Public Officials and Their Institutional Environment : An Analytical Model for Assessing the Impact of Institutional Change on Public Sector Performance
Keywords
PARTNERSHIPPUBLIC INSTITUTIONS
PUBLIC AGENCIES
BUREAUCRATIC BEHAVIOR
EMBEZZLEMENT
CONSTITUTIONS
ALLOCATION OF GOVERNMENT RESOURCES
ACCOUNTABILITY
CITIZENS
BUREAUCRATIC CORRUPTION
LEADERSHIP
SOCIALIZATION
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
SERVICE DELIVERY
EXECUTING AGENCIES
PRIVATE SECTOR
PUBLIC SERVICE
DECREES
PRIMARY SCHOOL
HUMAN RESOURCE
LONG TERM
LAWS
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
BUREAUCRACY
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
GOVERNMENT LEVEL
PUBLIC BUREAUCRACY
POLICY RESEARCH
ECONOMIC INCENTIVES
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
STATE BUDGET
PUBLIC SECTOR PERFORMANCE
MOTIVATION
ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS
PUBLIC SERVICES
DECISION-MAKING
GOVERNMENT POLICY
MANAGERS
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS
POLICY CREDIBILITY
AUTHORITY
PUBLIC SERVICE PROVISION
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
POLITICIANS
RECOGNITION
ATTENTION
POVERTY REDUCTION
INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
PUBLIC SECTOR
EMPLOYMENT
PUBLIC FUNDS
PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS
BUDGET MANAGEMENT
INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT
CORRUPTION
LEGISLATION
PUBLIC OFFICIALS
COUNTRY DATA
FORMAL INSTITUTIONS
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
EXPECTED IMPACT
COMPETENCE
MEASUREMENT ERRORS
DATA ANALYSIS
TRANSPARENCY
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
FORMAL CONTRACTS
LEGISLATURE
ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT
POOR PERFORMANCE
ECONOMIC COOPERATION
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
MINISTERS
COUNTRY REPORTS
Full record
Show full item recordOnline Access
http://hdl.handle.net/10986/19797Abstract
To perform well, public officials must be confident enough about the future, to be able to see a relationship between their efforts, and an eventual outcome. Their expectations are shaped by their institutional environment. If the rules are not credible, or are unlikely to be enforced, of if they expect policies to be contradicted, or resources to flow unpredictably, results will be uncertain, so there is little point in working purposefully. The authors present an analytical framework, used to design a series of surveys of public officials' views of their institutional environment, and to analyze the information generated in fifteen countries. They describe how survey results help map public sector's strengths, and weaknesses, and offer an approach to identifying potential payoffs from reforms. The framework emphasizes how heterogeneous incentives, and institutional arrangements are within he public sector. It emphasizes how important it is for policymakers to base decisions on information (not generalizations) that suggests what is most likely to work, and where. In building on the premise that public officials' actions - and hence their organization's performance - depend on the institutional environment in which they find themselves, this framework avoids simplistic anti-government positions, bur doesn't defend poor performance. Some public officials perform poorly, and engage in rent seeking, but some selfless, and determined public officials, work hard under extremely difficult conditions. This framework offers an approach for understanding both bad performance, and good, and for presenting the results to policymakers in a format that leads to more informed choices, about public sector reform. Types of reforms discussed include strengthening the credibility of rules for evaluation, for record management, for training, and for recruitment; ensuring that staff support government policy; preventing political interference, or micro-management; assuring staff that they will be treated fairly; and, making government policies consistent.Date
2000-08Identifier
oai:openknowledge.worldbank.org:10986/19797http://hdl.handle.net/10986/19797
Copyright/License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/Collections
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Results, Performance Budgeting and Trust in GovernmentBrumby, Jim; Thomas, Theo; Senderowitsch, Roby; Manning, Nick; Arizti, Pedro; Thomas, Theo; Arizti, Pedro; Senderowitsch, Roby; Manning, Nick; Brumby, Jim (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2017-08-16)The book identifies four categories of
 performance budgeting, namely direct performance budgeting,
 performance informed budget (PIB), opportunistic performance
 budgeting and presentational performance budgeting. While
 the Conference papers often refer to performance budgeting
 broadly defined, much of the book focuses on PIB, the most
 common category of performance budgeting adopted to date,
