The Viet Nam Provincial Governance and Public ... · TP. Ho Chi Minh Yen Bai Lai Chau Hai Phong...
33
27/04/2012 1 The Viet Nam Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index (PAPI) 2011 Measuring Citizens’ Experiences Ha Noi, May 03, 2012 Introduction of PAPI and National Trends in 2011 Contents • What is PAPI? • What does PAPI measure? • Who implements PAPI? • Some Initial Impacts of PAPI • Changes in Methodology in PAPI 2011 • Key Demographic Description of PAPI 2011 Sample • An Overview of National Trends Observed in PAPI 2011
Transcript of The Viet Nam Provincial Governance and Public ... · TP. Ho Chi Minh Yen Bai Lai Chau Hai Phong...
27/04/2012
1
The Viet Nam Provincial Governance and
Public Administration Performance Index
(PAPI) 2011
Measuring Citizens’ Experiences
Ha Noi, May 03, 2012
Introduction of PAPI and National Trends in 2011
Contents
• What is PAPI?
• What does PAPI measure?
• Who implements PAPI?
• Some Initial Impacts of PAPI
• Changes in Methodology in PAPI 2011
• Key Demographic Description of PAPI 2011 Sample
• An Overview of National Trends Observed in PAPI 2011
27/04/2012
2
Introduction to PAPI
What is PAPI?
27/04/2012
3
Composition of PAPI 2011
Some Initial Impacts of PAPI
Provincial
• Increasing evidence of provinces discussing PAPI findings and ways to
improve performance (e.g. Ha Tinh, Kon Tum, HCMC and Da Nang).
• Kon Tum’s action plan to improve performance
National
• Viet Nam National HDR 2010 on social services
• Indicators used in Government Inspectorate (GI) Report to the Standing
Committee of the National Assembly & in M&E indicator system on Anti-
Corruption under construction
• PAPI data used to identify its usefulness for monitoring the implementation of
the National Strategy on Gender Equality
• PAPI as output and means of verification of governance - One UN Plan 2012-
2016
International
• PAPI’s framework, methodology and philosophy highlighted as a international
example in several international discussions (Beijing, Nepal, Tunisia, ASEAN +
ROK, and Indonesia) and in the governance assessment portal (GAP)
27/04/2012
4
Key Changes from PAPI 2010
• Expansion of PAPI to cover all 63 provinces presented a unique opportunity
to incorporate key lessons learned.
• Attending reflections from the National Advisory Board members to improve
PAPI a number of changes were introduced:
– Significant changes in sampling strategy
• Three groups of provinces
– Improvements to reliability and validity
• Changes to questions and indicators
– Addition of one new sub-dimension
• Sub-dimension 5.4. on “Other administrative procedures”
• … benchmark 2011 as the baseline year (PAPI 2011 data to be used as
baselines for comparisons in the succeeding PAPI to show trends)
An Overview of
National Trends
Observed
in PAPI 2011
27/04/2012
5
Current Household Economic Situation
Awareness of Grassroots Democracy
27/04/2012
6
Awareness of Land Use Plans At Local Levels
Opportunities to Comment on Land Use Plans
27/04/2012
7
Awareness of Poor Household Lists
Corruption and Bribery in Public Sector
27/04/2012
8
Nepotism in State Employment
People-Elected Monitoring Institutions
People’s Inspection Boards
Community Investment Supervision Boards
27/04/2012
9
Citizen’s Satisfaction Levels
with Selected Administrative Procedures
Citizen’s Satisfaction Levels Public Hospital Services
27/04/2012
10
Citizen’s Satisfaction Levels with Education Services
Aggregated PAPI 2011 and Provincial
Performance
Contents
• How is PAPI 2011 Constructed and Aggregated?
• Provincial Performance in PAPI 2011 by 6 Dimensions
• Correlation between PAPI 2011 and other Parameters
• Policy Implications of PAPI 2011
27/04/2012
11
How is PAPI 2011
Constructed and
Aggregated?
How PAPI is constructed
PAPI
Collection Construction Calibration
Dimension 1
Sub-dimension 1
Dimension ‘n’
Sub-dimension 2
Sub-dimension 1
Sub-dimension n
Sub-dimension n
Indicator 1
Indicator n
Indicator 1
Indicator n
Indicator 1
Indicator n
Indicator 1
Indicator n
Indicator 1
Indicator n
Weight
s
Weight
s
Indicators
are derived from PAPI
Survey of individuals
in 63 provinces
Source: CECODES, VFF and UNDP (2011). The Viet Nam Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index (PAPI):
Measuring citizens’ experiences. Hanoi
27/04/2012
12
Dimension 4: Control of Corruption
Sub-dimension 1:
Public Officials
Diversion of State Funds
Bribe for Construction
Permits
Bribe at Notary
Bribe for LURCs
Sub-dimension 2:
Public Services
Bribe at Hospital
Extra Educational
Funds
Bribe to Teachers
Sub-dimension 3:
Employment Equity in State Agencies
Bribe for Employment
Nepotism for Employment
Sub-dimension 4:
Willingness to Fight Corruption
Serious about
Corruption Fight
Denunciation Used
Example of Control of Corruption (Dimension 4)
Construction
Source: CECODES, VFF and UNDP (2011). The Viet Nam Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index (PAPI):
Measuring citizens’ experiences. Hanoi
Aggregate PAPI 2011 Dashboard
• Some degree of
uniformity in
performance levels.
