Four roots of the service delivery problem

Image from Bazaar International, http://www.bazaarint.com/

The World Bank (2003), in its 2004 World Development Report, argues that there are four root causes for the service delivery problem.

Misallocating Resources

The first cause is about resource allocation or budgeting. The service delivery becomes weak and poor when the government misallocates resources (or budget), i.e., spending on the ‘wrong’ goods or the ‘wrong’ people (not to the actual service providers). Without resources, the necessary service could not be delivered. It is a fault of budging or resource allocation system.

Expenditure ‘Leakages’

The second cause is about expenditure. Even if the resources (budget) are allocated correctly, the resources (money) do not reach its ultimate destination because of expenditure ‘leakages’. It is a fault of expenditure tracking system.

Weak Incentive

The third cause is about incentive. Even when the resources (money) reach the service providers, the service delivery may still be weak because the service providers do not deliver the service. The reason might be there is no or weak incentive for the service provider to deliver the service. It is a fault of accountability and monitoring system.

Demand Side Failure

The last one is called “demand side failure”, i.e., people (community members) may not be aware of their rights and services they are entitled to and may not avail of the services provided to them. It simply means that people do not know what they can get from the government as their rights. It is a fault of public awareness and participation system.

Reference

World Bank (2003) World Development Report 2004. Making Services Work for Poor People. Washington D.C.: World Bank. Retrieved February 14, 2012, from http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2003/10/07/000090341_20031007150121/Rendered/PDF/268950PAPER0WDR02004.pdf

Edith M. Stokey

Edith M. Stokey (1923-2012),

Photo credit: Tom Fitzsimmons.

Image from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/articles/stokey-tribute

Edith Stokey is considered one of the founders of Harvard Kennedy (Harvard Kennedy School, 2012). She is an economist, teacher, administrator, and a true believer in the Kennedy School’s mission, i.e., “to train enlightened public leaders and to generate the ideas that provide the solutions to our most challenging public problems” (Harvard University, 2012; Harvard Kennedy School, 2012).

In 1971 she returned to Harvard to pursue a Ph.D. in economics, but she was asked by Richard J. Zeckhauser, a professor of political economy at the Kennedy School, to lecture in microeconomics and work as a secretary at the fledgling graduate school of government at Harvard. Then, she become too busy with the dual position as lecturer and secretary, and abandoned her PhD plan (Miraval, 2012).

Since then, she taught microeconomics as well as public sector operations research to many generations of Kennedy School students (Harvard University, 2012) and served as secretary of the school and associate academic dean for over 40 years. She worked with many deans, serving as a councilor on many subjects to each. Stokey helped shape many aspects of today’s curriculum (Harvard Kennedy School, 2012). She died on 16 January 2012. She was 88

In 1978, Stokey and Zeckhauser co-wrote a book entitled “A Primer for Policy Analysis” that is still taught in public policy courses around the world and is still widely influential in public administration.



Image from Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/Primer-Policy-Analysis-Edith-Stokey/dp/images/0393090981



In their book, Stokey and Zeckhauser argue that policy-making decisions are economic decisions and economic theory is applicable to policy-making.

The book is divided into three parts: the foundations of an economic framework for policy analysis, models and methods of analysis, and the goals of policy-making. In the Part 2, it introduces a variety of tools of policy analysis such as queues, simulations, benefit-cost analysis.  The Part 3 discusses on the government's role when the market fails, addressing social welfare, and putting policy analysis to work.

However, the critics argue that it is grounded on the utilitarianism that has been subjected to fatal criticisms in the philosophical literature and market failure approach to public policy has severe limitations and can often be misleading (Brown, 1992: 1, 3).

It is a difficult but outstanding book. Even though it is three decades old now, it is still a major resource for the policy analyst.


References

Brown, P. G. (1992) The Failure of Market Failures. In The Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 21, No. 1. pp. 1-24. Retrieved March 15, 2012, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/105353579290022Y

Harvard Kennedy School (2012) Giving Society Profiles. (Online). Retrieved April 19, 2012, from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/giving/honor_roll_of_donors/profiles

Harvard University (2012) (Online). Edith Stokey, 1923-2012. In Harvard Gazette, 18 January 2012. Retrieved April 19, 2012, from http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/newsplus/edith-stokey-1923-2012/

Miraval, N. R. (2012) Kennedy School "Founding Mother" Dies at 88. In The Harvard Crimson, 27 January 2012. Retrieved March 10, 2012, from http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/1/27/Stokey-HKS-Obituary/

Stokey, E. & Zeckhauser, R. (1978) A Primer for Policy Analysis. New York: WW Norton & Company Inc. 

