 1.52 1.79 0.90 2.19 1.05 1.67 2 Lima (Pe) 1.46 1.70 2.60 1.00 1.10 0.90 3 Choluteca (Ho) 1.44 2.26 0.72 0.85 2.52 0.86 4 Choloma (Ho) 1.33 2.07 1.12 1.42 0.80 1.27 5 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 1.07 0.80 0.58 2.37 -0.52 2.12 6 Vitória (Br) 1.05 1.29 1.24 0.81 1.26 0.62 7 La Ceiba (Ho) 1.03 1.14 1.62 1.65 -0.46 1.19 8 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 0.88 1.03 0.31 1.23 1.16 0.66 9 Jinotega (Ni) 0.86 1.62 -0.42 0.22 1.41 1.46 10 Curitiba (Br) 0.80 0.57 1.25 1.07 0.67 0.46 11 Estelí (Ni) 0.76 0.54 -0.16 1.58 0.71 1.15 12 Florianópolis (Br) 0.66 0.92 1.12 -0.11 1.23 0.16 13 Matagalpa (Ni) 0.65 1.38 -0.53 1.38 0.64 0.37 14 São Luis (Br) 0.56 0.19 1.21 0.24 -0.32 1.50 15 Cochabamba (Bo) 0.55 -0.16 0.71 0.80 0.79 0.59 16 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 0.52 0.37 0.98 0.52 0.83 -0.13 17 Managua (Ni) 0.51 1.15 -0.43 1.15 0.96 -0.25 18 Joinville (Br) 0.49 0.64 0.91 0.37 0.49 0.02 19 Chinandega (Ni) 0.48 0.90 -0.64 1.29 0.22 0.62 20 Londrina (Br) 0.43 -0.72 0.99 0.62 0.17 1.11 21 León (Ni) 0.27 -0.02 0.74 1.04 -2.03 1.62 22 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 0.21 1.02 -0.40 -0.44 0.44 0.46 23 Salvador (Br) 0.17 0.46 1.21 -1.04 0.98 -0.73 24 Goiãnia (Br) 0.15 -0.61 -0.39 0.91 -0.10 0.92 25 Trujillo (Pe) 0.13 0.39 -0.47 0.84 -0.44 0.32 26 Tarija (Bo) 0.12 0.11 -0.35 1.48 -0.78 0.16 27 Aracaju (Br) 0.10 0.05 0.66 -0.45 1.16 -0.93 28 Cusco (Pe) 0.09 -0.73 0.77 -0.18 -0.58 1.16 29 La Paz (Bo) 0.07 0.95 0.64 -1.10 0.01 -0.15 30 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 0.06 1.03 -0.35 0.96 -0.52 -0.85 31 Recife (Br) 0.05 -0.53 1.41 0.13 -0.38 -0.37 32 Porto Alegre (Br) 0.01 -0.05 0.48 -0.85 1.27 -0.79 33 Santa Cruz (Bo) -0.01 -1.56 -0.29 0.00 1.23 0.55 34 Maceió (Br) -0.02 -0.53 0.49 0.09 0.29 -0.44 35 Guarulhos (Br) -0.10 -0.54 0.55 -0.80 -0.77 1.04 36 Teresina (Br) -0.14 -0.57 0.36 0.15 0.74 -1.38 37 Tegucigalpa (Ho) -0.16 -0.52 -0.37 -0.04 0.93 -0.78 38 Cajamarca Perú -0.18 -0.20 -0.23 -0.22 -0.93 0.70 39 Granada (Ni) -0.18 0.15 -1.49 0.06 -0.29 0.65 40 Rivas (Ni) -0.20 0.17 -1.47 -0.02 -0.45 0.77 41 Callao (Pe) -0.21 0.00 -0.99 -0.53 0.26 0.22 42 Sullana (Pe) -0.24 0.58 0.47 0.16 -2.22 -0.18 43 Fortaleza (Br) -0.26 -0.58 0.44 -1.01 0.19 -0.33 44 Belo Horizonte (Br) -0.29 -1.76 0.06 -0.41 -0.13 0.78 45 Belém (Br) -0.37 -0.25 -0.30 -1.14 0.09 -0.24 46 Masaya (Ni) -0.40 0.34 -0.83 -0.04 -0.59 -0.90 47 Piura (Pe) -0.41 -0.38 1.51 -0.55 -2.89 0.28 48 Potosí (Bo) -0.52 -0.52 -1.00 -0.31 0.23 -0.97 49 Puno (Pe) -0.53 -0.12 -1.19 -0.58 -0.06 -0.67 50 Manaus (Br) -0.57 -1.55 -0.18 -0.53 -0.45 -0.12 51 Campo Grande (Br) -0.64 -1.32 -0.51 -0.55 -1.14 0.29 52 Diadema (Br) -0.66 -0.57 -0.68 -1.04 0.53 -1.51 53 Duque de Caxias (Br) -0.71 -1.06 0.14 -0.70 -0.84 -1.10 54 João Pessoa (Br) -0.74 -1.32 0.56 -0.70 -0.34 -1.91 55 São Paulo (Br) -0.75 0.41 -0.37 -2.06 -0.03 -1.69 56 Huancayo (Pe) -0.75 -0.35 -0.56 -0.96 -0.31 -1.56 57 Cuiabá (Br) -0.79 -1.37 -1.41 -0.95 0.90 -1.14 58 Quillacollo (Bo) -0.87 0.25 -1.96 -2.00 -0.43 -0.19 59 El Alto (Bo) -0.88 -1.18 -1.43 -0.62 -0.67 -0.50 60 Sucre (Bo) -0.93 -0.26 -1.64 -1.47 0.15 -1.42 61 Chiclayo (Pe) -0.97 -1.28 -0.70 -1.56 -1.09 -0.20 62 Oruro (Bo) -1.14 -0.48 -2.71 -0.39 -0.33 -1.78 63 Ica (Pe) -1.25 -1.80 -0.24 -0.95 -1.57 -1.67 64 El Progreso (Ho) -1.28 -1.45 -1.57 -1.37 -2.33 0.30 65 Tumbes (Pe) -1.37 -1.94 -0.51 -0.93 -1.42 -2.04 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 75 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 2 - Construction Permit 77 1.0 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT INDEX The Construction Permit Index is composed of 1/2 of the Process Index score and 1/2 of the Performance Index. Rank Municipality Country Index 1 Comayagua (Ho) 1.20 2 Choluteca (Ho) 1.02 3 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 1.00 4 Choloma (Ho) 0.94 5 Estelí (Ni) 0.94 6 Masaya (Ni) 0.91 7 Curitiba (Br) 0.75 8 Chinandega (Ni) 0.64 9 León (Ni) 0.64 10 Rivas (Ni) 0.62 11 Matagalpa (Ni) 0.54 12 Managua (Ni) 0.54 13 Vitória (Br) 0.49 14 Salvador (Br) 0.48 15 Cochabamba (Bo) 0.45 16 Jinotega (Ni) 0.43 17 Maceió (Br) 0.38 18 La Ceiba (Ho) 0.36 19 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 0.35 20 Duque de Caxias (Br) 0.35 21 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 0.34 22 Joinville (Br) 0.33 23 Campo Grande (Br) 0.30 24 São Luis (Br) 0.29 25 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 0.29 26 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 0.26 27 Guarulhos (Br) 0.21 28 Belo Horizonte (Br) 0.19 29 São Paulo (Br) 0.11 30 Belém (Br) 0.09 31 Diadema (Br) 0.00 32 Callao (Pe) -0.01 33 Sullana (Pe) -0.02 34 Manaus (Br) -0.03 35 Santa Cruz (Bo) -0.04 36 Recife (Br) -0.04 37 Londrina (Br) -0.07 38 Goiãnia (Br) -0.07 39 Cusco (Pe) -0.12 40 La Paz (Bo) -0.13 41 Cuiabá (Br) -0.14 42 Florianópolis (Br) -0.16 43 Trujillo (Pe) -0.18 44 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) -0.18 45 Piura (Pe) -0.20 46 João Pessoa (Br) -0.22 47 Granada (Ni) -0.23 48 Sucre (Bo) -0.28 49 El Progreso (Ho) -0.33 50 El Alto (Bo) -0.45 51 Quillacollo (Bo) -0.48 52 Aracaju (Br) -0.53 53 Porto Alegre (Br) -0.57 54 Fortaleza (Br) -0.72 55 Tarija (Bo) -0.74 56 Teresina (Br) -0.75 57 Lima (Pe) -0.75 58 Tumbes (Pe) -0.77 59 Huancayo (Pe) -0.85 60 Cajamarca (Pe) -0.87 61 Ica (Pe) -0.89 62 Puno (Pe) -0.93 63 Chiclayo (Pe) -1.08 64 Potosí (Bo) -1.13 65 Oruro (Bo) -1.47 -1.50 0.00 1.50 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 78 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 2 - Construction Permit Performance Index 79 2.0 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - PERFORMANCE INDEX The Performance Index is a simple average of four Sub-indices: Time, Cost, Number of Visits and Rejections. Rank Municipality Country Index 1 Comayagua (Ho) 0.77 2 Matagalpa (Ni) 0.76 3 Jinotega (Ni) 0.76 4 León (Ni) 0.72 5 Piura (Pe) 0.69 6 Masaya (Ni) 0.68 7 Rivas (Ni) 0.66 8 Estelí (Ni) 0.65 9 Chinandega (Ni) 0.60 10 La Paz (Bo) 0.59 11 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 0.58 12 Managua (Ni) 0.57 13 La Ceiba (Ho) 0.56 14 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 0.55 15 Choluteca (Ho) 0.54 16 Recife (Br) 0.52 17 Choloma (Ho) 0.48 18 São Luis (Br) 0.46 19 Sucre (Bo) 0.44 20 Vitória (Br) 0.41 21 Joinville (Br) 0.40 22 Londrina (Br) 0.38 23 Duque de Caxias (Br) 0.37 24 Cuiabá (Br) 0.36 25 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 0.35 26 Campo Grande (Br) 0.31 27 Sullana (Pe) 0.30 28 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 0.27 29 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 0.25 30 El Progreso (Ho) 0.24 31 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 0.19 32 Guarulhos (Br) 0.19 33 Curitiba (Br) 0.16 34 João Pessoa (Br) 0.11 35 São Paulo (Br) 0.11 36 Cochabamba (Bo) 0.07 37 Santa Cruz (Bo) 0.05 38 Diadema (Br) 0.04 39 El Alto (Bo) -0.02 40 Belo Horizonte (Br) -0.02 41 Quillacollo (Bo) -0.03 42 Fortaleza (Br) -0.06 43 Trujillo (Pe) -0.08 44 Maceió (Br) -0.12 45 Salvador (Br) -0.12 46 Chiclayo (Pe) -0.19 47 Callao (Pe) -0.23 48 Cusco (Pe) -0.24 49 Tarija (Bo) -0.27 50 Belém (Br) -0.33 51 Granada (Ni) -0.37 52 Manaus (Br) -0.39 53 Goiãnia (Br) -0.40 54 Tumbes (Pe) -0.45 55 Florianópolis (Br) -0.79 56 Teresina (Br) -0.86 57 Puno (Pe) -1.01 58 Huancayo (Pe) -1.05 59 Ica (Pe) -1.07 60 Aracaju (Br) -1.15 61 Porto Alegre (Br) -1.21 62 Cajamarca (Pe) -1.27 63 Potosí (Bo) -1.28 64 Lima (Pe) -1.35 65 Oruro (Bo) -1.76 -2.00 0.00 2.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 80 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 2.1 2.2 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - TIME (DAYS) CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - COST (EXPRESSED AS % OF GDP PER CAPITA) Measures the total time, in calendar days, to complete the Measures the total cost paid to the municipality to fulfill the application process. requirements stipulated. Rank Municipality Country Days % of GDP Rank Municipality Country per capita 1 Estelí (Ni) 3 1 Recife (Br) 0.0% 2 Rivas (Ni) 3 2 Sucre (Bo) 0.2% 3 Chinandega (Ni) 4 3 Piura (Pe) 0.6% 4 Comayagua (Ho) 4 4 Cochabamba (Bo) 0.7% 5 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 5 5 León (Ni) 0.9% 6 Choluteca (Ho) 5 6 Rivas (Ni) 1.5% 7 Jinotega (Ni) 6 7 Choloma (Ho) 1.6% 8 Masaya (Ni) 6 8 Porto Alegre (Br) 1.6% 9 León (Ni) 7 9 Managua (Ni) 1.7% 10 Matagalpa (Ni) 8 10 La Ceiba (Ho) 1.8% 11 Managua (Ni) 9 11 Comayagua (Ho) 2.3% 12 La Paz (Bo) 11 12 La Paz (Bo) 2.3% 13 Choloma (Ho) 13 13 Diadema (Br) 2.6% 14 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 14 14 Matagalpa (Ni) 2.6% 15 Piura (Pe) 18 15 Jinotega (Ni) 2.8% 16 El Progreso (Ho) 19 16 Masaya (Ni) 3.1% 17 Sullana (Pe) 22 17 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 3.3% 18 São Luis (Br) 24 18 Quillacollo (Bo) 3.3% 19 Vitória (Br) 30 19 Cuiabá (Br) 3.9% 20 Cochabamba (Bo) 32 20 Santa Cruz (Bo) 4.1% 21 La Ceiba (Ho) 32 21 Chinandega (Ni) 4.3% 22 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 32 22 Campo Grande (Br) 4.7% 23 Santa Cruz (Bo) 34 23 Tarija (Bo) 4.9% 24 Joinville (Br) 35 24 Florianópolis (Br) 5.2% 25 Duque de Caxias (Br) 36 25 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 5.3% 26 Tarija (Bo) 59 26 Huancayo (Pe) 5.8% 27 Londrina (Br) 60 27 Estelí (Ni) 6.0% 28 Campo Grande (Br) 61 28 Londrina (Br) 6.0% 29 Cuiabá (Br) 61 29 Duque de Caxias (Br) 6.4% 30 Quillacollo (Bo) 62 30 São Paulo (Br) 6.4% 31 Recife (Br) 64 31 Callao (Pe) 7.0% 32 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 65 32 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 7.8% 33 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 65 33 Joinville (Br) 8.2% 34 Granada (Ni) 66 34 São Luis (Br) 8.3% 35 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 66 35 Ica (Pe) 8.4% 36 Trujillo (Pe) 72 36 Curitiba (Br) 8.9% 37 Chiclayo (Pe) 77 37 Cusco (Pe) 9.2% 38 Cusco (Pe) 78 38 Vitória (Br) 9.2% 39 Belo Horizonte (Br) 89 39 Trujillo (Pe) 9.4% 40 Salvador (Br) 89 40 Choluteca (Ho) 10.1% 41 Sucre (Bo) 90 41 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 10.1% 42 João Pessoa (Br) 91 42 Salvador (Br) 10.6% 43 São Paulo (Br) 92 43 El Alto (Bo) 10.6% 44 Teresina (Br) 92 44 Chiclayo (Pe) 10.8% 45 Maceió (Br) 95 45 Sullana (Pe) 10.8% 46 El Alto (Bo) 103 46 Belo Horizonte (Br) 11.2% 47 Guarulhos (Br) 104 47 Maceió (Br) 11.2% 48 Curitiba (Br) 106 48 Guarulhos (Br) 11.6% 49 Belém (Br) 107 49 Lima (Pe) 11.6% 50 Aracaju (Br) 108 50 Fortaleza (Br) 11.7% 51 Puno (Pe) 111 51 João Pessoa (Br) 11.8% 52 Manaus (Br) 120 52 Manaus (Br) 12.2% 53 Diadema (Br) 122 53 Aracaju (Br) 12.9% 54 Tumbes (Pe) 130 54 Goiãnia (Br) 13.0% 55 Callao (Pe) 135 55 Oruro (Bo) 14.1% 56 Fortaleza (Br) 149 56 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 14.1% 57 Florianópolis (Br) 151 57 Potosí (Bo) 14.3% 58 Ica (Pe) 154 58 Cajamarca (Pe) 15.6% 59 Cajamarca (Pe) 167 59 Puno (Pe) 17.0% 60 Potosí (Bo) 182 60 El Progreso (Ho) 18.7% 61 Oruro (Bo) 191 61 Tumbes (Pe) 23.5% 62 Porto Alegre (Br) 198 62 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 25.8% 63 Goiãnia (Br) 219 63 Belém (Br) 29.6% 64 Huancayo (Pe) 349 64 Teresina (Br) 59.1% 65 Lima (Pe) 378 65 Granada (Ni) 69.5% 0 400 0.0 80.0 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 81 2.3 2.4 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - NUMBER OF VISITS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - REJECTIONS (% OF TOTAL POOL) Measures the total number of visits made to the municipality. Measures the percentage of businesses that requested a Construction Permit and have been rejected (within the past year). Rank Municipality Country Visits Rank Municipality Country Percentage 1 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 1 1 Matagalpa (Ni) 1.0% 2 Chiclayo (Pe) 2 2 Recife (Br) 1.0% 3 Choluteca (Ho) 2 3 Comayagua (Ho) 2.0% 4 Estelí (Ni) 2 4 Fortaleza (Br) 5.0% 5 Jinotega (Ni) 2 5 Guarulhos (Br) 5.0% 6 León (Ni) 2 6 Jinotega (Ni) 5.0% 7 Managua (Ni) 2 7 João Pessoa (Br) 5.0% 8 Masaya (Ni) 2 8 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 5.0% 9 Piura (Pe) 2 9 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 5.0% 10 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 2 10 Teresina (Br) 5.0% 11 Sullana (Pe) 2 11 Tumbes (Pe) 5.0% 12 Belém (Br) 3 12 Joinville (Br) 7.5% 13 Chinandega (Ni) 3 13 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 7.5% 14 Choloma (Ho) 3 14 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 7.5% 15 Comayagua (Ho) 3 15 Sucre (Bo) 7.5% 16 Curitiba (Br) 3 16 Estelí (Ni) 8.0% 17 Duque de Caxias (Br) 3 17 Goiãnia (Br) 9.0% 18 El Progreso (Ho) 3 18 São Luis (Br) 9.0% 19 Florianópolis (Br) 3 19 Choluteca (Ho) 9.3% 20 Guarulhos (Br) 3 20 Masaya (Ni) 9.7% 21 La Ceiba (Ho) 3 21 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 9.7% 22 La Paz (Bo) 3 22 Chinandega (Ni) 10.0% 23 Londrina (Br) 3 23 Cuiabá (Br) 10.0% 24 Matagalpa (Ni) 3 24 Curitiba (Br) 10.0% 25 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 3 25 El Progreso (Ho) 10.0% 26 Rivas (Ni) 3 26 La Ceiba (Ho) 10.0% 27 Salvador (Br) 3 27 León (Ni) 10.0% 28 Santa Cruz (Bo) 3 28 Londrina (Br) 10.0% 29 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 3 29 Oruro (Bo) 10.0% 30 São Luis (Br) 3 30 Piura (Pe) 10.0% 31 São Paulo (Br) 3 31 Rivas (Ni) 10.0% 32 Sucre (Bo) 3 32 Vitória (Br) 10.0% 33 Vitória (Br) 3 33 La Paz (Bo) 12.0% 34 Campo Grande (Br) 4 34 Belém (Br) 12.5% 35 Cuiabá (Br) 4 35 Campo Grande (Br) 12.5% 36 Diadema (Br) 4 36 El Alto (Bo) 12.5% 37 Granada (Ni) 4 37 Belo Horizonte (Br) 15.0% 38 Joinville (Br) 4 38 Duque de Caxias (Br) 15.0% 39 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 4 39 Granada (Ni) 15.0% 40 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 4 40 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 15.0% 41 Teresina (Br) 4 41 Maceió (Br) 16.7% 42 Belo Horizonte (Br) 5 42 Callao (Pe) 17.5% 43 El Alto (Bo) 5 43 Potosí (Bo) 17.5% 44 Fortaleza (Br) 5 44 Managua (Ni) 18.5% 45 Goiãnia (Br) 5 45 Aracaju (Br) 20.0% 46 João Pessoa (Br) 5 46 Choloma (Ho) 20.0% 47 Recife (Br) 5 47 Cusco (Pe) 20.0% 48 Tumbes (Pe) 5 48 Diadema (Br) 20.0% 49 Cajamarca (Pe) 6 49 Lima (Pe) 20.0% 50 Huancayo (Pe) 6 50 Manaus (Br) 20.0% 51 Ica (Pe) 6 51 São Paulo (Br) 20.0% 52 Maceió (Br) 6 52 Sullana (Pe) 20.0% 53 Trujillo (Pe) 6 53 Trujillo (Pe) 20.0% 54 Callao (Pe) 7 54 Cochabamba (Bo) 25.0% 55 Porto Alegre (Br) 7 55 Quillacollo (Bo) 25.0% 56 Quillacollo (Bo) 7 56 Huancayo (Pe) 30.0% 57 Aracaju (Br) 8 57 Puno (Pe) 30.0% 58 Cochabamba (Bo) 8 58 Salvador (Br) 30.0% 59 Manaus (Br) 8 59 Chiclayo (Pe) 40.0% 60 Cusco (Pe) 9 60 Santa Cruz (Bo) 40.0% 61 Lima (Pe) 10 61 Tarija (Bo) 40.0% 62 Tarija (Bo) 10 62 Florianópolis (Br) 67.5% 63 Puno (Pe) 15 63 Cajamarca (Pe) 70.0% 64 Potosí (Bo) 20 64 Ica (Pe) 70.0% 65 Oruro (Bo) 30 65 Porto Alegre (Br) 75.0% 0 35 0.0% 100.0% Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 82 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 2 - Construction Permit Process Index 83 3.0 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - PROCESS INDEX The Process Index is a simple average of five Sub-indices: Information, Infrastructure, Tools, Inspections and Training. Rank Municipality Country Index 1 Comayagua (Ho) 1.63 2 Choluteca (Ho) 1.51 3 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 1.42 4 Choloma (Ho) 1.41 5 Curitiba (Br) 1.34 6 Estelí (Ni) 1.22 7 Masaya (Ni) 1.14 8 Salvador (Br) 1.08 9 Maceió (Br) 0.88 10 Cochabamba (Bo) 0.83 11 Granada (Ni) 0.69 12 Chinandega (Ni) 0.68 13 Rivas (Ni) 0.58 14 Vitória (Br) 0.58 15 León (Ni) 0.55 16 Managua (Ni) 0.51 17 Belém (Br) 0.50 18 Florianópolis (Br) 0.47 19 Belo Horizonte (Br) 0.40 20 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 0.38 21 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 0.36 22 Manaus (Br) 0.33 23 Duque de Caxias (Br) 0.32 24 Matagalpa (Ni) 0.32 25 Campo Grande (Br) 0.28 26 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 0.26 27 Joinville (Br) 0.26 28 Goiãnia (Br) 0.26 29 Guarulhos (Br) 0.23 30 Callao (Pe) 0.22 31 La Ceiba (Ho) 0.16 32 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 0.13 33 São Luis (Br) 0.12 34 São Paulo (Br) 0.10 35 Jinotega (Ni) 0.10 36 Porto Alegre (Br) 0.07 37 Cusco (Pe) 0.00 38 Diadema (Br) -0.04 39 Santa Cruz (Bo) -0.12 40 Lima (Pe) -0.15 41 Trujillo (Pe) -0.30 42 Sullana (Pe) -0.35 43 Cajamarca (Pe) -0.46 44 Londrina (Br) -0.51 45 João Pessoa (Br) -0.56 46 Recife (Br) -0.59 47 Teresina (Br) -0.64 48 Cuiabá (Br) -0.64 49 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) -0.64 50 Huancayo (Pe) -0.65 51 Aracaju (Br) -0.68 52 Ica (Pe) -0.70 53 La Paz (Bo) -0.85 54 Puno (Pe) -0.85 55 El Alto (Bo) -0.89 56 El Progreso (Ho) -0.90 57 Quillacollo (Bo) -0.94 58 Potosí (Bo) -0.98 59 Sucre (Bo) -1.01 60 Tarija (Bo) -1.04 61 Piura (Pe) -1.08 62 Oruro (Bo) -1.18 63 Tumbes (Pe) -1.26 64 Fortaleza (Br) -1.36 65 Chiclayo (Pe) -1.97 -2.00 0.00 2.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 84 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 2 - Construction Permit Information 85 3.1 3.1.1 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - INFORMATION CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - COMPLEXITY OF APPLICATION FORMS The Information Sub-index is a simple average of: Complexity of Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how easy it is to complete the application Application Forms, Clarity of Information, Accessibility of form. Information, Consistency of Process with Information and 1= low, 5 = high Knowledge of Inspection Criteria. Rank Municipality Country Index Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Choloma (Ho) 2.16 1 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 5.00 2 Comayagua (Ho) 1.94 2 Choloma (Ho) 4.56 3 Duque de Caxias (Br) 1.85 3 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 4.42 4 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 1.71 4 Chinandega (Ni) 4.40 5 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 1.57 5 Maceió (Br) 4.33 6 Estelí (Ni) 1.29 6 Recife (Br) 4.20 7 Curitiba (Br) 1.21 7 León (Ni) 4.18 8 Masaya (Ni) 1.19 8 São Paulo (Br) 4.05 9 Vitória (Br) 1.06 9 Estelí (Ni) 4.00 10 Jinotega (Ni) 1.04 10 Masaya (Ni) 4.00 11 León (Ni) 1.03 11 Salvador (Br) 4.00 12 Managua (Ni) 0.99 12 São Luis (Br) 4.00 13 Maceió (Br) 0.94 13 Trujillo (Pe) 4.00 14 Choluteca (Ho) 0.94 14 Managua (Ni) 3.95 15 Granada (Ni) 0.89 15 Choluteca (Ho) 3.94 16 Salvador (Br) 0.82 16 La Ceiba (Ho) 3.94 17 Rivas (Ni) 0.70 17 Vitória (Br) 3.94 18 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 0.67 18 Matagalpa (Ni) 3.93 19 Manaus (Br) 0.64 19 Guarulhos (Br) 3.90 20 Chinandega (Ni) 0.51 20 Comayagua (Ho) 3.87 21 Cochabamba (Bo) 0.49 21 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 3.85 22 Trujillo (Pe) 0.47 22 Jinotega (Ni) 3.83 23 São Paulo (Br) 0.42 23 Manaus (Br) 3.83 24 Guarulhos (Br) 0.37 24 Florianópolis (Br) 3.81 25 Lima (Pe) 0.35 25 Huancayo (Pe) 3.75 26 Porto Alegre (Br) 0.35 26 Cochabamba (Bo) 3.74 27 São Luis (Br) 0.33 27 Cuiabá (Br) 3.67 28 Santa Cruz (Bo) 0.05 28 Granada (Ni) 3.67 29 Diadema (Br) 0.04 29 Porto Alegre (Br) 3.67 30 Recife (Br) 0.04 30 Rivas (Ni) 3.67 31 La Ceiba (Ho) 0.04 31 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 3.67 32 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 0.03 32 Santa Cruz (Bo) 3.62 33 Ica (Pe) 0.02 33 Belém (Br) 3.60 34 Matagalpa (Ni) 0.02 34 Teresina (Br) 3.60 35 Huancayo (Pe) -0.01 35 Curitiba (Br) 3.53 36 Teresina (Br) -0.02 36 Duque de Caxias (Br) 3.50 37 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) -0.03 37 Goiãnia (Br) 3.50 38 Florianópolis (Br) -0.07 38 El Progreso (Ho) 3.43 39 Quillacollo (Bo) -0.19 39 Belo Horizonte (Br) 3.40 40 Sullana (Pe) -0.21 40 Quillacollo (Bo) 3.29 41 Belém (Br) -0.26 41 Cusco (Pe) 3.23 42 Callao (Pe) -0.35 42 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 3.17 43 Joinville (Br) -0.42 43 João Pessoa (Br) 3.13 44 Cusco (Pe) -0.43 44 Callao (Pe) 3.00 45 Belo Horizonte (Br) -0.44 45 Diadema (Br) 3.00 46 Cajamarca (Pe) -0.48 46 Lima (Pe) 3.00 47 Aracaju (Br) -0.60 47 Sucre (Bo) 3.00 48 San Pedro Sula (Ho) -0.68 48 Sullana (Pe) 3.00 49 Tarija (Bo) -0.75 49 El Alto (Bo) 2.94 50 Tumbes (Pe) -0.86 50 Joinville (Br) 2.90 51 El Progreso (Ho) -0.89 51 Tumbes (Pe) 2.83 52 El Alto (Bo) -1.01 52 Cajamarca (Pe) 2.80 53 João Pessoa (Br) -1.08 53 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 2.72 54 Cuiabá (Br) -1.11 54 Chiclayo (Pe) 2.67 55 Goiãnia (Br) -1.13 55 Tarija (Bo) 2.67 56 Fortaleza (Br) -1.24 56 Puno (Pe) 2.64 57 Sucre (Bo) -1.28 57 Piura (Pe) 2.63 58 La Paz (Bo) -1.35 58 Fortaleza (Br) 2.50 59 Campo Grande (Br) -1.38 59 Londrina (Br) 2.50 60 Oruro (Bo) -1.41 60 Potosí (Bo) 2.40 61 Londrina (Br) -1.52 61 La Paz (Bo) 2.32 62 Chiclayo (Pe) -1.63 62 Ica (Pe) 2.25 63 Puno (Pe) -1.67 63 Oruro (Bo) 2.17 64 Piura (Pe) -1.76 64 Aracaju (Br) 2.14 65 Potosí (Bo) -1.89 65 Campo Grande (Br) 1.00 -2.50 0.00 2.50 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 86 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 3.1.2 3.1.3 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - CLARITY OF INFORMATION CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - ACCESSIBILITY OF INFORMATION Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, the clarity of the information provided by Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, the accessibility of information about the the municipality. process. 1= low, 5 = high 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Score Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Duque de Caxias (Br) 4.63 1 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 4.68 2 Choloma (Ho) 4.35 2 Duque de Caxias (Br) 4.63 3 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 4.29 3 Choloma (Ho) 4.58 4 Comayagua (Ho) 4.26 4 León (Ni) 4.33 5 Masaya (Ni) 4.15 5 Comayagua (Ho) 4.32 6 Vitória (Br) 4.10 6 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 4.14 7 Estelí (Ni) 4.00 7 Estelí (Ni) 4.04 8 Jinotega (Ni) 3.91 8 Masaya (Ni) 4.00 9 Manaus (Br) 3.82 9 Managua (Ni) 4.00 10 Managua (Ni) 3.80 10 Manaus (Br) 4.00 11 León (Ni) 3.73 11 Vitória (Br) 3.90 12 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 3.68 12 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 3.89 13 Teresina (Br) 3.67 13 Granada (Ni) 3.88 14 Curitiba (Br) 3.65 14 Ica (Pe) 3.88 15 Granada (Ni) 3.63 15 Rivas (Ni) 3.82 16 Choluteca (Ho) 3.62 16 Jinotega (Ni) 3.81 17 Maceió (Br) 3.57 17 Curitiba (Br) 3.76 18 Cochabamba (Bo) 3.50 18 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 3.72 19 Recife (Br) 3.50 19 Choluteca (Ho) 3.67 20 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 3.48 20 Recife (Br) 3.63 21 São Paulo (Br) 3.46 21 Huancayo (Pe) 3.63 22 Rivas (Ni) 3.45 22 São Luis (Br) 3.60 23 Guarulhos (Br) 3.44 23 Diadema (Br) 3.59 24 Porto Alegre (Br) 3.44 24 Chinandega (Ni) 3.57 25 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 3.43 25 Salvador (Br) 3.55 26 Diadema (Br) 3.41 26 São Paulo (Br) 3.51 27 Chinandega (Ni) 3.40 27 Cochabamba (Bo) 3.50 28 Ica (Pe) 3.38 28 Guarulhos (Br) 3.50 29 Salvador (Br) 3.36 29 El Progreso (Ho) 3.50 30 Trujillo (Pe) 3.33 30 Teresina (Br) 3.44 31 Callao (Pe) 3.25 31 Trujillo (Pe) 3.44 32 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 3.24 32 Belo Horizonte (Br) 3.33 33 São Luis (Br) 3.20 33 Cusco (Pe) 3.33 34 Quillacollo (Bo) 3.17 34 Porto Alegre (Br) 3.31 35 Lima (Pe) 3.14 35 Florianópolis (Br) 3.25 36 Sullana (Pe) 3.12 36 Cajamarca (Pe) 3.22 37 Santa Cruz (Bo) 3.11 37 Fortaleza (Br) 3.20 38 Campo Grande (Br) 3.10 38 Maceió (Br) 3.17 39 Belém (Br) 3.10 39 La Ceiba (Ho) 3.15 40 Florianópolis (Br) 3.10 40 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 3.14 41 Aracaju (Br) 3.09 41 Callao (Pe) 3.13 42 Matagalpa (Ni) 3.05 42 Joinville (Br) 3.12 43 Cusco (Pe) 3.00 43 Santa Cruz (Bo) 3.12 44 Cajamarca (Pe) 3.00 44 Matagalpa (Ni) 3.11 45 Joinville (Br) 2.96 45 Campo Grande (Br) 3.10 46 La Ceiba (Ho) 2.90 46 Sullana (Pe) 3.04 47 Fortaleza (Br) 2.90 47 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 3.00 48 Huancayo (Pe) 2.88 48 Quillacollo (Bo) 2.96 49 João Pessoa (Br) 2.83 49 Lima (Pe) 2.86 50 Oruro (Bo) 2.83 50 Tarija (Bo) 2.83 51 La Paz (Bo) 2.83 51 Belém (Br) 2.80 52 Tumbes (Pe) 2.82 52 Oruro (Bo) 2.79 53 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 2.79 53 João Pessoa (Br) 2.75 54 Belo Horizonte (Br) 2.78 54 El Alto (Bo) 2.73 55 Tarija (Bo) 2.75 55 Tumbes (Pe) 2.73 56 El Alto (Bo) 2.73 56 Aracaju (Br) 2.64 57 Londrina (Br) 2.60 57 Londrina (Br) 2.60 58 Cuiabá (Br) 2.50 58 La Paz (Bo) 2.57 59 Goiãnia (Br) 2.45 59 Puno (Pe) 2.53 60 Potosí (Bo) 2.38 60 Piura (Pe) 2.50 61 Sucre (Bo) 2.36 61 Cuiabá (Br) 2.50 62 Piura (Pe) 2.35 62 Sucre (Bo) 2.50 63 Puno (Pe) 2.29 63 Goiãnia (Br) 2.30 64 El Progreso (Ho) 2.16 64 Potosí (Bo) 2.25 65 Chiclayo (Pe) 2.10 65 Chiclayo (Pe) 2.10 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 87 3.1.4 3.1.5 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - CONSISTENCY OF PROCESS WITH CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - KNOWLEDGE OF INSPECTION CRITERIA INFORMATION Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how much information the municipality Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how consistent the information given to gives about the inspection before the process begins. business owners is with the real procedure. 1= low, 5 = high 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Score Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Comayagua (Ho) 4.58 1 Lima (Pe) 4.33 2 Duque de Caxias (Br) 4.50 2 Maceió (Br) 4.00 3 Curitiba (Br) 4.46 3 Comayagua (Ho) 3.73 4 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 4.43 4 Curitiba (Br) 3.73 5 Choloma (Ho) 4.32 5 Porto Alegre (Br) 3.73 6 Granada (Ni) 4.25 6 São Paulo (Br) 3.59 7 Estelí (Ni) 4.22 7 Belo Horizonte (Br) 3.50 8 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 4.14 8 Choloma (Ho) 3.44 9 Trujillo (Pe) 4.11 9 Salvador (Br) 3.43 10 Choluteca (Ho) 4.05 10 Vitória (Br) 3.13 11 Masaya (Ni) 4.00 11 Choluteca (Ho) 3.00 12 Lima (Pe) 4.00 12 São Luis (Br) 3.00 13 Managua (Ni) 3.92 13 Jinotega (Ni) 3.00 14 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 3.89 14 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 2.94 15 Salvador (Br) 3.86 15 Quillacollo (Bo) 2.90 16 Rivas (Ni) 3.82 16 Cochabamba (Bo) 2.89 17 Jinotega (Ni) 3.82 17 Rivas (Ni) 2.80 18 Belém (Br) 3.80 18 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 2.75 19 Aracaju (Br) 3.80 19 Duque de Caxias (Br) 2.75 20 La Ceiba (Ho) 3.75 20 Santa Cruz (Bo) 2.73 21 León (Ni) 3.73 21 Guarulhos (Br) 2.73 22 Maceió (Br) 3.67 22 Florianópolis (Br) 2.69 23 Chinandega (Ni) 3.53 23 Diadema (Br) 2.67 24 Sullana (Pe) 3.52 24 Tumbes (Pe) 2.67 25 Santa Cruz (Bo) 3.50 25 Joinville (Br) 2.62 26 Ica (Pe) 3.50 26 Sullana (Pe) 2.62 27 Cochabamba (Bo) 3.46 27 Estelí (Ni) 2.61 28 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 3.43 28 Aracaju (Br) 2.57 29 Teresina (Br) 3.40 29 Matagalpa (Ni) 2.53 30 Matagalpa (Ni) 3.37 30 Tarija (Bo) 2.53 31 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 3.36 31 Granada (Ni) 2.50 32 Cajamarca (Pe) 3.33 32 Ica (Pe) 2.50 33 Vitória (Br) 3.31 33 Cusco (Pe) 2.45 34 Callao (Pe) 3.29 34 Managua (Ni) 2.44 35 Huancayo (Pe) 3.25 35 Masaya (Ni) 2.33 36 Sucre (Bo) 3.21 36 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 2.33 37 Guarulhos (Br) 3.18 37 La Ceiba (Ho) 2.31 38 Tarija (Bo) 3.18 38 Manaus (Br) 2.29 39 Joinville (Br) 3.14 39 Huancayo (Pe) 2.25 40 Manaus (Br) 3.14 40 Puno (Pe) 2.21 41 Quillacollo (Bo) 3.13 41 Londrina (Br) 2.17 42 Diadema (Br) 3.08 42 Cuiabá (Br) 2.14 43 São Luis (Br) 3.00 43 León (Ni) 2.10 44 Campo Grande (Br) 3.00 44 Chinandega (Ni) 2.10 45 Chiclayo (Pe) 3.00 45 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 2.00 46 Florianópolis (Br) 2.88 46 Goiãnia (Br) 2.00 47 Goiãnia (Br) 2.86 47 Callao (Pe) 2.00 48 Porto Alegre (Br) 2.83 48 Trujillo (Pe) 2.00 49 El Alto (Bo) 2.82 49 Cajamarca (Pe) 2.00 50 La Paz (Bo) 2.78 50 Chiclayo (Pe) 2.00 51 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 2.76 51 El Alto (Bo) 1.94 52 Tumbes (Pe) 2.67 52 El Progreso (Ho) 1.94 53 Cusco (Pe) 2.62 53 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 1.89 54 Recife (Br) 2.60 54 Fortaleza (Br) 1.83 55 Potosí (Bo) 2.56 55 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 1.80 56 El Progreso (Ho) 2.53 56 Belém (Br) 1.75 57 São Paulo (Br) 2.52 57 Oruro (Bo) 1.68 58 João Pessoa (Br) 2.50 58 João Pessoa (Br) 1.63 59 Oruro (Bo) 2.38 59 Recife (Br) 1.60 60 Piura (Pe) 2.33 60 La Paz (Bo) 1.59 61 Cuiabá (Br) 2.33 61 Sucre (Bo) 1.40 62 Londrina (Br) 2.00 62 Campo Grande (Br) 1.33 63 Belo Horizonte (Br) 2.00 63 Piura (Pe) 1.31 64 Puno (Pe) 1.94 64 Potosí (Bo) 1.17 65 Fortaleza (Br) 1.83 65 Teresina (Br) 1.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 88 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 2 - Construction Permit Infrastructure 89 3.2 3.2.1 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - QUALITY OF FACILITIES Infrastructure Sub-index is a simple average of: Quality of Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how adequate the municipality's Facilities, Use of Information Technology and Customer Opinion infrastructure is for users in terms of signage and comfort. System. 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Index Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Curitiba (Br) 2.45 1 Comayagua (Ho) 4.21 2 Maceió (Br) 1.84 2 Choloma (Ho) 4.15 3 Joinville (Br) 1.56 3 Curitiba (Br) 4.12 4 Salvador (Br) 1.53 4 Guarulhos (Br) 3.93 5 Choluteca (Ho) 1.35 5 Salvador (Br) 3.64 6 Comayagua (Ho) 1.22 6 Maceió (Br) 3.57 7 Choloma (Ho) 1.21 7 Diadema (Br) 3.50 8 Florianópolis (Br) 1.12 8 Florianópolis (Br) 3.50 9 Campo Grande (Br) 1.03 9 Aracaju (Br) 3.45 10 Duque de Caxias (Br) 0.85 10 Joinville (Br) 3.44 11 Belém (Br) 0.85 11 Londrina (Br) 3.40 12 Manaus (Br) 0.76 12 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 3.39 13 Guarulhos (Br) 0.74 13 Masaya (Ni) 3.38 14 Belo Horizonte (Br) 0.73 14 Duque de Caxias (Br) 3.38 15 Estelí (Ni) 0.64 15 Manaus (Br) 3.36 16 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 0.61 16 Vitória (Br) 3.35 17 São Luis (Br) 0.58 17 Rivas (Ni) 3.27 18 Vitória (Br) 0.58 18 Granada (Ni) 3.25 19 João Pessoa (Br) 0.54 19 Teresina (Br) 3.22 20 Masaya (Ni) 0.52 20 Estelí (Ni) 3.17 21 Managua (Ni) 0.51 21 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 3.17 22 La Ceiba (Ho) 0.48 22 Belo Horizonte (Br) 3.11 23 Matagalpa (Ni) 0.47 23 La Ceiba (Ho) 3.11 24 Goiãnia (Br) 0.43 24 Belém (Br) 3.10 25 Teresina (Br) 0.36 25 Managua (Ni) 3.08 26 Rivas (Ni) 0.31 26 Campo Grande (Br) 3.00 27 Porto Alegre (Br) 0.30 27 João Pessoa (Br) 3.00 28 Granada (Ni) 0.30 28 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 3.00 29 Recife (Br) 0.28 29 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 3.00 30 Piura (Pe) 0.27 30 Choluteca (Ho) 2.95 31 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 0.20 31 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 2.92 32 Lima (Pe) 0.17 32 Porto Alegre (Br) 2.81 33 São Paulo (Br) 0.16 33 Sullana (Pe) 2.81 34 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 0.14 34 Cajamarca (Pe) 2.78 35 León (Ni) 0.09 35 Lima (Pe) 2.71 36 Cochabamba (Bo) 0.07 36 São Paulo (Br) 2.59 37 Callao (Pe) 0.01 37 Cuiabá (Br) 2.55 38 Sullana (Pe) 0.00 38 Fortaleza (Br) 2.50 39 Cajamarca (Pe) -0.01 39 Jinotega (Ni) 2.50 40 Diadema (Br) -0.01 40 Recife (Br) 2.50 41 Cusco (Pe) -0.07 41 Cusco (Pe) 2.41 42 Aracaju (Br) -0.09 42 São Luis (Br) 2.40 43 Londrina (Br) -0.16 43 Cochabamba (Bo) 2.38 44 Chinandega (Ni) -0.33 44 León (Ni) 2.36 45 Huancayo (Pe) -0.33 45 Matagalpa (Ni) 2.32 46 La Paz (Bo) -0.43 46 La Paz (Bo) 2.30 47 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) -0.53 47 Callao (Pe) 2.13 48 Potosí (Bo) -0.62 48 Goiãnia (Br) 2.13 49 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) -0.64 49 Trujillo (Pe) 2.11 50 Santa Cruz (Bo) -0.66 50 Ica (Pe) 2.00 51 Ica (Pe) -0.81 51 Santa Cruz (Bo) 1.94 52 Fortaleza (Br) -0.94 52 Puno (Pe) 1.82 53 Jinotega (Ni) -0.96 53 Tumbes (Pe) 1.82 54 Puno (Pe) -0.98 54 Tarija (Bo) 1.78 55 Sucre (Bo) -1.00 55 Huancayo (Pe) 1.75 56 Tegucigalpa (Ho) -1.15 56 Piura (Pe) 1.74 57 Cuiabá (Br) -1.15 57 El Alto (Bo) 1.73 58 El Alto (Bo) -1.42 58 Potosí (Bo) 1.69 59 Trujillo (Pe) -1.44 59 Quillacollo (Bo) 1.67 60 Tarija (Bo) -1.52 60 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 1.63 61 Oruro (Bo) -1.59 61 Chinandega (Ni) 1.60 62 El Progreso (Ho) -1.85 62 El Progreso (Ho) 1.42 63 Quillacollo (Bo) -2.04 63 Oruro (Bo) 1.42 64 Tumbes (Pe) -2.04 64 Sucre (Bo) 1.29 65 Chiclayo (Pe) -2.52 65 Chiclayo (Pe) 1.00 -3.