• Diversity in socio-
economic conditions of
high and low performers
• Dimension 6 on Public
Service Delivery features
as area of strength
• Other dimensions
lagging behind
27/04/2012
13
Control Panel of Provincial Performance by Dimensions
Aggregate Un-weighted PAPI 2011
27/04/2012
14
Unweighted PAPI (with 95% CI)
30.0
31.0
32.0
33.0
34.0
35.0
36.0
37.0
38.0
39.0
40.0
41.0
42.0
43.0
Qu
ang
Bin
h
BR
VT
Lon
g A
n
Qu
ang
Tri
Ha
Tin
h
Son
La
Nam
Din
h
Lan
g So
n
Bin
h D
inh
Ho
a B
inh
Tien
Gia
ng
Than
h H
oa
Hai
Du
on
g
Da
Nan
g
Ha
No
i
Do
ng
Thap
Ben
Tre
HC
MC
Ngh
e A
n
Thai
Bin
h
Bin
h D
uo
ng
Bac
Kan
Bin
h P
hu
oc
Gia
Lai
Vin
h P
hu
c
Thai
Ngu
yen
Qu
ang
Nam
Ha
Nam
Do
ng
Nai
Ph
u T
ho
Yen
Bai
Dak
No
ng
Bac
Nin
h
Ko
n T
um
Can
Th
o
Vin
h L
on
g
Tuye
n Q
uan
g
Dak
Lak
Qu
ang
Nin
h
Bac
Gia
ng
Lao
Cai
Ca
Mau
TT-H
ue
Hai
Ph
on
g
Kh
anh
Ho
a
Kie
n G
ian
g
Soc
Tran
g
Lam
Do
ng
Nin
h T
hu
an
Die
n B
ien
Qu
ang
Nga
i
Hau
Gia
ng
Hu
ng
Yen
Lai C
hau
Bac
Lie
u
Nin
h B
inh
Bin
h T
hu
an
An
Gia
ng
Ph
u Y
en
Cao
Ban
g
Tay
Nin
h
Ha
Gia
ng
Tra
Vin
h
75th percentile
25 percentile
Mapping of Provincial Performance by PAPI 2011
• Best performers: Quang Binh,
Ba Ria Vung Tau, Long An,
Quang Tri, Ha Tinh, Son La,
Nam Dinh, Lang Son, Binh
Dinh, Hoa Binh, Tien Giang,
Thanh Hoa, Hai Duong, Da
Nang, Ha Noi and Dong Thap
• Poor performers: Ninh Thuan,
Dien Bien, Quang Ngai, Hau
Giang, Hung Yen, Lai Chau,
Bac Lieu, Ninh Binh, Binh
Thuan, An Giang, Phu Yen,
Cao Bang, Tay Ninh, Ha Giang
and Tra Vinh.
27/04/2012
15
Aggregate Weighted PAPI 2011
Weighted PAPI (with 95% CI)
30.0
31.0
32.0
33.0
34.0
35.0
36.0
37.0
38.0
39.0
40.0
41.0
42.0
43.0
44.0
45.0
BR
VT
Lon
g A
n
Qu
ang
Bin
h H
a Ti
nh
La
ng
Son
So
n L
a Q
uan
g Tr
i N
am D
inh
H
CM
C
Bin
h D
inh
D
a N
ang
Ben
Tre
H
a N
oi
Hai
Du
on
g B
inh
Du
on
g Th
anh
Ho
a Ti
en G
ian
g H
oa
Bin
h Q
uan
g N
am
Do
ng
Thap
V
inh
Ph
uc
Hai
Ph
on
g Th
ai B
inh
N
ghe
An
V
inh
Lo
ng
Do
ng
Nai
G
ia L
ai
Thai
Ngu
yen
Tu
yen
Qu
ang
Bac
Kan
D
ak L
ak
TT-H
ue
Ca
Mau
C
an T
ho
K
on
Tu
m
Kh
anh
Ho
a So
c Tr
ang
Bac
Nin
h
Kie
n G
ian
g Q
uan
g N
inh
B
ac G
ian
g Ye
n B
ai
Bin
h P
hu
oc
Lao
Cai
P
hu
Th
o
Ha
Nam
D
ien
Bie
n
Bac
Lie
u
An
Gia
ng
Nin
h T
hu
an
Hau
Gia
ng
Dak
No
ng
Nin
h B
inh
Q
uan
g N
gai
Bin
h T
hu
an
Lai C
hau
H
un
g Ye
n
Lam
Do
ng
Ph
u Y
en
Cao
Ban
g Ta
y N
inh
Tr
a V
inh
H
a G
ian
g
75th percentile
25 percentile
27/04/2012
16
Provincial
Performance by
Dimensions
Participation at the Local Level (Dimension 1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Binh ThuanTay NinhBac LieuTra VinhPhu YenCa Mau
Dien BienAn GiangHa GiangNinh BinhSoc TrangHau Giang
Quang NgaiNinh ThuanBinh DuongKien Giang
Dak LakHung Yen
TP. Ho Chi MinhYen Bai
Lai ChauHai Phong
Dong ThapTuyen Quang
Vinh LongLam DongKon Tum
Thua Thien HueDa Nang
Thai NguyenCao Bang
Quang NamThai Binh
Ha NamKhanh HoaNam DinhNghe An
Binh PhuocDong Nai
Vinh PhucGia Lai
Quang NinhThanh Hoa
Lao CaiBac Kan
Bac GiangHa Tinh
Phu ThoHai Duong
Can ThoDak Nong
Tien GiangHa Noi
Long AnBen Tre
Quang TriBinh DinhBac Ninh
Ba Ria Vung TauLang SonHoa Binh
Quang BinhSon La
Civic Knowledge
Opportunities for Participation
Quality of Elections
Contributions
27/04/2012
17
3.000
3.250
3.500
3.750
4.000
4.250
4.500
4.750
5.000
5.250
5.500
5.750
6.000
6.250
6.500
6.750
7.000
7.250
7.500 S
on
La
Qu
ang
Bin
h
Ho
a B
inh
L
ang
Son
B
RV
T B
ac N
inh
Bin
h D
inh
Q
uan
g Tr
i B
en T
re
Lo
ng
An
H
a N
oi
Tie
n G
ian
g D
ak N
on
g C
an T
ho
H
ai D
uo
ng
Ph
u T
ho
H
a Ti
nh
B
ac G
ian
g B
ac K
an
Lao
Cai
T
han
h H
oa
Qu
ang
Nin
h
Gia
Lai
V
inh
Ph
uc
Do
ng
Nai
B
inh
Ph
uo
c N
ghe
An
N
am D
inh
K
han
h H
oa
Ha
Nam
T
hai
Bin
h
Qu
ang
Nam
C
ao B
ang
Th
ai N
guye
n
Da
Nan
g T
T-H
ue
Ko
n T
um
L
am D
on
g V
inh
Lo
ng
Tu
yen
Qu
ang
Do
ng
Thap
H
ai P
ho
ng
Lai
Ch
au
Yen
Bai
H
CM
C
Hu
ng
Yen
D
ak L
ak
Kie
n G
ian
g B
inh
Du
on
g N
inh
Th
uan
Q