 making the argument that this is likely to be the most
 applicable in many Latin American countries. The book
 combines two seemingly diverse governance topics, adopts
 contrasting analytic styles to address these, and seeks to
 draw out their inter-connections, with particular reference
 to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
 (OECD) and Latin American countries. The first topic is PIB,
 which is discussed largely from the practical perspective of
 policy makers and practitioners, reflecting that it is a
 major public administration reform that has been underway
 for several decades. The second topic is the trust of
 citizens and firms in government. This book is divided into
 seven chapters. Chapter one provides an overview of PIB,
 building on two decades of experience and lesson-learning,
 and sets out the key themes that provide the basis for the
 discussions in the subsequent chapters. Chapter two
 introduces the concept of trust in government, particularly
 in OECD and Latin American countries, and explores why this
 matters for development. Chapters three, four, and five
 explore key dimensions of PIB, including the institutional
 foundations, the production of performance information, and
 the uses of performance information. Chapter six considers
 the impact of performance improvement on trust in government
 in OECD and Latin American countries. Chapter seven provides
 a guide for practitioners on PIB.
-
Implementing a Government-wide Monitoring and Evaluation System in South AfricaAjam, Tania; Engela, Ronette (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2017-07-17)Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is
 an extremely complex, multidisciplinary and skill intensive
 endeavor. Government-wide M&E is even more so because it
 requires detailed knowledge across and within sectors, as
 well as of interactions among planning, budgeting, and
 implementation functions in the public sector. The situation
 is complicated even further when the machinery of government
 is decentralized, with powers and functions distributed
 across three spheres of government. This paper outlines the
 process of implementing a government-wide monitoring and
 evaluation (GWM&E) system in South Africa. The first
 section sketches the context that created the impetus for
 establishing such a system. This context is clearly shaping
 the evolution of the system and influencing its longer-term
 sustainability. The second section outlines the various
 stages of conceptualizing and implementing the GWM&E
 system, which is currently very much a 'work in
 progress.' The third section reviews international
 experiences for lessons learned, which may also be germane
 to the South African context, noting similarities and
 differences in approach. Some of the critical implementation
 factors relate to the role of political leadership and
 championing of M&E, incentives for promoting usage of
 M&E findings, dealing with information and data
 constraints, capacity building, "ownership" of the
 M&E system by line ministries and other agencies, and
 managing the challenges of change. The fourth section
 examines a range of challenges and difficulties encountered
 in South Africa. The final section reflects on lessons
 distilled from the South African experience to date.
-
Strengthening Public Revenue and Expenditure Management to Enhance Service DeliveryWorld Bank (Washington, DC, 2014-02-06)To achieve higher growth and reduce
 poverty and inequality, Mexico needs to improve public
 service delivery. Mexico is a middle-income country with
 continuing high levels of poverty (46.2 percent of the
 population). To improve public sector service delivery,
 Mexico needs to ensure sufficient financial and human
 resources relative to the needs of the population, and
 effective and efficient public management of spending
 programs to address those needs-two basic prerequisites for
 an effective public sector. Mexico's public service
 delivery is hindered by low tax collection and expenditure
 inefficiencies at all three levels of government: federal,
 state, and municipal. Mexico's tax collection is also
 low by Latin American standards. The problem of low tax
 collection is particularly acute at the local level, as many
 subnational governments lack incentives and administrative
 capacity. At the local level, improving tax collection faces
 additional challenges. Low subnational tax collection
 increases the volatility of subnational finances within
 Mexico's fiscal federalism framework. Subnational
 governments need incentives and assistance to improve their
 tax administration to increase own revenues. As part of an
 ambitious strategy to modernize public sector financial
 management, the government has started to harmonize the
 public accounts and accounting practices of the federal and
 subnational governments.