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 90 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 3.2.2 3.2.3 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - CUSTOMER OPINION SYSTEM Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how much the use of information Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how much the municipality uses the technologies improves the municipality's efficiency. information gathered by the user opinion system to improve its 1= low, 5 = high systems. 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Score Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Choluteca (Ho) 4.80 1 Curitiba (Br) 4.00 2 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 4.75 2 Maceió (Br) 3.57 3 Campo Grande (Br) 4.50 3 Piura (Pe) 3.40 4 Comayagua (Ho) 4.50 4 Duque de Caxias (Br) 3.38 5 Salvador (Br) 4.50 5 Belém (Br) 3.29 6 Goiãnia (Br) 4.25 6 Joinville (Br) 3.27 7 João Pessoa (Br) 4.25 7 Belo Horizonte (Br) 3.14 8 Matagalpa (Ni) 4.25 8 São Luis (Br) 3.00 9 Chinandega (Ni) 4.00 9 Choluteca (Ho) 2.94 10 Choloma (Ho) 4.00 10 Salvador (Br) 2.78 11 Curitiba (Br) 4.00 11 São Paulo (Br) 2.76 12 Granada (Ni) 4.00 12 Florianópolis (Br) 2.70 13 Joinville (Br) 4.00 13 Callao (Pe) 2.67 14 Maceió (Br) 4.00 14 Lima (Pe) 2.67 15 Masaya (Ni) 4.00 15 Porto Alegre (Br) 2.64 16 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 4.00 16 Huancayo (Pe) 2.63 17 Cusco (Pe) 3.80 17 Campo Grande (Br) 2.60 18 Florianópolis (Br) 3.75 18 Goiãnia (Br) 2.60 19 Estelí (Ni) 3.67 19 Sullana (Pe) 2.60 20 Recife (Br) 3.67 20 Manaus (Br) 2.56 21 Cajamarca (Pe) 3.50 21 La Ceiba (Ho) 2.50 22 Cochabamba (Bo) 3.50 22 Matagalpa (Ni) 2.50 23 La Paz (Bo) 3.50 23 Teresina (Br) 2.50 24 Potosí (Bo) 3.50 24 Aracaju (Br) 2.45 25 São Luis (Br) 3.50 25 Managua (Ni) 2.44 26 Vitória (Br) 3.50 26 León (Ni) 2.40 27 León (Ni) 3.33 27 Recife (Br) 2.38 28 Managua (Ni) 3.25 28 Estelí (Ni) 2.33 29 Manaus (Br) 3.25 29 Guarulhos (Br) 2.29 30 Santa Cruz (Bo) 3.25 30 Cochabamba (Bo) 2.27 31 Sucre (Bo) 3.25 31 Diadema (Br) 2.27 32 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 3.20 32 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 2.21 33 Callao (Pe) 3.00 33 Vitória (Br) 2.17 34 La Ceiba (Ho) 3.00 34 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 2.14 35 Piura (Pe) 3.00 35 Choloma (Ho) 2.13 36 Puno (Pe) 3.00 36 Rivas (Ni) 2.11 37 Rivas (Ni) 3.00 37 Chinandega (Ni) 2.08 38 Guarulhos (Br) 2.80 38 Jinotega (Ni) 2.00 39 Huancayo (Pe) 2.75 39 João Pessoa (Br) 2.00 40 Porto Alegre (Br) 2.75 40 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 1.90 41 Ica (Pe) 2.67 41 Cusco (Pe) 1.86 42 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 2.67 42 Potosí (Bo) 1.85 43 Belém (Br) 2.60 43 Comayagua (Ho) 1.81 44 Belo Horizonte (Br) 2.50 44 Cajamarca (Pe) 1.80 45 Lima (Pe) 2.50 45 Masaya (Ni) 1.78 46 São Paulo (Br) 2.50 46 Sucre (Bo) 1.78 47 Teresina (Br) 2.50 47 Ica (Pe) 1.75 48 Cuiabá (Br) 2.25 48 Londrina (Br) 1.71 49 Londrina (Br) 2.25 49 Santa Cruz (Bo) 1.69 50 Duque de Caxias (Br) 2.00 50 Fortaleza (Br) 1.67 51 El Alto (Bo) 2.00 51 Tarija (Bo) 1.67 52 Oruro (Bo) 2.00 52 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 1.64 53 Sullana (Pe) 2.00 53 El Progreso (Ho) 1.63 54 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 1.75 54 La Paz (Bo) 1.59 55 Fortaleza (Br) 1.67 55 Granada (Ni) 1.57 56 Diadema (Br) 1.50 56 Trujillo (Pe) 1.50 57 Tarija (Bo) 1.25 57 Oruro (Bo) 1.47 58 Trujillo (Pe) 1.25 58 Puno (Pe) 1.47 59 Aracaju (Br) 1.00 59 El Alto (Bo) 1.45 60 Chiclayo (Pe) 1.00 60 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 1.29 61 El Progreso (Ho) 1.00 61 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 1.29 62 Jinotega (Ni) 1.00 62 Quillacollo (Bo) 1.13 63 Quillacollo (Bo) 1.00 63 Chiclayo (Pe) 1.00 64 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 1.00 64 Cuiabá (Br) 1.00 65 Tumbes (Pe) 1.00 65 Tumbes (Pe) 1.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 91 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 2 - Construction Permit Tools 93 3.3 3.3.1 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - TOOLS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - CONSTRUCTION CLASSIFICATION The Tools Sub-index is a simple average of: Construction Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how well the municipality's construction Classification, Use of Information Technology, Delegation of classification system works. Signing Authority, Zoning, Categorization of Construction Type, 1= low, 5 = high Internal Audits, External Audits and Private Sector Participation. Rank Municipality Country Index Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Masaya (Ni) 1.97 1 Aracaju (Br) 5.00 2 Choluteca (Ho) 1.90 2 Belém (Br) 5.00 3 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 1.85 3 Cajamarca (Pe) 5.00 4 Salvador (Br) 1.64 4 Callao (Pe) 5.00 5 Comayagua (Ho) 1.50 5 Campo Grande (Br) 5.00 6 Choloma (Ho) 1.44 6 Chinandega (Ni) 5.00 7 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 1.31 7 Choloma (Ho) 5.00 8 Curitiba (Br) 1.16 8 Choluteca (Ho) 5.00 9 Rivas (Ni) 1.14 9 Comayagua (Ho) 5.00 10 Chinandega (Ni) 1.12 10 Curitiba (Br) 5.00 11 Estelí (Ni) 1.08 11 Cusco (Pe) 5.00 12 Cochabamba (Bo) 0.95 12 Duque de Caxias (Br) 5.00 13 León (Ni) 0.89 13 El Progreso (Ho) 5.00 14 Granada (Ni) 0.86 14 Estelí (Ni) 5.00 15 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 0.80 15 Florianópolis (Br) 5.00 16 Callao (Pe) 0.80 16 Goiãnia (Br) 5.00 17 Campo Grande (Br) 0.75 17 Granada (Ni) 5.00 18 Matagalpa (Ni) 0.65 18 Ica (Pe) 5.00 19 La Ceiba (Ho) 0.52 19 Jinotega (Ni) 5.00 20 Goiãnia (Br) 0.51 20 João Pessoa (Br) 5.00 21 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 0.45 21 La Ceiba (Ho) 5.00 22 Lima (Pe) 0.39 22 León (Ni) 5.00 23 Belém (Br) 0.34 23 Londrina (Br) 5.00 24 Joinville (Br) 0.34 24 Managua (Ni) 5.00 25 Belo Horizonte (Br) 0.33 25 Masaya (Ni) 5.00 26 Managua (Ni) 0.29 26 Matagalpa (Ni) 5.00 27 Santa Cruz (Bo) 0.29 27 Piura (Pe) 5.00 28 Porto Alegre (Br) 0.23 28 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 5.00 29 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 0.20 29 Puno (Pe) 5.00 30 Maceió (Br) 0.18 30 Recife (Br) 5.00 31 Cusco (Pe) 0.15 31 Salvador (Br) 5.00 32 Florianópolis (Br) 0.07 32 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 5.00 33 Sullana (Pe) 0.06 33 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 5.00 34 Cajamarca (Pe) 0.01 34 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 5.00 35 Manaus (Br) -0.05 35 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 5.00 36 Duque de Caxias (Br) -0.22 36 Tumbes (Pe) 5.00 37 Guarulhos (Br) -0.24 37 Guarulhos (Br) 4.20 38 Cuiabá (Br) -0.28 38 Belo Horizonte (Br) 4.00 39 Trujillo (Pe) -0.29 39 Cochabamba (Bo) 4.00 40 Vitória (Br) -0.30 40 El Alto (Bo) 4.00 41 Sucre (Bo) -0.36 41 Fortaleza (Br) 4.00 42 Piura (Pe) -0.39 42 Huancayo (Pe) 4.00 43 Londrina (Br) -0.39 43 Joinville (Br) 4.00 44 La Paz (Bo) -0.41 44 La Paz (Bo) 4.00 45 El Alto (Bo) -0.45 45 Lima (Pe) 4.00 46 Potosí (Bo) -0.51 46 Manaus (Br) 4.00 47 João Pessoa (Br) -0.52 47 Porto Alegre (Br) 4.00 48 El Progreso (Ho) -0.53 48 Rivas (Ni) 4.00 49 Puno (Pe) -0.56 49 Santa Cruz (Bo) 4.00 50 Oruro (Bo) -0.61 50 Sullana (Pe) 4.00 51 São Paulo (Br) -0.70 51 Trujillo (Pe) 4.00 52 Recife (Br) -0.70 52 Chiclayo (Pe) 3.67 53 Jinotega (Ni) -0.96 53 São Paulo (Br) 3.40 54 São Luis (Br) -1.02 54 Cuiabá (Br) 3.00 55 Ica (Pe) -1.10 55 Oruro (Bo) 3.00 56 Teresina (Br) -1.11 56 Quillacollo (Bo) 3.00 57 Aracaju (Br) -1.13 57 Sucre (Bo) 3.00 58 Fortaleza (Br) -1.18 58 Tarija (Bo) 3.00 59 Diadema (Br) -1.18 59 Vitória (Br) 3.00 60 Huancayo (Pe) -1.27 60 Potosí (Bo) 2.00 61 Quillacollo (Bo) -1.74 61 Diadema (Br) 1.00 62 Tarija (Bo) -1.82 62 Maceió (Br) 1.00 63 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) -1.90 63 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 1.00 64 Tumbes (Pe) -1.92 64 São Luis (Br) 1.00 65 Chiclayo (Pe) -2.39 65 Teresina (Br) 1.00 -2.50 2.50 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 94 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 3.3.2 3.3.3 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - DELEGATION OF SIGNING AUTHORITY Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how much the use of information Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how the delegation of decision-making technologies improves the municipality's efficiency. authority cuts process time. 1= low, 5 = high 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Score Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Choluteca (Ho) 4.80 1 Callao (Pe) 5.00 2 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 4.75 2 Choluteca (Ho) 5.00 3 Campo Grande (Br) 4.50 3 Masaya (Ni) 5.00 4 Comayagua (Ho) 4.50 4 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 5.00 5 Salvador (Br) 4.50 5 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 5.00 6 Goiãnia (Br) 4.25 6 Belo Horizonte (Br) 4.75 7 João Pessoa (Br) 4.25 7 Porto Alegre (Br) 4.75 8 Matagalpa (Ni) 4.25 8 Trujillo (Pe) 4.75 9 Chinandega (Ni) 4.00 9 Cajamarca (Pe) 4.50 10 Choloma (Ho) 4.00 10 Choloma (Ho) 4.50 11 Curitiba (Br) 4.00 11 Comayagua (Ho) 4.50 12 Granada (Ni) 4.00 12 Diadema (Br) 4.50 13 Joinville (Br) 4.00 13 La Ceiba (Ho) 4.50 14 Maceió (Br) 4.00 14 León (Ni) 4.50 15 Masaya (Ni) 4.00 15 Oruro (Bo) 4.50 16 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 4.00 16 Salvador (Br) 4.50 17 Cusco (Pe) 3.80 17 Curitiba (Br) 4.33 18 Florianópolis (Br) 3.75 18 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 4.33 19 Estelí (Ni) 3.67 19 Chinandega (Ni) 4.25 20 Recife (Br) 3.67 20 Cuiabá (Br) 4.25 21 Cajamarca (Pe) 3.50 21 Goiãnia (Br) 4.25 22 Cochabamba (Bo) 3.50 22 Maceió (Br) 4.25 23 La Paz (Bo) 3.50 23 Matagalpa (Ni) 4.25 24 Potosí (Bo) 3.50 24 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 4.20 25 São Luis (Br) 3.50 25 Rivas (Ni) 4.00 26 Vitória (Br) 3.50 26 Lima (Pe) 3.75 27 León (Ni) 3.33 27 Sullana (Pe) 3.75 28 Managua (Ni) 3.25 28 Estelí (Ni) 3.67 29 Manaus (Br) 3.25 29 Duque de Caxias (Br) 3.50 30 Santa Cruz (Bo) 3.25 30 Granada (Ni) 3.50 31 Sucre (Bo) 3.25 31 Managua (Ni) 3.50 32 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 3.20 32 Manaus (Br) 3.50 33 Callao (Pe) 3.00 33 Belém (Br) 3.40 34 La Ceiba (Ho) 3.00 34 Guarulhos (Br) 3.40 35 Piura (Pe) 3.00 35 Cochabamba (Bo) 3.25 36 Puno (Pe) 3.00 36 Piura (Pe) 3.25 37 Rivas (Ni) 3.00 37 Potosí (Bo) 3.25 38 Guarulhos (Br) 2.80 38 Teresina (Br) 3.25 39 Huancayo (Pe) 2.75 39 Londrina (Br) 3.00 40 Porto Alegre (Br) 2.75 40 Sucre (Bo) 3.00 41 Ica (Pe) 2.67 41 Cusco (Pe) 2.80 42 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 2.67 42 Florianópolis (Br) 2.75 43 Belém (Br) 2.60 43 Jinotega (Ni) 2.75 44 Belo Horizonte (Br) 2.50 44 Santa Cruz (Bo) 2.75 45 Lima (Pe) 2.50 45 Vitória (Br) 2.75 46 São Paulo (Br) 2.50 46 Campo Grande (Br) 2.50 47 Teresina (Br) 2.50 47 El Alto (Bo) 2.50 48 Cuiabá (Br) 2.25 48 El Progreso (Ho) 2.50 49 Londrina (Br) 2.25 49 Joinville (Br) 2.50 50 Duque de Caxias (Br) 2.00 50 São Luis (Br) 2.33 51 El Alto (Bo) 2.00 51 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 2.25 52 Oruro (Bo) 2.00 52 La Paz (Bo) 2.00 53 Sullana (Pe) 2.00 53 Puno (Pe) 2.00 54 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 1.75 54 São Paulo (Br) 2.00 55 Fortaleza (Br) 1.67 55 Aracaju (Br) 1.75 56 Diadema (Br) 1.50 56 Tarija (Bo) 1.75 57 Tarija (Bo) 1.25 57 Chiclayo (Pe) 1.33 58 Trujillo (Pe) 1.25 58 Quillacollo (Bo) 1.25 59 Aracaju (Br) 1.00 59 Fortaleza (Br) 1.00 60 Chiclayo (Pe) 1.00 60 Huancayo (Pe) 1.00 61 El Progreso (Ho) 1.00 61 Ica (Pe) 1.00 62 Jinotega (Ni) 1.00 62 João Pessoa (Br) 1.00 63 Quillacollo (Bo) 1.00 63 Recife (Br) 1.00 64 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 1.00 64 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 1.00 65 Tumbes (Pe) 1.00 65 Tumbes (Pe) 1.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 95 3.3.4 3.3.5 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - ZONING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - CATEGORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION TYPE Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how clear the municipality's zoning plan is. 1= low, 5 = high Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how adequate (useful, modern and adjusted to reality) the classification system is. 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Score Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Belém (Br) 4.43 1 Rivas (Ni) 4.30 2 Campo Grande (Br) 4.25 2 Comayagua (Ho) 4.17 3 Maceió (Br) 4.20 3 Choloma (Ho) 4.00 4 Rivas (Ni) 4.18 4 Maceió (Br) 4.00 5 Comayagua (Ho) 4.17 5 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 3.94 6 Curitiba (Br) 4.06 6 Aracaju (Br) 3.91 7 Lima (Pe) 4.00 7 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 3.82 8 Londrina (Br) 4.00 8 Estelí (Ni) 3.72 9 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 4.00 9 Curitiba (Br) 3.67 10 Choloma (Ho) 3.93 10 Duque de Caxias (Br) 3.57 11 Estelí (Ni) 3.91 11 Managua (Ni) 3.48 12 Teresina (Br) 3.88 12 Masaya (Ni) 3.46 13 Porto Alegre (Br) 3.80 13 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 3.43 14 Cochabamba (Bo) 3.75 14 São Luis (Br) 3.40 15 Duque de Caxias (Br) 3.71 15 Belém (Br) 3.38 16 Salvador (Br) 3.67 16 Granada (Ni) 3.38 17 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 3.54 17 Callao (Pe) 3.33 18 Granada (Ni) 3.50 18 León (Ni) 3.33 19 Masaya (Ni) 3.50 19 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 3.30 20 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 3.45 20 Ica (Pe) 3.29 21 Trujillo (Pe) 3.43 21 Choluteca (Ho) 3.23 22 Sullana (Pe) 3.42 22 Cochabamba (Bo) 3.21 23 Managua (Ni) 3.42 23 La Ceiba (Ho) 3.17 24 Guarulhos (Br) 3.40 24 Chinandega (Ni) 3.15 25 João Pessoa (Br) 3.40 25 Lima (Pe) 3.14 26 Choluteca (Ho) 3.38 26 Porto Alegre (Br) 3.13 27 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 3.37 27 Belo Horizonte (Br) 3.13 28 Santa Cruz (Bo) 3.31 28 Salvador (Br) 3.11 29 Belo Horizonte (Br) 3.22 29 Jinotega (Ni) 3.11 30 La Ceiba (Ho) 3.22 30 Campo Grande (Br) 3.10 31 Cuiabá (Br) 3.20 31 Matagalpa (Ni) 3.07 32 Jinotega (Ni) 3.20 32 Santa Cruz (Bo) 3.06 33 São Luis (Br) 3.20 33 Joinville (Br) 3.04 34 Joinville (Br) 3.17 34 Manaus (Br) 3.00 35 Matagalpa (Ni) 3.16 35 Sullana (Pe) 3.00 36 Huancayo (Pe) 3.13 36 Trujillo (Pe) 3.00 37 Recife (Br) 3.13 37 Vitória (Br) 2.94 38 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 3.12 38 Fortaleza (Br) 2.89 39 Goiãnia (Br) 3.10 39 Diadema (Br) 2.88 40 Vitória (Br) 3.07 40 Londrina (Br) 2.86 41 Diadema (Br) 3.06 41 São Paulo (Br) 2.86 42 Fortaleza (Br) 3.00 42 Quillacollo (Bo) 2.85 43 Florianópolis (Br) 2.94 43 Goiãnia (Br) 2.70 44 Potosí (Bo) 2.92 44 Teresina (Br) 2.67 45 Aracaju (Br) 2.91 45 Guarulhos (Br) 2.53 46 São Paulo (Br) 2.86 46 Recife (Br) 2.50 47 León (Ni) 2.79 47 João Pessoa (Br) 2.45 48 Tarija (Bo) 2.76 48 Oruro (Bo) 2.45 49 Cusco (Pe) 2.74 49 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 2.40 50 Quillacollo (Bo) 2.68 50 Huancayo (Pe) 2.38 51 Chinandega (Ni) 2.67 51 El Progreso (Ho) 2.37 52 Manaus (Br) 2.67 52 Puno (Pe) 2.35 53 El Alto (Bo) 2.64 53 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 2.33 54 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 2.57 54 La Paz (Bo) 2.30 55 Oruro (Bo) 2.50 55 Cusco (Pe) 2.25 56 Callao (Pe) 2.40 56 Tumbes (Pe) 2.22 57 La Paz (Bo) 2.39 57 Florianópolis (Br) 2.19 58 Puno (Pe) 2.29 58 Cuiabá (Br) 2.18 59 Ica (Pe) 2.25 59 Cajamarca (Pe) 2.13 60 Tumbes (Pe) 2.00 60 El Alto (Bo) 2.09 61 Cajamarca (Pe) 1.86 61 Potosí (Bo) 2.08 62 Piura (Pe) 1.85 62 Tarija (Bo) 2.00 63 El Progreso (Ho) 1.74 63 Piura (Pe) 1.78 64 Chiclayo (Pe) 1.67 64 Sucre (Bo) 1.64 65 Sucre (Bo) 1.57 65 Chiclayo (Pe) 1.20 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 96 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 3.3.6 3.3.7 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - INTERNAL AUDITS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - EXTERNAL AUDITS Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, the frequency and thoroughness of internals Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, the frequency and thoroughness of external audits. audits. 1= low, 5 = high 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Score Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Choluteca (Ho) 4.80 1 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 3.75 2 Cochabamba (Bo) 4.75 2 Masaya (Ni) 3.50 3 El Alto (Bo) 4.50 3 El Progreso (Ho) 3.25 4 Salvador (Br) 4.50 4 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 3.00 5 Chinandega (Ni) 4.00 5 Sucre (Bo) 3.00 6 Joinville (Br) 4.00 6 Sullana (Pe) 3.00 7 La Paz (Bo) 4.00 7 Rivas (Ni) 2.75 8 León (Ni) 4.00 8 Callao (Pe) 2.50 9 Masaya (Ni) 4.00 9 Choloma (Ho) 2.50 10 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 4.00 10 Cochabamba (Bo) 2.33 11 Cusco (Pe) 3.80 11 Santa Cruz (Bo) 2.33 12 Cuiabá (Br) 3.75 12 La Ceiba (Ho) 2.25 13 Estelí (Ni) 3.67 13 Campo Grande (Br) 2.00 14 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 3.50 14 Chinandega (Ni) 2.00 15 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 3.50 15 Choluteca (Ho) 2.00 16 Comayagua (Ho) 3.33 16 Lima (Pe) 2.00 17 Curitiba (Br) 3.33 17 Salvador (Br) 2.00 18 El Progreso (Ho) 3.25 18 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 2.00 19 Piura (Pe) 3.25 19 El Alto (Bo) 1.75 20 São Paulo (Br) 3.25 20 Florianópolis (Br) 1.75 21 Lima (Pe) 3.00 21 Granada (Ni) 1.75 22 Puno (Pe) 3.00 22 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 1.75 23 Rivas (Ni) 3.00 23 Estelí (Ni) 1.67 24 Santa Cruz (Bo) 3.00 24 Fortaleza (Br) 1.67 25 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 3.00 25 Belo Horizonte (Br) 1.50 26 Sucre (Bo) 3.00 26 Cajamarca (Pe) 1.50 27 Belo Horizonte (Br) 2.75 27 Joinville (Br) 1.50 28 Granada (Ni) 2.75 28 León (Ni) 1.50 29 Manaus (Br) 2.75 29 Potosí (Bo) 1.50 30 Belém (Br) 2.60 30 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 1.50 31 Potosí (Bo) 2.50 31 Vitória (Br) 1.33 32 Vitória (Br) 2.50 32 São Paulo (Br) 1.19 33 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 2.33 33 Aracaju (Br) 1.00 34 Florianópolis (Br) 2.25 34 Belém (Br) 1.00 35 Oruro (Bo) 2.25 35 Chiclayo (Pe) 1.00 36 Quillacollo (Bo) 2.25 36 Comayagua (Ho) 1.00 37 Guarulhos (Br) 2.20 37 Cuiabá (Br) 1.00 38 Callao (Pe) 2.00 38 Curitiba (Br) 1.00 39 Campo Grande (Br) 2.00 39 Cusco (Pe) 1.00 40 Choloma (Ho) 2.00 40 Diadema (Br) 1.00 41 Fortaleza (Br) 2.00 41 Duque de Caxias (Br) 1.00 42 Managua (Ni) 2.00 42 Goiãnia (Br) 1.00 43 Matagalpa (Ni) 2.00 43 Guarulhos (Br) 1.00 44 Trujillo (Pe) 2.00 44 Huancayo (Pe) 1.00 45 Goiãnia (Br) 1.75 45 Ica (Pe) 1.00 46 Maceió (Br) 1.75 46 Jinotega (Ni) 1.00 47 Porto Alegre (Br) 1.75 47 João Pessoa (Br) 1.00 48 Tarija (Bo) 1.50 48 La Paz (Bo) 1.00 49 Recife (Br) 1.33 49 Londrina (Br) 1.00 50 Cajamarca (Pe) 1.25 50 Maceió (Br) 1.00 51 Huancayo (Pe) 1.25 51 Managua (Ni) 1.00 52 Sullana (Pe) 1.25 52 Manaus (Br) 1.00 53 Aracaju (Br) 1.00 53 Matagalpa (Ni) 1.00 54 Chiclayo (Pe) 1.00 54 Oruro (Bo) 1.00 55 Diadema (Br) 1.00 55 Piura (Pe) 1.00 56 Duque de Caxias (Br) 1.00 56 Porto Alegre (Br) 1.00 57 Ica (Pe) 1.00 57 Puno (Pe) 1.00 58 Jinotega (Ni) 1.00 58 Quillacollo (Bo) 1.00 59 João Pessoa (Br) 1.00 59 Recife (Br) 1.00 60 La Ceiba (Ho) 1.00 60 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 1.00 61 Londrina (Br) 1.00 61 São Luis (Br) 1.00 62 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 1.00 62 Tarija (Bo) 1.00 63 São Luis (Br) 1.00 63 Teresina (Br) 1.00 64 Teresina (Br) 1.00 64 Trujillo (Pe) 1.00 65 Tumbes (Pe) 1.00 65 Tumbes (Pe) 1.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 97 3.3.8 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, the private sector's involvement in projects to improve process efficiency. 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Belo Horizonte (Br) 5.00 2 Comayagua (Ho) 5.00 3 Cuiabá (Br) 5.00 4 Curitiba (Br) 5.00 5 Duque de Caxias (Br) 5.00 6 Estelí (Ni) 5.00 7 Goiãnia (Br) 5.00 8 Huancayo (Pe) 5.00 9 Joinville (Br) 5.00 10 La Ceiba (Ho) 5.00 11 León (Ni) 5.00 12 Lima (Pe) 5.00 13 Londrina (Br) 5.00 14 Masaya (Ni) 5.00 15 Matagalpa (Ni) 5.00 16 Porto Alegre (Br) 5.00 17 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 5.00 18 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 5.00 19 Teresina (Br) 5.00 20 Vitória (Br) 5.00 21 El Progreso (Ho) 4.00 22 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 4.00 23 Aracaju (Br) 3.78 24 Campo Grande (Br) 3.78 25 Diadema (Br) 3.78 26 Maceió (Br) 3.78 27 São Luis (Br) 3.78 28 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 3.76 29 Belém (Br) 3.00 30 Choloma (Ho) 3.00 31 Choluteca (Ho) 3.00 32 Florianópolis (Br) 3.00 33 Piura (Pe) 3.00 34 Rivas (Ni) 3.00 35 Salvador (Br) 3.00 36 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 3.00 37 Guarulhos (Br) 2.60 38 Jinotega (Ni) 2.33 39 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 2.33 40 Cajamarca (Pe) 2.27 41 Ica (Pe) 2.27 42 Puno (Pe) 2.27 43 Chinandega (Ni) 2.00 44 Sullana (Pe) 2.00 45 Callao (Pe) 1.00 46 Chiclayo (Pe) 1.00 47 Cochabamba (Bo) 1.00 48 Cusco (Pe) 1.00 49 El Alto (Bo) 1.00 50 Fortaleza (Br) 1.00 51 Granada (Ni) 1.00 52 João Pessoa (Br) 1.00 53 La Paz (Bo) 1.00 54 Managua (Ni) 1.00 55 Manaus (Br) 1.00 56 Oruro (Bo) 1.00 57 Potosí (Bo) 1.00 58 Quillacollo (Bo) 1.00 59 Recife (Br) 1.00 60 Santa Cruz (Bo) 1.00 61 São Paulo (Br) 1.00 62 Sucre (Bo) 1.00 63 Tarija (Bo) 1.00 64 Trujillo (Pe) 1.00 65 Tumbes (Pe) 1.00 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 98 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 2 - Construction Permit Inspections 99 3.4 3.4.1 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - INSPECTIONS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS Inspections Sub-index a simple average of: Number of Inspections, Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, the total number of inspections conducted of Reasonable Inspections, Transparency of Inspections. a business's installation by municipal inspectors. 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Index Rank Municipality Country Number 1 Maceió (Br) 1.83 1 Aracaju (Br) 1 2 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 1.56 2 Campo Grande (Br) 1 3 Estelí (Ni) 1.55 3 Choluteca (Ho) 1 4 Comayagua (Ho) 1.48 4 Cuiabá (Br) 1 5 Choluteca (Ho) 1.44 5 Estelí (Ni) 1 6 São Luis (Br) 1.34 6 Florianópolis (Br) 1 7 Cochabamba (Bo) 1.25 7 João Pessoa (Br) 1 8 Callao (Pe) 1.10 8 León (Ni) 1 9 Curitiba (Br) 1.06 9 Managua (Ni) 1 10 Choloma (Ho) 1.01 10 São Luis (Br) 1 11 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 0.96 11 Sucre (Bo) 1 12 Campo Grande (Br) 0.94 12 Belo Horizonte (Br) 2 13 Jinotega (Ni) 0.93 13 Cajamarca (Pe) 2 14 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 0.92 14 Callao (Pe) 2 15 Salvador (Br) 0.89 15 Chiclayo (Pe) 2 16 Belém (Br) 0.87 16 Choloma (Ho) 2 17 Goiãnia (Br) 0.82 17 Cochabamba (Bo) 2 18 Vitória (Br) 0.79 18 Comayagua (Ho) 2 19 Diadema (Br) 0.79 19 Cusco (Pe) 2 20 Chinandega (Ni) 0.65 20 Diadema (Br) 2 21 Granada (Ni) 0.63 21 Duque de Caxias (Br) 2 22 Guarulhos (Br) 0.57 22 El Progreso (Ho) 2 23 Matagalpa (Ni) 0.54 23 Goiãnia (Br) 2 24 Managua (Ni) 0.54 24 Guarulhos (Br) 2 25 Florianópolis (Br) 0.52 25 Huancayo (Pe) 2 26 Belo Horizonte (Br) 0.37 26 Ica (Pe) 2 27 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 0.32 27 Jinotega (Ni) 2 28 Manaus (Br) 0.24 28 Joinville (Br) 2 29 João Pessoa (Br) 0.22 29 La Ceiba (Ho) 2 30 León (Ni) 0.17 30 Lima (Pe) 2 31 Aracaju (Br) 0.10 31 Londrina (Br) 2 32 Joinville (Br) 0.10 32 Maceió (Br) 2 33 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 0.07 33 Manaus (Br) 2 34 Trujillo (Pe) -0.01 34 Masaya (Ni) 2 35 Londrina (Br) -0.11 35 Matagalpa (Ni) 2 36 Masaya (Ni) -0.11 36 Piura (Pe) 2 37 Porto Alegre (Br) -0.26 37 Porto Alegre (Br) 2 38 La Ceiba (Ho) -0.28 38 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 2 39 Rivas (Ni) -0.30 39 Quillacollo (Bo) 2 40 Quillacollo (Bo) -0.30 40 Salvador (Br) 2 41 Puno (Pe) -0.30 41 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 2 42 Duque de Caxias (Br) -0.36 42 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 2 43 Santa Cruz (Bo) -0.36 43 Santa Cruz (Bo) 2 44 Huancayo (Pe) -0.38 44 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 2 45 Tumbes (Pe) -0.40 45 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 2 46 Tarija (Bo) -0.48 46 São Paulo (Br) 2 47 Cusco (Pe) -0.49 47 Sullana (Pe) 2 48 Ica (Pe) -0.49 48 Tarija (Bo) 2 49 Cuiabá (Br) -0.52 49 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 2 50 San Juan del Sur (Ni) -0.54 50 Teresina (Br) 2 51 Cajamarca (Pe) -0.67 51 Trujillo (Pe) 2 52 São Paulo (Br) -0.83 52 Vitória (Br) 2 53 Teresina (Br) -0.83 53 Belém (Br) 3 54 Sullana (Pe) -0.89 54 Chinandega (Ni) 3 55 Recife (Br) -1.05 55 Curitiba (Br) 3 56 El Progreso (Ho) -1.17 56 El Alto (Bo) 3 57 Potosí (Bo) -1.19 57 Fortaleza (Br) 3 58 Lima (Pe) -1.34 58 La Paz (Bo) 3 59 El Alto (Bo) -1.49 59 Oruro (Bo) 3 60 Sucre (Bo) -1.52 60 Potosí (Bo) 3 61 Chiclayo (Pe) -1.60 61 Puno (Pe) 3 62 Oruro (Bo) -1.66 62 Recife (Br) 3 63 La Paz (Bo) -1.77 63 Rivas (Ni) 3 64 Fortaleza (Br) -2.17 64 Tumbes (Pe) 3 65 Piura (Pe) -2.68 65 Granada (Ni) 4 -3.00 0.00 3.00 0 5 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 100 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 3.4.2 3.4.3 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - REASONABLE INSPECTIONS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - TRANSPARENCY OF INSPECTIONS Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how reasonable the inspections process is. Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how transparent and objective the 1= low, 5 = high inspections are. 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Score Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Maceió (Br) 4.33 1 Maceió (Br) 4.67 2 Estelí (Ni) 4.22 2 Comayagua (Ho) 4.53 3 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 4.21 3 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 4.42 4 Campo Grande (Br) 4.17 4 Choluteca (Ho) 4.23 5 Goiãnia (Br) 4.14 5 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 4.22 6 Curitiba (Br) 4.13 6 Choloma (Ho) 4.21 7 Cochabamba (Bo) 4.05 7 Cochabamba (Bo) 4.15 8 Belém (Br) 4.00 8 Curitiba (Br) 4.13 9 Callao (Pe) 4.00 9 Estelí (Ni) 4.06 10 Comayagua (Ho) 4.00 10 Belém (Br) 4.00 11 Cuiabá (Br) 4.00 11 Callao (Pe) 4.00 12 Granada (Ni) 4.00 12 Granada (Ni) 4.00 13 São Luis (Br) 4.00 13 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 4.00 14 Choluteca (Ho) 3.92 14 São Luis (Br) 4.00 15 Salvador (Br) 3.86 15 Jinotega (Ni) 3.94 16 Jinotega (Ni) 3.82 16 Diadema (Br) 3.92 17 Vitória (Br) 3.82 17 Chinandega (Ni) 3.90 18 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 3.81 18 Manaus (Br) 3.86 19 Chinandega (Ni) 3.80 19 Matagalpa (Ni) 3.86 20 Choloma (Ho) 3.69 20 Salvador (Br) 3.86 21 Diadema (Br) 3.67 21 Managua (Ni) 3.78 22 Guarulhos (Br) 3.64 22 Vitória (Br) 3.75 23 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 3.56 23 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 3.67 24 Florianópolis (Br) 3.53 24 Guarulhos (Br) 3.64 25 Belo Horizonte (Br) 3.50 25 Belo Horizonte (Br) 3.50 26 Aracaju (Br) 3.43 26 João Pessoa (Br) 3.50 27 Matagalpa (Ni) 3.40 27 Puno (Pe) 3.50 28 Londrina (Br) 3.33 28 Trujillo (Pe) 3.50 29 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 3.28 29 Porto Alegre (Br) 3.44 30 Joinville (Br) 3.24 30 Goiãnia (Br) 3.43 31 Masaya (Ni) 3.22 31 Rivas (Ni) 3.43 32 Ica (Pe) 3.20 32 Joinville (Br) 3.40 33 León (Ni) 3.20 33 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 3.40 34 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 3.20 34 Florianópolis (Br) 3.33 35 Managua (Ni) 3.16 35 La Ceiba (Ho) 3.27 36 Tumbes (Pe) 3.13 36 Campo Grande (Br) 3.25 37 Tarija (Bo) 3.06 37 Huancayo (Pe) 3.25 38 Duque de Caxias (Br) 3.00 38 Quillacollo (Bo) 3.25 39 João Pessoa (Br) 3.00 39 León (Ni) 3.20 40 Manaus (Br) 3.00 40 Cusco (Pe) 3.19 41 Rivas (Ni) 3.00 41 Tumbes (Pe) 3.14 42 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 3.00 42 Masaya (Ni) 3.11 43 Santa Cruz (Bo) 3.00 43 São Paulo (Br) 3.04 44 Trujillo (Pe) 3.00 44 Cajamarca (Pe) 3.00 45 Puno (Pe) 2.93 45 Duque de Caxias (Br) 3.00 46 La Ceiba (Ho) 2.87 46 Londrina (Br) 3.00 47 Quillacollo (Bo) 2.85 47 Santa Cruz (Bo) 3.00 48 Huancayo (Pe) 2.75 48 Aracaju (Br) 2.86 49 Teresina (Br) 2.75 49 Recife (Br) 2.80 50 Porto Alegre (Br) 2.73 50 Tarija (Bo) 2.76 51 El Progreso (Ho) 2.69 51 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 2.75 52 Cusco (Pe) 2.67 52 Potosí (Bo) 2.70 53 Sullana (Pe) 2.63 53 Sullana (Pe) 2.65 54 Cajamarca (Pe) 2.60 54 Ica (Pe) 2.60 55 Recife (Br) 2.60 55 Teresina (Br) 2.60 56 Potosí (Bo) 2.50 56 El Alto (Bo) 2.33 57 El Alto (Bo) 2.44 57 Lima (Pe) 2.33 58 Oruro (Bo) 2.35 58 La Paz (Bo) 2.29 59 São Paulo (Br) 2.35 59 Sucre (Bo) 2.22 60 Lima (Pe) 2.33 60 Oruro (Bo) 2.20 61 Fortaleza (Br) 2.17 61 El Progreso (Ho) 2.19 62 Chiclayo (Pe) 2.14 62 Chiclayo (Pe) 2.17 63 La Paz (Bo) 2.12 63 Piura (Pe) 1.81 64 Sucre (Bo) 1.90 64 Fortaleza (Br) 1.67 65 Piura (Pe) 1.06 65 Cuiabá (Br) 1.33 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 101 102 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 2 - Construction Permit Training 103 3.5 3.5.1 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - TRAINING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - PROCESS TRAINING Training Sub-index is a simple average of: Process Training, Customer Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how well the municipal employees have been Service Training, and Availability of Manuals. trained in the process. 