uan
g N
gai
Hau
Gia
ng
So
c Tr
ang
Nin
h B
inh
H
a G
ian
g A
n G
ian
g D
ien
Bie
n
Ca
Mau
P
hu
Yen
T
ra V
inh
B
ac L
ieu
T
ay N
inh
B
inh
Th
uan
Participation at the Local Levels (with 95% Cis)
• Best performers: Son La, Quang
Binh, Hoa Binh, Lang Son, Ba
Ria-Vung Tau, Bac Ninh, Binh
Dinh, Quang Tri, Ben Tre, Long
An, Ha Noi, Tien Giang, Dak
Nong, Can Tho, Hai Duong and
Phu Tho
• Poor performers: Binh Duong,
Ninh Thuan, Quang Ngai, Hau
Giang, Soc Trang, Ninh Binh,
Ha Giang, An Giang, Dien Bien,
Ca Mau, Phu Yen, Tra Vinh, Bac
Lieu, Tay Ninh and Binh Thuan
Provincial Performance in Participation at Local Levels
by Quartiles
27/04/2012
18
Correlation in Knowledge of Grassroots Democracy Ordinance and of
“People Know, People Discuss, People Do and People Verify” Slogan
Ha Noi
Ha Giang
Cao Bang Bac Kan
Tuyen Quang
Lao CaiDien Bien
Lai Chau
Son La
Yen Bai
Hoa Binh
Thai Nguyen
Lang Son
Quang Ninh
Bac Giang
Phu ThoVinh Phuc
Bac Ninh
Hai Duong
Hai PhongHung Yen
Thai Binh
Ha Nam
Nam Dinh
Ninh Binh
Thanh Hoa
Nghe An
Ha Tinh
Quang Binh
Quang Tri
TT-Hue
Da Nang
Quang Nam
Quang Ngai
Binh Dinh
Phu Yen
Khanh Hoa
Ninh Thuan
Binh ThuanKon Tum Gia Lai
Dak Lak
Dak Nong
Lam Dong Binh Phuoc
Tay Ninh
Binh Duong
Dong Nai
BRVT
HCMC
Long An
Tien Giang
Ben Tre
Tra Vinh
Vinh Long
Dong Thap
An GiangKien Giang
Can Tho
Hau Giang
Soc Trang
Bac Lieu
Ca Mau
.4.6
.81
.2 .3 .4 .5 .6(mean) Grassroots
95% CI Fitted values
(mean) PeopleKnow
Gra
ssro
ots
Dem
ocra
cy
Slo
gan
Democracy Ordinance
Transparency (Dimension 2)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Tra VinhLam DongTay Ninh
Ninh ThuanBac Lieu
Kien GiangHau Giang
Ha GiangBinh Thuan
Soc TrangAn GiangPhu YenPhu Tho
Hung YenVinh LongLai ChauKon Tum
Ninh BinhBac Ninh
Quang NgaiHai Phong
Thua Thien HueVinh PhucDong NaiDa NangCa Mau
Binh DuongDong ThapBac Giang
Can ThoCao Bang
Khanh HoaTuyen Quang
Quang NinhHa Nam
Binh DinhQuang Nam
Dien BienBac KanDak LakLao Cai
Thai BinhTien GiangDak NongHai Duong
Ben TreNghe An
Thai NguyenThanh Hoa
Hoa BinhHa NoiGia Lai
TP. Ho Chi MinhBinh Phuoc
Yen BaiQuang Tri
Long AnQuang Binh
Lang SonSon La
Nam DinhHa Tinh
Ba Ria Vung Tau
Poverty Lists
Communal Budgets
Land-Use Plan/Pricing
27/04/2012
19
4.000
4.250
4.500
4.750
5.000
5.250
5.500
5.750
6.000
6.250
6.500
6.750
7.000
7.250
BR
VT
H
a Ti
nh
N
am D
inh
S
on
La
Lan
g So
n
Qu
ang
Bin
h
Lo
ng
An
Qu
ang
Tri
Yen
Bai
B
inh
Ph
uo
c H
CM
C
Gia
Lai
H
a N
oi
Ho
a B
inh
Th
anh
Ho
a T
hai
Ngu
yen
N
ghe
An
B
en T
re
Hai
Du
on
g D
ak N
on
g T
ien
Gia
ng
Th
ai B
inh
L
ao C
ai
Dak
Lak
B
ac K
an
Die
n B
ien
Q
uan
g N
am
Bin
h D
inh
H
a N
am
Qu
ang
Nin
h
Tu
yen
Qu
ang
Kh
anh
Ho
a C
ao B
ang
Can
Th
o
Bac
Gia
ng
Do
ng
Thap
B
inh
Du
on
g C
a M
au
Da
Nan
g D
on
g N
ai
Vin
h P
hu
c T
T-H
ue
H
ai P
ho
ng
Qu
ang
Nga
i B
ac N
inh
N
inh
Bin
h
Ko
n T
um
L
ai C
hau
V
inh
Lo
ng
Hu
ng
Yen
P
hu
Th
o
Ph
u Y
en
An
Gia
ng
So
c Tr
ang
Bin
h T
hu
an
Ha
Gia
ng
Hau
Gia
ng
Kie
n G
ian
g B
ac L
ieu
N
inh
Th
uan
T
ay N
inh
L
am D
on
g T
ra V
inh
Vertical Accountability (with 95% CIs)
Provincial Performance in Transparency by Quartiles
• Best performers: Ba Ria-Vung Tau,
Ha Tinh, Nam Dinh, Son La, Lang
Son, Quang Binh, Long An, Quang
Tri, Yen Bai, Binh Phuoc, Ho Chi
Minh City, Gia Lai, Ha Noi, Hoa
Binh, Thanh Hoa and Thai Nguyen
• Poor performers: Tra Vinh, Lam
Dong, Tay Ninh, Ninh Thuan, Bac
Lieu, Kien Giang, Hau Giang, Ha
Giang, Binh Thuan, Soc Trang, An
Giang, Phu Yen, Phu Tho, Hung
Yen and Vinh Long
27/04/2012
20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
An GiangHai PhongCao BangHa GiangBac Lieu
Ninh BinhTra VinhBen Tre
Dong NaiHung YenSoc Trang
Ca MauTay NinhLai ChauPhu Yen
TP. Ho Chi MinhHau GiangKhanh HoaKien Giang
Thua Thien HueTuyen Quang
Binh DuongVinh Long
Quang NamGia Lai
Binh ThuanBac GiangDien Bien
Ninh ThuanLam Dong
Ba Ria Vung TauDak Lak
Thai NguyenBac NinhCan Tho
Dak NongLao Cai
