PUBLIC PRACTICES AND INSTITUTIONS FOR ENHANCING ACCOUNTABILITY AND PREVENTING CORRUPTION IN THE DELIVERY OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Transcription

1 PUBLIC PRACTICES AND INSTITUTIONS FOR ENHANCING ACCOUNTABILITY AND PREVENTING CORRUPTION IN THE DELIVERY OF PUBLIC SERVICES THROUGH THE ENGAGEMENT OF CITIZENS WORKSHOP OPENING SESSION: WELCOME AND INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Roberto Villarreal Chief, Development Management Branch Division for Public Administration and Development Management United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Vienna, Austria, 11 July 2011

2 INTRODUCTION AND WELCOMING REMARKS ABOUT THIS MEETING This workshop has been organized by the Division of Public Administration and Development Management of UNDESA through the Development Management Branch ORGANIGRAM The objective of the workshop is to assist participants to expand their own capacities and their organizations to contribute, in their respective countries or internationally, to asses, adapt and eventually adopt practices and institutions on one highly specific aspect of public administration: the engagement of citizens to make the public service delivery more accountable specially in the case of those services more closely related to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), such as: Training and promotion of decent employment Education Healthcare Water and sanitation, and other urban services needed by inhabitants of slums MDGs 2

3 INTRODUCTION AND WELCOMING REMARKS WHY In September 2010, as a conclusion of the High Level Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly (GA) to assess progress towards the 8 MDGs after the first decade since their adoption, the GA acknowledged achievements around the world and called on member States to: look at practices that have proven effective and are replicable support participatory, community-led strategies promote universal access to public and social services invest in basic services for health, education, water and sanitation ensure the full participation of all segments of society, including the poor and disadvantaged, in decision-making processes work towards transparent and accountable systems of governance at the national and international levels The UN Secretariat looks forward to further assist member States in this regard, inter alia through capacity building activities like this workshop GA DECLARATION 3

4 INTRODUCTION AND WELCOMING REMARKS This workshop seeks to: WHAT 1. Expand the knowledge of every participant about: What has been put into practice in countries from all regions by governments, civil society organizations (CSOs) and IOs (policy and practice) What has been documented, researched and evaluated by these development stakeholders and by academic institutions (knowledge management) What are the human, technical, financial and normative resources needed and available (capacity building) What works in different conditions (context-related practices) What are the different factors of success or failure (enabling conditions) What series of steps may be taken by different development stakeholders and in cooperation with others, to foster results-oriented, useful/practical, reasonable-cost, and generalized and lasting practices (effectiveness, practicality, cost-efficiency and institutionalization) Bottom-up (demand driven by citizens and civil society), top-down (supply driven by public administrators) Local, national level Sector specific, cross-cutting through the public sector 2. Promote networking among participants Facilitate partnerships to work together subsequently 4

5 ACCOUNTABILITY : DIVERSE MODES MORE DISCUSSION COUNTRY LEVEL GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC SECTOR EXECUTIVE LEGISLATURE PRIVATE SECTOR AND SOCIETY CITIZENS AND CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS TOP TOP S1 S2 SN AUD E1 En U L AUD I A I A I A I A S S R R DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY HIERACHICAL ACCOUNTABILITY INTERNAL AUDITING OFFICIAL AUDITING SUPREME AUDITING DIRECT ACCOUNTABILITY TO CITIZENS 5

6 ACCOUNTABILITY : EFFECTIVE INSTITUTIONS In the case of government, the following fundamental empirical questions stand out, and optimal institutional design to secure accountability would depend on the answers to these questions: HORIZONTAL ACCOUNTABILITY Should accountability of the Executive branch at the overall or top position- be established with respect to the corresponding Legislature (Congress, General Assembly), and/or directly to citizens, at every level of government (country, state, local)? What are the strengths and weaknesses of representative democracy with regard to accountability? Is the Legislative branch, in turn, accountable to citizens in effective and efficient ways? Is there effective or at least functioning separation of powers between these branches of government? While accountability to the Legislature may help enhance the use of public resources according to budgetary rules, to what extend does it ultimately works for a good allocation of resources to existing public needs or demands, in ways that actually attain the development goals people have? (i.e., performance, outcomes) Which other institutions, policies or instruments can help strengthen accountability in these matters as well? 6