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Index Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Masaya (Ni) 2.12 1 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 4.75 2 Comayagua (Ho) 1.99 2 Masaya (Ni) 4.50 3 Choluteca (Ho) 1.93 3 Cochabamba (Bo) 4.25 4 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 1.63 4 Choluteca (Ho) 4.20 5 Estelí (Ni) 1.55 5 Florianópolis (Br) 4.00 6 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 1.52 6 Chinandega (Ni) 3.75 7 Chinandega (Ni) 1.47 7 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 3.75 8 São Paulo (Br) 1.46 8 São Paulo (Br) 3.75 9 Cochabamba (Bo) 1.38 9 Vitória (Br) 3.75 10 Choloma (Ho) 1.24 10 Estelí (Ni) 3.67 11 Rivas (Ni) 1.07 11 Belo Horizonte (Br) 3.50 12 Belo Horizonte (Br) 1.00 12 Comayagua (Ho) 3.50 13 Cusco (Pe) 0.84 13 Curitiba (Br) 3.33 14 Curitiba (Br) 0.81 14 Choloma (Ho) 3.25 15 Granada (Ni) 0.78 15 Cusco (Pe) 3.20 16 Vitória (Br) 0.75 16 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 3.20 17 Florianópolis (Br) 0.74 17 Callao (Pe) 3.00 18 Belém (Br) 0.70 18 El Progreso (Ho) 3.00 19 Goiãnia (Br) 0.66 19 Goiãnia (Br) 3.00 20 León (Ni) 0.60 20 Granada (Ni) 3.00 21 Salvador (Br) 0.51 21 León (Ni) 3.00 22 Jinotega (Ni) 0.46 22 Rivas (Ni) 3.00 23 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 0.40 23 Sucre (Bo) 2.75 24 Managua (Ni) 0.20 24 Joinville (Br) 2.50 25 Diadema (Br) 0.14 25 La Paz (Bo) 2.50 26 Santa Cruz (Bo) 0.11 26 Manaus (Br) 2.50 27 Campo Grande (Br) 0.08 27 Cajamarca (Pe) 2.25 28 Manaus (Br) 0.07 28 Campo Grande (Br) 2.25 29 La Ceiba (Ho) 0.02 29 El Alto (Bo) 2.25 30 El Progreso (Ho) -0.05 30 Fortaleza (Br) 2.25 31 El Alto (Bo) -0.08 31 Piura (Pe) 2.25 32 Matagalpa (Ni) -0.08 32 Tarija (Bo) 2.25 33 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) -0.12 33 Trujillo (Pe) 2.25 34 Cuiabá (Br) -0.15 34 Belém (Br) 2.20 35 San Juan del Sur (Ni) -0.20 35 Guarulhos (Br) 2.20 36 Trujillo (Pe) -0.24 36 Cuiabá (Br) 2.00 37 Porto Alegre (Br) -0.27 37 Duque de Caxias (Br) 2.00 38 Guarulhos (Br) -0.28 38 Huancayo (Pe) 2.00 39 La Paz (Bo) -0.28 39 Ica (Pe) 2.00 40 Joinville (Br) -0.29 40 Oruro (Bo) 2.00 41 Lima (Pe) -0.31 41 Porto Alegre (Br) 2.00 42 Maceió (Br) -0.38 42 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 2.00 43 Londrina (Br) -0.38 43 Santa Cruz (Bo) 2.00 44 Quillacollo (Bo) -0.43 44 São Luis (Br) 2.00 45 Callao (Pe) -0.44 45 Jinotega (Ni) 1.75 46 Duque de Caxias (Br) -0.52 46 Lima (Pe) 1.75 47 Tarija (Bo) -0.63 47 Londrina (Br) 1.75 48 São Luis (Br) -0.64 48 Maceió (Br) 1.75 49 Oruro (Bo) -0.64 49 Potosí (Bo) 1.75 50 Potosí (Bo) -0.69 50 Sullana (Pe) 1.75 51 Sullana (Pe) -0.72 51 Puno (Pe) 1.67 52 Puno (Pe) -0.73 52 Managua (Ni) 1.50 53 Piura (Pe) -0.85 53 Aracaju (Br) 1.00 54 Sucre (Bo) -0.90 54 Chiclayo (Pe) 1.00 55 Tumbes (Pe) -1.10 55 Diadema (Br) 1.00 56 Ica (Pe) -1.13 56 João Pessoa (Br) 1.00 57 Cajamarca (Pe) -1.17 57 La Ceiba (Ho) 1.00 58 Huancayo (Pe) -1.25 58 Matagalpa (Ni) 1.00 59 Fortaleza (Br) -1.26 59 Quillacollo (Bo) 1.00 60 Recife (Br) -1.53 60 Recife (Br) 1.00 61 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) -1.57 61 Salvador (Br) 1.00 62 Teresina (Br) -1.57 62 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 1.00 63 Aracaju (Br) -1.69 63 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 1.00 64 Chiclayo (Pe) -1.69 64 Teresina (Br) 1.00 65 João Pessoa (Br) -1.94 65 Tumbes (Pe) 1.00 -2.50 0.00 2.50 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 104 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 3.5.2 3.5.3 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - CUSTOMER SERVICE TRAINING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT - AVAILABILITY OF MANUALS Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, how well the municipal employees have Rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, the availability of process manuals. been trained in customer service. 1= low, 5 = high 1= low, 5 = high Rank Municipality Country Score Rank Municipality Country Score 1 Comayagua (Ho) 4.53 1 Choluteca (Ho) 5.00 2 Diadema (Br) 4.50 2 Estelí (Ni) 5.00 3 São Paulo (Br) 4.50 3 Granada (Ni) 5.00 4 Salvador (Br) 4.00 4 Masaya (Ni) 5.00 5 Chinandega (Ni) 3.73 5 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 5.00 6 Choloma (Ho) 3.71 6 Cusco (Pe) 4.80 7 Masaya (Ni) 3.62 7 Comayagua (Ho) 4.75 8 Belém (Br) 3.60 8 Cuiabá (Br) 4.75 9 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 3.58 9 Rivas (Ni) 4.75 10 Choluteca (Ho) 3.50 10 Curitiba (Br) 4.67 11 Cochabamba (Bo) 3.33 11 Campo Grande (Br) 4.50 12 Sullana (Pe) 3.32 12 Jinotega (Ni) 4.50 13 Jinotega (Ni) 3.23 13 La Ceiba (Ho) 4.50 14 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 3.21 14 Matagalpa (Ni) 4.50 15 Estelí (Ni) 3.21 15 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 4.50 16 Managua (Ni) 3.16 16 Salvador (Br) 4.50 17 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 3.14 17 Santa Cruz (Bo) 4.50 18 Rivas (Ni) 3.09 18 Vitória (Br) 4.50 19 Belo Horizonte (Br) 3.00 19 Belo Horizonte (Br) 4.25 20 La Ceiba (Ho) 3.00 20 Chinandega (Ni) 4.25 21 León (Ni) 2.87 21 Choloma (Ho) 4.25 22 Matagalpa (Ni) 2.79 22 El Alto (Bo) 4.25 23 Goiãnia (Br) 2.75 23 Goiãnia (Br) 4.25 24 Manaus (Br) 2.50 24 Maceió (Br) 4.25 25 Cajamarca (Pe) 2.44 25 Managua (Ni) 4.25 26 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 2.39 26 Porto Alegre (Br) 4.25 27 Cusco (Pe) 2.38 27 Quillacollo (Bo) 4.25 28 Curitiba (Br) 2.33 28 Belém (Br) 4.20 29 Quillacollo (Bo) 2.33 29 Cochabamba (Bo) 4.00 30 Trujillo (Pe) 2.33 30 Florianópolis (Br) 4.00 31 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 2.29 31 Joinville (Br) 4.00 32 Santa Cruz (Bo) 2.28 32 León (Ni) 4.00 33 Callao (Pe) 2.25 33 Lima (Pe) 4.00 34 Florianópolis (Br) 2.25 34 Londrina (Br) 4.00 35 Fortaleza (Br) 2.25 35 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 4.00 36 Granada (Ni) 2.25 36 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 4.00 37 Ica (Pe) 2.25 37 Duque de Caxias (Br) 3.75 38 Guarulhos (Br) 2.20 38 La Paz (Bo) 3.75 39 Lima (Pe) 2.14 39 Manaus (Br) 3.75 40 El Progreso (Ho) 2.05 40 Potosí (Bo) 3.75 41 Tarija (Bo) 2.04 41 Puno (Pe) 3.67 42 Campo Grande (Br) 2.00 42 Tumbes (Pe) 3.67 43 Londrina (Br) 2.00 43 Guarulhos (Br) 3.60 44 São Luis (Br) 2.00 44 El Progreso (Ho) 3.50 45 Vitória (Br) 2.00 45 Oruro (Bo) 3.50 46 El Alto (Bo) 1.91 46 Trujillo (Pe) 3.50 47 Sucre (Bo) 1.79 47 São Paulo (Br) 3.45 48 La Paz (Bo) 1.77 48 Recife (Br) 3.33 49 Duque de Caxias (Br) 1.75 49 Diadema (Br) 3.25 50 Maceió (Br) 1.75 50 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 3.25 51 Porto Alegre (Br) 1.75 51 São Luis (Br) 3.25 52 Oruro (Bo) 1.74 52 Teresina (Br) 3.25 53 Puno (Pe) 1.71 53 Aracaju (Br) 3.00 54 Potosí (Bo) 1.63 54 Piura (Pe) 3.00 55 Piura (Pe) 1.60 55 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 3.00 56 Tumbes (Pe) 1.55 56 Tarija (Bo) 3.00 57 Cuiabá (Br) 1.50 57 Chiclayo (Pe) 2.67 58 Huancayo (Pe) 1.50 58 Callao (Pe) 2.50 59 Joinville (Br) 1.50 59 Huancayo (Pe) 2.50 60 Chiclayo (Pe) 1.33 60 João Pessoa (Br) 2.50 61 Aracaju (Br) 1.00 61 Sucre (Bo) 2.25 62 João Pessoa (Br) 1.00 62 Ica (Pe) 2.00 63 Recife (Br) 1.00 63 Sullana (Pe) 2.00 64 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 1.00 64 Cajamarca (Pe) 1.50 65 Teresina (Br) 1.00 65 Fortaleza (Br) 1.50 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 105 TABLE A.3 Construction Permit Performance Index and Sub-indices Number of Rejections Rank Municipality Country Performance Index Time Sub-index Cost Sub-index Visits Sub-index Sub-index 1 Comayagua (Ho) 0.77 1.01 0.66 0.44 0.95 2 Matagalpa (Ni) 0.76 0.96 0.63 0.44 1.01 3 Jinotega (Ni) 0.76 0.98 0.61 0.67 0.77 4 León (Ni) 0.72 0.97 0.78 0.67 0.46 5 Piura (Pe) 0.69 0.82 0.80 0.67 0.46 6 Masaya (Ni) 0.68 0.98 0.59 0.67 0.48 7 Rivas (Ni) 0.66 1.02 0.73 0.44 0.46 8 Estelí (Ni) 0.65 1.02 0.34 0.67 0.58 9 Chinandega (Ni) 0.60 1.01 0.48 0.44 0.46 10 La Paz (Bo) 0.59 0.92 0.65 0.44 0.34 11 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 0.58 0.88 0.40 0.44 0.62 12 Managua (Ni) 0.57 0.94 0.71 0.67 -0.06 13 La Ceiba (Ho) 0.56 0.64 0.70 0.44 0.46 14 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 0.55 0.64 0.57 0.22 0.77 15 Choluteca (Ho) 0.54 1.00 -0.02 0.67 0.50 16 Recife (Br) 0.52 0.21 0.86 -0.01 1.01 17 Choloma (Ho) 0.48 0.90 0.72 0.44 -0.15 18 São Luis (Br) 0.46 0.74 0.14 0.44 0.52 19 Sucre (Bo) 0.44 -0.13 0.84 0.44 0.62 20 Vitória (Br) 0.41 0.66 0.06 0.44 0.46 21 Joinville (Br) 0.40 0.60 0.15 0.22 0.62 22 Londrina (Br) 0.38 0.26 0.34 0.44 0.46 23 Duque de Caxias (Br) 0.37 0.58 0.30 0.44 0.16 24 Cuiabá (Br) 0.36 0.25 0.52 0.22 0.46 25 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 0.35 0.20 -0.02 0.44 0.77 26 Campo Grande (Br) 0.31 0.25 0.45 0.22 0.31 27 Sullana (Pe) 0.30 0.77 -0.08 0.67 -0.15 28 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) 0.27 0.18 -0.37 0.67 0.62 29 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 0.25 1.00 -1.38 0.89 0.48 30 El Progreso (Ho) 0.24 0.81 -0.76 0.44 0.46 31 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 0.19 0.20 0.18 0.22 0.16 32 Guarulhos (Br) 0.19 -0.32 -0.14 0.44 0.77 33 Curitiba (Br) 0.16 -0.35 0.09 0.44 0.46 34 João Pessoa (Br) 0.11 -0.15 -0.17 -0.01 0.77 35 São Paulo (Br) 0.11 -0.16 0.30 0.44 -0.15 36 Cochabamba (Bo) 0.07 0.64 0.80 -0.68 -0.46 37 Santa Cruz (Bo) 0.05 0.61 0.50 0.44 -1.37 38 Diadema (Br) 0.04 -0.56 0.64 0.22 -0.15 39 El Alto (Bo) -0.02 -0.31 -0.06 -0.01 0.31 40 Belo Horizonte (Br) -0.02 -0.12 -0.11 -0.01 0.16 41 Quillacollo (Bo) -0.03 0.24 0.57 -0.46 -0.46 42 Trujillo (Pe) -0.06 0.10 0.04 -0.23 -0.15 43 Fortaleza (Br) -0.08 -0.92 -0.15 -0.01 0.77 44 Maceió (Br) -0.12 -0.20 -0.11 -0.23 0.05 45 Salvador (Br) -0.12 -0.12 -0.06 0.44 -0.76 46 Chiclayo (Pe) -0.19 0.04 -0.08 0.67 -1.37 47 Callao (Pe) -0.23 -0.73 0.25 -0.46 0.00 48 Cusco (Pe) -0.24 0.02 0.06 -0.91 -0.15 49 Tumbes (Pe) -0.27 -0.67 -1.18 -0.01 0.77 50 Belém (Br) -0.33 -0.36 -1.71 0.44 0.31 51 Aracaju (Br) -0.37 -0.38 -0.26 -0.68 -0.15 52 Manaus (Br) -0.39 -0.54 -0.20 -0.68 -0.15 53 Goiãnia (Br) -0.40 -1.85 -0.27 -0.01 0.52 54 Tarija (Bo) -0.45 0.28 0.44 -1.13 -1.37 55 Florianópolis (Br) -0.79 -0.95 0.41 0.44 -3.06 56 Teresina (Br) -0.86 -0.16 -4.26 0.22 0.77 57 Puno (Pe) -1.01 -0.42 -0.61 -2.26 -0.76 58 Huancayo (Pe) -1.05 -3.58 0.35 -0.23 -0.76 59 Ica (Pe) -1.07 -0.99 0.13 -0.23 -3.21 60 Granada (Ni) -1.15 0.19 -5.16 0.22 0.16 61 Porto Alegre (Br) -1.21 -1.57 0.72 -0.46 -3.52 62 Cajamarca (Pe) -1.27 -1.16 -0.50 -0.23 -3.21 63 Potosí (Bo) -1.28 -1.36 -0.38 -3.38 0.00 64 Lima (Pe) -1.35 -3.97 -0.15 -1.13 -0.15 65 Oruro (Bo) -1.76 -1.48 -0.36 -5.64 0.46 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 106 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TABLE A.4 Construction Permit Process Index and Sub-indices Information Infrastructure Tools Inspections Training Rank Municipality Country Process Index Sub-index Sub-index Sub-index Sub-index Sub-index 1 Comayagua (Ho) 1.20 1.94 1.22 1.50 1.48 1.99 2 Choluteca (Ho) 1.02 0.94 1.35 1.90 1.44 1.93 3 Puerto Cortés (Ho) 1.00 1.57 0.61 1.85 1.56 1.52 4 Choloma (Ho) 0.94 2.16 1.21 1.44 1.01 1.24 5 Estelí (Ni) 0.94 1.29 0.64 1.08 1.55 1.55 6 Masaya (Ni) 0.91 1.19 0.52 1.97 -0.11 2.12 7 Curitiba (Br) 0.75 1.21 2.45 1.16 1.06 0.81 8 Chinandega (Ni) 0.64 0.51 -0.33 1.12 0.65 1.47 9 León (Ni) 0.64 1.03 0.09 0.89 0.17 0.60 10 Rivas (Ni) 0.62 0.70 0.31 1.14 -0.30 1.07 11 Matagalpa (Ni) 0.54 0.02 0.47 0.65 0.54 -0.08 12 Managua (Ni) 0.54 0.99 0.51 0.29 0.54 0.20 13 Vitória (Br) 0.49 1.06 0.58 -0.30 0.79 0.75 14 Salvador (Br) 0.48 0.82 1.53 1.64 0.89 0.51 15 Cochabamba (Bo) 0.45 0.49 0.07 0.95 1.25 1.38 16 Jinotega (Ni) 0.43 1.04 -0.96 -0.96 0.93 0.46 17 Maceió (Br) 0.38 0.94 1.84 0.18 1.83 -0.38 18 La Ceiba (Ho) 0.36 0.04 0.48 0.52 -0.28 0.02 19 Santa Rosa de Copán (Ho) 0.35 0.67 -0.53 0.80 0.96 -0.12 20 Duque de Caxias (Br) 0.35 1.85 0.85 -0.22 -0.36 -0.52 21 Tegucigalpa (Ho) 0.34 0.03 -1.15 1.31 0.07 0.40 22 Joinville (Br) 0.33 -0.42 1.56 0.34 0.10 -0.29 23 Campo Grande (Br) 0.30 -1.38 1.03 0.75 0.94 0.08 24 São Luis (Br) 0.29 0.33 0.58 -1.02 1.34 -0.64 25 San Pedro Sula (Ho) 0.29 -0.68 0.20 0.45 0.32 1.63 26 San Juan del Sur (Ni) 0.26 1.71 0.14 0.20 -0.54 -0.20 27 Guarulhos (Br) 0.21 0.37 0.74 -0.24 0.57 -0.28 28 Belo Horizonte (Br) 0.19 -0.44 0.73 0.33 0.37 1.00 29 São Paulo (Br) 0.11 0.42 0.16 -0.70 -0.83 1.46 30 Belém (Br) 0.09 -0.26 0.85 0.34 0.87 0.70 31 Diadema (Br) 0.00 0.04 -0.01 -1.18 0.79 0.14 32 Callao (Pe) -0.01 -0.35 0.01 0.80 1.10 -0.44 33 Sullana (Pe) -0.02 -0.21 0.00 0.06 -0.89 -0.72 34 Manaus (Br) -0.03 0.64 0.76 -0.05 0.24 0.07 35 Santa Cruz (Bo) -0.04 0.05 -0.66 0.29 -0.36 0.11 36 Recife (Br) -0.04 0.04 0.28 -0.70 -1.05 -1.53 37 Londrina (Br) -0.07 -1.52 -0.16 -0.39 -0.11 -0.38 38 Goiãnia (Br) -0.07 -1.13 0.43 0.51 0.82 0.66 39 Cusco (Pe) -0.12 -0.43 -0.07 0.15 -0.49 0.84 40 La Paz (Bo) -0.13 -1.35 -0.43 -0.41 -1.77 -0.28 41 Cuiabá (Br) -0.14 -1.11 -1.15 -0.28 -0.52 -0.15 42 Florianópolis (Br) -0.16 -0.07 1.12 0.07 0.52 0.74 43 Trujillo (Pe) -0.18 0.47 -1.44 -0.29 -0.01 -0.24 44 São Bernardo do Campo (Br) -0.18 -0.03 -0.64 -1.90 0.92 -1.57 45 Piura (Pe) -0.20 -1.76 0.27 -0.39 -2.68 -0.85 46 João Pessoa (Br) -0.22 -1.08 0.54 -0.52 0.22 -1.94 47 Granada (Ni) -0.23 0.89 0.30 0.86 0.63 0.78 48 Sucre (Bo) -0.28 -1.28 -1.00 -0.36 -1.52 -0.90 49 El Progreso (Ho) -0.33 -0.89 -1.85 -0.53 -1.17 -0.05 50 El Alto (Bo) -0.45 -1.01 -1.42 -0.45 -1.49 -0.08 51 Quillacollo (Bo) -0.48 -0.19 -2.04 -1.74 -0.30 -0.43 52 Aracaju (Br) -0.53 -0.60 -0.09 -1.13 0.10 -1.69 53 Porto Alegre (Br) -0.57 0.35 0.30 0.23 -0.26 -0.27 54 Fortaleza (Br) -0.72 -1.24 -0.94 -1.18 -2.17 -1.26 55 Tarija (Bo) -0.74 -0.75 -1.52 -1.82 -0.48 -0.63 56 Teresina (Br) -0.75 -0.02 0.36 -1.11 -0.83 -1.57 57 Lima (Pe) -0.75 0.35 0.17 0.39 -1.34 -0.31 58 Tumbes (Pe) -0.77 -0.86 -2.04 -1.92 -0.40 -1.10 59 Huancayo (Pe) -0.85 -0.01 -0.33 -1.27 -0.38 -1.25 60 Cajamarca (Pe) -0.87 -0.48 -0.01 0.01 -0.67 -1.17 61 Ica (Pe) -0.89 0.02 -0.81 -1.10 -0.49 -1.13 62 Puno (Pe) -0.93 -1.67 -0.98 -0.56 -0.30 -0.73 63 Chiclayo (Pe) -1.08 -1.63 -2.52 -2.39 -1.60 -1.69 64 Potosí (Bo) -1.13 -1.89 -0.62 -0.51 -1.19 -0.69 65 Oruro (Bo) -1.47 -1.41 -1.59 -0.61 -1.66 -0.64 Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 107 REFORMED MUNICIPALITIES 1.0 INDICE DE LICENCIA DE FUNCIONAMIENTO El índice de funcionamiento de la licencia se compone de 1/2 del índice de proceso y de 1/2 del índice del funcionamiento 3 - Reformed Municipalities 109 REFORMED MUNICIPALITIES TABLE A.5 Reformed Municipalities Reforms conducted prior to 2006 Reforms conducted during 2006 Municipality Simplified Process Concluded In Progress Concluded In Progress Cochabamba (Bo) Operating License Construction Permit El Alto (Bo) Operating License Construction Permit La Paz (Bo) Operating License Construction Permit Oruro (Bo) Operating License Construction Permit Potosí (Bo) Operating License Construction Permit Quillacollo (Bo) Operating License Construction Permit Santa Cruz (Bo) Operating License Construction Permit Sucre (Bo) Operating License Construction Permit Tarija (Bo) Operating License Construction Permit Curitiba (Br) Operating License Construction Permit Joinville (Br) Operating License Construction Permit São Paulo (Br) Operating License Construction Permit Choluteca (Ho) Operating License Construction Permit Comayagua (Ho) Operating License Construction Permit San Pedro Sula (Ho) Operating License Construction Permit Tegucigalpa (Ho) Operating License Construction Permit Chinandega (Ni) Operating License Construction Permit Estelí (Ni) Operating License Construction Permit Granada (Ni) Operating License Construction Permit León (Ni) Operating License Construction Permit Managua (Ni) Operating License Construction Permit Masaya (Ni) Operating License Construction Permit Matagalpa (Ni) Operating License Construction Permit Rivas (Ni) Operating License Construction Permit San Juan del Sur (Ni) Operating License Construction Permit Cajamarca (Pe) Operating License Construction Permit Chiclayo (Pe) Operating License Construction Permit Ica (Pe) Operating License Construction Permit Lima (Pe) Operating License Construction Permit Piura (Pe) Operating License Construction Permit Sullana (Pe) Operating License Construction Permit Fuente: Municipalidad Scorecard 2007 111 METHODOLOGY 4 - Methodology 113 METHODOLOGY Methodology Introduction T his section describes the methodology of the Municipal tested for significance. Second, factor analysis was used. Factor Scorecard. The Scorecard identifies how the performance of analysis is a statistical technique used to estimate factors or latent municipal governments affects the business climate and variables or to reduce the dimensionality of a large number of entrepreneurship in municipalities. The Scorecard seeks to variables to a fewer group of factors. It is a "non-dependent" estimate the bureaucratic burdens in terms of performance and procedure, that is, it does not assume a dependent variable is process (See Table A.6). It identifies the variables that have more specified.18 Third, the team contrasted theory and the results of or less impact on these administrative burdens. And, it helps previous IFC studies to obtain a consistent set of variables and construct an integrated and simple tool to measure efficiency in integrate them within explanatory components. different municipalities. 1) Performance Variables The Municipal Scorecard measured the efficiency of two municipal procedures: a) Operating Licenses and b) The performance variables are used to measure municipal Construction Permits. These procedures serve as important bureaucracy. Table A.6 lists the performance variables. measures of municipal administrative performance and the Performance variables are hard data, standardized into an index municipality's impact on the local business environment. for the Scorecard results. The team constructed a performance- ranking index based on the rank for each variable. Together, they Regulatory and administrative burdens can adversely affect a explain municipal government performance. country's business climate and have particular impact on small and medium businesses. To reduce these burdens, it is important Total Process Time to analyze possible deficiencies at the municipal level, given that, This variable measures the total time, in days, to complete the in Latin America and the Caribbean, most of the bottlenecks can application process. The information comes from business be found here. Once this analysis is completed, we can identify owners' responses. Total process time is estimated as the areas for improvement and push for changes in the policy and difference between the starting and ending dates of the whole regulatory framework. process as indicated by owners. The team calculated medians for each municipality and normalized the data.19 Conceptual Outline Total Cost of the Process This variable is an estimate of the sum of fees and municipal The Municipal Scorecard is based on two groups of variables: taxes paid by the business owner to fulfill the necessary 1) performance variables and 2) process variables. The requirements to complete the procedure. It includes only official information was collected through surveys of business owners payments made to the municipality, not those made to other and municipal employees. national institutions. This estimate does not include professional service fees (lawyers, notaries, other employees, copies, etc.). The The Municipal Scorecard chose performance and process information comes from business owners, who reported the total variables for the Scorecard construction based on three criteria. costs in local currency. The local currency was transformed to US First, the team computed general correlations for all variables and dollars and expressed as a percentage of local (or regional) GDP 115 per capita. This indicator offers a more accurate estimate of Complexity of Application Forms procedure costs based on the local level of income. The team This variable captures the business owners' qualitative calculated medians for each municipality and normalized the data. evaluation of the complexity of application. The business owner first indicates whether or not the forms were easy to Total Number of Visits fill out. If affirmative, the business owner rated the variable This variable refers to the total number of visits made by the on a scale from 1-to-5. business owner to the municipality during the process. The number of visits is expected to increase when process management Clarity of Information is less efficient. The information comes from municipal This variable measures, on a 1-to-5 scale, the clarity of the employees and business owners. The team identified a systematic information provided by the municipal government. The bias from both groups: municipal employees assigned higher business owners and municipal employees first indicated scores, while business owners generally gave lower scores. Given whether or not the municipality provided clear information. that sample sizes are not equal, the median was calculated by If affirmative, the business owners and municipal employees using all of the answer pool without considering whether rated the variable on a scale from 1-5. responses came from municipal employees or business owners. The team calculated medians for each municipality and Accessibility of Information normalized the data. This variable measures the accessibility of information about the process. The business owners and municipal Rejections employees first indicated if information was accessible or not. This variable is the percentage of the whole application pool If affirmative, the business owners and municipal employees that corresponds to requests that were rejected during the rated the variable on a scale from 1-5. previous year. The information comes from official municipal estimates. This indicator serves as a proxy for municipal process Consistency of Process with Information quality and assumes both an efficient management process and Based on business owners' answers, this variable measures the business owners' adequate understanding of requirements. the consistency between the real procedure process and what The team calculated medians for each municipality and information is given to business owners. The business owner normalized the data. first indicates whether or not consistency exists. If affirmative, the business owner rated the variable on a scale from 1-to-5. 2) Process Variables Knowledge of Inspection Criteria This variable evaluates the level of business owners' Performance variables are outcome indicators. They offer a previous knowledge about the inspections process and general idea of performance. However, in some cases, a good score criteria. The business owners first indicated whether or not could be a sign of lower standards and more lenient procedures at the they had prior knowledge of the inspection process. If municipal government offices. For this reason, the team included affirmative, they rated the variable on a scale of 1-5. process variables to create a clearer picture of the impact of different aspects of municipal management on final performance. Quality of Facilities This variable evaluates the adequacy (in terms of signage Table A.7 and Table A.8 lists the process variables. In both cases, and comfort) of the municipality's infrastructure for users. groups of variables are used to construct Sub-indices, which are The business owners and municipal employees first indicated integrated into a general process-ranking index as described later. if the facilities were adequate or not. If affirmative, they rated Process variables describe key elements of management and efficiency the variable on a 1-to-5 scale. at the municipal level. Respondents evaluated aspects related to the aforementioned elements by answering a series of questions using a Use of Information Technology scale of 1-5. This variable rates the use of information technologies at the municipality. Municipal employees first indicated Municipal employees and business owners were asked to respond to whether or not information technologies existed and if the some of the same questions. Following an analysis of the results, the same produced improvements in efficiency. If affirmative, the Municipal Scorecard identified a systematic bias between the groups.To municipal employees scored this variable on a 1-to-5 scale. In avoid additional biases, the team used the simple average of both the ranking, this variable is measured once and taken into responses to compute the variable average score for each municipality. account in both the Tools and Infrastructure Sub-indices.21 For variable information obtained exclusively from either municipal employees or business owners, simple averages were used to compute Customer Opinion System scores. This measures the quality of the mechanisms used by municipalities to gather user opinions. A formal system may include a survey, suggestion box, or other tools to collect user 116 METHODOLOGY opinions. The business owners and municipal employees first averages and transformed the answers to a 1-to-5 scale. indicated whether or not a system existed. If affirmative, they rated a variable on a scale of 1-5. Reasonable Inspections This variable evaluates the level of business owners' Industry Classification22 conformity with the inspections process. The business owner This variable rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, the municipality's first indicates whether or not conformity exists. If affirmative, industry classification system. The score is based on answers the business owner rated the variable on a scale from 1-to-5. from municipal employees. Transparency of Inspections Delegation of Signing Authority This variable captures the perception of business owners This variable rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, the delegation of of the transparency and objectivity of inspections. The decision-making authority to municipal employees in charge business owner first indicates whether or not the inspections of the different process steps. It indicates whether junior level were transparent. If affirmative, the business owner rated the employees can make decisions and direct approvals without variable on a scale from 1-to-5. the control or intervention of more senior employees at the municipality. The score is based on answers from municipal Process Training employees. This assesses, on a 1-to-5 scale, the training available for municipal employees to improve processes and correctly use tools. Zoning The score is based on answers from municipal employees. This variable evaluates, on a 1-to-5 scale, the availability and accuracy of the municipality's zoning plan. The plan Customer Service Training should establish the activities permitted in each zone. The This variable assesses customer service training on a 1-to-5 score is based on answers from municipal employees and scale. The score is based on answers from municipal employees. business owners. Availability of Manuals Categorization of Economic Activities23 This variable assesses, on a 1-to-5 scale, the municipality's This variable refers to the use of well-known classification procedures and process requirements. It measures the clarity systems (useful, modern and adjusted to reality) for economic of the available information and determines whether or not activities. The score is based on answers from municipal municipal employees are familiar with the procedures and employees and business owners. requirements. Verification of this variable involves determining if clear procedural manuals are available to Internal Audits pertinent employees. The score is based on answers from This variable rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, the municipality's municipal employees. internal audit of the inspections process. The score is calculated by using responses provided by municipal employees. Ranking Structure External Audits This variable rates, on a 1-to-5 scale, the external audits The Municipal Scorecard consists of three components (See of the process by an independent organization hired by the Figure A.1 and Figure A.2): municipality. The score is derived from responses given by · Total Index (Operating License Index or Construction Permit Index) municipal employees and does not include responses from · Process Index business owners. · Performance Index Private Sector Participation This variable measures, on a scale of 1-to-5, the private Operating License sector's level of involvement in actions or initiatives aimed at improving process efficiency in municipal government The Operating License Index is composed of 1/2 of the offices. The results serve as a proxy of the government's Process Index score and 1/2 of the Performance Index: accountability to the private sector and the sustainability of Operating License Index = 1/2 x Process Index + 1/2 x reforms. The score is based on answers from municipal employees. Performance Index (1.1) Number of Inspections The Performance Index is constructed with the four This variable refers to the total number of inspections variables, Time, Cost, Number of Visits, and Rejections. conducted of a business's installation by municipal Each variable score has equal weight in the Performance Index: inspectors. The score is based on answers from municipal Performance Index = 1/4 x Time + 1/4 x Cost + 1/4 x Number employees and business owners. The team computed simple of Visits + 1/4 x Rejections (1.2) 117 The Process Index is composed of five Sub-indices: Each Sub-index has equal weight in the Process Index. Information, Infrastructure, Tools, Inspections, and Training. Process Index = 1/5 x Information + 1/5 x Infrastructure + 1/5 x Each Sub-index has equal weight in the Process Index. Tools + 1/5 x Inspections + 1/5 x Training (2.3) Process Index = 1/5 x Information + 1/5 x Infrastructure + 1/5 x Tools + 1/5 x Inspections + 1/5 x Training (1.3) As shown in Figure A.2, each Sub-index is composed of a group of explanatory variables; calculated through factor As shown in Figure A.1, each Sub-index is composed of a components analysis. The relationships are: group of explanatory variables; calculated through factor 1. Information = (Complexity of Application Forms, Clarity of components analysis. The relationships are: Information, Accessibility of Information, Consistency of Process 1. Information = (Complexity of Application Forms, Clarity of with Information and Knowledge of Inspection