Quang NgaiKon Tum
Vinh PhucYen Bai
Bac KanHa Noi
Tien GiangDa Nang
Son LaBinh Phuoc
Lang SonPhu Tho
Dong ThapThanh Hoa
Quang NinhBinh DinhHoa BinhHa NamLong An
Hai DuongNam DinhNghe An
Thai BinhHa Tinh
Quang BinhQuang Tri
Interactions With Local Authorities
People's Inspection Boards
Community Investment Boards
Vertical Accountability (Dimension 3)
4.500
4.750
5.000
5.250
5.500
5.750
6.000
6.250
6.500
6.750
7.000
7.250
7.500
Qu
ang
Tri
Qu
ang
Bin
h
Ha
Tin
h
Th
ai B
inh
N
ghe
An
N
am D
inh
Hai
Du
on
g L
on
g A
n
Ha
Nam
H
oa
Bin
h
Bin
h D
inh
Q
uan
g N
inh
T
han
h H
oa
Do
ng
Thap
P
hu
Th
o
Lan
g So
n
Bin
h P
hu
oc
So
n L
a D
a N
ang
Tie
n G
ian
g H
a N
oi
Bac
Kan
Y
en B
ai
Vin
h P
hu
c K
on
Tu
m
Qu
ang
Nga
i L
ao C
ai
Dak
No
ng
Can
Th
o
Bac
Nin
h T
hai
Ngu
yen
D
ak L
ak
BR
VT
L
am D
on
g N
inh
Th
uan
D
ien
Bie
n
Bac
Gia
ng
Bin
h T
hu
an
Gia
Lai
Q
uan
g N
am
Vin
h L
on
g B
inh
Du
on
g T
uye
n Q
uan
g T
T-H
ue
K
ien
Gia
ng
Kh
anh
Ho
a H
au G
ian
g H
CM
C
Ph
u Y
en
Lai
Ch
au
Tay
Nin
h
Ca
Mau
S
oc
Tran
g H
un
g Ye
n
Do
ng
Nai
B
en T
re
Tra
Vin
h
Nin
h B
inh
B
ac L
ieu
H
a G
ian
g C
ao B
ang
Hai
Ph
on
g A
n G
ian
g Vertical Accountability (with 95% CIs)
27/04/2012
21
Provincial Performance in Vertical Accountability by
Quartiles
• Best performers: Quang Tri, Quang
Binh, Ha Tinh, Thai Binh, Nghe An,
Nam Dinh, Hai Duong, Long An, Ha
Nam, Hoa Binh, Binh Dinh, Quang
Ninh, Thanh Hoa, Dong Thap, Phu
Tho and Lang Son
• Poor performers: Cao Bang, Hai
Phong, An Giang, Phu Yen, Lai
Chau, Tay Ninh, Ca Mau, Soc
Trang, Hung Yen, Dong Nai, Ben
Tre, Tra Vinh, Ninh Binh, Bac Lieu
and Ha Giang
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cao BangQuang Ninh
Tra VinhHai PhongHa GiangBac NinhTay Ninh
Ninh BinhNinh Thuan
Lam DongThua Thien Hue
Lai ChauBac Giang
Dak LakDien BienBac KanPhu Yen
Hung YenThai Binh
Khanh HoaQuang NgaiHau Giang
Ha NoiAn Giang
Dak NongThanh HoaHai Duong
Kon TumPhu ThoHa NamLao Cai
Nghe AnNam DinhDa Nang
Kien GiangYen BaiGia Lai
Vinh LongBinh Phuoc
Hoa BinhVinh Phuc
Ha TinhQuang Tri
Binh ThuanThai Nguyen
Can ThoQuang Binh
Dong NaiTuyen Quang
Bac LieuSon La
TP. Ho Chi MinhLang Son
Ben TreQuang Nam
Ba Ria Vung TauTien GiangSoc Trang
Dong ThapBinh Dinh
Ca MauBinh Duong
Long An
Limits on Public Sector Corruption
Limits on Corruption in Service Delivery
Equity in Employment
Willingness to Fight Corruption
Control of Corruption in the Public Sector (Dimension 4)
27/04/2012
22
4.000
4.250
4.500
4.750
5.000
5.250
5.500
5.750
6.000
6.250
6.500
6.750
7.000
7.250
7.500
Lo
ng
An
Bin
h D
uo
ng
Ca
Mau
B
inh
Din
h D
on
g Th
ap
So
c T
ran
g T
ien
Gia
ng
BR
VT
Q
uan
g N
am
Ben
Tre
L
ang
Son
H
CM
C
So
n L
a B
ac L
ieu
T
uye
n Q
uan
g D
on
g N
ai
Qu
ang
Bin
h
Can
Th
o
Th
ai N
guye
n
Bin
h T
hu
an
Qu
ang
Tri
Ha
Tin
h
Vin
h P
hu
c H
oa
Bin
h B
inh
Ph
uo
c V
inh
Lo
ng
Gia
Lai
Y
en B
ai
Kie
n G
ian
g D
a N
ang
Nam
Din
h
Ngh
e A
n
Lao
Cai
H
a N
am
Ph
u T
ho
K
on
Tu
m
Hai
Du
on
g T
han
h H
oa
Dak
No
ng
An
Gia
ng
Ha
No
i H
au G
ian
g Q
uan
g N
gai
Kh
anh
Ho
a T
hai
Bin
h
Hu
ng
Yen
P
hu
Yen
B
ac K
an
Die
n B
ien
D
ak L
ak
Bac
Gia
ng
Lai
Ch
au
TT-
Hu
e
Lam
Do
ng
Nin
h T
hu
an
Nin
h B
inh
T
ay N
inh
B
ac N
inh
H
a G
ian
g H
ai P
ho
ng
Tra
Vin
h
Qu
ang
Nin
h
Cao
Ban
g
Control of Corruption (with 95% CIs)
Provincial Performance in Control of Corruption by
Quartiles
• Best performers: Long An, Binh
Duong, Ca Mau, Binh Dinh, Dong
Thap, Soc Trang, Tien Giang, Ba
Ria-Vung Tau, Quang Nam, Ben
Tre, Lang Son, Ho Chi Minh City,
Son La, Bac Lieu, Tuyen Quang,
Dong Nai
• Poor performers: Dien Bien, Dak
Lak, Bac Giang, Lai Chau, Thua
Thien-Hue, Lam Dong, Ninh
Thuan, Ninh Binh, Tay Ninh, Bac
Ninh, Ha Giang, Hai Phong, Tra
Vinh, Quang Ninh, Cao Bang
27/04/2012
23
Types of Corruption
• Southern provinces seem to be
better in mitigating corruption
(Soc Trang, Tien Giang, BRVT,
Long An, Binh Duong and Dong
Thap).
