Monitoring and Evaluation of Government Performance in Viet Nam

Transcription

1 Monitoring and Evaluation of Government Performance in Viet Nam Jairo Acuña-Alfaro Policy Advisor, Public Administration Reform and Anti-Corruption UNDP Viet Nam Presentation prepared for Global Roundtable on Government Performance Management Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India New Delhi, India, December 11-12,

2 Contents The Context Description of the main features of the Government Performance Management in Vietnam = PAPI Impact of PAPI Similarities and differences with Indian approach Lessons of experience

3 Context (i) China Socialist Republic of Viet Nam Population: c million Labour Force: c. 55 million State Employees: c. 5.2 million Land area: 331,698 sq. km GDP per capita: 1,407 USD Human Development Index (HDI): (medium) Poverty rate: 10.7% Ethnic groups: 54 (Kinh c. 84%) Lao PDR Thailand Cambodia Government Structure: Single Party Regime Number of Provinces: 63 including five centrally managed municipalities Number of Ministries: 18 + specialized agencies

4 Context (ii) Looking forward to new development stage Governance implications as middle-income country and transition towards higher human development levels Governance implications at new income-levels Development of institutions and processes that are more responsive to the needs of ordinary citizens, including the poor. PAR in Viet Nam has provided results but laggards and areas for further improvement. It has proven to be a comprehensive programme of government reform and a key area for donor support. Monitoring PAR challenges is key to detect change Incremental steps for shaping the public administration into a representative, responsive institution, seen as an essential bridge between government and society. Shift towards monitoring of performance oversight role of National Assembly, mass organizations, users of public services 4

5 Contents The Context Description of the main features of the Government Performance Management in Viet Nam = PAPI Impact of PAPI Similarities and differences with Indian approach Lessons of experience

6 What is PAPI? PAPI = Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index A policy monitoring tool for middle-income Viet Nam The largest nationwide governance and public administration survey in Viet Nam Second annual iteration monitoring changes in government performance Voice of Vietnamese citizens about governance and public administration experiences Since 2010 more than 32,500 citizens surveyed In 2012 alone: 13,747 citizens A provider of evidence and data to policy makers and a complement to self-assessments and other surveys

7 What does PAPI measure? PAPI measures how citizens experience implementation of policies, laws and regulations Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index (PAPI) Participation at Local Levels Transparency Vertical Accountability Control of Corruption Public Administrative Procedures Public Service Delivery Civic Knowledge Opportunities for Participation Quality of Elections Voluntary Contributions Poverty Lists Commune Budgets Land Use Plans Interactions with local authorities People s Inspections Boards Community Investment Supervision Boards Limits on Public Sector Corruption Limits on Corruption in Service Delivery Equity in Employment Willingness to Fight Corruption Certification Procedures Construction Permits Land Procedures Personal Procedures Health Education Infrastructure Law and Order PAPI is a barometer of performance

8 What does PAPI Measure? Internal Assessments External Assessments Inputs State investments in terms of policies, institutions, finance and human resources Processes Operation and implementation processes by state and executive agencies Outputs Products and services provided by state and executive agencies to organisations and individuals 8

9 Thước đo năng lực phục vụ dân [ Measure of capacity to serve citizens ] 20/05/2012. Pháp Luật Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh; Năng lực lãnh đạo = Competence of Leaders

10 Overall Progress: Improvement in Four Dimensions PAPI provides an overview of performance nationwide. On the positive side, rises in scores of 4 out of 6 dimensions indicate some level of improvement. Dimensions with slight improvement are control of corruption, transparency, public service delivery and accountability. Dimension scores (scale 1 to 10) Dimension 1. Participation at Local Levels 2.54 Dimension 2. Transparency 2011 Mean 2012 Mean Change (percentage) 1.41 Dimension 3: Vertical Accountability 2.59 Dimension 4: Control of Corruption* Dimension 5: Administrative Procedures 2.29 Dimension 6: Public Service Delivery Percentage change

11 Improvements in Dimension Scores (lowest, median and maximum provinces) Dimensional scores of half of the country have marginally edged higher. On every dimension the median score slightly increased in 2012 compared to On average, Vietnamese citizens experienced better local governance and public services in 2012 compared to Dimension 1. Participation at Local Levels Dimension 2. Transparency Dimension 3: Vertical Accountability Dimension 4: Control of Corruption Dimension 5: Administrative Procedures Dimension 6: Public Service Delivery

12 Annual monitoring of changes in performance: % changes Public Administrative Procedures Ba Ria Vung Tau Binh Duong Dong Nai Quang Ninh Lai Chau Bac Ninh Ninh Thuan Ca Mau Quang Tri Binh Phuoc Kien Giang Long An Soc Trang Nam Dinh Dong Thap Hung Yen Bac Kan Bac Giang Tay Ninh Bac Lieu Lam Dong Ha Tinh Quang Binh Thanh Hoa Khanh Hoa HCMC Ha Noi Dak Lak Hau Giang Thai Nguyen Phu Yen An Giang Ninh Binh Dak Nong Ben Tre Da Nang Gia Lai Nghe An Vinh Long Binh Dinh Binh Thuan Ha Giang Kon Tum Hoa Binh Tuyen Quang Lang Son Cao Bang Thai Binh Tra Vinh Hai Phong Vinh Phuc Phu Tho Son La Thua Thien Hue Ha Nam Yen Bai Dien Bien Quang Ngai Hai Duong Can Tho Quang Nam Tien Giang Lao Cai