Criteria) (2.4) Information, Accessibility of Information, Consistency of Process 2. Infrastructure = (Quality of Facilities, Use of Information with Information and Knowledge of Inspection Criteria) (1.4) Technology, Customer Opinion System) (2.5) 2. Infrastructure = (Quality of Facilities, Use of Information 3. Tools = (Construction Classification, Delegation of Signing Technology, Customer Opinion System) (1.5) authority, Zoning, Monitoring and Evaluation, Use of 3. Tools = (Industry Classification, Delegation of Signing Information Technology) (2.6) authority, Zoning, Monitoring and Evaluation, Use of a. Planning and Zoning = (Zoning, Categorization of Information Technology) (1.6) Construction Type) (2.7) a. Planning and Zoning = (Zoning, Categorization of b. Monitoring and Evaluation = (Internal Audits, Economic Activities) (1.7) External Audits, Private Sector Participation) (2.8) b. Monitoring and Evaluation = (Internal Audits, 4. Inspections = µ (Number of Inspections, Reasonable Inspections, External Audits, Private Sector Participation) (1.8) Transparency of Inspections) (2.9) 4. Inspections = µ (Number of Inspections, Reasonable Inspections, 5. Training = (Process Training, Customer Service Training, Transparency of Inspections) (1.9) Availability of Manuals) (2.10) 5. Training = (Process Training, Customer Service Training, Availability of Manuals) (1.10) As mentioned in the case of Operating License, the correlated variables are grouped into explanatory components, named after The main purpose of factor components analysis is to reduce their similarities or correspondence with a single factor. A data and group variables that explain the same concept. The regression line is fitted to represent the "best" summary of the correlated variables are grouped into explanatory components, linear relationship between the variables. Information technology named after their similarities or correspondence with a single is part of two different Sub-indices because of its factor. A regression line is fitted to represent the "best" summary significance for both. of the linear relationship between the variables. The resulting indicator captures most of the "essence" of the variables into one Data Management factor. The resulting factor is the weighted average of all scaled variables xi for every municipality, where: xi = (xi ­µi) /i. Data management for the construction of the Municipal Single scores on that new factor, represented by the regression Scorecard followed a systematic process. The Municipal Scorecard line, represent the substance of the variables. Each factor is a line- surveyed municipal employees and business owners in selected ar combination of the indicated variables. Information techno- municipalities (as administrators and users respectively) of the logy is part of two different Sub-indices because of its significan- Operating License and Construction Permit processes. The ce for both. results from each group were analyzed separately. Construction Permit To obtain the final results for each municipality, the team The Construction Permit Index is composed of 1/2 of the calculated each variable as a simple average of the results obtained Process Index score and 1/2 of the Performance Index: for the business owners and the municipal employees. Construction Permit Index = 1/2 x Process Index + 1/2 x Performance Index (2.1) The information on qualitative variables was obtained through one question that determined the applicability of a The Performance Index is constructed with the four specific component. The answer was either YES or NO. In the variables, Time, Cost, Number of Visits, and Rejections. Each case of a YES answer, the respondent was asked to rate the variable score has equal weight in the Performance Index: variable on a scale from 1 (the lowest) to 5 (the highest, or best). Performance Index = 1/4 x Time + 1/4 x Cost + 1/4 x Number of Visits + 1/4 x Rejections (2.2) The answers from both groups of respondents had the same weight for score estimations. Differences in the number of The Process Index is composed of five Sub-indices: variable responses from both groups were not considered. Information, Infrastructure, Tools, Inspections, and Training. Therefore, simple averages were used. 118 METHODOLOGY Positive answers ("YES") with no scale evaluation were given The most important criterion in the selection process was a "3" score. In closed questions (YES/NO), negative answers political will. Although IFC invited most of the main ("NO") were given a "1" score (equivalent to "very bad"). Municipalities to participate, some chose not to get involved. Yes/No closed responses were treated as YES=5 and NO=1. Criteria 1: Population served The "no" versus "very bad" dilemma was not considered, so that both responses could be considered equal. When computing the For the methodology to work, municipalities with a scores and rankings, missing values were replaced with the minimum size had to be identified. Considering this, the first country average score, where applicable. parameter for the selection of the municipal sample was the population inhabiting the municipal area of jurisdiction (the Information collection tools population of the municipality needed to be at least 0.5 percent The survey team used two instruments to collect qualitative of the country's total population). This approach was taken to and quantitative information about the diverse aspects of the guarantee that the municipalities chosen had minimum resources process to register new companies within the municipalities. The and capacities (budget, employees, processes). In addition, it was first was a survey of key municipal employees who were directly assumed that a larger population means greater business activity, involved in the registration procedures for new companies. The which implies the need to have larger municipalities. second instrument was a survey of business owners. Criterion 2: Political Willingness. Information from two parallel and verifiable sources (municipal employees and business owners) allowed for a The team asked for support from the mayor, his or her staff, better balance of information, criteria and cross-references. department heads, and individuals directly in charge of carrying This provided objectivity in and availability of diverse opinions out processes. A "top-down" focus that centers only on the for the information needed to construct the Scorecard. mayor's commitment is insufficient given that a real understanding of and alignment with proposals to improve municipal processes is primarily found in middle managers and technical experts. Implementation The municipalities signed a letter of intention and IFC Selection of Municipality Sample confirmed their participation in the survey process. To carry out the pilot project to implement the Municipal Criterion 3: Availability of Information. Scorecard, a sample of municipalities was selected in each country. The municipalities were chosen according to the The third step in sample selection is related to the availability criteria described below. Each criterion is used as a of information in the municipalities. The municipalities selected progressive "filter" for the final selection. demonstrated systematic management of information relevant to the project in electronic or paper-based records. In developing countries it is difficult to find detailed, credible, and up-to-date information about the number of Criterion 4: Reformed Municipalities. companies that exist in specific geographic areas. This is particularly true of municipalities. In addition, it is not The Municipalities that have reformed the procedures common to find information about production, evaluated must not exceed 50% of the total of participating employment, sales, investments and other economic variables municipalities in each country. In this way, we were able to in the municipal jurisdiction. When the information on the obtain a better measurement of the impact of reform and aforementioned variables is available in a uniform manner, it compare these results with the reality found in municipalities can be utilized in a sample and selection process. As this was that have not conducted reforms. not the case in the Municipal Scorecard study, the team had to use a set of alternative criteria. Criteria for selection of municipal employees IFC considered the following to choose municipalities for · Only employees with a clear understanding of the process and the Municipal Scorecard 2007: its results were considered. 1. Population served must be at least 0.5% of national population. · The selected official responded to at least 75 percent of the 2. Political will. questionnaire and was familiar with the key topics. 3. Municipality has an information system (not necessarily · Four employees were surveyed per procedure. If there were electronic) and a DB with licensing data from the past year. fewer than four qualified employees, the team interviewed a 4. The number of municipalities that have implemented minimum of two. simplified registration does not exceed 50% of sample. 119 · If all of the interviewed employees responded to less than 75 employees who handle the Construction Permit procedure. percent of the questions, the municipality would be substituted in the sample. Although the sample is not statistically representative, the results were robust and coincide with the reality verified by other Criteria for selection of business owners work done by the IFC Office for Advisory Services in Latin America and the Caribbean to directly support simplification The objective in each municipality was to interview 50 procedures in 20 of the 65 municipalities studied. It is also business owners, 30 who recently obtained an Operating License important to mention that the sample of business owners and 20 who recently obtained a Construction Permit. interviewed represents in many cases more than 50% of the Operating Licenses issued by the municipality over the last year. In the case of the Operating License, business owners who were interviewed met the following criteria: The case of the Municipality of São Paulo clearly shows the · Operated a business and obtained an Operating License exhaustive nature of the Municipal Scorecard selection process. within the jurisdiction of the selected municipality. The 460 visits were conducted to meet with business owners. Of this Operating License obtained was an initial request (not a pool, 84 refused to be involved in the study; 12 had no idea how renewal) and was definite (not provisional). to answer the questions posed or used "tramitadores" to conduct · Operated a business that is solely domestic and not part of an processes; 82 could not be found at the address listed or reside in international operation or network. other municipalities; and 134 were said "not to live/work at this · Operated a "low risk" business, defined by its industry address". Finally 63 surveys were conducted of business owners classification and size. By definition, a low-risk business does according to the following breakdown: 40 individuals who had not have flammable products, does not cause environmental obtained the Operating License; 23 who had obtained a damage and as such does not require a special environmental Construction Permit 30 additional surveys were conducted of permit; the area of a business is this category is less than or municipal employees; 15 that had been involved in the equal to 200 squared meters. Operating License process; and another 15 who had handled the · Obtained an Operating License in the 12 month period prior Construction Permit procedure. It is evident that although the to being interviewed. initial universe of possibilities was quite large, the survey pool · Personally performed most or all of the tasks required to chosen could be significantly smaller. obtain the Operating License. · Operated a business that was not located in a restricted area As a general rule, the following businesses were ruled out: or on municipal property. · Preparation, manufacture or elaboration of local products, except for the preparation of food for direct human consumption. In the case of the Construction Permit, business owners · Warehouses for dangerous, toxic or highly flammable products. who were interviewed met the following criteria: · Health centers. · Obtained a Construction Permit in order to start a · Educational centers. construction (within the jurisdiction of the selected municipality). · Bars, discotheques and other similar locals where alcoholic The Construction Permit obtained was an initial request (not beverages are sold. The sale of alcohol was included only as an a renewal) and was definite (not provisional). accompaniment to food. · Carried out a "low risk" construction project, defined by its construction classification and size. Selected construction projects were considered low-risk for urban impact and environmental contamination; were less than or equal to 800 squared meters; and less than or equal to three stories in height. TABLE A.6 · Obtained a Construction Permit in the 12 month period Performance variables of the Municipal Scorecard prior to being interviewed. · Personally performed most or all of the tasks required to (Operating License and Construction Permit) obtain the Construction Permit. · Operated a business that was not located in a restricted Indicator Information Source area or on municipal property. Time (days) Business owners Cost (expressed as % of GDP per capita) Business owners The Municipal Scorecard 2007 is based on interviews of Hard data from various sources Number of visits Municipal Employees 1988 business owners who had obtained an Operating Business owners License over the last year, 780 business owners had obtained Rejections (% of total pool) Municipal Employees a Construction Permit, 261 municipal employees involved in the Operating License procedure and 261 municipal 120 METHODOLOGY TABLE A.7 TABLE A.8 Process variables for the Operating License Process Variables for the Construction Permit Variable Information Source Indicator Information Source Complexity of application forms Business owners Complexity of application forms Business owners Clarity of information Municipal Employees Clarity of information Municipal Employees Business owners Business owners Accessibility of information Municipal Employees Accessibility of information Municipal Employees Business owners Business owners Consistency of process with information Business owners Consistency of process with Information Business owners Knowledge of inspection criteria Business owners Knowledge of inspection criteria Business owners Quality of facilities Municipal Employees Quality of Facilities Municipal Employees Business owners Business owners Use of Information Technology Municipal Employees Use of Information Technology Municipal Employees Customer opinion system Municipal Employees Customer opinion system Municipal Employees Business Owners Business owners Industry classification Municipal Employees Construction classification Municipal Employees Delegation of signing authority Municipal Employees Delegation of signing authority Municipal Employees Zoning Municipal Employees Zoning Municipal Employees Business owners Business owners Categorization of economic activities Municipal Employees Categorization of construction type Municipal Employees Business owners Business owners Internal audits Municipal Employees Internal audits Municipal Employees External audits Municipal Employees External audits Municipal Employees Private sector participation Municipal Employees Private sector participation Municipal Employees Number of inspections Municipal Employees Number of inspections Municipal Employees Business owners Business owners Reasonable inspections Business owners Reasonable inspections Business owners Transparency of inspections Business owners Transparency of inspections Business owners Process training Municipal Employees Process training Municipal Employees Customer service training Municipal Employees Customer service training Municipal Employees Availability of manuals Municipal Employees Availability of manuals Municipal Employees Notes 19 In this case, factor analysis is used to reduce data and group several variables that explain the same concept, namely "Municipal ranking" for a specific indicator. We compute a 65x1 matrix, representing results for 65 municipalities and 1 factor, obtained from the principal components analysis from several variables. The correlated variables are grouped into explanatory components, named after their similarities or correspondence with that single factor. This single factor (Municipality score) represents the combination of the selected variables for a specific indicator. For example, in the case of the Process Index, there is a Sub-index named "Information" that consists of 5 different variables: Information = (Complexity of Application Forms, Clarity of Information, Accessibility of Information, Consistency of Process with Information and Knowledge of Inspection Criteria). The factor analysis based on principal components estimates 1 factor, namely "Information", based on the data for the 5 components. The output is the rank of the 65 municipalities for this specific "factor". In this case, the factor scores are estimated using the regression method. A regression line is fitted to represent the "best" summary of the linear relationship between the variables that explain the specific factor. The resulting indicator captures most of the "essence" of the variables into one factor, for the 65 municipalities. The resulting factor is the weighted average of all scaled variables xi for every municipality, where: xi = (xi ­ µi) / i. Single scores on that new factor, represented by the regression line, represent the substance of the variables. Each factor is a linear combination of the indicated variables. The same procedure is used for all the Sub-indices computed for the Scorecard construction. 20 Data were normalized using the formula xi = (xi ­ µi) / i for every i-th observation, where xi is the i-th value obtained from the survey, µi the average of the variable series, and i the standard deviation from the variable series. 21 Regional GDP per capita figures were taken from UNDP's Human Development Reports for Brazil, Bolivia, Honduras, Nicaragua and Peru. 22 Based on correlation analysis. 23 In the case of Construction Permit, this variable refers to the municipality's construction classification system ("Construction Classification"). 24 In the case of Construction Permit, this variable refers to the existence of a well-known standard classification of construction types ("Categorization of ConstructionType"). 121 FIGURE A.1 Municipal Scorecard Structure for Operating License Time Cost Performance Number of Visits Rejections Complexity of Aplication Forms Clarity of Information Accessibility of Information Information Consistency of process with Information Operating Knowledge of Inspection Criteria License Index Quality of Facilities Use of Information Technology Infrastructure Customer Opinion System Industry Classification Use of Information Technology Delegation of Signing Authority Zoning Planning and Zoning Categorization of Economic Activities Tools Process Internal Audits External Audits Monitoring and evaluation Private Sector Participation Number of Inspections Reasonable Inspections Inspections Transparency of Inspections Process Training Customer ServiceTraining Training Availability of Manuals Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database FIGURE A.2 Municipal Scorecard Structure for Construction Permit Time Cost Performance Rejections Complexity of Aplication Forms Clarity of Information Accessibility of Information Information Consistency of process with Information Construction Knowledge of Inspection Criteria Permit Index Quality of Facilities Use of Information Technology Infrastructure Customer Opinion System Construction Classification Use of Information Technology Delegation of Signing Authority Zoning Planning and Zoning Construction Type Tools Process Internal Audits External Audits Monitoring and evaluation Private Sector Participation Number of Inspections Reasonable Inspections Inspections Transparency of Inspections Process Training Customer Service Training Training Availability of Manuals Source: Municipal Scorecard 2007 Database 122 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES 5 - The Municipalities' Profiles 123 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Bolivia 125 Cochabamba (Cochabamba) Municipal Scorecard Bolivia Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 18 15 Cochabamba Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 18 15 Performance Ranking 22 36 Time 17 20 Cost 3 4 Number of Visits 32 58 Rejections 46 54 Process Ranking 15 10 Information 36 21 Infrastructure 18 36 Tools 19 12 Inspections 17 7 Training 22 9 COCHABAMBA COCHABAMBA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Cost 3 Cost 4 Time 17 Time 20 Performance Ranking 22 Performance Ranking 36 Number of visits 32 Rejections 54 Rejections 46 Number of visits 58 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Number of Inspections 4 Internal Audits 2 Customer Opinion System 8 Process Training 3 Internal Audits 8 Reasonable Inspections 7 Industry Classification 10 Transparency of Inspections 7 Transparency of Inspections 12 External Audits 10 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 15 Process Ranking 10 Process Ranking 15 Customer Service Training 11 Process Training 17 Zoning 14 Clarity of Information 21 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 16 Private Sector Participation 21 Number of Inspections 16 Zoning 23 Clarity of Information 18 Use of Information Technology 24 Categorization of Construction Type 22 Customer Service Training 25 Use of Information Technology 22 Delegation of Signing Authority 25 Complexity of Application Forms 26 Categorization of Economic Activities 27 Accessibility of Information 27 Reasonable Inspections 29 Consistency of Process with Information 27 Consistency of Process with Information 31 Availability of Manuals 29 Quality of Facilities 34 Customer Opinion System 30 External Audits 35 Delegation of Signing Authority 35 Availability of Manuals 37 Construction Classification 39 Accessibility of Information 39 Quality of Facilities 43 Complexity of Application Forms 59 Private Sector Participation 47 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 578.22 1671.86 Urban Population 99.90% 58.83% Human Development Index 0.741 0.627 126 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES El Alto (La Paz) Municipal Scorecard Bolivia Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 52 50 El Alto Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 52 50 Performance Ranking 36 39 Time 14 46 Cost 24 43 Number of Visits 34 43 Rejections 58 36 Process Ranking 59 55 Information 55 52 Infrastructure 59 58 Tools 47 45 Inspections 53 59 Training 46 31 EL ALTO EL ALTO Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Time 14 Rejections 36 Cost 24 Performance Ranking 39 Number of visits 34 Cost 43 Performance Ranking 36 Number of visits 43 Rejections 58 Time 46 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Number of Inspections 7 Internal Audits 3 Industry Classification 18 External Audits 19 Process Training 18 Availability of Manuals 22 Availability of Manuals 22 Process Training 29 Internal Audits 23 Construction Classification 40 Use of Information Technology 35 Customer Service Training 46 Private Sector Participation 39 Delegation of Signing Authority 47 Accessibility of Information 40 Complexity of Application Forms 49 External Audits 40 Consistency of Process with Information 49 Consistency of Process with Information 43 Private Sector Participation 49 Categorization of Economic Activities 49 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 51 Clarity of Information 51 Use of Information Technology 51 Delegation of Signing Authority 52 Zoning 53 Transparency of Inspections 55 Accessibility of Information 54 Reasonable Inspections 56 Number of Inspections 54 Customer Opinion System 59 Process Ranking 55 Process Ranking 59 Clarity of Information 56 Zoning 59 Transparency of Inspections 56 Complexity of Application Forms 60 Quality of Facilities 57 Customer Service Training 60 Reasonable Inspections 57 Quality of Facilities 61 Customer Opinion System 59 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 64 Categorization of Construction Type 60 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 800.27 2630.38 Urban Population 99.60% 66.05% Human Development Index 0.638 0.631 127 La Paz (La Paz) Municipal Scorecard Bolivia Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 16 40 La Paz Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 16 40 Performance Ranking 3 10 Time 13 12 Cost 1 12 Number of Visits 16 22 Rejections 22 33 Process Ranking 29 53 Information 13 58 Infrastructure 20 46 Tools 59 44 Inspections 33 63 Training 37 39 LA PAZ LA PAZ Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Cost 1 Performance Ranking 10 Performance Ranking 3 Cost 12 Time 13 Time 12 Number of visits 16 Number of visits 22 Rejections 22 Rejections 33 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Customer Opinion System 6 Internal Audits 7 Clarity of Information 11 Use of Information Technology 23 External Audits 13 Process Training 25 Number of Inspections 13 Availability of Manuals 38 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 14 Construction Classification 44 Quality of Facilities 15 Quality of Facilities 46 Accessibility of Information 19 Customer Service Training 48 Complexity of Application Forms 22 External Audits 48 Industry Classification 28 Consistency of Process with Information 50 Process Ranking 29 Clarity of Information 51 Transparency of Inspections 30 Delegation of Signing Authority 52 Customer Service Training 31 Private Sector Participation 53 Internal Audits 36 Process Ranking 53 Process Training 39 Categorization of Construction Type 54 Reasonable Inspections 48 Customer Opinion System 54 Private Sector Participation 50 Zoning 57 Zoning 53 Accessibility of Information 58 Availability of Manuals 56 Number of Inspections 58 Use of Information Technology 57 Transparency of Inspections 58 Consistency of Process with Information 59 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 60 Delegation of Signing Authority 60 Complexity of Application Forms 61 Categorization of Economic Activities 61 Reasonable Inspections 63 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 839.17 2630.38 Urban Population 99.50% 66.05% Human Development Index 0.714 0.631 128 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Oruro (Oruro) Municipal Scorecard Bolivia Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 63 65 Oruro Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 63 65 Performance Ranking 62 65 Time 63 61 Cost 15 55 Number of Visits 64 65 Rejections 52 29 Process Ranking 62 62 Information 42 60 Infrastructure 65 61 Tools 38 50 Inspections 41 62 Training 63 49 ORURO ORURO Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Cost 15 Rejections 29 Rejections 52 Cost 55 Performance Ranking 62 Time 61 Time 63 Number of visits 65 Number of visits 64 Performance Ranking 65 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES External Audits 4 Delegation of Signing Authority 15 Number of Inspections 15 Internal Audits 35 Availability of Manuals 18 Process Training 40 Consistency of Process with Information 18 Availability of Manuals 45 Industry Classification 20 Categorization of Construction Type 48 Delegation of Signing Authority 27 Clarity of Information 50 Clarity of Information 28 Accessibility of Information 52 Private Sector Participation 33 Customer Service Training 52 Categorization of Economic Activities 41 Use of Information Technology 52 Accessibility of Information 44 External Audits 54 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 44 Construction Classification 55 Reasonable Inspections 45 Zoning 55 Transparency of Inspections 51 Private Sector Participation 56 Complexity of Application Forms 56 Customer Opinion System 57 Zoning 60 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 57 Customer Service Training 61 Reasonable Inspections 58 Internal Audits 61 Consistency of Process with Information 59 Process Ranking 62 Number of Inspections 59 Process Training 63 Transparency of Inspections 60 Use of Information Technology 63 Process Ranking 62 Customer Opinion System 65 Complexity of Application Forms 63 Quality of Facilities 65 Quality of Facilities 63 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 216.93 433.48 Urban Population 93.30% 60.25% Human Development Index 0.685 0.618 129 Potosí (Potosí) Municipal Scorecard Bolivia Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit Potosí 44 64 Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 44 64 Performance Ranking 39 63 Time 25 60 Cost 20 57 Number of Visits 59 64 Rejections 35 43 Process Ranking 48 58 Information 44 65 Infrastructure 56 48 Tools 37 46 Inspections 27 57 Training 54 50 POTOSÍ POTOSÍ Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Cost 20 Rejections 43 Time 25 Cost 57 Rejections 35 Time 60 Performance Ranking 39 Performance Ranking 63 Number of visits 59 Number of visits 64 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES External Audits 10 Use of Information Technology 24 Consistency of Process with Information 25 External Audits 29 Transparency of Inspections 26 Internal Audits 31 Reasonable Inspections 27 Delegation of Signing Authority 37 Zoning 33 Availability of Manuals 40 Complexity of Application Forms 37 Customer Opinion System 42 Customer Opinion System 39 Zoning 44 Industry Classification 39 Process Training 49 Accessibility of Information 43 Transparency of Inspections 52 Categorization of Economic Activities 43 Customer Service Training 54 Internal Audits 44 Consistency of Process with Information 55 Private Sector Participation 44 Reasonable Inspections 56 Use of Information Technology 44 Private Sector Participation 57 Process Training 45 Process Ranking 58 Clarity of Information 46 Quality of Facilities 58 Delegation of Signing Authority 46 Clarity of Information 60 Number of Inspections 47 Complexity of Application Forms 60 Process Ranking 48 Construction Classification 60 Customer Service Training 51 Number of Inspections 60 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 52 Categorization of Construction Type 61 Availability of Manuals 60 Accessibility of Information 64 Quality of Facilities 60 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 64 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 160.54 768.20 Urban Population 91.70% 33.72% Human Development