• Three Municipalities with average
performance - Can Tho, HCMC
and Da Nang.
• Two large urban areas as bottom
performers - Ha Noi and Hai
Phong
• Bribes for jobs in the public
sector seem to be prevalent
across the country.
• Other types of corruption are of
no less significance across the
country if provincial star graphs
are compared with the perfect
one.
Land Registry
Commune Justice Officer
Policeman
Teacher
People's Committee
Zero Bac Giang Tra Vinh Cao Bang Son La Lam Dong Ninh Binh Khanh Hoa Vinh Long
Phu Yen Dien Bien Quang Ninh Ninh Thuan Ha Giang Bac Ninh Vinh Phuc Yen Bai Thai Binh
Ha Tinh TT-Hue Dak Lak Kon Tum Quang Ngai Hai Phong Hai Duong Binh Phuoc Ha Noi
Nghe An Dak Nong Bac Kan Ha Nam Gia Lai BRVT Lang Son Soc Trang Quang Tri
Can Tho HCMC Bac Lieu Hoa Binh An Giang Quang Binh Hau Giang Hung Yen Lao Cai
Lai Chau Thanh Hoa Thai Nguyen Phu Tho Da Nang Dong Nai Tay Ninh Binh Thuan Tuyen Quang
Nam Dinh Kien Giang Quang Nam Ben Tre Binh Duong Dong Thap Ca Mau Long An Binh Dinh
Tien Giang Perfect
Level of Nepotism at the Provincial Level
• Nepotism is prevalent across the
country in citizens’ views of state
employment in all five sectors
• While 8 out of the best 10 are
southern provinces, half of the bottom
group include northern provinces.
• Tien Giang is the most appreciated
province while Bac Giang’s point
estimate differs hugely.
• Nepotism plays a very important role
in state employment in all 5 posts
measured, with little variance across
provinces. This shows the systemic
nature of nepotism in employment into
the public sector even at the
commune level, also the lowest
government level.
27/04/2012
24
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Can ThoTra Vinh
Quang NgaiKhanh Hoa
Quang NamHa Giang
Lao CaiAn Giang
Hai DuongSoc Trang
Phu YenCao Bang
Quang NinhThua Thien Hue
Binh ThuanLai ChauHoa Binh
Son LaHa Nam
Dien BienTay Ninh
Tuyen QuangVinh PhucLang Son
Hau GiangBen Tre
Hung YenThai BinhNghe An
Bac GiangCa Mau
Bac LieuHa Noi
Kien GiangBac Ninh
Binh DinhPhu Tho
Tien GiangThai Nguyen
Dak LakHai PhongNinh Binh
Ninh ThuanVinh Long
TP. Ho Chi MinhGia Lai
Yen BaiBinh Phuoc
Dong NaiBinh Duong
Kon TumHa Tinh
Lam DongLong An
Dong ThapBac Kan
Dak NongThanh HoaQuang TriDa Nang
Nam DinhBa Ria Vung Tau
Quang Binh
Certification Procedures
Construction Permit
Land Procedures
Personal Procedures
Public Administrative Procedures (Dimension 5)
Public Administrative Procedures (with 95% CIs)
6.000
6.125
6.250
6.375
6.500
6.625
6.750
6.875
7.000
7.125
7.250
7.375
7.500
7.625
7.750
7.875
8.000
Qu
ang
Bin
h
BR
VT
Nam
Din
h
Da
Nan
g Q
uan
g Tr
i Th
anh
Ho
a D
ak N
on
g B
ac K
an
Do
ng
Thap
Lo
ng
An
La
m D
on
g H
a Ti
nh
K
on
Tu
m
Bin
h D
uo
ng
Do
ng
Nai
B
inh
Ph
uo
c Ye
n B
ai
Gia
Lai
H
CM
C
Vin
h L
on
g N
inh
Th
uan
N
inh
Bin
h
Hai
Ph
on
g D
ak L
ak
Thai
Ngu
yen
Ti
en G
ian
g P
hu
Th
o
Bin
h D
inh
B
ac N
inh
K
ien
Gia
ng
Ha
No
i B
ac L
ieu
C
a M
au
Bac
Gia
ng
Ngh
e A
n
Thai
Bin
h
Hu
ng
Yen
B
en T
re
Hau
Gia
ng
Lan
g So
n
Vin
h P
hu
c Tu
yen
Qu
ang
Tay
Nin
h
Die
n B
ien
H
a N
am
Son
La
Ho
a B
inh
La
i Ch
au
Bin
h T
hu
an
TT-H
ue
Qu
ang
Nin
h
Cao
Ban
g P
hu
Yen
So
c Tr
ang
Hai
Du
on
g A
n G
ian
g La
o C
ai
Ha
Gia
ng
Qu
ang
Nam
K
han
h H
oa
Qu
ang
Nga
i Tr
a V
inh
C
an T
ho
27/04/2012
25
Provincial Performance in Public Administrative
Procedures by Quartiles
• Best performers: Quang Binh,
Ba Ria-Vung Tau, Nam Dinh, Da
Nang, Quang Tri, Thanh Hoa,
Dak Nong, Bac Kan, Dong
Thap, Long An, Lam Dong, Ha
Tinh, Kon Tum, Binh Duong,
Dong Nai and Binh Phuoc
• Poor performers: Binh Thuan,
Thua Thien-Hue, Quang Ninh,
Cao Bang, Phu Yen, Soc Trang,
Hai Duong, An Giang, Lao Cai,
Ha Giang, Quang Nam, Khanh
Hoa, Quang Ngai, Tra Vinh and
Can Tho
Clear Information
Fees Displayed
Officials Competent
Treated w/Respect
Paperwork Reasonable
Clear Deadline
Deadline Met
Satisfied w/Service
Zero Hai Phong Lai Chau Khanh Hoa Tay Ninh Can Tho Ben Tre Hau Giang Ninh Thuan
Nghe An Dien Bien Cao Bang Vinh Phuc Binh Thuan Hung Yen Bac Giang An Giang Dong Nai
Lam Dong Phu Yen Tra Vinh Da Nang Bac Kan Tuyen Quang Ca Mau Quang Ninh Yen Bai
Vinh Long Binh Dinh Tien Giang HCMC Long An Gia Lai Bac Lieu Quang Binh Ha Nam
Kien Giang Binh Phuoc Kon Tum Lao Cai Hoa Binh Quang Nam Thai Nguyen Dak Lak Ha Noi
TT-Hue Thanh Hoa Dak Nong Lang Son Quang Tri BRVT Soc Trang Bac Ninh Phu Tho
Son La Binh Duong Thai Binh Nam Dinh Ninh Binh Ha Tinh Quang Ngai Ha Giang Hai Duong
Dong Thap Perfect
Assessment of Quality of Certification Services (Branch Size= % of respondents agreeing to the statements; Perfect =100% agreement)
• Small variance across 63
provinces in the quality of
certification services.