7 ACCOUNTABILITY : EFFECTIVE INSTITUTIONS VERTICAL ACCOUNTABILITY Should accountability of government offices in the Executive -which are not at the top position- be to higher hierachical offices, including particular and specific auditing offices, and/or directly to citizens, at every level of government? DIRECT ACCOUNTABILITY TO CITIZENS In case it were useful to engage citizens in the context outlined above: What models of organization of citizens would be best (more effective and efficient) to secure accountability from the Executive branch? At which points of the organizational hierachy of government would direct accountability to citizens work best? Is general transparency and unstructured free access to public government information sufficient or should additional instruments and procedures be established to enhance accountability at particular points in the government organization? Which concrete instruments and prodecures would serve to secure direct accountability to citizens? How can Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) be of use? 7

8 ACCOUNTABILITY : EFFECTIVE INSTITUTIONS Institutional design to best secure accountability to citizens must consider effectiveness and efficiency. In this regard, the following costs must be minimized in adequate manners: Information costs The design of institutions shall weight all viable means to obtain, analyze and share relevant information in trustworthy ways, to adopt those which imply minimum cost Transactions costs Diverse organization schemes in which stakeholders would participate in diverse ways to secure accountability shall be considered, to adopt: Relatively diffuse (or compact) organization forms in typical cases where actions to be taken by diverse stakeholders to secure accountability are of less (or more) complexity and they can arrive at desired knowledge and agreement relatively easily (or only with considerable research and analytical effort). Agency costs (resulting specifically from diverse incentives) Assess realistically every possibility in which the delegation by citizens, on determined organizations, of the activities necessary to secure accountability to them, could be distorted in any way relative to what citizens could otherwise get as a result from alternative forms of delegating this function 8

9 A TASK-FOCUSED COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE MINDED VIEW ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES (FOR DISCUSSION) ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE PROVIDER Definition and fulfillment of mission Planning and strategy Finance Solvency (assets and liabilities) Liquidity (flow of funds) Operations Income types Expenditure types Investment Projects Productive performance indicators Productivity Per service type and geographical area Costs (total, unit, structure) Per service type and geographical area Quality dimensions Per service type and geographical area Coverage or enrollment ratios Per service type and geographical area Reliability and operational risks Per service type and geographical area TO WHOM (?) ALL USERS AND CITIZENS HAVEs HAVE NOTs COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE (HYPOTHESIS: SPATIAL, SKILLS, ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE) USERS, CITIZENS, GRASSROOTS CSOs TRADITIONAL GOVERNMENT ORGANS, UMBRELLA CSOs OUTCOMES COMPLIANCE FORMAL INFORMAL INSTRUMENTS (EXAMPLES) Investigations Auditing Inspections Multi-stakeholder- Boards Regional observatories Citizens charters Participatory budgets Systems to address grievances Citizens scorecards Community scorecards Hearings, meetings // NEED FOR MORE EFFECTIVE POLICIES? HOW DO FORMAL AND INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS WORK TOGETHER?