Index 0.666 0.514 130 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Quillacollo (Cochabamba) Municipal Scorecard Bolivia Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 48 51 Quillacollo Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 48 51 Performance Ranking 30 41 Time 38 30 Cost 13 18 Number of Visits 55 56 Rejections 30 55 Process Ranking 58 57 Information 26 39 Infrastructure 64 63 Tools 64 61 Inspections 44 40 Training 39 44 QUILLACOLLO QUILLACOLLO Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Cost 13 Cost 18 Performance Ranking 30 Time 30 Rejections 30 Performance Ranking 41 Time 38 Rejections 55 Number of visits 55 Number of visits 56 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 11 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 15 Complexity of Application Forms 26 Availability of Manuals 27 Accessibility of Information 28 Customer Service Training 29 Customer Service Training 28 Clarity of Information 34 Internal Audits 29 Internal Audits 36 Availability of Manuals 33 Transparency of Inspections 38 Transparency of Inspections 33 Complexity of Application Forms 40 Customer Opinion System 46 Consistency of Process with Information 41 Process Training 46 Number of Inspections 41 Delegation of Signing Authority 47 Categorization of Construction Type 42 Industry Classification 49 Reasonable Inspections 47 Number of Inspections 50 Accessibility of Information 48 Reasonable Inspections 50 Zoning 50 Clarity of Information 53 Construction Classification 56 Zoning 55 Process Ranking 57 External Audits 56 Delegation of Signing Authority 58 Process Ranking 58 External Audits 58 Consistency of Process with Information 60 Private Sector Participation 58 Private Sector Participation 62 Process Training 59 Categorization of Economic Activities 63 Quality of Facilities 59 Quality of Facilities 64 Customer Opinion System 62 Use of Information Technology 65 Use of Information Technology 63 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 124.37 1671.86 Urban Population 75.20% 58.83% Human Development Index 0.688 0.627 131 Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz) Municipal Scorecard Bolivia Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 28 35 Santa Cruz Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 28 35 Performance Ranking 19 37 Time 18 23 Cost 4 20 Number of Visits 42 28 Rejections 41 60 Process Ranking 33 39 Information 62 28 Infrastructure 36 50 Tools 30 27 Inspections 6 43 Training 23 26 SANTA CRUZ SANTA CRUZ Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Cost 4 Cost 20 Time 18 Time 23 Performance Ranking 19 Number of visits 28 Rejections 41 Performance Ranking 37 Number of visits 42 Rejections 60 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Reasonable Inspections 6 External Audits 11 Categorization of Economic Activities 7 Availability of Manuals 17 Process Training 14 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 20 Private Sector Participation 15 Internal Audits 24 Complexity of Application Forms 16 Consistency of Process with Information 25 Transparency of Inspections 17 Zoning 28 Number of Inspections 19 Use of Information Technology 30 Internal Audits 20 Categorization of Construction Type 32 Consistency of Process with Information 24 Complexity of Application Forms 32 Zoning 24 Customer Service Training 32 Industry Classification 25 Clarity of Information 37 Availability of Manuals 26 Process Ranking 39 Quality of Facilities 30 Accessibility of Information 43 Process Ranking 33 Process Training 43 Customer Opinion System 35 Reasonable Inspections 43 Customer Service Training 37 Delegation of Signing Authority 44 Delegation of Signing Authority 49 Number of Inspections 44 Use of Information Technology 54 Transparency of Inspections 47 External Audits 58 Construction Classification 49 Accessibility of Information 60 Customer Opinion System 49 Clarity of Information 64 Quality of Facilities 51 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 65 Private Sector Participation 60 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 1372.36 2388.80 Urban Population 98.30% 76.16% Human Development Index 0.739 0.689 132 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Sucre (Chuquisaca) Municipal Scorecard Bolivia Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 35 48 Sucre Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 35 48 Performance Ranking 6 19 Time 7 41 Cost 5 2 Number of Visits 26 32 Rejections 26 15 Process Ranking 60 59 Information 39 57 Infrastructure 63 55 Tools 62 41 Inspections 31 60 Training 58 54 SUCRE SUCRE Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Cost 5 Cost 2 Performance Ranking 6 Rejections 15 Time 7 Performance Ranking 19 Number of visits 26 Number of visits 32 Rejections 26 Time 41 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Number of Inspections 20 External Audits 5 Complexity of Application Forms 29 Number of Inspections 13 Transparency of Inspections 31 Process Training 23 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 32 Internal Audits 26 Reasonable Inspections 38 Use of Information Technology 31 Clarity of Information 40 Consistency of Process with Information 36 Delegation of Signing Authority 42 Delegation of Signing Authority 40 Zoning 45 Customer Opinion System 46 Accessibility of Information 47 Complexity of Application Forms 47 Availability of Manuals 50 Customer Service Training 47 Industry Classification 51 Construction Classification 57 Categorization of Economic Activities 53 Process Ranking 59 Internal Audits 54 Transparency of Inspections 59 Customer Opinion System 56 Availability of Manuals 61 Process Training 56 Clarity of Information 61 Customer Service Training 57 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 61 Quality of Facilities 57 Accessibility of Information 62 Process Ranking 60 Private Sector Participation 62 External Audits 62 Categorization of Construction Type 64 Use of Information Technology 62 Quality of Facilities 64 Consistency of Process with Information 63 Reasonable Inspections 64 Private Sector Participation 63 Zoning 65 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 261.56 601.82 Urban Population 89.80% 41.04% Human Development Index 0.688 0.563 133 Tarija (Tarija) Municipal Scorecard Bolivia Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit Tarija 26 55 Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 26 55 Performance Ranking 23 54 Time 23 26 Cost 41 23 Number of Visits 45 62 Rejections 3 61 Process Ranking 26 60 Information 30 49 Infrastructure 39 60 Tools 5 62 Inspections 55 46 Training 32 47 TARIJA TARIJA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Rejections 3 Cost 23 Performance Ranking 23 Time 26 Time 23 Performance Ranking 54 Cost 41 Rejections 61 Number of visits 45 Number of visits 62 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Use of Information Technology 3 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 30 Industry Classification 6 Process Training 32 Delegation of Signing Authority 11 Reasonable Inspections 37 Clarity of Information 16 Consistency of Process with Information 38 Availability of Manuals 19 Customer Service Training 41 Categorization of Economic Activities 22 Number of Inspections 46 External Audits 22 Internal Audits 48 Accessibility of Information 23 Zoning 48 Process Training 24 Accessibility of Information 50 Process Ranking 26 Transparency of Inspections 50 Internal Audits 38 Customer Opinion System 51 Zoning 38 Quality of Facilities 54 Customer Opinion System 40 Clarity of Information 55 Transparency of Inspections 42 Complexity of Application Forms 55 Consistency of Process with Information 44 Availability of Manuals 56 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 45 Delegation of Signing Authority 56 Complexity of Application Forms 46 Use of Information Technology 57 Customer Service Training 46 Construction Classification 58 Private Sector Participation 47 Process Ranking 60 Reasonable Inspections 55 Categorization of Construction Type 62 Number of Inspections 59 External Audits 62 Quality of Facilities 62 Private Sector Participation 63 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 183.00 459.00 Urban Population 88.50% 63.32% Human Development Index 0.694 0.641 134 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Brazil 135 Aracaju (Sergipe) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 46 52 Aracaju Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 46 52 Performance Ranking 55 51 Time 47 50 Cost 48 53 Number of Visits 29 57 Rejections (% of total pool) 61 45 Process Ranking 27 51 Information 31 47 Infrastructure 19 42 Tools 41 57 Inspections 8 31 Training 53 63 ARACAJU ARACAJU Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Number of visits 29 Rejections 45 Time 47 Time 50 Cost 48 Performance Ranking 51 Performance Ranking 55 Cost 53 Rejections 61 Number of visits 57 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Reasonable Inspections 2 Construction Classification 1 Transparency of Inspections 8 Number of Inspections 2 Use of Information Technology 9 Categorization of Construction Type 6 Categorization of Economic Activities 10 Quality of Facilities 9 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 13 Consistency of Process with Information 19 Availability of Manuals 20 Private Sector Participation 23 Quality of Facilities 22 Customer Opinion System 24 Number of Inspections 23 Reasonable Inspections 26 Process Ranking 27 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 28 External Audits 29 External Audits 33 Private Sector Participation 29 Clarity of Information 41 Clarity of Information 30 Zoning 45 Customer Opinion System 31 Transparency of Inspections 48 Accessibility of Information 36 Process Ranking 51 Customer Service Training 43 Availability of Manuals 53 Consistency of Process with Information 48 Internal Audits 53 Internal Audits 50 Process Training 53 Industry Classification 52 Delegation of Signing Authority 55 Complexity of Application Forms 53 Accessibility of Information 56 Delegation of Signing Authority 53 Use of Information Technology 59 Zoning 54 Customer Service Training 61 Process Training 59 Complexity of Application Forms 64 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 461.53 1784.48 Urban Population 100.00% 71.35% Human Development Index 0.794 0.682 136 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Belém (Pará) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit Belém 56 30 Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 56 30 Performance Ranking 56 50 Time 59 49 Cost 62 63 Number of Visits 30 12 Rejections 44 34 Process Ranking 45 17 Information 38 41 Infrastructure 37 11 Tools 60 23 Inspections 32 16 Training 41 18 BELÉM BELÉM Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Number of visits 30 Number of visits 12 Rejections 44 Rejection 34 Performance Ranking 56 Time 49 Time 59 Performance Ranking 50 Cost 62 Cost 63 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Consistency of Process with Information 14 Zoning 1 Number of Inspections 24 Construction Classification 2 Reasonable Inspections 25 Customer Opinion System 5 Delegation of Signing Authority 28 Customer Service Training 8 External Audits 30 Reasonable Inspections 8 Customer Opinion System 33 Transparency of Inspections 10 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 34 Categorization of Construction Type 15 Process Training 34 Process Ranking 17 Transparency of Inspections 34 Consistency of Process with Information 18 Complexity of Application Forms 36 Quality of Facilities 24 Accessibility of Information 38 Availability of Manuals 28 Use of Information Technology 39 Private Sector Participation 29 Clarity of Information 42 Internal Audits 30 Customer Service Training 44 Complexity of Application Forms 33 Quality of Facilities 44 Delegation of Signing Authority 33 Process Ranking 45 Number of Inspections 33 Zoning 46 External Audits 34 Availability of Manuals 52 Process Training 34 Private Sector Participation 54 Clarity of Information 39 Industry Classification 58 Use of Information Technology 43 Categorization of Economic Activities 60 Accessibility of Information 51 Internal Audits 62 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 56 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 1280.61 6192.31 Urban Population 99.35% 66.55% Human Development Index 0.806 0.723 137 Belo Horizonte (Minas Gerais) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 42 28 Belo Horizonte Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 42 28 Performance Ranking 44 40 Time 60 39 Cost 29 46 Number of Visits to the Municipality 31 42 Rejections 43 37 Process Ranking 44 19 Information 63 45 Infrastructure 31 14 Tools 39 25 Inspections 37 26 Training 15 12 BELO HORIZONTE BELO HORIZONTE Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Cost 29 Rejections 37 Number of visits 31 Time 39 Rejections 43 Performance Ranking 40 Performance Ranking 44 Number of visits 42 Time 60 Cost 46 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Customer Service Training 8 Private Sector Participation 1 Zoning 12 Delegation of Signing Authority 6 Consistency of Process with Information 13 Customer Opinion System 7 Reasonable Inspections 23 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 7 Number of Inspections 25 Process Training 11 Process Training 26 Availability of Manuals 19 Availability of Manuals 28 Customer Service Training 19 Quality of Facilities 28 Process Ranking 19 Delegation of Signing Authority 29 Quality of Facilities 22 External Audits 31 External Audits 25 Customer Opinion System 32 Reasonable Inspections 25 Internal Audits 33 Transparency of Inspections 25 Use of Information Technology 33 Categorization of Construction Type 27 Private Sector Participation 36 Internal Audits 27 Process Ranking 44 Zoning 29 Transparency of Inspections 46 Accessibility of Information 32 Categorization of Economic Activities 51 Construction Classification 38 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 57 Complexity of Application Forms 39 Accessibility of Information 58 Use of Information Technology 44 Clarity of Information 59 Number of Inspections 49 Industry Classification 59 Clarity of Information 54 Complexity of Application Forms 65 Consistency of Process with Information 63 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 2238.53 17891.49 Urban Population 100.00% 82.00% Human Development Index 0.839 0.773 138 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Campo Grande (Mato Grosso do Sul) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 39 23 Campo Grande Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 39 23 Performance Ranking 32 26 Time 29 28 Cost 37 22 Number of Visits 3 34 Rejections 45 35 Process Ranking 51 25 Information 57 59 Infrastructure 47 9 Tools 44 17 Inspections 59 12 Training 29 27 CAMPO GRANDE CAMPO GRANDE Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Number of visits 3 Cost 22 Time 29 Performance Ranking 26 Performance Ranking 32 Time 28 Cost 37 Number of visits 34 Rejections 45 Rejections 35 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Number of Inspections 1 Zoning 2 Consistency of Process with Information 7 Use of Information Technology 3 Use of Information Technology 10 Reasonable Inspections 4 Availability of Manuals 15 Construction Classification 5 Zoning 20 Availability of Manuals 11 Process Training 27 External Audits 13 Customer Service Training 32 Number of Inspections 14 External Audits 33 Customer Opinion System 17 Industry Classification 36 Private Sector Participation 24 Reasonable Inspections 46 Process Ranking 25 Internal Audits 51 Quality of Facilities 26 Process Ranking 51 Process Training 28 Quality of Facilities 51 Categorization of Construction Type 30 Customer Opinion System 53 Transparency of Inspections 36 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 55 Clarity of Information 38 Private Sector Participation 55 Internal Audits 39 Accessibility of Information 56 Customer Service Training 42 Categorization of Economic Activities 56 Consistency of Process with Information 44 Clarity of Information 56 Accessibility of Information 45 Delegation of Signing Authority 58 Delegation of Signing Authority 46 Complexity of Application Forms 62 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 62 Transparency of Inspections 62 Complexity of Application Forms 65 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 663.62 2078.00 Urban Population 98.84% 84.08% Human Development Index 0.814 0.778 139 Cuiabá (Mato Grosso) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 45 41 Cuiabá Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 45 41 Performance Ranking 29 24 Time 50 29 Cost 18 19 Number of Visits 8 35 Rejections 47 23 Process Ranking 57 48 Information 59 54 Infrastructure 58 57 Tools 53 38 Inspections 14 49 Training 56 34 CUIABÁ CUIABÁ Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Number of visits 8 Cost 19 Cost 18 Rejections 23 Performance Ranking 29 Performance Ranking 24 Rejections 47 Time 29 Time 50 Number of visits 35 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Number of Inspections 5 Private Sector Participation 3 Reasonable Inspections 19 Availability of Manuals 8 Availability of Manuals 21 Reasonable Inspections 11 Consistency of Process with Information 22 Internal Audits 12 Transparency of Inspections 22 Delegation of Signing Authority 20 Zoning 30 Complexity of Application Forms 27 Internal Audits 34 Zoning 31 External Audits 36 Process Training 36 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 36 External Audits 37 Private Sector Participation 37 Quality of Facilities 37 Categorization of Economic Activities 42 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 42 Delegation of Signing Authority 44 Process Ranking 48 Complexity of Application Forms 47 Use of Information Technology 48 Customer Service Training 49 Number of Inspections 51 Use of Information Technology 51 Construction Classification 54 Quality of Facilities 52 Customer Service Training 57 Industry Classification 53 Categorization of Construction Type 58 Process Ranking 57 Clarity of Information 58 Process Training 60 Accessibility of Information 61 Accessibility of Information 61 Consistency of Process with Information 61 Customer Opinion System 61 Customer Opinion System 64 Clarity of Information 62 Transparency of Inspections 65 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 483.35 2504.35 Urban Population 98.59% 79.37% Human Development Index 0.821 0.773 140 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Curitiba (Paraná) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 22 7 Curitiba Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 22 7 Performance Ranking 43 33 Time 51 48 Cost 31 36 Number of Visits 9 16 Rejections 57 24 Process Ranking 10 5 Information 19 7 Infrastructure 5 1 Tools 11 8 Inspections 20 9 Training 25 14 CURITIBA CURITIBA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Number of visits 9 Number of visits 16 Cost 31 Rejections 24 Performance Ranking 43 Performance Ranking 33 Time 51 Cost 36 Rejections 57 Time 48 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Customer Opinion System 4 Customer Opinion System 1 Categorization of Economic Activities 5 Consistency of Process with Information 3 Number of Inspections 6 Quality of Facilities 3 Delegation of Signing Authority 7 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 4 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 8 Private Sector Participation 4 Process Ranking 10 Process Ranking 5 Use of Information Technology 11 Reasonable Inspections 6 Complexity of Application Forms 15 Zoning 6 Customer Service Training 15 Transparency of Inspections 8 Transparency of Inspections 19 Categorization of Construction Type 9 Zoning 21 Availability of Manuals 10 Quality of Facilities 23 Construction Classification 10 Industry Classification 26 Use of Information Technology 11 Consistency of Process with Information 28 Process Training 13 Process Training 28 Clarity of Information 14 Reasonable Inspections 30 Accessibility of Information 17 Accessibility of Information 33 Delegation of Signing Authority 17 Clarity of Information 34 Internal Audits 17 External Audits 37 Customer Service Training 28 Private Sector Participation 38 Complexity of Application Forms 35 Internal Audits 42 External Audits 38 Availability of Manuals 57 Number of Inspections 52 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 1587.32 9563.46 Urban Population 100.00% 81.41% Human Development Index 0.856 0.787 141 Diadema (São Paulo) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 38 31 Diadema Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 38 31 Performance Ranking 28 38 Time 55 53 Cost 8 13 Number of Visits 10 36 Rejections 48 48 Process Ranking 52 38 Information 49 29 Infrastructure 52 40 Tools 57 59 Inspections 22 19 Training 59 25 DIADEMA DIADEMA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Cost 8 Cost 13 Number of visits 10 Number of visits 36 Performance Ranking 28 Performance Ranking 38 Rejections 48 Rejections 48 Time 55 Time 53 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Reasonable Inspections 17 Customer Service Training 2 Quality of Facilities 20 Number of Inspections 3 Transparency of Inspections 24 Quality of Facilities 7 Availability of Manuals 29 Delegation of Signing Authority 12 Number of Inspections 31 Transparency of Inspections 16 Categorization of Economic Activities 33 Reasonable Inspections 21 Private Sector Participation 35 Accessibility of Information 23 Delegation of Signing Authority 37 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 23 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 38 Private Sector Participation 25 External Audits 39 Clarity of Information 26 Complexity of Application Forms 42 Customer Opinion System 31 Consistency of Process with Information 45 Process Ranking 38 Industry Classification 46 Categorization of Construction Type 39 Clarity of Information 48 External Audits 40 Process Training 49 Zoning 41 Accessibility of Information 50 Consistency of Process with Information 42 Zoning 51 Complexity of Application Forms 45 Customer Opinion System 52 Availability of Manuals 49 Process Ranking 52 Internal Audits 55 Use of Information Technology 61 Process Training 55 Customer Service Training 63 Use of Information Technology 56 Internal Audits 63 Construction Classification 61 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 357.06 37032.40 Urban Population 100.00% 93.41% Human Development Index 0.790 0.820 142 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Duque de Caxias (Rio de Janeiro) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 50 20 Duque de Caxias Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 50 20 Performance Ranking 41 23 Time 45 25 Cost 47 29 Number of Visits 33 17 Rejections 29 38 Process Ranking 53 23 Information 54 3 Infrastructure 30 10 Tools 49 36 Inspections 56 42 Training 55 46 DUQUE DE CAXIAS DUQUE DE CAXIAS Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Rejections 29 Number of visits 17 Number of visits 33 Performance Ranking 23 Performance Ranking 41 Time 25 Time 45 Cost 29 Cost 47 Rejections 38 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Internal Audits 3 Clarity of Information 1 Customer Opinion System 15 Accessibility of Information 2 External Audits 17 Consistency of Process with Information 2 Private Sector Participation 22 Customer Opinion System 4 Availability of Manuals 30 Private Sector Participation 5 Number of Inspections 32 Categorization of Construction Type 10 Quality of Facilities 35 Construction Classification 12 Zoning 39 Quality of Facilities 14 Accessibility of Information 41 Zoning 15 Categorization of Economic Activities 44 Number of Inspections 18 Use of Information Technology 46 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 19 Industry Classification 47 Process Ranking 23 Reasonable Inspections 47 Delegation of Signing Authority 29 Clarity of Information 50 Complexity of Application Forms 36 Process Training 50 Availability of Manuals 37 Process Ranking 53 Process Training 37 Delegation of Signing Authority 54 Reasonable Inspections 38 Customer Service Training 55 External Audits 41 Transparency of Inspections 57 Transparency of Inspections 45 Complexity of Application Forms 58 Customer Service Training 49 Consistency of Process with Information 58 Use of Information Technology 50 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 59 Internal Audits 56 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 775.46 14391.28 Urban Population 99.60% 96.04% Human Development Index 0.753 0.807 143 Florianópolis (Santa Catarina) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 17 42 Florianópolis Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 17 42 Performance Ranking 26 55 Time 30 57 Cost 34 24 Number of Visits 12 19 Rejections 42 62 Process Ranking 12 18 Information 14 38 Infrastructure 9 8 Tools 34 32 Inspections 5 25 Training 33 17 FLORIANÓPOLIS FLORIANÓPOLIS Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Number of visits 12 Number of visits 19 Performance Ranking 26 Cost 24 Time 30 Performance Ranking 55 Cost 34 Time 57 Rejections 42 Rejections 62 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Availability of Manuals 3 Process Training 5 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 4 Quality of Facilities 8 Quality of Facilities 5 Customer Opinion System 12 Number of Inspections 9 Construction Classification 15 Process Ranking 12 Process Ranking 18 Reasonable Inspections 12 Use of Information Technology 18 Customer Opinion System 13 External Audits 20 Customer Service Training 13 Number of Inspections 20 Transparency of Inspections 13 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 22 Categorization of Economic Activities 15 Complexity of Application Forms 24 External Audits 18 Reasonable Inspections 24 Clarity of Information 20 Availability of Manuals 30 Consistency of Process with Information 21 Private Sector Participation 32 Accessibility of Information 22 Customer Service Training 34 Complexity of Application Forms 25 Internal Audits 34 Zoning 26 Transparency of Inspections 34 Private Sector Participation 31 Accessibility of Information 35 Use of Information Technology 31 Clarity of Information 40 Internal Audits 39 Delegation of Signing Authority 42 Industry Classification 41 Zoning 43 Delegation of Signing Authority 50 Consistency of Process with Information 46 Process Training 53 Categorization of Construction Type 57 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 342.32 5356.36 Urban Population 97.04% 78.75% Human Development Index 0.875 0.822 144 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Fortaleza (Ceará) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit Fortaleza 49 54 Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 49 54 Performance Ranking 50 43 Time 57 56 Cost 53 50 Number of Visits 50 44 Rejections 17 4 Process Ranking 43 64 Information 50 56 Infrastructure 27 52 Tools 56 58 Inspections 29 64 Training 43 59 FORTALEZA FORTALEZA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Rejections 17 Rejections 4 Number of visits 50 Performance Ranking 43 Performance Ranking 50 Number of visits 44 Cost 53 Cost 50 Time 57 Time 56 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Customer Opinion System 5 External Audits 24 Zoning 6 Process Training 30 Availability of Manuals 11 Customer Service Training 35 Reasonable Inspections 21 Accessibility of Information 37 Internal Audits 25 Categorization of Construction Type 38 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 31 Quality of Facilities 38 Number of Inspections 34 Construction Classification 41 Transparency of Inspections 35 Internal Audits 41 Categorization of Economic Activities 37 Zoning 42 Quality of Facilities 38 Clarity of Information 47 Private Sector Participation 40 Customer Opinion System 50 Process Training 40 Private Sector Participation 50 Use of Information Technology 40 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 54 External Audits 41 Number of Inspections 55 Complexity of Application Forms 43 Use of Information Technology 55 Process Ranking 43 Complexity of Application Forms 58 Customer Service Training 48 Delegation of Signing Authority 59 Accessibility of Information 49 Reasonable Inspections 61 Clarity of Information 52 Process Ranking 64 Consistency of Process with Information 52 Transparency of Inspections 64 Industry Classification 61 Availability of Manuals 65 Delegation of Signing Authority 62 Consistency of Process with Information 65 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 2141.40 7430.66 Urban Population 100.00% 71.53% Human Development Index 0.786 0.700 145 Goiãnia (Goiás) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 36 38 Goiãnia Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 36 38 Performance Ranking 49 53 Time 41 63 Cost 49 54 Number of Visits 51 45 Rejections 49 17 Process Ranking 24 28 Information 51 55 Infrastructure 42 24 Tools 15 20 Inspections 36 17 Training 12 19 GOIÃNIA GOIÃNIA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Time 41 Rejections 17 Cost 49 Number of visits 45 Performance Ranking 49 Performance Ranking 53 Rejections 49 Cost 54 Number of visits 51 Time 63 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Delegation of Signing Authority 2 Reasonable Inspections 5 Industry Classification 3 Use of Information Technology 6 Process Training 7 Private Sector Participation 7 Categorization of Economic Activities 13 Construction Classification 16 Consistency of Process with Information 15 Customer Opinion System 18 Internal Audits 16 Process Training 19 Customer Service Training 22 Delegation of Signing Authority 21 Process Ranking 24 Availability of Manuals 23 Transparency of Inspections 28 Customer Service Training 23 Zoning 29 Process Ranking 28 Availability of Manuals 31 Transparency of Inspections 30 Quality of Facilities 31 Complexity of Application Forms 37 Number of Inspections 35 Number of Inspections 37 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 37 Zoning 39 Reasonable Inspections 37 External Audits 42 Private Sector Participation 41 Categorization of Construction Type 43 Use of Information Technology 41 Internal Audits 45 External Audits 42 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 46 Clarity of Information 43 Consistency of Process with Information 47 Customer Opinion System 48 Quality of Facilities 48 Complexity of Application Forms 49 Clarity of Information 59 Accessibility of Information 51 Accessibility of Information 63 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 1093.01 5003.23 Urban Population 99.34% 87.88% Human Development Index 0.832 0.776 146 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Guarulhos (São Paulo) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 54 27 Guarulhos Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 54 27 Performance Ranking 58 32 Time 64 47 Cost 32 48 Number of Visits 52 20 Rejections 50 5 Process Ranking 35 29 Information 47 24 Infrastructure 23 13 Tools 50 37 Inspections 54 22 Training 11 38 GUARULHOS GUARULHOS Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Cost 32 Rejections 5 Rejections 50 Number of visits 20 Number of visits 52 Performance Ranking 32 Performance Ranking 58 Time 47 Time 64 Cost 48 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Private Sector Participation 5 Quality of Facilities 4 Quality of Facilities 6 Complexity of Application Forms 19 Customer Service Training 12 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 21 Process Training 13 Reasonable Inspections 22 Customer Opinion System 19 Clarity of Information 23 Clarity of Information 22 Transparency of Inspections 24 Industry Classification 32 Zoning 24 Accessibility of Information 35 Accessibility of Information 28 Process Ranking 35 Customer Opinion System 29 Number of Inspections 36 Process Ranking 29 Zoning 37 Delegation of Signing Authority 34 Availability of Manuals 41 Process Training 35 External Audits 44 Consistency of Process with Information 37 Transparency of Inspections 45 Construction Classification 37 Categorization of Economic Activities 47 Internal Audits 37 Complexity of Application Forms 48 Private Sector Participation 37 Internal Audits 52 Customer Service Training 38 Consistency of Process with Information 53 Number of Inspections 38 Reasonable Inspections 54 Use of Information Technology 38 Delegation of Signing Authority 55 Availability of Manuals 43 Use of Information Technology 56 External Audits 43 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 62 Categorization of Construction Type 45 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 1072.72 37032.40 Urban Population 97.85% 93.41% Human Development Index 0.798 0.820 147 João Pessoa (Paraiba) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 51 46 João Pessoa Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 51 46 Performance Ranking 42 34 Time 31 42 Cost 52 51 Number of Visits 53 46 Rejections 1 7 Process Ranking 54 45 Information 58 53 Infrastructure 22 19 Tools 48 47 Inspections 42 29 Training 64 65 JOÃO PESSOA JOÃO PESSOA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Rejections 1 Rejections 7 Time 31 Performance Ranking 34 Performance Ranking 42 Time 42 Cost 52 Number of visits 46 Number of visits 53 Cost 51 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Private Sector Participation 7 Use of Information Technology 7 External Audits 9 Construction Classification 20 Consistency of Process with Information 11 Number of Inspections 23 Number of Inspections 12 Zoning 25 Quality of Facilities 19 Transparency of Inspections 26 Customer Opinion System 22 Quality of Facilities 27 Zoning 36 Customer Opinion System 39 Use of Information Technology 37 Reasonable Inspections 39 Categorization of Economic Activities 38 Complexity of Application Forms 43 Reasonable Inspections 41 Process Ranking 45 Availability of Manuals 44 Categorization of Construction Type 47 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 47 External Audits 47 Internal Audits 53 Clarity of Information 49 Process Ranking 54 Private Sector Participation 52 Transparency of Inspections 54 Accessibility of Information 53 Complexity of Application Forms 55 Process Training 56 Clarity of Information 57 Consistency of Process with Information 58 Industry Classification 60 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 58 Delegation of Signing Authority 61 Internal Audits 59 Accessibility of Information 62 Availability of Manuals 60 Customer Service Training 62 Customer Service Training 62 Process Training 62 Delegation of Signing Authority 62 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 597.93 3443.83 Urban Population 100.00% 71.06% Human Development Index 0.783 0.661 148 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Joinville (Santa Catarina) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 19 22 Joinville Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 19 22 Performance Ranking 21 21 Time 35 24 Cost 33 33 Number of Visits 15 38 Rejections 34 12 Process Ranking 18 27 Information 17 43 Infrastructure 13 3 Tools 22 24 Inspections 23 32 Training 34 40 JOINVILLE JOINVILLE Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Number of visits 15 Rejections 12 Performance Ranking 21 Performance Ranking 21 Cost 33 Time 24 Rejections 34 Cost 33 Time 35 Number of visits 38 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Quality of Facilities 8 Customer Opinion System 6 Private Sector Participation 8 Internal Audits 6 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 10 Private Sector Participation 9 Customer Opinion System 11 Quality of Facilities 10 Customer Service Training 11 Use of Information Technology 13 Industry Classification 12 Process Training 24 Reasonable Inspections 15 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 25 Zoning 16 External Audits 27 Complexity of Application Forms 18 Process Ranking 27 Process Ranking 18 Reasonable Inspections 30 Categorization of Economic Activities 21 Availability of Manuals 31 Clarity of Information 24 Transparency of Inspections 32 Transparency of Inspections 27 Categorization of Construction Type 33 Consistency of Process with Information 29 Zoning 34 Accessibility of Information 30 Consistency of Process with Information 39 Number of Inspections 38 Number of Inspections 39 Use of Information Technology 42 Accessibility of Information 42 Delegation of Signing Authority 45 Construction Classification 43 Internal Audits 46 Clarity of Information 45 Availability of Manuals 47 Delegation of Signing Authority 49 External Audits 47 Complexity of Application Forms 50 Process Training 51 Customer Service Training 59 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 429.60 5356.36 Urban Population 96.59% 78.75% Human Development Index 0.857 0.822 149 Londrina (Paraná) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit Londrina 13 37 Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 13 37 Performance Ranking 10 22 Time 32 27 Cost 12 28 Number of Visits 19 23 Rejections 20 28 Process Ranking 20 44 Information 52 61 Infrastructure 11 43 Tools 20 43 Inspections 30 35 Training 10 43 LONDRINA LONDRINA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Performance Ranking 10 Performance Ranking 22 Cost 12 Number of visits 23 Number of visits 19 Time 27 Rejections 20 Cost 28 Time 32 Rejections 28 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Categorization of Economic Activities 1 Number of Inspections 7 Zoning 4 Zoning 8 Customer Opinion System 9 Quality of Facilities 11 Process Training 11 Private Sector Participation 13 Customer Service Training 14 Construction Classification 23 Delegation of Signing Authority 14 Reasonable Inspections 28 Quality of Facilities 16 Availability of Manuals 34 Reasonable Inspections 18 Delegation of Signing Authority 39 Process Ranking 20 Categorization of Construction Type 40 Consistency of Process with Information 23 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 41 Internal Audits 27 Customer Service Training 43 Use of Information Technology 29 Process Ranking 44 Clarity of Information 33 Transparency of Inspections 46 Availability of Manuals 38 Process Training 47 Transparency of Inspections 39 Customer Opinion System 48 Number of Inspections 41 External Audits 49 Accessibility of Information 42 Use of Information Technology 49 Industry Classification 42 Accessibility of Information 57 External Audits 48 Clarity of Information 57 Complexity of Application Forms 50 Complexity of Application Forms 59 Private Sector Participation 60 Internal Audits 61 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 61 Consistency of Process with Information 62 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 447.07 9563.46 Urban Population 96.94% 81.41% Human Development Index 0.824 0.787 150 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Maceió (Alagoas) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 34 17 Maceió Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 34 17 Performance Ranking 37 44 Time 28 45 Cost 54 47 Number of Visits 37 52 Rejections 12 41 Process Ranking 34 9 Information 45 13 Infrastructure 24 2 Tools 28 30 Inspections 25 1 Training 45 42 MACEIÓ MACEIÓ Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Rejections 12 Rejections 41 Time 28 Performance Ranking 44 Number of visits 37 Time 45 Performance Ranking 37 Cost 47 Cost 54 Number of visits 52 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES External Audits 1 Reasonable Inspections 1 Availability of Manuals 9 Transparency of Inspections 1 Private Sector Participation 9 Customer Opinion System 2 Customer Opinion System 10 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 2 Categorization of Economic Activities 14 Zoning 3 Consistency of Process with Information 16 Categorization of Construction Type 4 Reasonable Inspections 22 Complexity of Application Forms 5 Zoning 27 Quality of Facilities 6 Internal Audits 28 Process Ranking 9 Transparency of Inspections 29 Use of Information Technology 14 Clarity of Information 32 Clarity of Information 17 Quality of Facilities 33 Consistency of Process with Information 22 Process Ranking 34 Delegation of Signing Authority 22 Customer Service Training 35 Availability of Manuals 24 Use of Information Technology 38 Number of Inspections 24 Number of Inspections 42 Private Sector Participation 26 Accessibility of Information 45 Accessibility of Information 38 Complexity of Application Forms 51 Internal Audits 46 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 51 Process Training 48 Industry Classification 54 Customer Service Training 50 Process Training 55 External Audits 50 Delegation of Signing Authority 56 Construction Classification 62 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 797.76 2822.62 Urban Population 99.75% 68.01% Human Development Index 0.739 0.649 151 Manaus (Amazonas) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 61 34 Manaus Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 61 34 Performance Ranking 64 52 Time 61 52 Cost 36 52 Number of Visits 58 59 Rejections 64 50 Process Ranking 50 22 Information 61 19 Infrastructure 33 12 Tools 43 35 Inspections 47 28 Training 35 28 MANAUS MANAUS Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Cost 36 Rejections 50 Number of visits 58 Cost 52 Time 61 Performance Ranking 52 Performance Ranking 64 Time 52 Rejections 64 Number of visits 59 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Private Sector Participation 10 Clarity of Information 9 Use of Information Technology 20 Number of Inspections 9 Reasonable Inspections 32 Accessibility of Information 10 Delegation of Signing Authority 34 Quality of Facilities 15 Consistency of Process with Information 36 Transparency of Inspections 18 Process Training 36 Customer Opinion System 20 Customer Opinion System 37 Process Ranking 22 Customer Service Training 38 Complexity of Application Forms 23 Availability of Manuals 39 Customer Service Training 24 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 39 Process Training 26 Complexity of Application Forms 41 Internal Audits 29 Number of Inspections 44 Use of Information Technology 29 Quality of Facilities 47 Delegation of Signing Authority 32 Zoning 48 Categorization of Construction Type 34 External Audits 50 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 38 Process Ranking 50 Availability of Manuals 39 Industry Classification 56 Consistency of Process with Information 40 Transparency of Inspections 56 Reasonable Inspections 40 Categorization of Economic Activities 59 Construction Classification 46 Accessibility of Information 64 External Audits 52 Internal Audits 64 Zoning 52 Clarity of Information 65 Private Sector Participation 55 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 1405.84 2812.56 Urban Population 99.35% 74.92% Human Development Index 0.774 0.713 152 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Porto Alegre (Rio Grande do Sul) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit Porto Alegre 29 53 Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 29 53 Performance Ranking 20 61 Time 27 62 Cost 2 8 Number of Visits 39 55 Rejections 40 65 Process Ranking 32 36 Information 34 26 Infrastructure 25 27 Tools 51 28 Inspections 3 37 Training 50 37 PORTO ALEGRE PORTO ALEGRE Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Cost 2 Cost 8 Performance Ranking 20 Number of visits 55 Time 27 Performance Ranking 61 Number of visits 39 Time 62 Rejections 40 Rejections 65 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Transparency of Inspections 3 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 5 Quality of Facilities 9 Delegation of Signing Authority 7 Complexity of Application Forms 11 Zoning 13 Delegation of Signing Authority 15 Customer Opinion System 15 Number of Inspections 16 Private Sector Participation 16 Consistency of Process with Information 19 Clarity of Information 24 Customer Opinion System 23 Availability of Manuals 26 Reasonable Inspections 24 Categorization of Construction Type 26 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 26 Number of Inspections 26 Process Ranking 32 Complexity of Application Forms 29 Customer Service Training 36 Transparency of Inspections 29 Zoning 42 Quality of Facilities 32 Private Sector Participation 43 Accessibility of Information 34 Categorization of Economic Activities 45 Process Ranking 36 Clarity of Information 45 Use of Information Technology 40 Internal Audits 47 Process Training 41 Availability of Manuals 48 Construction Classification 47 Use of Information Technology 53 Internal Audits 47 Accessibility of Information 54 Consistency of Process with Information 48 External Audits 54 Reasonable Inspections 50 Process Training 58 Customer Service Training 51 Industry Classification 63 External Audits 56 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 1360.59 10187.80 Urban Population 97.07% 81.65% Human Development Index 0.865 0.814 153 Recife (Pernambuco) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 55 36 Recife Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 55 36 Performance Ranking 61 16 Time 33 31 Cost 59 1 Number of Visits 61 47 Rejections 60 2 Process Ranking 31 46 Information 46 30 Infrastructure 4 29 Tools 27 52 Inspections 43 55 Training 44 60 RECIFE RECIFE Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Time 33 Cost 1 Cost 59 Rejections 2 Rejections 60 Performance Ranking 16 Number of visits 61 Time 31 Performance Ranking 61 Number of visits 47 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Customer Opinion System 2 Complexity of Application Forms 6 External Audits 5 Clarity of Information 19 Availability of Manuals 6 Accessibility of Information 20 Categorization of Economic Activities 11 Use of Information Technology 20 Quality of Facilities 11 Customer Opinion System 27 Industry Classification 21 Construction Classification 30 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 23 Zoning 37 Zoning 25 Quality of Facilities 40 Use of Information Technology 27 Number of Inspections 42 Process Ranking 31 Categorization of Construction Type 46 Consistency of Process with Information 35 Process Ranking 46 Reasonable Inspections 36 Availability of Manuals 48 Transparency of Inspections 43 Internal Audits 49 Customer Service Training 45 Transparency of Inspections 49 Private Sector Participation 45 Consistency of Process with Information 54 Clarity of Information 47 Reasonable Inspections 55 Process Training 47 External Audits 59 Number of Inspections 51 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 59 Complexity of Application Forms 52 Private Sector Participation 59 Accessibility of Information 53 Process Training 60 Internal Audits 58 Customer Service Training 63 Delegation of Signing Authority 64 Delegation of Signing Authority 63 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 1422.91 7918.34 Urban Population 100.00% 76.51% Human Development Index 0.797 0.705 154 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Salvador (Bahia) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 32 14 Salvador Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 32 14 Performance Ranking 38 45 Time 42 40 Cost 55 42 Number of Visits 22 27 Rejections 31 58 Process Ranking 23 8 Information 21 16 Infrastructure 7 4 Tools 58 4 Inspections 11 15 Training 48 21 SALVADOR SALVADOR Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Number of visits 22 Number of visits 27 Rejections 31 Time 40 Performance Ranking 38 Cost 42 Time 42 Performance Ranking 45 Cost 55 Rejections 58 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Quality of Facilities 3 Customer Service Training 4 Use of Information Technology 8 Internal Audits 4 Complexity of Application Forms 9 Quality of Facilities 5 Consistency of Process with Information 9 Use of Information Technology 5 Reasonable Inspections 10 Process Ranking 8 Transparency of Inspections 10 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 9 Categorization of Economic Activities 23 Customer Opinion System 10 Process Ranking 23 Complexity of Application Forms 11 External Audits 25 Consistency of Process with Information 15 Private Sector Participation 25 Reasonable Inspections 15 Clarity of Information 27 Availability of Manuals 16 Customer Opinion System 28 Delegation of Signing Authority 16 Accessibility of Information 29 Zoning 16 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 29 External Audits 17 Customer Service Training 30 Transparency of Inspections 20 Availability of Manuals 34 Accessibility of Information 25 Zoning 40 Categorization of Construction Type 28 Number of Inspections 52 Number of Inspections 28 Process Training 64 Clarity of Information 29 Delegation of Signing Authority 65 Construction Classification 31 Industry Classification 65 Private Sector Participation 35 Internal Audits 65 Process Training 61 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 2443.11 13070.25 Urban Population 99.96% 67.12% Human Development Index 0.805 0.688 155 São Bernardo do Campo (São Paulo) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 27 44 São Bernardo do Campo Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 27 44 Performance Ranking 40 28 Time 54 35 Cost 22 56 Number of Visits 25 10 Rejections 59 14 Process Ranking 16 49 Information 24 37 Infrastructure 12 49 Tools 21 63 Inspections 15 14 Training 36 61 SÃO BERNARDO DO CAMPO SÃO BERNARDO DO CAMPO Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Cost 22 Number of visits 10 Number of visits 25 Rejections 14 Performance Ranking 40 Performance Ranking 28 Time 54 Time 35 Rejections 59 Cost 56 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Zoning 9 Transparency of Inspections 5 Transparency of Inspections 11 Categorization of Construction Type 13 Complexity of Application Forms 12 Zoning 17 Quality of Facilities 13 Private Sector Participation 18 Reasonable Inspections 14 Reasonable Inspections 23 Private Sector Participation 16 Clarity of Information 25 Process Ranking 16 Quality of Facilities 29 Customer Opinion System 18 Number of Inspections 30 Use of Information Technology 22 Complexity of Application Forms 31 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 24 Consistency of Process with Information 31 Clarity of Information 25 Accessibility of Information 40 Categorization of Economic Activities 26 Process Ranking 49 Industry Classification 35 Availability of Manuals 50 Process Training 35 Customer Opinion System 52 Accessibility of Information 37 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 53 Delegation of Signing Authority 39 Use of Information Technology 54 Customer Service Training 40 External Audits 60 Internal Audits 48 Internal Audits 62 Availability of Manuals 49 Construction Classification 63 Number of Inspections 55 Process Training 63 External Audits 59 Customer Service Training 64 Consistency of Process with Information 61 Delegation of Signing Authority 64 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 703.18 37032.40 Urban Population 98.26% 93.41% Human Development Index 0.834 0.820 156 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES São Luis (Maranhao) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit São Luis 33 24 Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 33 24 Performance Ranking 52 18 Time 39 18 Cost 64 34 Number of Visits 43 30 Rejections 54 18 Process Ranking 14 33 Information 27 27 Infrastructure 8 17 Tools 23 54 Inspections 40 6 Training 4 48 SÃO LUIS SÃO LUIS Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Time 39 Performance Ranking 18 Number of visits 43 Rejections 18 Performance Ranking 52 Time 18 Rejections 54 Number of visits 30 Cost 64 Cost 34 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Process Training 3 Customer Opinion System 8 Customer Service Training 9 Complexity of Application Forms 12 Categorization of Economic Activities 12 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 12 Customer Opinion System 12 Number of Inspections 12 Process Ranking 14 Reasonable Inspections 13 Use of Information Technology 16 Categorization of Construction Type 14 Private Sector Participation 17 Transparency of Inspections 14 Quality of Facilities 17 Accessibility of Information 22 Clarity of Information 18 Use of Information Technology 25 Accessibility of Information 25 Private Sector Participation 27 Complexity of Application Forms 30 Clarity of Information 33 Delegation of Signing Authority 31 Process Ranking 33 Zoning 34 Zoning 33 Availability of Manuals 35 Quality of Facilities 42 Reasonable Inspections 35 Consistency of Process with Information 43 Consistency of Process with Information 37 Customer Service Training 44 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 40 Process Training 44 Transparency of Inspections 41 Delegation of Signing Authority 50 Internal Audits 49 Availability of Manuals 51 Industry Classification 55 External Audits 61 Number of Inspections 56 Internal Audits 63 External Audits 60 Construction Classification 64 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 870.03 5651.48 Urban Population 96.27% 59.53% Human Development Index 0.778 0.636 157 São Paulo (São Paulo) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 59 29 São Paulo Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 59 29 Performance Ranking 57 35 Time 49 43 Cost 44 30 Number of Visits 44 31 Rejections 65 51 Process Ranking 55 34 Information 22 23 Infrastructure 40 33 Tools 65 51 Inspections 34 52 Training 62 8 SÃO PAULO SÃO PAULO Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Cost 44 Cost 30 Number of visits 44 Number of visits 31 Time 49 Performance Ranking 35 Performance Ranking 57 Time 43 Rejections 65 Rejections 51 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 5 Customer Service Training 3 Customer Opinion System 16 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 6 Complexity of Application Forms 17 Complexity of Application Forms 8 Quality of Facilities 26 Process Training 8 Reasonable Inspections 31 Customer Opinion System 11 Transparency of Inspections 36 Internal Audits 20 Clarity of Information 41 Clarity of Information 21 Accessibility of Information 46 Accessibility of Information 26 Private Sector Participation 46 Number of Inspections 31 Zoning 47 External Audits 32 Process Training 48 Process Ranking 34 Categorization of Economic Activities 54 Quality of Facilities 36 Availability of Manuals 55 Categorization of Construction Type 41 Process Ranking 55 Transparency of Inspections 43 Consistency of Process with Information 56 Use of Information Technology 46 Internal Audits 57 Zoning 46 Number of Inspections 57 Availability of Manuals 47 Delegation of Signing Authority 59 Construction Classification 53 External Audits 61 Delegation of Signing Authority 54 Industry Classification 62 Consistency of Process with Information 57 Customer Service Training 64 Reasonable Inspections 59 Use of Information Technology 64 Private Sector Participation 61 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 10434.25 37032.40 Urban Population 94.05% 93.41% Human Development Index 0.841 0.820 158 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Teresina (Piauí) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit Teresina 43 56 Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 43 56 Performance Ranking 48 56 Time 34 44 Cost 58 64 Number of Visits 62 41 Rejections 6 10 Process Ranking 36 47 Information 48 36 Infrastructure 28 25 Tools 26 56 Inspections 18 53 Training 57 62 TERESINA TERESINA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Rejections 6 Rejections 10 Time 34 Number of visits 41 Performance Ranking 48 Time 44 Cost 58 Performance Ranking 56 Number of visits 62 Cost 64 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Reasonable Inspections 16 Zoning 12 Transparency of Inspections 16 Clarity of Information 13 Categorization of Economic Activities 17 Quality of Facilities 19 Zoning 19 Private Sector Participation 19 Customer Opinion System 20 Customer Opinion System 23 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 27 Consistency of Process with Information 29 Use of Information Technology 28 Accessibility of Information 30 Industry Classification 29 Complexity of Application Forms 34 Complexity of Application Forms 32 Delegation of Signing Authority 38 Process Ranking 36 Categorization of Construction Type 44 Quality of Facilities 39 Number of Inspections 47 Delegation of Signing Authority 43 Process Ranking 47 Process Training 52 Use of Information Technology 47 Private Sector Participation 53 Reasonable Inspections 49 Clarity of Information 54 Availability of Manuals 52 Accessibility of Information 55 Transparency of Inspections 55 Internal Audits 55 External Audits 63 Customer Service Training 56 Internal Audits 64 Number of Inspections 61 Process Training 64 Consistency of Process with Information 62 Construction Classification 65 External Audits 63 Customer Service Training 65 Availability of Manuals 64 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 65 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 715.36 2843.28 Urban Population 94.70% 62.91% Human Development Index 0.766 0.656 159 Vitória (Espirito Santo) Municipal Scorecard Brazil Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 9 13 Vitória Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 9 13 Performance Ranking 27 20 Time 20 19 Cost 45 38 Number of Visits 28 33 Rejections 36 32 Process Ranking 6 14 Information 7 9 Infrastructure 6 18 Tools 18 40 Inspections 4 18 Training 20 16 VITÓRIA VITÓRIA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Time 20 Time 19 Performance Ranking 27 Performance Ranking 20 Number of visits 28 Rejections 32 Rejections 36 Number of visits 33 Cost 45 Cost 38 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Reasonable Inspections 3 Clarity of Information 6 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 3 Process Training 9 Use of Information Technology 4 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 10 Process Ranking 6 Accessibility of Information 11 Categorization of Economic Activities 9 Process Ranking 14 Clarity of Information 10 Quality of Facilities 16 Zoning 11 Complexity of Application Forms 17 Quality of Facilities 12 Reasonable Inspections 17 Complexity of Application Forms 14 Availability of Manuals 18 Customer Service Training 16 Private Sector Participation 20 Industry Classification 17 Transparency of Inspections 22 Accessibility of Information 21 Use of Information Technology 26 Customer Opinion System 21 External Audits 31 Transparency of Inspections 21 Internal Audits 32 Number of Inspections 22 Consistency of Process with Information 33 Process Training 25 Customer Opinion System 33 External Audits 28 Categorization of Construction Type 37 Internal Audits 31 Zoning 40 Delegation of Signing Authority 40 Customer Service Training 45 Availability of Manuals 51 Delegation of Signing Authority 45 Consistency of Process with Information 57 Construction Classification 59 Private Sector Participation 65 Number of Inspections 65 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 292.30 3097.23 Urban Population 100.00% 79.52% Human Development Index 0.856 0.765 160 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Honduras 161 Choloma (Cortés) Municipal Scorecard Honduras Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit Choloma 3 4 Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 3 4 Performance Ranking 17 17 Time 22 13 Cost 21 7 Number of Visits 5 14 Rejections 33 46 Process Ranking 4 4 Information 2 1 Infrastructure 10 7 Tools 6 6 Inspections 16 10 Training 6 10 CHOLOMA CHOLOMA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Number of visits 5 Cost 7 Performance Ranking 17 Time 13 Cost 21 Number of visits 14 Time 22 Performance Ranking 17 Rejections 33 Rejections 46 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Complexity of Application Forms 1 Clarity of Information 2 Industry Classification 1 Complexity of Application Forms 2 Accessibility of Information 2 Quality of Facilities 2 Clarity of Information 3 Accessibility of Information 3 Process Ranking 4 Categorization of Construction Type 3 Quality of Facilities 4 Process Ranking 4 Customer Service Training 5 Consistency of Process with Information 5 Process Training 5 Customer Service Training 6 External Audits 7 Transparency of Inspections 6 Internal Audits 7 Construction Classification 7 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 7 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 8 Reasonable Inspections 8 External Audits 9 Zoning 15 Delegation of Signing Authority 10 Use of Information Technology 17 Use of Information Technology 10 Categorization of Economic Activities 18 Zoning 10 Delegation of Signing Authority 18 Process Training 14 Transparency of Inspections 20 Reasonable Inspections 20 Customer Opinion System 26 Availability of Manuals 21 Number of Inspections 28 Private Sector Participation 30 Consistency of Process with Information 40 Customer Opinion System 35 Private Sector Participation 49 Number of Inspections 36 Availability of Manuals 54 Internal Audits 40 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 190.01 1283.10 Urban Population 73.54% 73.35% Human Development Index 0.661 0.709 162 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Choluteca (Choluteca) Municipal Scorecard Honduras Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 2 2 Choluteca Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 2 2 Performance Ranking 14 15 Time 1 6 Cost 40 40 Number of Visits 6 