• Citizens in general are satisfied
with the services given at both
district and commune levels.
• However, there are still areas
where provinces could improve,
including transparency of
procedures and fees, red tape in
paperwork, and attitude of civil
servants.
27/04/2012
26
Clear Information
Fees Displayed
Officials Competent
Treated w/Respect
Paperwork Reasonable
Clear Deadline
Deadline Met
Satisfied w/Service
Zero Dak Nong Binh Thuan Vinh Phuc Thanh Hoa Vinh Long
Dien Bien Lang Son Dong Nai Ha Tinh An Giang Khanh Hoa
Lam Dong Binh Phuoc Gia Lai Quang Nam Kon Tum Bac Giang
Hai Phong Bac Kan Long An Ha Noi Hoa Binh Da Nang
BRVT HCMC Yen Bai Binh Duong Tien Giang Bac Lieu
Nghe An Quang Binh Perfect
Assessment of Construction Permit Application Procedures (Branch Size= % of respondents agreeing to the statements; Perfect =100% agreement)
Note: Provinces listed herein are those with more than 15 respondents in the total
sample having applied for the construction permits.
• The star graphs reveal an interesting
difference across provinces where more
than 15 respondents have applied for
construction permits.
• Dak Nong and Binh Thuan perform poorly
in all given criteria, Quang Binh and Nghe
An do very well in all of the criteria.
• Vinh Phuc receives complaints from
applicants about publicity of application
fees, Lang Son about deadlines, Dong Nai
about information clarity, deadlines and
overall satisfaction, Binh Phuoc about
paperwork, while HCMC, though among
the best performers is still complained
about information clarity.
Clear Information
Fees Displayed
Officials Competent
Treated w/Respect
Paperwork Reasonable
Clear Deadline
Deadline Met
Satisfied w/Service
Zero Ninh Binh Hung Yen Lao Cai Thai Nguyen Thanh Hoa Dien Bien Ha Tinh
Hau Giang Can Tho Vinh Phuc Gia Lai Binh Phuoc Lai Chau An Giang Dak Lak
Tuyen Quang Cao Bang Hoa Binh Nghe An Dak Nong Dong Nai Kon Tum Hai Phong
Bac Kan Yen Bai Tra Vinh Ha Nam Phu Yen Soc Trang Tay Ninh Ben Tre
Ninh Thuan Binh Thuan Bac Giang Binh Dinh Long An Quang Binh Vinh Long HCMC
Lang Son Quang Tri Nam Dinh Da Nang Tien Giang Ha Giang Dong Thap BRVT
Ca Mau Binh Duong Lam Dong Hai Duong Ha Noi Perfect
Assessment of LURCs Application Procedures (Branch Size= % of respondents agreeing to the statements in the legend; Perfect =100%)
Note: Provinces listed herein are those with more than 15 respondents in the total sample
having applied for land use rights certificates.
• Bottom performers are mostly northern
provinces, with exception of Hau Giang
and Can Tho.
• Ha Noi seems to perform well in LURCs
since citizens are satisfied with all 8 total
quality criteria.
• Some provinces witness uneven
performance levels in the 8 criteria. In
particular, Bac Giang civil servants
dealing with LURCs for citizens are
complained about their competence and
attitude.
• Hai Phong performs in bottom levels,
with acute problems regarding timing
and fees.
27/04/2012
27
Clear Information
Fees Displayed
Officials Competent
Treated w/Respect
Paperwork Reasonable
Clear Deadline
Deadline Met
Satisfied w/Service
Zero Dien Bien Lai Chau Quang Ninh Cao Bang Binh Thuan An Giang Khanh Hoa Quang Nam
Phu Yen Ha Nam Yen Bai Bac Giang Tuyen Quang Hai Phong Gia Lai Thai Nguyen Phu Tho
Can Tho Hung Yen Ninh Thuan Lam Dong Thai Binh Nghe An Lang Son Kon Tum Dong Nai
TT-Hue Ha Noi Ha Giang Ca Mau Dak Lak Lao Cai Hau Giang Quang Ngai Binh Phuoc
Tra Vinh Tay Ninh Bac Kan Da Nang Thanh Hoa Kien Giang Bac Lieu Son La Hoa Binh
Vinh Phuc Vinh Long Binh Dinh Dak Nong HCMC Ben Tre Tien Giang Binh Duong Quang Tri
Dong Thap Nam Dinh Ha Tinh Long An Ninh Binh Soc Trang Bac Ninh Quang Binh Hai Duong
BRVT Perfect
Assessment of Commune-level Administrative Procedures (Branch Size= % of respondents agreeing to the statements in the legend; Perfect =100%)
• Commune-leveled
administrative service seems
to have gained recognition
from citizens regarding quality
of service.
• Small difference in total quality
across provinces.
