The El Salvador Municipal Competitiveness Index – Central America – USAID

Municipal Profile | Year

Name of the selected municipality: CHALATENANGO - North region "Rio Lempa"

This section provides information on a selected municipality’s performance on the MCI. Results on each sub-index are presented in star graphs. Additionally scores for each sub-index are shown in comparison to the scores of other municipalities in its region in bar charts. Finally, the value, min, max, and median for the indicators within each sub-index are presented to provide more information on the local regulatory environment. Please go to the Reporting Tool section of the Web site to customize the results you wish to view by selecting municipalities and sub-index scores of your choice.

Star chart of CHALATENANGO

legend

The MCI sub-indices

Municipal Values of CHALATENANGO 2009		General Subindicators
Indicator	Value	Min	Median	Max
MCI	6.25	4.48		7.93
Transparency	6.66	3.69		7.97
Municipal Services	3.28	1.44		9.50
Proactivity	7.05	3.04		8.31
Informal payments	8.29	4.66		10.00
Public safety	7.29	3.66		8.87
Time to compliance	5.49	2.99		6.94
Rates and Taxes	4.31	2.07		7.53
Entry costs	8.6	6.00		9.54
Municipal regulations	6.4	3.70		10.00

Regional comparisons

MCI

Bar graph MCI

Transparency

Bar graph Transparency

Municipal Services

Bar graph Municipal Services

Proactivity

Bar graph Proactivity

Informal payments

Bar graph Informal payments

Public safety

Bar graph Public safety

Time to compliance

Bar graph Time to compliance

Rates and Taxes

Bar graph Rates and Taxes

Entry costs

Bar graph Entry costs

Municipal regulations

Bar graph Municipal regulations

Indicators used in sub-indices

Transparency

Municipal Values of CHALATENANGO 2009		General Subindicators
Indicator	Value	Min	Median	Max
% Businesses not affected by municipal support to informal sector	89.3	39.39	88.56	100.00
% Businesses think municipality does not favor businesses owned by people belonging to the mayor's party	65.28	35.08	73.09	99.55
% Businesses think municipality does not favor large businesses and does not discriminate against small businesses	75.98	57.21	84.44	100.00
% Businesses knowing about the existence of processes for filing complaints or making recommendations	61.62	2.27	42.05	78.86
% Businesses knowing about the existence of processes for informing citizens about local issues	69.72	15.32	48.48	88.55
% Businesses perceiving that municipal policies are applied in a consistent manner	72.19	3.32	51.79	88.64
% Businesses perceiving that relationships are important for gaining access to documents and/or obtaining permits/licenses	38.38	16.49	43.75	94.16
% Businesses gaining easy access to local documents	87.26	0.00	79.17	100.00
% Businesses perceiving that changes to rates/taxes and regulations are predictable	71.27	34.57	77.48	100.00
% Businesses perceiving municipal tenders as transparent	15.56	0.00	0.00	78.52

Municipal Services

Municipal Values of CHALATENANGO 2009		General Subindicators
Indicator	Value	Min	Median	Max
% Businesses qualifying municipality as good at promoting tourism	40.21	0.00	13.43	85.23
% Businesses qualifying municipality as good at promoting business opportunities	9.01	0.00	9.19	64.95
% Businesses qualifying municipality as good at promoting and supporting local business associations	12.53	0.00	5.27	57.29
% Businesses qualifying municipality as good at providing services to attract investors and clients	6.27	0.00	3.23	53.59
% Businesses qualifying municipality as good at providing services to facilitate access to credit by local business	9.79	0.00	4.29	45.69
% Businesses qualifying municipality as good at export promotion	0	0.00	0.10	32.38
% Businesses qualifying municipality as good at controlling informal commerce	33.17	0.97	24.62	84.45
% Businesses qualifying municipality as good at doing public works during 2007-2008	23.38	0.40	30.92	92.10
% Businesses qualifying municipality as good at providing facilities for administrative procedures	29.51	0.82	29.64	80.50
% Businesses qualifying municipality as good at providing facilities for tax payments	45.56	11.19	45.04	89.29
% Businesses qualifying municipality as good at crime prevention and control	17.11	0.00	18.20	88.40
% Businesses qualifying municipality as good at developing labor and entrepreneurship programs	13.45	0.00	12.54	52.94