3 Rejections 5 19 Process Ranking 3 2 Information 1 14 Infrastructure 17 5 Tools 16 2 Inspections 1 5 Training 14 3 CHOLUTECA CHOLUTECA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Time 1 Number of visits 3 Rejections 5 Time 6 Number of visits 6 Performance Ranking 15 Performance Ranking 14 Rejections 19 Cost 40 Cost 40 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Availability of Manuals 1 Availability of Manuals 1 Clarity of Information 1 Internal Audits 1 Private Sector Participation 1 Number of Inspections 1 Reasonable Inspections 1 Use of Information Technology 1 Complexity of Application Forms 2 Delegation of Signing Authority 2 Consistency of Process with Information 2 Process Ranking 2 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 2 Process Training 4 Transparency of Inspections 2 Transparency of Inspections 4 Accessibility of Information 3 Construction Classification 8 External Audits 3 Customer Opinion System 9 Number of Inspections 3 Consistency of Process with Information 10 Process Ranking 3 Customer Service Training 10 Customer Opinion System 14 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 11 Process Training 15 Reasonable Inspections 14 Internal Audits 18 Complexity of Application Forms 15 Use of Information Technology 18 External Audits 15 Categorization of Economic Activities 19 Clarity of Information 16 Customer Service Training 23 Accessibility of Information 19 Industry Classification 30 Categorization of Construction Type 21 Delegation of Signing Authority 32 Zoning 26 Quality of Facilities 32 Quality of Facilities 30 Zoning 35 Private Sector Participation 31 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 137.83 405.31 Urban Population 62.49% 28.00% Human Development Index 0.676 0.627 163 Comayagua (Comayagua) Municipal Scorecard Honduras Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 4 1 Comayagua Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 4 1 Performance Ranking 25 1 Time 9 4 Cost 11 11 Number of Visits 7 15 Rejections 56 3 Process Ranking 1 1 Information 3 2 Infrastructure 14 6 Tools 2 5 Inspections 10 4 Training 2 2 COMAYAGUA COMAYAGUA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Number of visits 7 Performance Ranking 1 Time 9 Rejections 3 Cost 11 Time 4 Performance Ranking 25 Cost 11 Rejections 56 Number of visits 15 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Consistency of Process with Information 1 Consistency of Process with Information 1 Customer Service Training 1 Customer Service Training 1 Delegation of Signing Authority 1 Process Ranking 1 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 1 Quality of Facilities 1 Process Ranking 1 Categorization of Construction Type 2 Categorization of Economic Activities 2 Private Sector Participation 2 Clarity of Information 2 Transparency of Inspections 2 Industry Classification 2 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 3 Internal Audits 2 Clarity of Information 4 Private Sector Participation 2 Use of Information Technology 4 Quality of Facilities 2 Accessibility of Information 5 Zoning 2 Zoning 5 Process Training 4 Availability of Manuals 7 Transparency of Inspections 5 Construction Classification 9 Reasonable Inspections 9 Reasonable Inspections 10 Accessibility of Information 11 Delegation of Signing Authority 11 Complexity of Application Forms 13 Process Training 12 External Audits 15 Internal Audits 16 Use of Information Technology 19 Number of Inspections 17 Availability of Manuals 27 Complexity of Application Forms 20 Number of Inspections 29 External Audits 36 Customer Opinion System 36 Customer Opinion System 43 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 98.76 371.25 Urban Population 61.01% 37.84% Human Development Index 0.658 0.629 164 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES El Progreso (Yoro) Municipal Scorecard Honduras Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 65 49 El Progreso Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 65 49 Performance Ranking 63 30 Time 65 16 Cost 51 60 Number of Visits 11 18 Rejections 15 25 Process Ranking 64 56 Information 60 51 Infrastructure 62 62 Tools 61 48 Inspections 64 56 Training 28 30 EL PROGRESO EL PROGRESO Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Number of visits 11 Time 16 Rejections 15 Number of visits 18 Cost 51 Rejections 25 Performance Ranking 63 Performance Ranking 30 Time 65 Cost 60 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Availability of Manuals 23 External Audits 3 External Audits 24 Number of Inspections 4 Industry Classification 27 Construction Classification 13 Process Training 29 Process Training 18 Customer Service Training 29 Internal Audits 18 Consistency of process with information received 30 Private Sector Participation 21 Internal Audits 32 Accessibility of Information 29 Number of Inspections 33 Complexity of Application Forms 38 Delegation of Signing Authority 38 Customer Service Training 40 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 50 Availability of Manuals 44 Complexity of Application Forms 54 Delegation of Signing Authority 48 Customer Opinion System 55 Categorization of Construction Type 51 Use of Information Technology 58 Reasonable Inspections 51 Private Sector Participation 58 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 52 Quality of Facilities 58 Customer Opinion System 53 Clarity of Information 60 Process Ranking 56 Reasonable Inspections 62 Consistency of Process with Information 56 Accessibility of Information 63 Transparency of Inspections 61 Zoning 64 Use of Information Technology 61 Process Ranking 64 Quality of Facilities 62 Categorization of Economic Activities 64 Zoning 63 Transparency of Inspections 65 Clarity of Information 64 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 165.62 484.6 Urban Population 76.02% 43.65% Human Development Index 0.688 0.651 165 La Ceiba (Atlántida) Municipal Scorecard Honduras Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit La Ceiba 10 18 Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 10 18 Performance Ranking 31 13 Time 24 21 Cost 17 10 Number of Visits 36 21 Rejections 51 26 Process Ranking 7 31 Information 9 31 Infrastructure 2 22 Tools 3 19 Inspections 48 38 Training 7 29 LA CEIBA LA CEIBA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Cost 17 Cost 10 Time 24 Performance Ranking 13 Performance Ranking 31 Number of visits 21 Number of visits 36 Time 21 Rejections 51 Rejections 26 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Consistency of Process with Information 3 Number of Inspections 5 Customer Opinion System 3 Private Sector Participation 10 Customer Service Training 4 External Audits 12 Industry Classification 4 Availability of Manuals 13 Complexity of Application Forms 6 Delegation of Signing Authority 13 Process Ranking 7 Complexity of Application Forms 16 Quality of Facilities 10 Consistency of Process with Information 20 External Audits 12 Customer Service Training 20 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 12 Construction Classification 21 Clarity of Information 13 Customer Opinion System 21 Internal Audits 13 Categorization of Construction Type 23 Use of Information Technology 13 Quality of Facilities 23 Zoning 13 Zoning 30 Categorization of Economic Activities 16 Process Ranking 31 Accessibility of Information 18 Use of Information Technology 34 Process Training 19 Transparency of Inspections 35 Delegation of Signing Authority 20 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 37 Private Sector Participation 23 Accessibility of Information 39 Availability of Manuals 24 Clarity of Information 46 Reasonable Inspections 33 Reasonable Inspections 46 Number of Inspections 39 Process Training 57 Transparency of Inspections 53 Internal Audits 60 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 149.22 358.20 Urban Population 93.08% 58.29% Human Development Index 0.738 0.687 166 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Puerto Cortés (Cortés) Municipal Scorecard Honduras Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit Puerto Cortés 15 3 Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 15 3 Performance Ranking 34 11 Time 19 14 Cost 50 25 Number of Visits 40 25 Rejections 25 13 Process Ranking 8 3 Information 10 5 Infrastructure 29 16 Tools 9 3 Inspections 7 2 Training 18 6 PUERTO CORTÉS PUERTO CORTÉS Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Time 19 Performance Ranking 11 Rejections 25 Rejections 13 Performance Ranking 34 Time 14 Number of visits 40 Cost 25 Cost 50 Number of visits 25 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Reasonable Inspections 4 Accessibility of Information 1 Transparency of Inspections 6 Use of Information Technology 2 Process Ranking 8 Complexity of Application Forms 3 Complexity of Application Forms 10 Process Ranking 3 Internal Audits 11 Reasonable Inspections 3 Accessibility of Information 12 Transparency of Inspections 3 Consistency of Process with Information 12 Consistency of Process with Information 4 Availability of Manuals 13 Delegation of Signing Authority 4 Clarity of Information 15 Categorization of Construction Type 7 Delegation of Signing Authority 16 Process Training 7 External Audits 16 Customer Service Training 9 Industry Classification 16 Zoning 9 Customer Service Training 18 Internal Audits 14 Zoning 18 Availability of Manuals 15 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 19 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 18 Use of Information Technology 21 Clarity of Information 20 Private Sector Participation 24 External Audits 22 Categorization of Economic Activities 25 Private Sector Participation 22 Quality of Facilities 29 Number of Inspections 27 Process Training 31 Construction Classification 28 Customer Opinion System 34 Quality of Facilities 31 Number of Inspections 48 Customer Opinion System 40 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 104.57 1283.10 Urban Population 59.88% 73.35% Human Development Index 0.678 0.709 167 San Pedro Sula (Cortés) Municipal Scorecard Honduras Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit San Pedro Sula 25 25 Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 25 25 Performance Ranking 24 31 Time 44 33 Cost 14 32 Number of Visits 41 39 Rejections 32 40 Process Ranking 22 20 Information 12 48 Infrastructure 43 31 Tools 40 21 Inspections 24 27 Training 24 4 SAN PEDRO SULA SAN PEDRO SULA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Cost 14 Performance Ranking 31 Performance Ranking 24 Cost 32 Rejections 32 Time 33 Number of visits 41 Number of visits 39 Time 44 Rejections 40 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Accessibility of Information 1 Process Training 1 Transparency of Inspections 1 Availability of Manuals 5 Quality of Facilities 7 Quality of Facilities 12 Zoning 7 Internal Audits 15 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 9 Use of Information Technology 16 External Audits 11 Categorization of Construction Type 19 Private Sector Participation 14 Process Ranking 20 Process Training 21 Transparency of Inspections 23 Process Ranking 22 Customer Service Training 26 Customer Service Training 26 Consistency of Process with Information 28 Complexity of Application Forms 27 Reasonable Inspections 29 Clarity of Information 37 External Audits 30 Internal Audits 37 Construction Classification 33 Use of Information Technology 47 Zoning 38 Consistency of Process with Information 50 Private Sector Participation 39 Industry Classification 50 Number of Inspections 43 Number of Inspections 53 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 45 Delegation of Signing Authority 57 Accessibility of Information 47 Categorization of Economic Activities 58 Delegation of Signing Authority 51 Reasonable Inspections 58 Clarity of Information 53 Availability of Manuals 61 Complexity of Application Forms 53 Customer Opinion System 64 Customer Opinion System 60 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 611.52 1283.10 Urban Population 92.73% 73.35% Human Development Index 0.705 0.709 168 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Santa Rosa de Copán (Copán) Municipal Scorecard Honduras Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 12 19 Santa Rosa de Copán Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 12 19 Performance Ranking 35 25 Time 46 32 Cost 43 41 Number of Visits 24 29 Rejections 38 8 Process Ranking 5 21 Information 16 18 Infrastructure 21 47 Tools 1 15 Inspections 50 11 Training 1 33 SANTA ROSA DE COPÁN SANTA ROSA DE COPÁN Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Number of visits 24 Rejections 8 Performance Ranking 35 Performance Ranking 25 Rejections 38 Number of visits 29 Cost 43 Time 32 Time 46 Cost 41 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Internal Audits 1 External Audits 4 Process Training 1 Categorization of Construction Type 5 Customer Service Training 2 Delegation of Signing Authority 5 Use of Information Technology 2 Clarity of Information 12 Categorization of Economic Activities 3 Transparency of Inspections 13 Zoning 3 Consistency of Process with Information 14 Delegation of Signing Authority 4 Customer Service Training 14 Industry Classification 5 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 14 Process Ranking 5 Accessibility of Information 18 Clarity of Information 6 Reasonable Inspections 18 Availability of Manuals 10 Process Ranking 21 Consistency of Process with Information 10 Internal Audits 25 Accessibility of Information 13 Zoning 27 External Audits 14 Private Sector Participation 28 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 21 Quality of Facilities 28 Quality of Facilities 24 Customer Opinion System 32 Private Sector Participation 27 Construction Classification 34 Complexity of Application Forms 34 Availability of Manuals 35 Transparency of Inspections 37 Complexity of Application Forms 42 Customer Opinion System 45 Number of Inspections 45 Reasonable Inspections 51 Process Training 62 Number of Inspections 54 Use of Information Technology 64 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 42.55 303.40 Urban Population 69.31% 26.14% Human Development Index 0.669 0.578 169 Tegucigalpa (Francisco Morazán) Municipal Scorecard Honduras Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 40 21 Tegucigalpa Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 40 21 Performance Ranking 46 14 Time 43 22 Cost 46 17 Number of Visits 46 40 Rejections 55 9 Process Ranking 37 32 Information 43 32 Infrastructure 41 56 Tools 32 7 Inspections 13 33 Training 49 23 TEGUCIGALPA TEGUCIGALPA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Time 43 Rejections 9 Cost 46 Performance Ranking 14 Number of visits 46 Cost 17 Performance Ranking 46 Time 22 Rejections 55 Number of visits 40 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Availability of Manuals 7 External Audits 1 Reasonable Inspections 7 Internal Audits 10 Internal Audits 12 Accessibility of Information 12 Transparency of Inspections 15 Process Training 16 Accessibility of Information 16 Zoning 20 Delegation of Signing Authority 17 Complexity of Application Forms 21 Private Sector Participation 18 Delegation of Signing Authority 24 Consistency of Process with Information 26 Customer Service Training 31 External Audits 26 Clarity of Information 32 Customer Opinion System 30 Process Ranking 32 Categorization of Economic Activities 36 Use of Information Technology 32 Process Ranking 37 Transparency of Inspections 33 Complexity of Application Forms 38 Reasonable Inspections 34 Zoning 41 Construction Classification 35 Industry Classification 43 Availability of Manuals 36 Quality of Facilities 45 Private Sector Participation 36 Use of Information Technology 49 Categorization of Construction Type 49 Customer Service Training 50 Consistency of Process with Information 51 Process Training 54 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 55 Clarity of Information 55 Quality of Facilities 60 Number of Inspections 60 Customer Opinion System 61 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 63 Number of Inspections 63 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 954.27 1237.48 Urban Population 91.68% 76.00% Human Development Index 0.759 0.732 170 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Nicaragua 171 Chinandega (Chinandega) Municipal Scorecard Nicaragua Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 7 8 Chinandega Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 7 8 Performance Ranking 5 9 Time 3 3 Cost 16 21 Number of Visits 4 13 Rejections 4 22 Process Ranking 19 12 Information 15 20 Infrastructure 51 44 Tools 8 10 Inspections 28 20 Training 21 7 CHINANDEGA CHINANDEGA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Time 3 Time 3 Number of visits 4 Performance Ranking 9 Rejections 4 Number of visits 13 Performance Ranking 5 Cost 21 Cost 16 Rejections 22 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Number of Inspections 2 Complexity of Application Forms 4 Accessibility of Information 5 Customer Service Training 5 Consistency of Process with Information 5 Internal Audits 5 Use of Information Technology 5 Construction Classification 6 Delegation of Signing Authority 6 Process Training 6 External Audits 6 Use of Information Technology 9 Clarity of Information 7 Process Ranking 12 Industry Classification 7 External Audits 14 Internal Audits 15 Transparency of Inspections 17 Complexity of Application Forms 19 Delegation of Signing Authority 19 Process Ranking 19 Reasonable Inspections 19 Customer Service Training 20 Availability of Manuals 20 Process Training 23 Consistency of Process with Information 23 Categorization of Economic Activities 24 Accessibility of Information 24 Private Sector Participation 30 Categorization of Construction Type 24 Transparency of Inspections 32 Clarity of Information 27 Reasonable Inspections 34 Customer Opinion System 37 Availability of Manuals 36 Private Sector Participation 43 Customer Opinion System 42 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 44 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 46 Number of Inspections 50 Zoning 56 Zoning 51 Quality of Facilities 63 Quality of Facilities 61 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 121.79 378.97 Urban Population 78.51% 59.65% Human Development Index 0.719 0.649 172 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Estelí (Estelí) Municipal Scorecard Nicaragua Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 5 5 Estelí Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 5 5 Performance Ranking 2 8 Time 2 1 Cost 28 27 Number of Visits 1 4 Rejections 16 16 Process Ranking 11 6 Information 20 6 Infrastructure 32 15 Tools 4 11 Inspections 19 3 Training 9 5 ESTELÍ ESTELÍ Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Number of visits 1 Time 1 Performance Ranking 2 Number of visits 4 Time 2 Performance Ranking 8 Rejections 16 Rejections 16 Cost 28 Cost 27 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Zoning 1 Availability of Manuals 2 Customer Service Training 3 Reasonable Inspections 2 Private Sector Participation 3 Private Sector Participation 6 Complexity of Application Forms 5 Process Ranking 6 Categorization of Economic Activities 8 Accessibility of Information 7 Delegation of Signing Authority 8 Clarity of Information 7 External Audits 8 Consistency of Process with Information 7 Number of Inspections 8 Categorization of Construction Type 8 Industry Classification 11 Complexity of Application Forms 9 Process Ranking 11 Transparency of Inspections 9 Process Training 12 Process Training 10 Transparency of Inspections 18 Zoning 11 Accessibility of Information 20 Internal Audits 13 Internal Audits 24 Construction Classification 14 Quality of Facilities 27 Customer Service Training 15 Reasonable Inspections 28 Number of Inspections 19 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 28 Use of Information Technology 19 Clarity of Information 31 Quality of Facilities 20 Use of Information Technology 36 External Audits 23 Customer Opinion System 44 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 27 Consistency of Process with Information 49 Customer Opinion System 28 Availability of Manuals 58 Delegation of Signing Authority 28 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 112.08 201.55 Urban Population 80.56% 59.00% Human Development Index 0.754 0.702 173 Granada (Granada) Municipal Scorecard Nicaragua Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 21 47 Granada Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 21 47 Performance Ranking 4 60 Time 4 34 Cost 7 65 Number of Visits 13 37 Rejections 8 39 Process Ranking 39 11 Information 29 15 Infrastructure 61 28 Tools 29 14 Inspections 38 21 Training 19 15 GRANADA GRANADA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Performance Ranking 4 Time 34 Time 4 Number of visits 37 Cost 7 Rejections 39 Rejections 8 Performance Ranking 60 Number of visits 13 Cost 65 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Consistency of Process with Information 4 Availability of Manuals 3 Private Sector Participation 4 Consistency of Process with Information 6 Process Training 8 Process Ranking 11 Zoning 8 Reasonable Inspections 12 Number of Inspections 10 Transparency of Inspections 12 Availability of Manuals 12 Use of Information Technology 12 Industry Classification 19 Accessibility of Information 13 Complexity of Application Forms 23 Clarity of Information 15 Accessibility of Information 26 Categorization of Construction Type 16 Delegation of Signing Authority 26 Construction Classification 17 Internal Audits 35 Quality of Facilities 18 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 35 Zoning 18 Clarity of Information 39 Process Training 20 Process Ranking 39 External Audits 21 Customer Service Training 42 Complexity of Application Forms 28 Reasonable Inspections 42 Internal Audits 28 External Audits 43 Delegation of Signing Authority 30 Quality of Facilities 48 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 31 Categorization of Economic Activities 52 Customer Service Training 36 Transparency of Inspections 52 Private Sector Participation 51 Use of Information Technology 59 Customer Opinion System 55 Customer Opinion System 60 Number of Inspections 56 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 105.17 168.19 Urban Population 71.35% 100.00% Human Development Index 0.720 0.690 174 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Jinotega (Jinotega) Municipal Scorecard Nicaragua Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 6 16 Jinotega Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 6 16 Performance Ranking 13 3 Time 10 7 Cost 35 15 Number of Visits 14 5 Rejections 18 6 Process Ranking 9 35 Information 5 10 Infrastructure 44 53 Tools 24 53 Inspections 2 13 Training 5 22 JINOTEGA JINOTEGA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Time 10 Performance Ranking 3 Performance Ranking 13 Number of visits 5 Number of visits 14 Rejections 6 Rejections 18 Time 7 Cost 35 Cost 15 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Accessibility of Information 4 Clarity of Information 8 Complexity of Application Forms 4 Availability of Manuals 12 Internal Audits 4 Customer Service Training 13 Transparency of Inspections 4 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 13 Availability of Manuals 5 Transparency of Inspections 15 Clarity of Information 5 Accessibility of Information 16 Customer Service Training 7 Reasonable Inspections 16 Process Ranking 9 Consistency of Process with Information 17 Process Training 9 Construction Classification 19 Number of Inspections 11 Complexity of Application Forms 22 Use of Information Technology 12 Number of Inspections 22 Reasonable Inspections 13 Categorization of Construction Type 29 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 16 Zoning 32 Consistency of Process with Information 17 Process Ranking 35 Delegation of Signing Authority 30 Customer Opinion System 38 Categorization of Economic Activities 31 Private Sector Participation 38 Zoning 32 Quality of Facilities 39 Industry Classification 33 Delegation of Signing Authority 43 Quality of Facilities 43 Process Training 45 External Audits 46 External Audits 46 Customer Opinion System 57 Internal Audits 58 Private Sector Participation 59 Use of Information Technology 62 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 99.38 331.34 Urban Population 41.39% 21.43% Human Development Index 0.616 0.503 175 León (León) Municipal Scorecard Nicaragua Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 14 9 León Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 14 9 Performance Ranking 7 4 Time 5 9 Cost 9 5 Number of Visits 17 6 Rejections 24 27 Process Ranking 21 15 Information 33 11 Infrastructure 16 35 Tools 12 13 Inspections 62 30 Training 3 20 LEÓN LEÓN Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Time 5 Performance Ranking 4 Performance Ranking 7 Cost 5 Cost 9 Number of visits 6 Number of visits 17 Time 9 Rejections 24 Rejections 27 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Process Training 2 Accessibility of Information 4 Use of Information Technology 6 Number of Inspections 6 Consistency of Process with Information 8 Complexity of Application Forms 7 Accessibility of Information 9 Internal Audits 8 Customer Service Training 10 Clarity of Information 11 Number of Inspections 14 Private Sector Participation 11 Industry Classification 15 Delegation of Signing Authority 14 External Audits 20 Process Ranking 15 Delegation of Signing Authority 21 Categorization of Construction Type 18 Process Ranking 21 Consistency of Process with Information 21 Zoning 22 Customer Service Training 21 Quality of Facilities 25 Process Training 21 Clarity of Information 26 Construction Classification 22 Internal Audits 26 Customer Opinion System 26 Customer Opinion System 29 Use of Information Technology 27 Availability of Manuals 32 External Audits 28 Private Sector Participation 32 Availability of Manuals 32 Complexity of Application Forms 39 Reasonable Inspections 33 Categorization of Economic Activities 40 Transparency of Inspections 39 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 60 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 43 Transparency of Inspections 63 Quality of Facilities 44 Reasonable Inspections 64 Zoning 47 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 174.05 355.78 Urban Population 80.11% 58.98% Human Development Index 0.745 0.691 176 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Managua (Managua) Municipal Scorecard Nicaragua Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit Managua 11 12 Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 11 12 Performance Ranking 11 12 Time 15 11 Cost 6 9 Number of Visits 38 7 Rejections 7 44 Process Ranking 17 16 Information 8 12 Infrastructure 45 21 Tools 10 26 Inspections 12 24 Training 42 24 MANAGUA MANAGUA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Cost 6 Number of visits 7 Rejections 7 Cost 9 Performance Ranking 11 Time 11 Time 15 Performance Ranking 12 Number of visits 38 Rejections 44 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Delegation of Signing Authority 3 Number of Inspections 8 Categorization of Economic Activities 6 Accessibility of Information 9 Accessibility of Information 8 Clarity of Information 10 Clarity of Information 8 Categorization of Construction Type 11 Transparency of Inspections 9 Consistency of Process with Information 13 Reasonable Inspections 11 Complexity of Application Forms 14 Industry Classification 13 Customer Service Training 16 Internal Audits 14 Process Ranking 16 Zoning 14 Transparency of Inspections 21 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 17 Zoning 23 Process Ranking 17 Construction Classification 24 Complexity of Application Forms 20 Availability of Manuals 25 Availability of Manuals 25 Customer Opinion System 25 Use of Information Technology 26 Quality of Facilities 25 Customer Service Training 33 Use of Information Technology 28 Number of Inspections 43 Delegation of Signing Authority 31 Process Training 43 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 34 Quality of Facilities 46 Reasonable Inspections 35 External Audits 49 Internal Audits 42 Customer Opinion System 50 External Audits 51 Consistency of Process with Information 55 Process Training 52 Private Sector Participation 61 Private Sector Participation 54 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 937.49 1262.98 Urban Population 96.95% 90.46% Human Development Index 0.827 0.827 177 Masaya (Masaya) Municipal Scorecard Nicaragua Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 30 6 Masaya Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 30 6 Performance Ranking 9 6 Time 12 8 Cost 26 16 Number of Visits 20 8 Rejections 21 20 Process Ranking 46 7 Information 25 8 Infrastructure 54 20 Tools 33 1 Inspections 52 36 Training 52 1 MASAYA MASAYA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Performance Ranking 9 Performance Ranking 6 Time 12 Number of visits 8 Number of visits 20 Time 8 Rejections 21 Cost 16 Cost 26 Rejections 20 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Private Sector Participation 11 External Audits 2 Accessibility of Information 17 Process Training 2 Categorization of Economic Activities 20 Delegation of Signing Authority 3 Clarity of Information 23 Availability of Manuals 4 Complexity of Application Forms 24 Clarity of Information 5 Zoning 28 Customer Service Training 7 Industry Classification 34 Process Ranking 7 Quality of Facilities 36 Accessibility of Information 8 Delegation of Signing Authority 41 Internal Audits 9 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 41 Complexity of Application Forms 10 Consistency of Process with Information 42 Number of Inspections 10 Internal Audits 43 Consistency of Process with Information 11 Use of Information Technology 43 Categorization of Construction Type 12 Process Training 44 Quality of Facilities 13 Reasonable Inspections 44 Private Sector Participation 14 Availability of Manuals 45 Use of Information Technology 15 Number of Inspections 45 Zoning 19 Process Ranking 46 Construction Classification 25 Transparency of Inspections 47 Reasonable Inspections 31 External Audits 51 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 35 Customer Service Training 52 Transparency of Inspections 42 Customer Opinion System 62 Customer Opinion System 45 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 139.58 289.99 Urban Population 66.34% 55.37% Human Development Index 0.749 0.716 178 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Matagalpa (Matagalpa) Municipal Scorecard Nicaragua Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 8 11 Matagalpa Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 8 11 Performance Ranking 12 2 Time 16 10 Cost 30 14 Number of Visits 21 24 