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

Increasing public spending is not enoughto reach MDGs

* Percent deviation from rate predicted by GDP per capitaSource: 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 1990s 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 Education

Source: Filmer 2003b.

Short and long routes of accountabilityin service delivery

The relationship of accountabilityhas 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 (2003a)

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

80%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months salary not paid

Percent of staff respondents

KOGI (total=240)LAGOS (total=495)

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 Primary schools Health facilities

Ecuador 16 -Honduras 2000 14 27Peru 13 26India (19 states) 25 43Indonesia 18 42

Uganda 26 35Zambia 17 -

Percent of staff absent in primary schools and health facilities

0

10

20

30

40

50

Bangladesh Ecuador India Indonesia Papua NewGuinea

Peru Zambia Uganda

Primary schoolsPrimary health facilities

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 ($50-150K)?

• 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?

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