• The difference between the
best performer (Ba Ria Vung
Tau) and the poorest
performer (Dien Bien) is most
striking in all 8 criteria.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Dak NongHa Giang
Binh PhuocYen BaiHa NamLao Cai
Cao BangPhu Yen
Thai NguyenQuang Ngai
Gia LaiCa Mau
Dien BienTay NinhTra VinhNghe An
Ninh BinhTien GiangHung YenBac Kan
Binh ThuanLai Chau
Bac GiangCan ThoDak LakPhu Tho
Tuyen QuangThai Binh
Lam DongSoc TrangHoa BinhDong Nai
Khanh HoaDong Thap
Quang NinhHau Giang
Bac NinhKon TumBac Lieu
Nam DinhThanh Hoa
An GiangSon La
Quang NamHa Tinh
Binh DuongNinh ThuanVinh Phuc
Ben TreThua Thien Hue
Kien GiangVinh LongBinh Dinh
Hai DuongLang SonQuang Tri
Ha NoiLong An
TP. Ho Chi MinhQuang Binh
Ba Ria Vung TauHai Phong
Da Nang
Health
Education
Infrastructure
Law and Order
Public Services Delivery (Dimension 6)
27/04/2012
28
5.00
5.25
5.50
5.75
6.00
6.25
6.50
6.75
7.00
7.25
7.50
7.75
8.00
Da
Nan
g H
ai P
ho
ng
BR
VT
Qu
ang
Bin
h
HC
MC
Lo
ng
An
Ha
No
i Q
uan
g Tr
i La
ng
Son
H
ai D
uo
ng
Bin
h D
inh
V
inh
Lo
ng
Kie
n G
ian
g TT
-Hu
e B
en T
re
Vin
h P
hu
c N
inh
Th
uan
B
inh
Du
on
g H
a Ti
nh
Q
uan
g N
am
Son
La
An
Gia
ng
Than
h H
oa
Nam
Din
h
Bac
Lie
u
Ko
n T
um
B
ac N
inh
H
au G
ian
g Q
uan
g N
inh
D
on
g Th
ap
Kh
anh
Ho
a D
on
g N
ai
Ho
a B
inh
So
c Tr
ang
Lam
Do
ng
Thai
Bin
h
Tuye
n Q
uan
g P
hu
Th
o D
ak L
ak
Can
Th
o
Bac
Gia
ng
Lai C
hau
B
inh
Th
uan
B
ac K
an
Hu
ng
Yen
Ti
en G
ian
g N
inh
Bin
h
Ngh
e A
n
Tra
Vin
h
Tay
Nin
h
Die
n B
ien
C
a M
au
Gia
Lai
Q
uan
g N
gai
Thai
Ngu
yen
P
hu
Yen
C
ao B
ang
Lao
Cai
H
a N
am
Yen
Bai
B
inh
Ph
uo
c H
a G
ian
g D
ak N
on
g
Public Service Delivery (with 95% CIs)
Provincial Performance in Public Service Delivery by
Quartiles
• Best performers: Da Nang, Hai
Phong, Ba Ria-Vung Tau,
Quang Binh, Ho Chi Minh City,
Long An, Hanoi, Quang Tri,
Lang Son, Hai Duong, Binh
Dinh, Vinh Long, Kien Giang,
Thua Thien-Hue, Ben Tre and
Vinh Phuc
• Poor performers: Tra Vinh, Tay
Ninh, Dien Bien, Ca Mau, Gia
Lai, Quang Ngai, Thai Nguyen,
Phu Yen, Cao Bang, Lao Cai,
Ha Nam, Yen Bai, Binh Phuoc,
Ha Giang and Dak Nong
27/04/2012
29
No Shared beds
Electric fan
Clean restroom
Regular visits by staff
Treated with respect
Reasonable expenses
Reasonable waiting period
Disease/Injury cured
Private Pharma
Satisfaction with service
Zero Cao Bang TT-Hue Soc Trang Binh Phuoc Ha Giang Dak Nong Hung Yen Quang Ninh
Dong Nai Dak Lak Thai Nguyen Tay Ninh Khanh Hoa Dien Bien Bac Giang Nam Dinh Binh Thuan
Phu Tho Hai Phong Dong Thap Lam Dong Binh Duong Long An Ninh Thuan Phu Yen Ha Nam
Da Nang Thanh Hoa Nghe An Ninh Binh An Giang Tien Giang Gia Lai Vinh Phuc Hau Giang
Bac Ninh Lang Son Ha Noi Bac Lieu Hoa Binh Hai Duong Quang Binh Tuyen Quang Quang Nam
Kien Giang Ben Tre Thai Binh Lai Chau Binh Dinh Quang Tri BRVT HCMC Yen Bai
Can Tho Vinh Long Ha Tinh Bac Kan Lao Cai Kon Tum Ca Mau Tra Vinh Quang Ngai
Son La Perfect
Citizens' Assessment of District Public Hospitals (Branch Size= % of respondents agreeing to the statements in the legend; Perfect =100%)
• Provinces have different problems with district
hospitals’ quality.
• Poorer provinces (e.g. Son La, Quang Ngai,
Tra Vinh, Ca Mau and Kon Tum) tend to
receive higher scores in total quality of district
hospital.
• Can Tho and HCMC are among the top 15
while Hai Phong at the bottom 15, and Ha Noi
and Da Nang in the low average group.
• The most complained aspects are with
patients sharing beds at district hospitals and
long waiting period.
Brick Walls
Clean Toilets
Free Drinking Water
Less than 36 students
Less than 3 shifts
No favoritism from teachers
Well qualified teachers
Regular feedback
Informed of school revenue
Zero Dien Bien Lai Chau Ninh Thuan Cao Bang Khanh Hoa Bac Ninh Hai Phong Dak Lak
Bac Giang Dong Nai Thai Nguyen Lao Cai Tra Vinh Ca Mau Bac Kan Phu Tho Ben Tre
Tuyen Quang Ha Giang TT-Hue Hau Giang Ha Noi Ha Nam Binh Duong Quang Tri Quang Nam
Hoa Binh Binh Thuan Son La Hai Duong Lam Dong Soc Trang Quang Ninh Tien Giang Thanh Hoa
Kien Giang Hung Yen Lang Son Phu Yen Vinh Long Kon Tum Vinh Phuc Can Tho Ninh Binh
An Giang Dak Nong Gia Lai Binh Dinh Nghe An HCMC Binh Phuoc BRVT Long An
Nam Dinh Tay Ninh Dong Thap Da Nang Bac Lieu Quang Ngai Thai Binh Yen Bai Quang Binh
Ha Tinh Perfect
Citizens' Assessment of Public Primary Schools (Branch Size= % of respondents agreeing to the statements in the legend; Perfect =100%)
• Provinces have different problems
with public primary schools.
• Top 10 provinces are from different
economic development backgrounds
(e.g. Da Nang, Ha Tinh, Thai Binh and
Yen Bai).
• The most complained aspects are
with lack of fresh drinking water for
school children, crowded classes,
teachers’ biased towards school
children taking extra classes, lack of
transparency in school revenue
towards parents.