10 A TASK-FOCUSED COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE MINDED VIEW ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES (FOR DISCUSSION) ANTI-CORRUPTION*: PREVENTION OR ERADICATION OF: Illegitimate exclusion of non-state producers (deviations in granting exclusive production rights: concessions, permits, licenses, etc,.) Illegitimate acquisitions and spending and illegitimate (non-) collection of deliveries (deviations in expenditures and collections of service fees) Illegitimate taxation (bribes) Illegitimate control (tolerance or protection of wrong or criminal acts or conducts, even if no tangible economic dimensions are in the forefront), e.g., incompetence, malpractice, unethical behavior, low respect for clients, etc.) TO WHOM (?) ALL USERS AND CITIZENS HAVEs HAVE NOTs COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE (HYPOTHESIS: SPATIAL, SKILLS, ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE) USERS, CITIZENS, GRASSROOTS CSOs TRADITIONAL GOVERNMENT ORGANS, UMBRELLA CSOs OUTCOMES COMPLIANCE INFORMAL FORMAL INSTRUMENTS (EXAMPLES) Investigations Auditing Inspections Multi-stakeholder- Boards Civic observatories and councils Ombusdmen Reporting systems Hearings, meetings * Corruption: Illegitimate acts and conducts which parallel legitimate functions of government. NEED FOR MORE EFFECTIVE POLICIES? HOW DO FORMAL AND INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS WORK TOGETHER? 10

11 FOR DELIBERATION AND ANALYSIS COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE (HYPOTHESIS: SPATIAL, SKILLS, ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE) USERS, CITIZENS, GRASSROOTS CSOs TRADITIONAL GOVERNMENT ORGANS, UMBRELLA CSOs Do these comparative advantages exist? Are both approaches complementary to each other? Are there undesirable duplications of functions or other negative effects? Can an effective and efficient combination of the two approaches be attained, and in case, how? Presentations and discussions in the workshop are expected to help answer these questions 11

12 FINAL REMARKS The Development Management Branch (DMB) looks forward to conclude by the end of 2011 a publication covering issues of interest for all UN Member States on Accountability and Eradication of Corruption for Fostering Development : Engagement of Citizens. Different activities will be pursued in this regard: Analytical and research efforts Concepts Indicators A number of international meetings with experts and practitioners For knowledge sharing and capacity building A global knowledge base on auditing and accountability and eradication of corruption for development will be constructed, as part of the UN Public Administration Country Studies database (UNPACS) To systematically gather, organize and publicly offer information on every UN Member State on their legal and institutional framework, and on good practices Laws, institutions, organization models» Auditing institutions» Institutions for citizens engagement It is expected that these efforts will effectively contribute to the intergovernmental process of the United Nations Declarations, resolutions, guidelines All participants are welcome to cooperate with DMB in these matters 12

13 END OF PRESENTATION We thank you for attending this workshop and hope you benefit from it! For additional information, or to explore possibilities of cooperation, please contact: Roberto Villarreal Angela Capati-Caruso Anni Haataja 13

14 ANNEXES 14

15 DPADM AND DMB IN THE UN SECRETARIAT BACK

16 MILLENNIUM DECLARATION Development encompasses a considerable large array of matters, so to focus attention and concentrate efforts from relevant actors in a set of very fundamental ones, the Millennium Declaration adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2000, highlighted the following and set corresponding targets for the year 2015 to guide adequate progress (continued )

17 MILLENIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND TARGETS (1) Goal 1 End Poverty and Hunger Target 1: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a day Target 2: Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people Target 3: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger Goal 2 Achieve Universal Primary Education Target 1: Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling Goal 3 Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women Goal 3 Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women Target 1: Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and in all levels of education no later than 2015

18 MILLENIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND TARGETS (2) Goal 4 Reduce Child Mortality Target 1: Reduce by two thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the underfive mortality rate Goal 5 Improve maternal Health Target 1: Reduce by three quarters the maternal mortality ratio Target 2: Achieve universal access to reproductive health Goal 6 Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Other Diseases Target 1: Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS Target 2: Achieve, by 2010, universal access to treatment for HIV/AIDS for all those who need it Target 3: Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases

19 MILLENIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND TARGETS (3) Goal 7 Ensure Environmental Sustainability Target 1: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources Target 2: Reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss Target 3: Halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation Target 4: By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers

20 MILLENIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND TARGETS (4) Goal 8 Develop a Global Partnership for Development GO BACK Target 1: Address the special needs of least developed countries, landlocked countries and small island developing states Target 2: Develop further an open, rule-based, predictable, nondiscriminatory trading and financial system Target 3: Deal comprehensively with developing countries debt Target 4: In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable essential drugs in developing countries Target 5: In cooperation with the private sector, make available benefits of new technologies, especially information and communications

