- Количество слайдов: 24
Measurement Matters: The Use of PETS and QSDS Public Expenditure Analysis and Management Course Ritva Reinikka Development Research Group (DEC) Public Services Research Team January 13, 2004
Increasing public spending is not enough to reach MDGs * Percent deviation from rate predicted by GDP per capita Source: Spending and GDP from World Development Indicators database. School completion from Bruns, Mingat and Rakatomalala 2003
Similar changes in public spending can be associated with vastly different changes in outcomes Sources: Spending data from World Development Indicators database. School completion from Bruns, Mingat and Rakatomalala 2003
and vastly different changes in spending can be associated with similar changes in outcomes. Sources: Spending data for 1990 s from World Development Indicators database. Child mortality data from Unicef 2002. Other data from World Bank staff
Unit cost and performance in primary education: Mauritania
Expenditure incidence tends to favor the better-off even in health and education Health Source: Filmer 2003 b. Education
Short and long routes of accountability in service delivery
The relationship of accountability has five features
Why do we need new tools? • Limited impact of public spending on growth and human development – to answer why? • New demands for evidence on efficiency of spending and performance in service delivery • Lack of reliable data on finance and performance: obtain them from sample survey PETS and QSDS • New approaches in aid delivery – Move towards budget support (e. g. , PRSC) – Related fiduciary and accountability concerns
Public expenditure tracking surveys PETS • Diagnostic and monitoring tool to understand problems in budget execution – delays / predictability – leakage / capture – discretion in allocation of resources • Data collected from different levels of government, including service delivery units • Data from record reviews and interviews • Variation in design depending on perceived problems, country, and sector
Quantitative service delivery surveys QSDS • Focus on frontline service providing unit, e. g. health facilities and schools • Inspired by multi-purpose micro-level household and firm surveys – Resource flows (financial and in-kind) – Availability/adequacy of inputs – Service outputs and efficiency – Quality of service • Focus on costs, dimensions of performance in service delivery, ownership categories
Hybrid approaches • Link facility surveys with surveys of administrative levels “upstream” (public officials; PETS) – Why different performance in the same system? • Link facility surveys with household surveys – Effect of school/facility characteristics on household behavior and outcomes? • Mix quantitative and perception-based approaches (e. g. , exit polls, staff interviews, focus group discussions) – Relationship between perceptions and observable characteristics of schools or facilities?
Nonwage funds not reaching schools: evidence from PETS Country Mean percentage Ghana 2000 49 Madagascar 2002 55 Peru 2001 (utilities) 30 Tanzania 1998 57 Uganda 1995 78 Zambia 2001 (discretion/rule) 76/10 Source: Ye and Canagarajah (2002) for Ghana; Francken (2003) for Madagascar; Instituto Apoyo and World Bank (2002) for Peru; Price Waterhouse Coopers (1998) for Tanzania; Reinikka and Svensson 2002 for Uganda; Das et al. (2002) for Zambia.
Capture of public funds (Uganda PETS) • Large variations in receipts across schools – Bargaining between local officials and schools over nonwage spending – Election finance and elite capture – When using actual spending data from PETS, neutral benefit incidence became highly regressive • Leakage endogenous to school characteristics – Parents’ income most important determinant – Size of school, teacher qualifications significant, too • Sparked an information campaign which increased client power and reduced capture
Schools in Uganda received more of what they were due Source: Reinikka and Svensson (2001), Reinikka and Svensson (2003 a)
Impact evaluation of information campaign • Repeat PETS shows huge reduction in capture of capitation grants – From 80% to 20% • Schools that have access to a newspaper received 14 percentage points more of their entitlement • Information campaign was an effective and cheap way of reducing capture of funds
Ghost workers on payroll (percent) Country Education Health Honduras 2000 5 8. 3 Uganda 1993 20 - Source: World Bank 2001; Reinikka, 2001.
Nigeria QSDS: Problems with local government accountability Pervasive non-payment of salaries of primary health workers in some states Percent of staff respondents 20% KOGI (total=240) LAGOS (total=495) 80% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Months salary not paid 9 10 11 12
Nigeria QSDS in health care • Non-payment of staff salaries cannot be explained by lack of resources available to local governments • Even when local government spending on staff salaries is sufficient to cover actual staff costs, survey of staff revealed extensive non-payment • General problem of local accountability in the use of public resources transferred from higher tiers of government, about which local citizens may not be well informed, as they are not the tax payers
Frontline provider surveys 2002: Absence rates (percent) among teachers and health-care workers Country Ecuador Honduras 2000 Peru India (19 states) Indonesia Uganda Zambia Primary schools Health facilities 16 14 13 25 18 26 17 27 26 43 42 35 -
Percent of staff absent in primary schools and health facilities 50 Primary schools Primary health facilities 40 30 20 10 0 Bangladesh Ecuador India Indonesia Papua New Guinea Peru Zambia Uganda
Good reasons for doing PETS/QSDS • • Diagnosing problems – shaping the reform agenda Analysis: guiding reform Monitoring over time/benchmarking Understanding systems – useful for donors and governments • Research – collaboration between practitioners and researchers • A good basis for information campaigns to increase “client power”
Survey Design: Survey what? Why? • What are the problems? Research question and hypothesis? Are there important gaps in understanding of the nature, extent, and sources of problems? • Is a quantitative survey the appropriate tool? Stand-alone or as a complement? Worth the cost ($50 -150 K)? • Is it feasible? How is the budget structured and implemented so that relevant data can be collected? • Who is the audience? Is there a political demand for new information (often “bad news”)? • Will the information be used? By whom? How to ensure impact?
Implementation issues: Who? How? • Requires skills similar to other micro surveys • Steps in implementation – Concept document – Buy-in across the board: Ministry of Finance, sector ministry, local governments, frontline, donors, etc. – Rapid data assessment – Questionnaire design – Identifying and contracting implementing agency – Pilot questionnaires – Enumerator training – Field work (quality control and data management) – Data analysis – Dissemination impact on policies