Rejections 14 1 Process Ranking 13 24 Information 6 34 Infrastructure 49 23 Tools 7 18 Inspections 21 23 Training 26 32 MATAGALPA MATAGALPA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Performance Ranking 12 Rejections 1 Rejections 14 Performance Ranking 2 Time 16 Time 10 Number of visits 21 Cost 14 Cost 30 Number of visits 24 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Complexity of Application Forms 3 Use of Information Technology 8 Zoning 5 Number of Inspections 11 Industry Classification 8 Availability of Manuals 14 Clarity of Information 9 Private Sector Participation 15 Delegation of Signing Authority 9 Complexity of Application Forms 18 Accessibility of Information 10 Transparency of Inspections 19 Private Sector Participation 12 Customer Opinion System 22 Process Ranking 13 Customer Service Training 22 Transparency of Inspections 14 Delegation of Signing Authority 23 Use of Information Technology 14 Process Ranking 24 Customer Service Training 17 Construction Classification 26 Internal Audits 17 Reasonable Inspections 27 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 18 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 29 Reasonable Inspections 20 Consistency of Process with Information 30 Process Training 30 Categorization of Construction Type 31 Categorization of Economic Activities 39 Zoning 35 Number of Inspections 46 Clarity of Information 42 Customer Opinion System 51 Internal Audits 43 External Audits 52 Accessibility of Information 44 Quality of Facilities 55 Quality of Facilities 45 Availability of Manuals 63 External Audits 53 Consistency of Process with Information 64 Process Training 58 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 133.42 469.17 Urban Population 60.13% 37.27% Human Development Index 0.669 0.579 179 Rivas (Rivas) Municipal Scorecard Nicaragua Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 20 10 Rivas Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 20 10 Performance Ranking 1 7 Time 8 2 Cost 10 6 Number of Visits 2 26 Rejections 27 31 Process Ranking 40 13 Information 28 17 Infrastructure 60 26 Tools 31 9 Inspections 46 39 Training 16 11 RIVAS RIVAS Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Performance Ranking 1 Time 2 Number of visits 2 Cost 6 Time 8 Performance Ranking 7 Cost 10 Number of visits 26 Rejections 27 Rejections 31 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Customer Service Training 6 Categorization of Construction Type 1 Delegation of Signing Authority 13 Zoning 4 Private Sector Participation 13 External Audits 7 Accessibility of Information 14 Availability of Manuals 9 Industry Classification 14 Process Ranking 13 Number of Inspections 17 Accessibility of Information 15 Clarity of Information 19 Consistency of Process with Information 16 Consistency of Process with Information 33 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 17 Process Training 33 Quality of Facilities 17 Complexity of Application Forms 35 Customer Service Training 18 Process Ranking 40 Clarity of Information 22 Availability of Manuals 42 Process Training 22 Zoning 49 Internal Audits 23 Quality of Facilities 50 Delegation of Signing Authority 25 Transparency of Inspections 50 Complexity of Application Forms 30 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 53 Transparency of Inspections 31 Reasonable Inspections 53 Private Sector Participation 34 Categorization of Economic Activities 55 Customer Opinion System 36 Use of Information Technology 55 Use of Information Technology 37 Internal Audits 56 Reasonable Inspections 41 External Audits 57 Construction Classification 48 Customer Opinion System 63 Number of Inspections 62 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 41.08 156.28 Urban Population 67.31% 47.34% Human Development Index 0.748 0.656 180 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES San Juan del Sur (Rivas) Municipal Scorecard Nicaragua Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 24 26 San Juan del Sur Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 24 26 Performance Ranking 15 29 Time 6 5 Cost 42 62 Number of Visits 23 1 Rejections 13 21 Process Ranking 30 26 Information 11 4 Infrastructure 38 34 Tools 14 29 Inspections 49 50 Training 51 35 SAN JUAN DEL SUR SAN JUAN DEL SUR Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLE PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Time 6 Number of visits 1 Rejections 13 Time 5 Performance Ranking 15 Rejections 21 Number of visits 23 Performance Ranking 29 Cost 42 Cost 62 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Accessibility of Information 6 Complexity of Application Forms 1 Complexity of Application Forms 8 Clarity of Information 3 Delegation of Signing Authority 10 Accessibility of Information 6 Clarity of Information 12 Consistency of Process with Information 8 Use of Information Technology 15 Customer Service Training 17 Number of Inspections 18 Private Sector Participation 17 Internal Audits 19 Delegation of Signing Authority 18 External Audits 21 External Audits 18 Industry Classification 22 Quality of Facilities 21 Private Sector Participation 26 Process Ranking 26 Categorization of Economic Activities 28 Number of Inspections 29 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 30 Construction Classification 32 Process Ranking 30 Internal Audits 33 Quality of Facilities 40 Customer Opinion System 34 Process Training 42 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 36 Zoning 44 Process Training 42 Reasonable Inspections 49 Reasonable Inspections 42 Availability of Manuals 53 Use of Information Technology 42 Customer Service Training 53 Transparency of Inspections 51 Consistency of Process with Information 54 Categorization of Construction Type 53 Customer Opinion System 58 Zoning 54 Transparency of Inspections 58 Availability of Manuals 55 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 14.74 156.28 Urban Population 48.98% 47.37% Human Development Index 0.652 0.656 181 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Peru 183 Cajamarca (Cajamarca) Municipal Scorecard Peru Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 41 60 Cajamarca Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 41 60 Performance Ranking 47 62 Time 37 59 Cost 63 58 Number of Visits 48 49 Rejections 2 63 Process Ranking 38 43 Information 37 46 Infrastructure 34 39 Tools 36 34 Inspections 57 51 Training 17 57 CAJAMARCA CAJAMARCA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Rejections 2 Number of visits 49 Time 37 Cost 58 Performance Ranking 47 Time 59 Number of visits 48 Performance Ranking 62 Cost 63 Rejections 63 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Process Training 16 Construction Classification 3 Customer Service Training 19 Delegation of Signing Authority 9 Private Sector Participation 20 Use of Information Technology 21 External Audits 23 Customer Service Training 25 Use of Information Technology 23 External Audits 26 Accessibility of Information 24 Process Training 27 Delegation of Signing Authority 24 Consistency of Process with Information 32 Number of Inspections 26 Number of Inspections 34 Clarity of Information 35 Quality of Facilities 34 Process Ranking 38 Accessibility of Information 36 Industry Classification 40 Private Sector Participation 40 Quality of Facilities 42 Process Ranking 43 Customer Opinion System 43 Clarity of Information 44 Complexity of Application Forms 44 Customer Opinion System 44 Transparency of Inspections 44 Transparency of Inspections 44 Internal Audits 45 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 49 Availability of Manuals 46 Internal Audits 50 Consistency of Process with Information 46 Complexity of Application Forms 52 Categorization of Economic Activities 48 Reasonable Inspections 54 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 49 Categorization of Construction Type 59 Reasonable Inspections 59 Zoning 61 Zoning 61 Availability of Manuals 64 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 156.82 1359.02 Urban Population 75.77% 28.07% Human Development Index 0.587 0.540 184 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Callao (Callao) Municipal Scorecard Peru Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 47 32 Callao Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 47 32 Performance Ranking 51 47 Time 58 55 Cost 39 31 Number of Visits 56 54 Rejections 28 42 Process Ranking 41 30 Information 32 42 Infrastructure 55 37 Tools 42 16 Inspections 26 8 Training 31 45 CALLAO CALLAO Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Rejections 28 Cost 31 Cost 39 Rejections 42 Performance Ranking 51 Performance Ranking 47 Number of visits 56 Number of visits 54 Time 58 Time 55 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Internal Audits 6 Delegation of Signing Authority 1 Availability of Manuals 16 Construction Classification 4 Customer Service Training 24 External Audits 8 Transparency of Inspections 25 Reasonable Inspections 9 Reasonable Inspections 26 Transparency of Inspections 11 Number of Inspections 27 Customer Opinion System 13 Complexity of Application Forms 28 Categorization of Construction Type 17 Categorization of Economic Activities 30 Process Training 17 Industry Classification 31 Process Ranking 30 External Audits 32 Clarity of Information 31 Accessibility of Information 34 Customer Service Training 33 Consistency of Process with Information 34 Use of Information Technology 33 Clarity of Information 36 Consistency of Process with Information 34 Delegation of Signing Authority 36 Number of Inspections 35 Process Training 37 Internal Audits 38 Customer Opinion System 41 Accessibility of Information 41 Process Ranking 41 Complexity of Application Forms 44 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 43 Private Sector Participation 45 Private Sector Participation 48 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 47 Use of Information Technology 50 Quality of Facilities 47 Zoning 52 Zoning 56 Quality of Facilities 56 Availability of Manuals 58 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 389.58 810.57 Urban Population 100.00% 100.00% Human Development Index 0.715 0.710 185 Chiclayo (Lambayeque) Municipal Scorecard Peru Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 58 63 Chiclayo Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 58 63 Performance Ranking 53 46 Time 48 37 Cost 27 44 Number of Visits 49 2 Rejections 62 59 Process Ranking 61 65 Information 56 62 Infrastructure 53 65 Tools 63 65 Inspections 58 61 Training 40 64 CHICLAYO CHICLAYO Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Cost 27 Number of visits 2 Time 48 Time 37 Number of visits 49 Cost 44 Performance Ranking 53 Performance Ranking 46 Rejections 62 Rejections 59 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Availability of Manuals 8 Number of Inspections 15 Consistency of Process with Information 20 External Audits 35 External Audits 34 Consistency of Process with Information 45 Use of Information Technology 34 Private Sector Participation 46 Process Training 38 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 50 Transparency of Inspections 40 Construction Classification 52 Internal Audits 41 Complexity of Application Forms 54 Complexity of Application Forms 45 Internal Audits 54 Industry Classification 45 Process Training 54 Customer Opinion System 47 Availability of Manuals 57 Customer Service Training 47 Delegation of Signing Authority 57 Quality of Facilities 49 Customer Service Training 60 Delegation of Signing Authority 51 Use of Information Technology 60 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 56 Reasonable Inspections 62 Private Sector Participation 56 Transparency of Inspections 62 Reasonable Inspections 57 Customer Opinion System 63 Clarity of Information 58 Zoning 64 Accessibility of Information 59 Accessibility of Information 65 Process Ranking 61 Categorization of Construction Type 65 Number of Inspections 63 Clarity of Information 65 Zoning 63 Process Ranking 65 Categorization of Economic Activities 65 Quality of Facilities 65 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 251.41 1091.54 Urban Population 100.00% 78.32% Human Development Index 0.662 0.627 186 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Cusco (Cusco) Municipal Scorecard Peru Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit Cusco 60 39 Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 60 39 Performance Ranking 65 48 Time 53 38 Cost 60 37 Number of Visits 65 60 Rejections 63 47 Process Ranking 28 37 Information 53 44 Infrastructure 15 41 Tools 35 31 Inspections 51 47 Training 8 13 CUSCO CUSCO Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Time 53 Cost 37 Cost 60 Time 38 Rejections 63 Rejections 47 Number of visits 65 Performance Ranking 48 Performance Ranking 65 Number of visits 60 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Availability of Manuals 2 Availability of Manuals 6 Internal Audits 5 Construction Classification 11 Process Training 6 Internal Audits 11 Customer Opinion System 17 Process Training 15 Delegation of Signing Authority 19 Use of Information Technology 17 Customer Service Training 21 Customer Service Training 27 Quality of Facilities 21 Accessibility of Information 33 Use of Information Technology 25 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 33 Process Ranking 28 Process Ranking 37 Number of Inspections 30 External Audits 39 Industry Classification 37 Transparency of Inspections 40 Clarity of Information 38 Complexity of Application Forms 41 External Audits 38 Customer Opinion System 41 Reasonable Inspections 43 Delegation of Signing Authority 41 Categorization of Economic Activities 46 Quality of Facilities 41 Consistency of Process with Information 47 Clarity of Information 43 Accessibility of Information 48 Private Sector Participation 48 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 48 Zoning 49 Transparency of Inspections 48 Reasonable Inspections 52 Zoning 50 Consistency of Process with Information 53 Complexity of Application Forms 57 Number of Inspections 53 Private Sector Participation 57 Categorization of Construction Type 55 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 103.84 1171.5 Urban Population 97.46% 51.77% Human Development Index 0.616 0.538 187 Huancayo (Junín) Municipal Scorecard Peru Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 53 59 Huancayo Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 53 59 Performance Ranking 45 58 Time 26 64 Cost 65 26 Number of Visits 35 50 Rejections 23 56 Process Ranking 56 50 Information 40 35 Infrastructure 50 45 Tools 55 60 Inspections 39 44 Training 60 58 HUANCAYO HUANCAYO Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Rejections 23 Cost 26 Time 26 Number of visits 50 Number of visits 35 Rejections 56 Performance Ranking 45 Performance Ranking 58 Cost 65 Time 64 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Availability of Manuals 4 Private Sector Participation 8 Complexity of Application Forms 21 Customer Opinion System 16 Zoning 31 Accessibility of Information 21 Consistency of Process with Information 32 Number of Inspections 21 Delegation of Signing Authority 33 Complexity of Application Forms 25 Number of Inspections 37 Consistency of Process with Information 35 Customer Opinion System 38 Zoning 36 Transparency of Inspections 38 Transparency of Inspections 37 Reasonable Inspections 39 Process Training 38 Quality of Facilities 41 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 39 Private Sector Participation 42 Use of Information Technology 39 Clarity of Information 44 Construction Classification 42 External Audits 45 External Audits 44 Industry Classification 48 Clarity of Information 48 Accessibility of Information 52 Reasonable Inspections 48 Use of Information Technology 52 Categorization of Construction Type 50 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 54 Process Ranking 50 Process Ranking 56 Internal Audits 51 Customer Service Training 59 Quality of Facilities 55 Internal Audits 60 Customer Service Training 58 Process Training 61 Availability of Manuals 59 Categorization of Economic Activities 62 Delegation of Signing Authority 60 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 104.12 1091.62 Urban Population 97.89% 67.80% Human Development Index 0.633 0.592 188 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Ica (Ica) Municipal Scorecard Peru Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 64 61 Ica Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 64 61 Performance Ranking 60 59 Time 62 58 Cost 56 35 Number of Visits 57 51 Rejections 39 64 Process Ranking 63 52 Information 64 33 Infrastructure 35 51 Tools 54 55 Inspections 61 48 Training 61 56 ICA ICA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Rejections 39 Cost 35 Cost 56 Number of visits 51 Number of visits 57 Time 58 Performance Ranking 60 Performance Ranking 59 Time 62 Rejections 64 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Private Sector Participation 6 Accessibility of Information 14 External Audits 19 Construction Classification 18 Customer Opinion System 27 Categorization of Construction Type 20 Categorization of Economic Activities 29 Consistency of Process with Information 26 Use of Information Technology 32 Clarity of Information 28 Consistency of Process with Information 39 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 32 Quality of Facilities 54 Reasonable Inspections 32 Accessibility of Information 57 Customer Service Training 37 Industry Classification 57 Process Training 39 Process Training 57 Private Sector Participation 41 Customer Service Training 58 Use of Information Technology 41 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 58 External Audits 45 Zoning 58 Customer Opinion System 47 Availability of Manuals 59 Quality of Facilities 50 Internal Audits 59 Process Ranking 52 Transparency of Inspections 59 Transparency of Inspections 54 Reasonable Inspections 60 Internal Audits 57 Clarity of Information 61 Number of Inspections 57 Complexity of Application Forms 63 Zoning 59 Delegation of Signing Authority 63 Delegation of Signing Authority 61 Process Ranking 63 Availability of Manuals 62 Number of Inspections 64 Complexity of Application Forms 62 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 117.84 665.59 Urban Population 99.60% 88.37% Human Development Index 0.672 0.648 189 Lima (Lima) Municipal Scorecard Peru Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 1 57 Lima Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 1 57 Performance Ranking 8 64 Time 11 65 Cost 19 49 Number of Visits 18 61 Rejections 19 49 Process Ranking 2 40 Information 4 25 Infrastructure 1 32 Tools 13 22 Inspections 9 58 Training 13 41 LIMA LIMA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Performance Ranking 8 Cost 49 Time 11 Rejections 49 Number of visits 18 Number of visits 61 Cost 19 Performance Ranking 64 Rejections 19 Time 65 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Customer Opinion System 1 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 1 Quality of Facilities 1 Zoning 7 Process Ranking 2 Consistency of Process with Information 12 Categorization of Economic Activities 4 Private Sector Participation 12 Clarity of Information 4 Customer Opinion System 14 Reasonable Inspections 5 External Audits 16 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 6 Internal Audits 21 Accessibility of Information 7 Categorization of Construction Type 25 Complexity of Application Forms 7 Delegation of Signing Authority 26 Transparency of Inspections 7 Availability of Manuals 33 Use of Information Technology 7 Clarity of Information 35 Internal Audits 9 Quality of Facilities 35 Process Training 10 Customer Service Training 39 Zoning 10 Number of Inspections 40 Availability of Manuals 17 Process Ranking 40 Delegation of Signing Authority 22 Construction Classification 45 Customer Service Training 27 Use of Information Technology 45 External Audits 27 Complexity of Application Forms 46 Consistency of Process with Information 38 Process Training 46 Industry Classification 38 Accessibility of Information 49 Number of Inspections 40 Transparency of Inspections 57 Private Sector Participation 51 Reasonable Inspections 60 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 289.86 7819.43 Urban Population 100.00% 97.66% Human Development Index 0.727 0.703 190 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Piura (Piura) Municipal Scorecard Peru Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 37 45 Piura Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 37 45 Performance Ranking 33 5 Time 52 15 Cost 25 3 Number of Visits 54 9 Rejections 10 30 Process Ranking 47 61 Information 41 64 Infrastructure 3 30 Tools 45 42 Inspections 65 65 Training 30 53 PIURA PIURA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Rejections 10 Cost 3 Cost 25 Performance Ranking 5 Performance Ranking 33 Number of visits 9 Time 52 Time 15 Number of visits 54 Rejections 30 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Use of Information Technology 1 Customer Opinion System 3 Customer Opinion System 7 Internal Audits 19 Internal Audits 10 Number of Inspections 25 Quality of Facilities 18 Construction Classification 27 Process Training 20 Process Training 31 Delegation of Signing Authority 23 Private Sector Participation 33 Accessibility of Information 27 Use of Information Technology 35 Consistency of Process with Information 27 Delegation of Signing Authority 36 Clarity of Information 29 Availability of Manuals 54 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 33 Customer Service Training 55 Categorization of Economic Activities 34 External Audits 55 Customer Service Training 34 Quality of Facilities 56 Process Ranking 47 Complexity of Application Forms 57 Private Sector Participation 52 Accessibility of Information 60 External Audits 53 Consistency of Process with Information 60 Complexity of Application Forms 61 Process Ranking 61 Availability of Manuals 62 Clarity of Information 62 Zoning 62 Zoning 62 Industry Classification 64 Categorization of Construction Type 63 Transparency of Inspections 64 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 63 Number of Inspections 65 Transparency of Inspections 63 Reasonable Inspections 65 Reasonable Inspections 65 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 247.94 1630.77 Urban Population 97.62% 73.38% Human Development Index 0.612 0.571 191 Puno (Puno) Municipal Scorecard Peru Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 57 62 Puno Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 57 62 Performance Ranking 59 57 Time 56 51 Cost 61 59 Number of Visits 60 63 Rejections 53 57 Process Ranking 49 54 Information 35 63 Infrastructure 57 54 Tools 46 49 Inspections 35 41 Training 47 52 PUNO PUNO Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Rejections 53 Time 51 Time 56 Performance Ranking 57 Performance Ranking 59 Rejections 57 Number of visits 60 Cost 59 Cost 61 Number of visits 63 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Industry Classification 9 Internal Audits 22 Transparency of Inspections 23 Transparency of Inspections 27 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 25 Construction Classification 29 Accessibility of Information 32 Use of Information Technology 36 Process Training 32 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 40 Complexity of Application Forms 33 Availability of Manuals 41 Private Sector Participation 34 Private Sector Participation 42 Delegation of Signing Authority 35 Reasonable Inspections 45 Internal Audits 40 Process Training 51 Reasonable Inspections 40 Categorization of Construction Type 52 Clarity of Information 49 Quality of Facilities 52 Customer Opinion System 49 Customer Service Training 53 Number of Inspections 49 Delegation of Signing Authority 53 Process Ranking 49 Process Ranking 54 Consistency of Process with Information 51 Complexity of Application Forms 56 Quality of Facilities 53 External Audits 57 Customer Service Training 54 Customer Opinion System 58 External Audits 55 Zoning 58 Categorization of Economic Activities 57 Accessibility of Information 59 Zoning 57 Number of Inspections 61 Use of Information Technology 60 Clarity of Information 63 Availability of Manuals 65 Consistency of Process with Information 64 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 123.91 1245.51 Urban Population 95.24% 47.27% Human Development Index 0.595 0.547 192 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Sullana (Piura) Municipal Scorecard Peru Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit Sullana 31 33 Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 31 33 Performance Ranking 18 27 Time 40 17 Cost 38 45 Number of Visits 27 11 Rejections 9 52 Process Ranking 42 42 Information 18 40 Infrastructure 26 38 Tools 25 33 Inspections 63 54 Training 38 51 SULLANA SULLANA Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Rejections 9 Number of visits 11 Performance Ranking 18 Time 17 Number of visits 27 Performance Ranking 27 Cost 38 Cost 45 Time 40 Rejections 52 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES External Audits 2 External Audits 6 Consistency of Process with Information 6 Customer Service Training 12 Availability of Manuals 14 Customer Opinion System 19 Clarity of Information 14 Zoning 22 Quality of Facilities 14 Consistency of Process with Information 24 Accessibility of Information 15 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 26 Internal Audits 21 Delegation of Signing Authority 27 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 22 Number of Inspections 32 Industry Classification 23 Quality of Facilities 33 Customer Opinion System 24 Categorization of Construction Type 35 Private Sector Participation 28 Clarity of Information 36 Categorization of Economic Activities 32 Process Ranking 42 Complexity of Application Forms 40 Private Sector Participation 44 Customer Service Training 41 Accessibility of Information 46 Process Training 41 Complexity of Application Forms 48 Process Ranking 42 Construction Classification 50 Zoning 43 Process Training 50 Delegation of Signing Authority 48 Internal Audits 52 Use of Information Technology 48 Reasonable Inspections 53 Number of Inspections 58 Transparency of Inspections 53 Transparency of Inspections 61 Use of Information Technology 53 Reasonable Inspections 63 Availability of Manuals 63 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 149.26 1630.77 Urban Population 93.24% 73.38% Human Development Index 0.605 0.594 193 Trujillo (La Libertad) Municipal Scorecard Peru Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 23 43 Trujillo Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 23 43 Performance Ranking 16 42 Time 21 36 Cost 23 39 Number of Visits 47 53 Rejections 11 53 Process Ranking 25 41 Information 23 22 Infrastructure 46 59 Tools 17 39 Inspections 45 34 Training 27 36 TRUJILLO TRUJILLO Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Rejections 11 Time 36 Performance Ranking 16 Cost 39 Time 21 Performance Ranking 42 Cost 23 Number of visits 53 Number of visits 47 Rejections 53 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Delegation of Signing Authority 12 Delegation of Signing Authority 8 Clarity of Information 17 Consistency of Process with Information 9 Zoning 17 Complexity of Application Forms 13 Private Sector Participation 19 Zoning 21 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 20 Transparency of Inspections 28 Number of Inspections 21 Clarity of Information 30 Internal Audits 22 Customer Service Training 30 Process Training 22 Accessibility of Information 31 Industry Classification 24 Process Training 33 Process Ranking 25 Categorization of Construction Type 36 Use of Information Technology 30 Process Ranking 41 Accessibility of Information 31 Reasonable Inspections 44 Complexity of Application Forms 31 Internal Audits 44 Categorization of Economic Activities 35 Availability of Manuals 46 Quality of Facilities 37 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 48 Customer Service Training 39 Quality of Facilities 49 Availability of Manuals 40 Construction Classification 51 Consistency of Process with Information 41 Customer Opinion System 56 Transparency of Inspections 49 Use of Information Technology 58 Reasonable Inspections 52 External Audits 64 Customer Opinion System 54 Number of Inspections 64 External Audits 64 Private Sector Participation 64 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 276.92 1539.77 Urban Population 99.94% 74.14% Human Development Index 0.663 0.605 194 THE MUNICIPALITIES' PROFILES Tumbes (Tumbes) Municipal Scorecard Peru Regional Ranking Operating Construction License Permit 62 58 Tumbes Ranking Operating License Ranking Construction Permit Ranking (out of 65 Municipalities) (from 1 to 65) (from 1 to 65) Total Ranking 62 58 Performance Ranking 54 49 Time 36 54 Cost 57 61 Number of Visits 63 48 Rejections 37 11 Process Ranking 65 63 Information 65 50 Infrastructure 48 64 Tools 52 64 Inspections 60 45 Training 65 55 TUMBES TUMBES Operating License Ranking (from 1 to 65) Construction Permit Ranking (from 1 to 65) PERFORMANCE VARIABLES PERFORMANCE VARIABLES Time 36 Rejections 11 Rejections 37 Number of visits 48 Performance Ranking 54 Performance Ranking 49 Cost 57 Time 54 Number of visits 63 Cost 61 PROCESS VARIABLES PROCESS VARIABLES Delegation of Signing Authority 5 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 24 Customer Opinion System 25 Reasonable Inspections 36 Internal Audits 30 Construction Classification 36 Knowledge of Inspection Criteria 42 Transparency of Inspections 41 Availability of Manuals 43 Availability of Manuals 42 Industry Classification 44 Number of Inspections 48 Use of Information Technology 45 Complexity of Application Forms 51 Categorization of Economic Activities 50 Clarity of Information 52 Quality of Facilities 59 Consistency of Process with Information 52 Transparency of Inspections 60 Quality of Facilities 53 Reasonable Inspections 61 Accessibility of Information 55 Number of Inspections 62 Categorization of Construction Type 56 Clarity of Information 63 Customer Service Training 56 Complexity of Application Forms 64 Zoning 60 Private Sector Participation 64 Process Ranking 63 Accessibility of Information 65 Customer Opinion System 65 Consistency of Process with Information 65 Delegation of Signing Authority 65 Customer Service Training 65 External Audits 65 External Audits 65 Internal Audits 65 Process Ranking 65 Private Sector Participation 65 Process Training 65 Process Training 65 Zoning 65 Use of Information Technology 65 Source: Municipal Scorecard database Source: Municipal Scorecard database Municipality Indicators Municipality Department / State / Province Population (in thousands) 92.65 191.71 Urban Population 99.29% 88.94% Human Development Index 0.626 0.617 195