1 / 24

Measurement Matters: The Use of PETS and QSDS

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.

gregory-guzman
Download Presentation

Measurement Matters: The Use of PETS and QSDS

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. Measurement Matters:The Use of PETS and QSDS Public Expenditure Analysis and Management CourseRitva Reinikka Development Research Group (DEC) Public Services Research Team January 13, 2004

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. and vastly different changes in spending can be associated with similar changes in outcomes. Sources: Spending data for 1990s from World Development Indicators database. Child mortality data from Unicef 2002. Other data from World Bank staff

  5. Unit cost and performance in primary education: Mauritania

  6. Expenditure incidence tends to favor the better-off even in health and education Health Education Source: Filmer 2003b.

  7. Short and long routes of accountabilityin service delivery

  8. The relationship of accountabilityhas five features

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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?

  13. Nonwage funds not reaching schools: evidence from PETS 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.

  14. 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

  15. Schools in Uganda received more of what they were due Source: Reinikka and Svensson (2001), Reinikka and Svensson (2003a)

  16. 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

  17. Ghost workers on payroll (percent) Source: World Bank 2001; Reinikka, 2001.

  18. 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) 80% LAGOS (total=495) 15% 10% 5% 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Months salary not paid

  19. 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

  20. Frontline provider surveys 2002:Absence rates (percent) among teachersand health-care workers

  21. 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 Peru Zambia Uganda Guinea

  22. Good reasons for doing PETS/QSDS • Diagnosing problems – shaping the reform agenda • Analysis: guiding reform • Monitoring over time/benchmarking • Understanding systems – useful for donors andgovernments • Research – collaboration between practitioners and researchers • A good basis for information campaigns to increase “client power”

  23. 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 ($50-150K)? • 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?

  24. 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

More Related