Public Expenditure Tracking and Service Delivery Surveys

1. Public Expenditure TrackingandService Delivery Surveys 11th International Anti-Corruption Conference Seoul May 26, 2003 Magnus Lindelow Development Research Group, The World Bank

2. Public Expenditure Tracking and Service Delivery Surveys • First Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS) carried out in Uganda in 1996 • Since then, a large number of PETS and related surveys have been implemented • Scope and nature of surveys have differed, but common theme is link between public spending and development outcomes

3. CORRUPTION The (missing) link between public spending and outcomes Broad allocation of resources Delays and lack of predictability (e.g. salaries, medicine stock-outs) Problems in budget execution Discretionary reallocation of resources (favoritism, lack of criteria or information, etc.) PUBLIC EXPENDITURE TRACKING AND SERVICE DELIVERY SURVEYS Leakage of financial or material resources Misappropriation of resources (e.g. stealing of medicines) Problems in service delivery Absenteeism Overcharging Inefficiency, high cost, low quality Lack of demand for services

4. The Approach • Approach has varied considerably depending on context and focus • Multilevel focus, but frontline providers (schools or health facilities) as main unit of observation • Representative sample • Data collected through interviews and record reviews (financial records, stock cards for medicines, etc.) • Multi-angular approach for validation of data • Some surveys include detailed surveys of frontline provider, including availability/adequacy of inputs, quality, staff and user interviews, etc.

5. What have we learnt? Leakage • Education sector in Uganda 1996 • Data from 250 schools and administrative units • Only 13 percent of intended capitation grant actually reached schools (1991-95). • Mass information campaign by Ministry of Finance (the press, posters) • Follow-up surveys (PETS, provider surveys, integrity surveys, etc.) • High leakage has also been found in other countries (Tanzania, Ghana, Zambia, Peru)

6. What have we learnt? Ghost workers and absenteeism • Salary payments “leak” differently • Different measurement approaches: • PETS with data collection on payroll and staffing data (Honduras 2000, Peru 2002, Zambia 2002, Mozambique 2002, etc.) • Unannounced visits to schools and health facilities (Bangladesh 2002, India 2002, Uganda 2002)

7. What have we learnt? Allocation and budget execution • Leakage sometimes difficult to assess due to lack of explicit allocations or entitlements • But surveys can still shed light on important allocation and budget execution issues • Primary health care in Mozambique: • Very large variation across districts and facilities in non-wage recurrent spending, staffing, and distribution of medicines • Severe problems in budget execution, with late first transfers and slow processing of accounts, resulting in low predictability • Weak record keeping at provincial, district, and facility levels, often with large discrepancies between levels • Why this variation? – Corruption may be one factor

8. The strengths of the approach • Useful tool for diagnosing and understanding problems in budget execution and service delivery, including corruption • Multilevel perspective important and not achieved from simple school or facility surveys • District and frontline provider perspective often forgotten at central level • Representative sample provides credibility not achieved through small-sample studies or institutional reviews • Validation of administrative data (financial and output) • Can provide basis for monitoring of changes over time • Surveys provide data for research that can improve our understanding of the determinants of corruption or poor service delivery • Process of designing and implementing survey is useful for understanding institutional and procedural arrangements for budget execution and service delivery

9. Some limitations • Surveys only provide part of the answer • What about inter- and intra-sectoral allocations? • Link with outcomes? • => Budget analysis and social impact analysis (with household data or through participatory approaches) are still important • Surveys should supplement rather than supplant routine information, control, and integrity systems • Surveys provide information but don’t necessarily result in change • A lack of information about the scope and nature of problems is not always the primary constraint to improving PEM and service delivery • Continuity and link with efforts at strengthening institutions and routine PEM systems important • Link with community and other local stakeholders can be difficult to achieve – important to use findings to strengthen local transparency and accountability mechanisms

10. Finding out more… • Survey reports, instruments, and documentation on: www.publicspending.org • http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/pe/trackingsurveys.htm • Some references: • Dehn, Reinikka, and Svensson. 2003. “Survey Tools for Assessing Performance in Service Delivery.” In Bourguignon and Pereira da Silva, eds. Evaluating the Poverty and Distributional Impact of Economic Policies. Oxford University Press and the World Bank. Forthcoming • Reinikka and Svensson. 2002. Measuring and understanding corruption at the micro level. In Della Porta and Rose-Ackerman, eds. Corrupt Exchanges: Empirical Themes in the Politics and Political Economy of Corruption. Nomos Verlagsgesellshaft. • Lindelow and Wagstaff. 2002. “Health Facility Surveys: An Introduction.” Policy Research Working Paper 2953. The World Bank. • Email: mlindelow@worldbank.org