1 / 32

Heikki A. Loikkanen**, Ilkka Susiluoto*** and Michael Funk****

DO BOSSES MATTER? The role of city managers and external variables in explaining efficiency differences of Finnish municipalities*. Heikki A. Loikkanen**, Ilkka Susiluoto*** and Michael Funk**** KTTO ry, Tiedettä ja viiniä , Uusi ylioppilastalo, Mannerheim –Sali, 18.3.2009.

germaine-rush
Download Presentation

Heikki A. Loikkanen**, Ilkka Susiluoto*** and Michael Funk****

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DO BOSSES MATTER?The role of city managers and external variables in explaining efficiency differences of Finnish municipalities* Heikki A. Loikkanen**, Ilkka Susiluoto*** and Michael Funk**** KTTO ry, Tiedettä ja viiniä, Uusi ylioppilastalo, Mannerheim –Sali, 18.3.2009 ** University of Helsinki, Finland *** City of Helsinki Urban Facts, Finland **** University of Fribourg, Switzerland

  2. Two-stage study • First stage: application of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) gives cost efficiency scores for municipalities • Second stage: explain efficiency scores (regr.) • A. With characteristics of municipalities • These steps were done in our earlier study Loikkanen & Susiluoto (2005), published in Urban Publ Econs Review • B. This study: Consider in addition the role ofcity managers, their work environment and attitudes • here we use survey Finnish results from U.N.Di.T.E Leadership Study 1996 (15 countries were involved)

  3. Two-stage presentation • First stage: Presentation of earlier results of both stages, where city managers were not included • data 353 municipalities , 1994-2002 • Second stage (somenew results): A. Discussion on do bosses matter? - CEOs and Public sector leaders - What are Finnish City Managers? • B. Presentation of results, when city managers are included in regression models • data 192 municipalities, 1994-1996 • efficiency scores for these 192 municipalities come from our earlier study

  4. First stage: application of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) • Municipalities are multi-service providers (producers or buyers) • With DEA you get: Municipal cost efficiency scores (max value 100) • How large are differences in scores between municipalities? • Which municipalities are best/weakest? • Size, location etc?

  5. Data • 353 Finnish municipalities included • Years 1994-2002 • Excluded from data: • municipalities with less than 2000 people • Åland islands (small communities) • municipal annexations in the study period

  6. OUTPUTS AND INPUT IN DEA APPLICATION • Altogether 10 outputs (services): most important basic health, social and educational services • Special health care, infrastructure and transportation excluded • One input: Sum of net costs of included activities (money) • Four different DEA models estimated. Their averages = final results for the municipalities

  7. OUTPUT MEASURES IN DEA MODELS . 1. Days in child care centers 2. Days in family child care 3. Open basic healthcare, visits 4. Dental care, visits 5. Bed wards, basic health care 6. Institutional care of elderly 7. Care of the handicapped, days • Hours of teaching in comprehensive schools • Hours of teaching in senior secondary schools 10. Loans from municipal libraries

  8. DEA results: Municipalities in order of efficiency 1994-2002

  9. Efficiency of basic service provision during 1994-2002 (left) and 2000-2002 (right)

  10. Municipalities with highest efficiencies • DEA Popul- Province UE Urb. % ation rate rate • 1 Rusko 99,5 3 300 Vars.-Suomi 10,2 73 • 2 Raisio 99,2 22 800 Vars.-Suomi 13,3 98 • 3 Toijala 98,8 8 100 Pirkanmaa 17,8 96 • 4 Kihniö 98,3 2 500 Pirkanmaa 19,1 34 • 5 Lemi 96,6 3 100 Et.-Karjala 15,1 44 • 6 Karjaa 96,5 8 800 Uusimaa 13,3 81 • 7 Masku 96,4 5 300 Vars.-Suomi 9,0 80 • 8 Nakkila 96,4 6 100 Satakunta 16,2 75 • 9 Karkkila 96,1 8 700 Uusimaa 14,0 86 • 10 Rautjärvi 96,0 4 800 Et.-Karjala 17,0 58 • Median 87,2 6 000 15,7 60

  11. Municipalities with lowest efficiencies DEA Popul- Province UE Urb. % ation rate rate • 344 Vuolijoki 73,7 2 900 Kainuu 22,1 51 • 345 Suomussalmi 73,2 11 400 Kainuu 28,4 56 • 346 Puolanka 69,5 4 000 Kainuu 23,6 52 • 347 Sodankylä 68,6 10 200 Lapland 26,9 59 • 348 Kuusamo 67,7 18 200 P.-Pohjanm. 22,9 63 • 349 Kolari 67,5 4 200 Lapland 26,8 45 • 350 Inari 66,1 7 600 Lapland 25,2 63 • 351 Enontekiö 65,6 2 300 Lapland 29,6 42 • 352 Muonio 65,4 2 600 Lapland 21,4 55 • 353 Kittilä 62,4 6 000 Lapland 24,5 49 • Median 87,2 6 000 15,7 60