Institutionalism: Old and New



Image from Amglifestyle
http://amglifestyle.com/2011/12/08/good-read-the-wealth-of-nations-by-adam-smith/

According to Adam Smith (1976), the productivity of the economic system depends on specialisation (the division of labour). The more the specialisation is, the greater the productivity of the economic system will be.



Ronald Coase ( Nobel Laureate, is now 101 years old, born 29 December 1910).
Image from The Ronald Coase Institute http://coase.org/aboutronaldcoase.htm



Coase (1997: 73) argues that specialisation is only possible only when there is exchange and the costs of exchange (transaction costs) is low. Moreover, the costs of exchange depend on the institutions such as legal system, political system, social system, education system, culture, and so on) of a country. Therefore, the performance of an economy is, in effect, governed by the institutions (Coase,1998: 73).

According to Ronald Coase the basic difference is that “the old institutionalists were concerned in the main with describing institutions rather than with analysing them” (Ferrarini, Nye, Bullard & Eyzaguirre, 1998).


References

Coase, R. (1998) The New Institutional Economics. In the American Economic Review, Vol. 88, No. 2, pp. 72-74. Retrieved on April 18, 2012 on http://www.coase.org/coaseonline.htm

Ferrarini, T., Nye, J., Bullard, A. & Eyzaguirre, H. (1998) Interview with Ronald Coase. At Inaugural Conference, International Society for New Institutional Economics, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, on September 17, 1997. Retrieved on April 18, 2012 on www.coase.org/coaseinterview.htm

Smith, A. (1976) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. (edited by E. Cannan). Retrieved on February 03, 2005 on http://www.adelaide.edu.au/library/etext/s/s64w/s64w.zip

Theory-based Evaluation

It is an approach that based on theory or theories that explains the issues, or programme in question. It "has similarities to the logic model but allows a much more in-depth understanding of the workings of a programe or activity - the 'programme theory' or 'programme logic' (World Bank, 2004: 10). As its name suggestes, a theory (or theories) underlying the causal relationship between outputs and outcomes and between outcomes on different levels in an outcome chain plays important roles in it. In my understanding, it is not looking directly at the ultimate outcomes, instead at one step or two steps back-ward of it (in the outcome chain or an logical framework explained by the theory). It would be easier to understand it if we discuss it with some real life examples.


Example (1)

The World Bank, in the World Development Report 2004, argues that there are four roots of the service delivery problem. Among them, the third roots cause is, according to the World Bank (2003), the lack of (or weak) incentive to the service providers. The theory states that the service delivery will be low and poor when there is no or weak incentive to the service providers. To solve this problem, the World Bank recommends establishing an effective mechanism of monitoring and holding the service providers accountable.

This theory has three parts: (1) the service delivery will be low and poor; (2) if the service providers do not have incentive to deliver (or even if they have, it is weak), (3) it can be solved by means of holding the service providers accountable through an effective mechanism of monitoring.

In applying the theory-based evaluation, the evaluators do not look at the level and quality of service delivery (which is the ultimate outcome of the programme or policy), instead it looks either at the level and quality of incentive to the service providers (one step back-ward of the outcome), or at the mechanisms of accountability that can hold the service providers accountable, or at the mechanism of monitoring (two steps back-ward of the outcome).

It should be aware that there are still other factors that affect the level and quality of service delivery. But theory-based evaluation focuses on a theory that explains about just one factor.


Example (2)
An education theory states that educational outcomes will be improved, if learner-teacher contact time is increased. Then, the first step to improve the educational outcomes is, according to the theory, to increase learner-teacher contact time. It should be noted that this is not the only determinant of education outcomes, there are also several other factors that cause the level and quanlity of economic outcome.

To evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention (aiming to improve the eduational outcomes) the theory-based evalutation approach will be used to look at effectiveness of the intervention on increasing the learner-teacher contact time (which is the first step to improve the eduational outcomes), instead of looking at the actual improvement of educational outcomes (which is the overall objective of the programme or project). 

This is what I have learnt and understood this morning. My understanding will be improved as I have read and studied more.


Reference

World Bank (2003) World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved on April 01, 2012 on http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2003/10/07/000090341_20031007150121/Rendered/PDF/268950PAPER0WDR02004.pdf.

World Bank (2004) Monitoring and Evaluation. Some tools, methods and approaches. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Retrieved on April 19, 2012 on http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTEVACAPDEV/Resources/4585672-1251481378590/MandE_tools_methods_approaches.pdf