27/04/2012
30
Respondents who were victims of a type of crimes
0 20 40 60
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Lao Cai Son La Bac Giang Hoa Binh Ha Noi Dien Bien Hau Giang Thua Thien-Hue
Tay Ninh Long An Cao Bang Lang Son Tien Giang Ha Tinh Hai Phong Quang Ngai
Binh Dinh Tra Vinh Phu Tho Bac Lieu Binh Duong Ben Tre Dong Thap An Giang
Quang Nam Ca Mau Vinh Long Ninh Thuan Can Tho Nghe An Dak Lak Nam Dinh
Quang Ninh Gia Lai Ha Nam Tuyen Quang Quang Tri Lai Chau Binh Phuoc Kien Giang
Ha Giang Soc Trang Quang Binh Dak Nong Khanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Vinh Phuc Ninh Binh
Thai Binh Phu Yen Hung Yen Lam Dong HCMC Yen Bai Kon Tum Hai Duong
Bac Kan Ba Ria-Vung Tau Thai Nguyen Dong Nai Bac Ninh Da Nang Binh Thuan
Vehicle Theft Robbery
Break-In Physical Violence
Correlation between
PAPI 2011 and
Other Parameters
27/04/2012
31
PAPI 2011 vs. PCI 2011
PAPI2011 is
correlated with
PCI2011
(r=0.2330*). There are clear
differences
between
citizens’ and
businesses’ assessments
An Giang
Bac Giang
Bac Kan
Bac LieuBac Ninh
Ben Tre
Binh Dinh
Binh Duong
Binh Phuoc
Binh Thuan
BR Vung Tau
Ca Mau
Can Tho
Cao Bang
Da Nang
DakLakDakNong
Dien Bien
Dong Nai
Dong Thap
Gia Lai
Ha Giang
Ha Nam
Ha Noi
Ha Tinh
Hai Duong
Hai Phong
Hau Giang
Hoa Binh
Hung Yen
Khanh HoaKien Giang
Kon Tum
Lai Chau
Lam Dong
Lang Son
Lao Cai
Long An
Nam Dinh
Nghe An
Ninh Binh
Ninh ThuanPhu Tho
Phu Yen
Quang Binh
Quang Nam
Quang Ngai
Quang Ninh
Quang Tri
Soc Trang
Son La
Tay Ninh
Thai BinhThai Nguyen
Thanh Hoa
Thua Thien-Hue
Tien Giang
TP.HCM
Tra Vinh
Tuyen Quang
Vinh Long
Vinh Phuc
Yen Bai
34
36
38
40
42
PA
PI w
eig
hte
d, 2
01
1
50 55 60 65 70 75Provincial Competitiveness Index, PCI 2011
95% CI Fitted values
PAPI weighted, 2011
r=.23*
PAPI 2011 vs. GDP2010
The correlation
between PAPI2011
and GDP2010 is
strong and positive
with statistic
significance at 0.05%
(r=0.3150**).
Richer provinces do
not necessarily do
better than poorer
ones. Being wealthy is
not an advantage to
higher levels of
governance and
public administration
performance.
An Giang
Bac Giang
Bac Kan
Bac LieuBac Ninh
Ben Tre
Binh Dinh
Binh Duong
Binh Phuoc
Binh Thuan
BR Vung Tau
Ca Mau
Can Tho
Cao Bang
Da Nang
DakLakDakNong
Dien Bien
Dong Nai
Dong Thap
Gia Lai
Ha Giang
Ha Nam
Ha Noi
Ha Tinh
Hai Duong
Hai Phong
Hau Giang
Hoa Binh
Hung Yen
Khanh HoaKien Giang
Kon Tum
Lai Chau
Lam Dong
Lang Son
Lao Cai
Long An
Nam Dinh
Nghe An
Ninh Binh
Ninh ThuanPhu Tho
Phu Yen
Quang Binh
Quang Nam
Quang Ngai
Quang Ninh
Quang Tri
Soc Trang
Son La
Tay Ninh
Thai BinhThai Nguyen
Thanh Hoa
Thua Thien-Hue
Tien Giang
TP.HCM
Tra Vinh
Tuyen Quang
Vinh Long
Vinh Phuc
Yen Bai
34
36
38
40
42
PA
PI w
eig
hte
d, 2
01
1
6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5GDP 2010 at current prices (log10)
95% CI Fitted values
PAPI weighted, 2011
r=.31**
27/04/2012
32
An Giang
Bac Giang
Bac Kan
Bac LieuBac Ninh
Ben Tre
Binh Dinh
Binh Duong
Binh Phuoc
Binh Thuan
BR Vung Tau
Ca Mau
Can Tho
Cao Bang
Da Nang
DakLakDakNong
Dien Bien
Dong Nai
Dong Thap
Gia Lai
Ha Giang
Ha Nam
Ha Noi
Ha Tinh
Hai Duong
Hai Phong
Hau Giang
Hoa Binh
Hung Yen
Khanh HoaKien GiangKon Tum
Lai Chau
Lam Dong
Lang Son
Lao Cai
Long An
Nam Dinh
Nghe An
Ninh Binh
Ninh ThuanPhu Tho
Phu Yen
Quang Binh
Quang Nam
Quang Ngai
Quang Ninh
Quang Tri
Soc Trang
Son La
Tay Ninh
Thai BinhThai Nguyen
Thanh Hoa
Thua Thien-Hue
Tien Giang
TP.HCM
Tra Vinh
Tuyen Quang
Vinh Long
Vinh PhucYen Bai
34
36
38
40
42
PA
PI w
eig
hte
d, 2
01
1
.55 .6 .65 .7 .75 .8Human Development Index, HDI 2008
95% CI Fitted values
PAPI weighted, 2011
r=.37***
PAPI 2011 vs.Human Development Index (HDI) 2008
Governance and
Public Administration
very strongly
associated with overall
Human Development
Index (0.3723***).
Provinces with higher
levels of performance
in PAPI also tend to
have higher human
development levels (or
vice versa).
Policy Implications
of PAPI 2011
27/04/2012
33
Some Policy Implications from PAPI 2011
• PAPI is not just a single index, but an array of indicators
assessing various key aspects of governance and public
administration.
• Annually implementation from 2011 onwards allows to
chart trends both at national and provincial levels
• Province to province comparison reveals relative
strengths and weaknesses which may shift over time
requiring policy makers’ attention to be adjusted
• Over time PAPI allows to evaluate results and impacts of
reform efforts at both central and local level
Citation: CECODES, FR, CPP & UNDP (2012). The Viet Nam
Governance and Public Administration Performance Index
(PAPI): Measuring Citizens’ Experiences. A Joint Policy
Research Paper by Centre for Community Support and
Development Studies (CECODES), The Front Review of the
Central Committee for the Viet Nam Fatherland Front (FR),
Commission on People’s Petitions of the Standing Committee for
the National Assembly of Viet Nam (CPP), and United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP). Ha Noi, Viet Nam.
Thank you for your attention!