  12. DEA efficiency, 10 largest cities • DEA Ra- Popul- Income/ Coll. Un- • score ting ation person, degree empl. • % /353 € eduction rate • % % • Helsinki 79,4 317 543 000 20 300 32,3 13,2 • Espoo 82,5 268 205 000 24 100 39,5 9,5 • Tampere 91,4 65 190 000 16 900 27,5 18,4 • Vantaa 83,8 242 173 000 19 900 26,1 11,5 • Turku 84,4 233 170 000 16 500 25,7 17,7 • Oulu 90,6 80 116 000 17 400 30,3 17,9 • Lahti 91,2 68 96 000 15 600 21,3 20,8 • Kuopio 91,1 70 86 000 16 000 27,5 17,9 • Jyväskylä 80,6 303 77 000 16 200 29,5 20,4 • Pori 89,8 100 76 000 15 400 20,6 21,9 • Median 87,2 177 6 000 13 600 15,5 15,7

  13. Second stage (regression) results; without city managers • Variable explained: efficiency scores (range 63-100) • Summary of factors which were • theoretically worth and possible to test with data available and • statistically significant in explainingefficiency differences

  14. Results: Factors improving cost efficiency of municipal services • High education level (maximum effect on efficiency almost 10 %) • Dense urban structure ( max. effect 4 %) • Employees 35-49 years of age (2 %) • Using private sector as producer? (about 2 %)

  15. Results: factors weakening cost efficiency • High income (labour cost) level (-10 %) • Big population (-12 % for Helsinki) • Peripheral location (-20 % for Lapland) • Wide variety of provided services (-5 %) • High unemployment (-5 %) • Purchases from joint munic. organisations, (-3%) • Large state (matching) grants in beginning of study, (-10%) • during lump sum grant era no effect

  16. Factors which were statistically insignificant • Size of central (core) municipality relative to surrounding ones in the functional area • Change in population size (5-year relative change) • Tax revenue per inhabitant • Political variables - party composition or its dispersion in municipal councils - turnover in municipal elections

  17. R=+0,370

  18. Do CEOs or City Managers matter? • Previous studies on • CEOs • Public sector leaders • City managers (loc. gov. CEOs)

  19. Do CEOs in private firms matter? • Some examples of previous studies • Family and related shocks (Bennedsen et al.) • Gender and age (Kotiranta et al.) • Leadership type (Waldman et al.)

  20. Does City Manager matter ? • City Manager vs. Elected City Mayors (many studies) • Hayes and Chang (1990), Deno and Mehay (1987), O’Brien (1995) • In Kreft (2007) and Eliakonopov (2007) City Managers more efficient • Gender: impact on leadership and performance • No differences: Donnell and Hall (1980), Duerst-Lahti and Johnson (1992), Karsten (1994) and Duerst-Lahti and Kelly (1995) • Women better performance: Johansen (2007) on schools sup.intendents • Theory of career concerned public sector managers • Tirole (1994), Dixit (1994, 2002), Dewatripont (1999), Besley (2004) • Implisiittiset sopimukset ja kannustimet (career concerns) tärkeitä

  21. What is theFinnish City Manager? • Governance structure of municipalities • electorate (voters) • council • government (executive board) • all parties in council are proportionately represented in government • city (municipal) manager • Note: • chairs of council and government are lay politicians (not the same person) • city managers are civil servants elected by councils, not political mayors elected by voters

  22. Does Finnish City Manager Matter? • City managers have quit a lot power • If they are W. Niskanen type bureaucrats, then • we expect them to create slack (inefficiency) • and all positive factors are used to enhance slack • If they are career concerned bureaucrats, then • we expect them to serve the public by providing services efficiently especially early in career • and all positive factors like education, networks etc are used to enhance efficiency • Problem: we don’t know which type they are • If all or most of them are of the same type, we should get some results

  23. U.Di.T.E Leadership study data • 52 questions to all mainland city managers in mainland Finland, • Response rate 74 % • Information on following types of variables • education, gender, party, tenure,… • working environment, network, conflicts … • attitudes towards reforms etc • Next, some of these were tested preliminarily.

