In Mexico this metodology is worked: AGENDA PARA EL DESARROLLO MUNICIPAL, before AGENDA DESDE LO LOCAL

http://indemun-faqs.blogspot.mx/p/que-es-agenda-para-el-desarrollo.html

Maybe that one: EDORA – European Development Oportunities in Rural Areas. Final Report, 2011, ESPON, Luxemburg.

http://www.espon.eu/main/Menu_Projects/Menu_AppliedResearch/edora.html

Development has been relative depending on where you are looking at. However the 'cocoyoc declaration' in 1974 and the MDGs both from the united nations to guide you on zeroing in the factors that will be more appropriate for your studies.

Cheers

Hi

I recommend:

Armstrong H. and Taylor J. (1993): Regional Economics and Policy [2nd edition], Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York

A.K. Copus, J.R. Crabtree Indicators of socio-economic sustainability: An application to remote rural Scotland //Journal of Rural Studies Volume 12, Issue 1, January 1996, Pages 41–54

More information at w site Lancaster unsv:

http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/staff/ecajt/publications.pdf

I'm very indebted for Your support.

Main problem is that development is measured on regional level mostly, and local level (municipal one) is omitted.  Sometimes local development is measured in terms of qualitative - not quantitative - research.

In my research I'm trying to cope with intergovernmental equalization grants for local government  (incl. Robin Hood Tax), and to measure "need for equalization" I'm looking for relatively simply method for comparing municipalities. So our statistical databases should support us with sufficient data for quantitative measurement of local development  (e.g. in terms of quality of life) but to improve it I'm looking in other countries methods.  

BTW in Poland equalization scheme is based on "own revenues" per capita difference, but in my opinion it is very unfair equalization scheme because it doesn't reflect  differences in development of local government e.g. measured by public goods delivery level. I know that there are other systems of "need for equalization" measurment (cost -revenue models) but in Poland we have problems with measurement of standard spending (expenditure) needs.

Dear Jarosław,

If the question is still on the agenda…

If you think that equalization system based on own revenues only is unfair may be mixed system with tax (fiscal) capacity and expenditure needs estimation would fit better? It’s not about local government development (as far as I understand local government development is associated with economic development and tax base), it's about spending needs (number of public goods consumers and other cost indicators).

Such system was used in some of the NIS countries; a few general formulas could be found in Appendix III here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266851443_Eurasia.

Regards,

Natalia

Chapter Local Public Finance in Eurasia (Chapter "Eurasia" in "Local...

Szanowny Panie Jarosławie,

jeśli chodzi o Polskę to załaczam link do tekstu, nad którym kiedyś pracowałam w szerszym zespole. W ostatnich cytowaniach tego tekstu są odniesienia do innych polskich autorów pracujących nad takimi miarami, których Pan szuka. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275017503_Potencjal_rozwojowy_gmin_wojewodztwa_lubelskiego

Jeśłi zaś chodzi o miary w innych krajach to jedyną syntetyczną miarą jaka przychodzi mi do głowy jest  hardship index wykorzystywany do pomiaru różnic rozwoju w obszarach metropolitalnych, ale łatwo można go zastosować szerzej. Polecam:

Nathan&Adams concept (1989)

Montiel, Nathan, Wright  update (2004, 2007) 

Swianiewicz, Klimska 2005 (International Metropolitan Observatory)

Sukcesów

KSzR

Article Potencjał rozwojowy gmin województwa lubelskiego

Dziękuję bardzo, na pewno skorzystam. Pozdrawiam J.Olejniczak