21 UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION A/RES/65/1: KEEPING THE PROMISE: UNITED TO ACHIEVE THE MDGs We take note of the lessons learned and successful policies and approaches in the implementation and achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and recognize that with increased political commitment these could be replicated and scaled up for accelerating progress, including by: ( ) (e) Supporting participatory, community-led strategies aligned with national development priorities and strategies; (f) Promoting universal access to public and social services and providing social protection floors; (g) Improving capacity to deliver quality services equitably; (h) Implementing social policies and programmes, including appropriate conditional cash-transfer programmes, and investing in basic services for health, education, water and sanitation; (i) Ensuring the full participation of all segments of society, including the poor and disadvantaged, in decision-making processes; ( ) (l) Enhancing opportunities for women and girls and advancing the economic, legal and political empowerment of women; (n) Working towards transparent and accountable systems of governance at the national and international levels; BACK

22 ACCOUNTABILITY: ALLOCATION AND USE OF RESOURCES, ATTAINMENT OF POLICY OUTCOMES Accountability, in its connotations as one objective function of public administration, has different domains: Allocation of resources available for development A fundamental distinction between alternative allocations can be established by considering: Goods for private use Goods for public use* MEANS Use of those resources Particularly as it comes to the Executive branch of government In all levels of government (country, state or province, local) Also, regarding the private sector and organized civil society In terms of social and environmental responsibility Outcomes derived from the allocation and use of said resources Impacts on wellbeing of the people dynamic, inclusive, equitable and sustainable development PROCESSES ENDS * Public in the sense that, on historical, political or juridical grounds, these goods must be available to all the people in the same terms (i.e., available identically to the public at large). Thus, public refers to the clientele and not to whether these goods are produced by the public sector. 22

23 ALLOCATION AND USE OF RESOURCES BACK TO PRESENTATION The country s resources can be allocated to produce goods for private or public use goods (sufficing just barely to produce maximum quantities Pr or Pu, respectively, if only each type is produced, or for any quantities of both within the maximum production possibilities curve PrPu *. 1 2 Public goods 5 Pu W 1 W 2 W 3 * The curvature reflects diminishing marginal productivity in the production of either type of goods. O B If the public sector is not sufficiently funded, production of goods for public use would be relatively limited. Allocation of resources would be such that production would be reflected on a point like A, reflecting maximum production possibilities, with more (less) production of goods for private (public) use, compared to point B. At point A, people would reach a level of wellbeing W 1, on the corresponding social satisfaction curve **. ** Social satisfaction curves (also known as collective utility curves) represent sets of different quantites of goods for private use combined with certain quantities of goods for public use, such that the people are equally satisfied with any combination on the same curve. Their curvature reflects dimimishing marginal satisfaction from increasing quantities of any of the two types of goods. The farther away curves are located on the upper right, the higher the satisfaction level people enjoy larger quantities of goods for private and public use If the public sector were allocated more resources through taxation or service fees, there would be more production of goods for public use, while lesser resources would be left for production of goods for private use. Allocation of resources would result in production at a point like B and people could attain a level of wellbeing W 2. Satisfaction would be higher as depicted in the figure if people would be in a situation where they value goods for public use comparatively more than those for private use. Nevertheless, it could be that the resources allocated to production of C goods for public goods are inadequately used, for example because A 4 of inefficiencies or corruption that diverts part of those resources to ends different than production of goods for public use. In this case, production would be at a point such as C, below maximum possibilities, and people would reach a satisfaction level below W 2. Interventions to correct inefficiencies and corruption are needed to Private attain point B. Pr goods Yet, the figure reflects that people are in a situation in which goods for public use are relatively highly valued by people and thus an even bigger satisfaction level could be obtained from allocating resources for production at point O, from which people would increase wellbeing to the level W3. Interventions are necessary to induce accordingly an allocation of resources that is most compatible with the preferences of citizens.

24 END OF ANNEXES 24