  24. Explaining DEA efficiency of Finnish municipalities with city manager characteristics, OLS 1994-1996 (page 1). Model A Model B 1994 1995 1996 1994 1995 1996 • Constant 75.9 79.4 82.8 79.5 75.5 78.0 (9.4***) (10.2***)(10.7***) (14.5***) (13.8***) (12.6***) • Structural factors: • population, 1000 -0.030 -0.033 -0.027 (-3.92***) (-7.14***) (-4.38***) • unemployment rate, % -0.278 -0.294 -0.314 (-1.84*) (-2.11**) (-2.59**) • education level of 0.070 0.046 0.049 population, index (4.28***) (3.15***) (3.35***) • City manager’s assessment of -0.425 -0.476 -0.539 structural factors (-2.07**) (-2.23**) (-2.99***)

  25. Explaining DEA efficiency of Finnish municipalities (page 2) Model A Model B 1994 1995 1996 1994 1995 1996 Location, physical structure: • economic distance*2 -0.024 -0.020 -0.017 -0.028 -0.027 -0.025 (-3.21***) (-3.22***) (-3.33***) (-4.52***) (-4.91***)(-6.36***) • urbanization rate, % 0.0013 0.0011 0.0013 (4.50***) (4.43***) (5.17***) Local political structure: • left parties in -0.133 -0.162 -0.114 -0.155 -0.181 -0.149 municipal council, % (-3.01***) (4.14***) (-2.89***) (-3.69***) (-4.96***) (-4.00***) • concentration of -0.046 -0.137 -0.129 party structure in (-0.60) (-2.03**) (-1.85*) municipal council, index

  26. Explaining DEA efficiency of Finnish municipalities ( page 3) Model A Model B 1994 1995 1996 1994 1995 1996 Characteristics of CM: • gender (m=0,f=1) -3.43 0.489 -0.65 -3.67 1.09 0.095 (-1.55) (0.17) (-0.28) (-1.56) (0.37) (0.04) • education level, years 0.166 0.407 0.297 0.143 0.375 0.272 (1.16) (3.07***) (2.16**) (0.97) (2.91***) (1.99**) Attitudes of CM towards: • worker participation in 1.28 1.34 1.28 1.60 1.74 1.63 organizational change (1.41) (1.83*) (1.67*) (1.95*) (2.49**) (2.28**) • relative efficiency -0.293 -0.649 -0.780 -0.439 -0.675 -0.795 of public sector (-0.75) (-1.81*) (-2.23**) (-1.14) (-1.95*) (-2.27**) • co-operation 0.119 0.179 0.149 0.086 0.160 0.133 with other actors (1.97*) (3.18***) (2.66***) (1.46) (2.77***) (2.25**)

  27. Explaining DEA efficiency of Finnish municipalities (4) • Model A Model B • 1994 1995 1996 1994 1995 1996 CM’s assessment of negative factors’ effect on his work • Various factors, -0.268 -0.110 -0.210 index (a) * (-2.93***) (-1.28) (-2.48**) • Group contradictions, -0.895 -0.072 -0.228 index (b) ** (-3.01***) (-0.26) (-0.90) • R2 (adj) 0.274 0.306 0.320 0.256 0.284 0.309 • Ramsey 0.102 0.469 0.154 0.543 0.147 0.190 • Jarque-Bera 0.078 0.133 0.028 0.082 0.277 0.039 • Max VIF 1.79 1.94 2.11 1.51 1.51 1.51 • N 192 192 192 192 192 192 * (a) Includes organizational, political and bureaucratic problems, contradictions between actor groups, problems in organising work and lack of clearly defined political goals. ** (b) Contradictions between political parties, contradictions between sector managers and city offices.

  28. On the basis of CM variables • CM’s ’s education level had a positive impact on efficiency • NO effect was found for • Gender, age, political party membership • CM’s positive attitude towards workers’ participation in decision making (especially under organizational change) had a postive relation to efficiency.

  29. CM’s positive attitudeand experience concerningcooperation with other stakeholders was positively related to efficiency • Partners: local politicians, other city management and employees, state and regional administration representatives, business firms, trade unions and media. • Municipalities where the CM regarded the private sector generally more efficient than the public sector were more efficient.

  30. Efficiency was lower in municipalities where the CM saw a lot of • Contradictions between parties and municipalities and their government • Byrocracy and work organization problems

  31. Factors having no effect on DEA efficiency • age of city manager • number of years as CM • length of work week • membership in local organizations, trade unions or political parties • living in the municipality now or as a child • recent privatization or centralization of service activities • years of the chair of municipal board in his task or his membership in municipal council • planning to look for work elsewhere • experiencing personal contradictions with other actors • large number of other actors influencing the budget

  32. THESE WERE OUR VERY FIRST RESULTS, reported also in Kunnallistieteellinen aikakauskirja 4/2008 in Finnish, and there is also a conference paper in English, available upon request • More later • Thank you • Where is my wine??

More Related