Proactivity

Municipal Values of CHALATENANGO 2009		General Subindicators
Indicator	Value	Min	Median	Max
% Businesses perceiving that not all private-sector related policies come from the central government	87.47	24.17	71.50	95.13
% Businesses perceiving that municipality works actively to solve business problems	77.54	11.48	47.82	92.34
% Businesses perceiving that municipality has good initiatives, but these are blocked by central government	17.89	0.00	21.78	58.24

Informal payments

Municipal Values of CHALATENANGO 2009		General Subindicators
Indicator	Value	Min	Median	Max
% Businesses feeling informal payments are a common occurrence	11.76	0.00	13.43	39.15
% Businesses think informal payments do help in gaining access to municipal documents or in obtaining permits/licenses	7.78	0.00	0.00	94.06
% Businesses feeling tenders are fair	15.56	0.00	0.00	78.52
% Businesses perceiving extra tax payments are a common occurrence in the municipality	6.27	0.00	5.05	24.03
% Businesses have made extra payments to fix municipal tax problems	1	0.00	0.00	9.23

Public safety

Municipal Values of CHALATENANGO 2009		General Subindicators
Indicator	Value	Min	Median	Max
% Businesses saying that crime was higher in 2008 compared to 2007	17.89	0.00	25.31	76.78
% Businesses perceiving that crime has increased due to bad municipality work	4.44	0.00	6.76	44.21
% Businesses perceiving that crime has decreased due to good municipality work	8.1	0.00	6.22	44.63
Municipal spending on public safety per capita (US$)	3.5	0.10	0.75	5.00
% Businesses victimized during 2008-robbery or theft	14.36	0.00	16.28	44.21
% Businesses perceiving that local crime is higher than in neighboring municipalities	25.85	0.87	27.41	63.20
Cost of crime to businesses per US$1,000 sale increase in 2008	12.3	0.00	36.74	1012.84
% Businesses victimized during 2008-extortion or kidnapping	8.1	0.00	4.41	37.54

Time to compliance

Municipal Values of CHALATENANGO 2009		General Subindicators
Indicator	Value	Min	Median	Max
% Businesses inspected in 2008	25.07	2.23	20.32	61.91
Number of inspections per 100 businesses	38.52	0.45	26.20	164.25
% Businesses feeling the number of inspections is above normal	0	0.00	0.00	54.56
% Businesses feeling municipal inspectors act fairly	20.63	2.23	19.47	61.26
% Businesses feeling the municipality adequately ensures compliance	29.37	0.00	12.86	52.91

Rates and Taxes

Municipal Values of CHALATENANGO 2009		General Subindicators
Indicator	Value	Min	Median	Max
% Businesses feeling that local taxes are higher than in neighboring municipalities	43.73	0.00	19.12	61.69
Number of incentives per 100 businesses	0.11	0.00	0.12	8.89
Municipality offers tax advantages	0.66	0.44	0.64	0.98
Tax revenue standardized by municipal services	28.97	-51.75	-6.05	53.56

Entry costs

Municipal Values of CHALATENANGO 2009		General Subindicators
Indicator	Value	Min	Median	Max
Effective wait for business premises (days)	22.94	7.09	59.05	668.65
Length of wait for other business-related permits (days)	24.84	6.68	69.37	648.61
% Businesses waiting over ONE month to obtain permits to start operations	0.27	0.02	6.31	71.90
% Businesses waiting over THREE months to obtain permits to start operations	0.27	0.01	0.45	30.96
% Businesses having problems with obtaining permits/licenses to start operations	10.93	0.03	17.68	70.10
% Businesses finding it difficult to obtain information on necessary procedures/documents	0.05	0.01	0.26	29.98
Total number of documents required to obtain permit for operations	7	2.00	5.00	10.00
Time to issue permits to operate (days)	16	0.00	7.00	40.00

Municipal regulations

Municipal Values of CHALATENANGO 2009		General Subindicators
Indicator	Value	Min	Median	Max
% Businesses that feel the number of municipal regulations increased during 2008	16.06	0.00	6.51	42.31
% Businesses that feel the number of municipal regulations is above normal, compared to neighboring municipalities	8.88	0.00	0.18	21.15

Back to top

This Web site was developed for the U.S. Agency for International Development, under contract EPP-I-00-04-00037-00, 519-TO-10-00002. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Agency for International Development or the U.S. Government. © 2009 RTI International. All rights, except those in favor of the United States Government, are reserved. RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. Privacy policy.