13 Mapping Differences in Provincial Performance

14 Drivers of satisfaction towards administrative procedures Drivers of satisfaction towards administrative procedures: lack of respect and professionalism stand out prominently. Satisfaction Towards Public Administrative Procedures (% change from overall satisfaction) -35% -36% -42% Certification Procedures -23% -29% -29% -9% -12% -70% -50% -30% -10% No Fees Displayed Bribe Too much Paperwork Incompetent No Clear Info Deadline not achived Unrespectful No Clear Deadline -57% -60% -40% Construction Permits -22% -23% -25% -16% -6% -70% -50% -30% -10% No Fees Displayed Deadline not achived Bribe No Clear Deadline Too much Paperwork Incompetent Unrespectful No Clear Info For citizens who perceived officials as incompetent, satisf action diminished 65% with LURC. Those who perceived lack of respect were 62% less satisfied. Land Use Right Certificates -22% No Fees Displayed -32% No Clear Info -37% Too much Paperwork -39% No Clear Deadline -45% Deadline not achived -62% Unrespectful -65% Incompetent -70% -50% -30% -10% Commune Administrative Procedures -39% -20% -21% -21% -25% -26% -3% -5% -70% -50% -30% -10% No Fees Displayed Bribe Incompetent Too much Paperwork No Clear Info No Clear Deadline Unrespectful Deadline not achived

15 Drivers of satisfaction towards public services Satisfaction with District Public Hospital Services (Impact on overall satisfaction percentage) Satisfaction towards public primary schools (% change from very good opinions on quality) -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% -7% -18% -19% -21% -23% -36% -37% -44% -51% Share beds Private pharma recommended Unreasonable wait time Disease not cured Restroom unclean No electric fans Unreasonable expenses Not treated with respect Irregular visits -4% -5% -10% -11% -12% -16% -18% -25% -54% -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 3 shifts of classes per day More than 36 students Irregular feedback Teachers' favoritism Classes with poor construction No free drinking water Parents not informed of school revenue Unclean toilets Unqualified teachers Health Care: Two main drivers of satisfaction are the treatment patients experience and attention received from health care providers. Primary Education: An important driver of satisfaction is about the skills and qualifications of teachers.

16 Control Panel of Provincial Performance by Dimensions 6 most populous provinces (+2 million inhabitants) Province D1. Participation at local levels D2. Transparency D3. Vertical Accountability D4. Control of Corruption D5. Public Admin. Procedures D6. Public Service Delivery An Giang Dong Nai Ha Noi HCMC Nghe An Thanh Hoa Color code: Best performer Above 75th percentile Low Average Between 25th and 50th percentile High Average Between 50th and 75th percentile Poor Performer Below 25th percentile

17 Dashboard of Six Dimensions of PAPI 2012 Khanh Hoa Kien Giang Bac Lieu Lai Chau Dak Lak An Giang Ca Mau Dien Bien Tay Ninh Dong Nai Tra Vinh Ninh Thuan Binh Thuan Dong Thap Cao Bang Bac Ninh Ha Giang Soc Trang Phu Yen Quang Ninh Dak Nong Yen Bai Ninh Binh Tuyen Quang Quang Ngai Hau Giang Bac Giang Kon Tum Hung Yen Thai Nguyen Hai Phong Hoa Binh Can Tho HCMC TT-Hue Lam Dong Participation/Elections Transparency Accountability Control of Corruption Administrative Procedures Public Service Delivery Gia Lai Ben Tre Tien Giang Vinh Phuc Ha Noi Nghe An Son La Binh Duong Lao Cai Thanh Hoa Quang Nam Lang Son Ha Tinh Hai Duong BRVT Long An Vinh Long Bac Kan Phu Tho Binh Phuoc Quang Tri Nam Dinh Ha Nam Da Nang Binh Dinh Thai Binh Quang Binh Zero Perfect (Each branch size = level of dimensional performance on the scale from 1-10 per dimension) Dashboard helps identify weaknesses even in high-performing provinces. For instance, Quang Binh, while the most consistently high-performing province, has room for improvement on control of corruption. Da Nang, another top-performing province, demonstrates weakness in the areas of participation at the local levels and transparency. Lowest performing location, Khanh Hoa, scores relatively well on public service delivery. Tay Ninh is another low performer, which is consistent with 2011, presents strength in public administrative procedures, but lags behind other dimensions

18 Dashboard of Governance and Public Administration PAPI 2012 (unweighted)

19 PAR Index: a Government self-assessment to monitor PAR Master Plan Implementation (i) Ministry Level* PAR Management Administrative Procedure Reform Reform of State Administration apparatus Building and improving quality of human resources Innovation of management mechanism for public administration agencies and service delivery units Modernization of State Administration Performance of area management function 7 areas 30 indicators 79 subindicators Provincial Level** PAR Management Administrative Procedure Reform Reform of State Administration Apparatus Building and improving quality of human resources Innovation of management mechanism for public administration agencies and service delivery units Modernization of State Administration Development and dissemination of legal papers at localities Implementation of One-Stop-Shops and Inter-Agency One-Stop-Shops 8 areas 32 indicators 85 subindicators * Combines assessments from delivery units, citizens/users, enterprises, legislative body members and socio political organizations ** Combines assessments from delivery units, citizens/users, enterprises, legislative body members

20 PAR Index: a Government self-assessment to monitor PAR Master Plan Implementation (ii) Ministry level indicators Provincial level indicators Source: Ministry of Home Affairs (2012) REPORT RESULTS OF PILOTING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFORM MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) INDICATORS (PAR INDEX)

21 PAR Index & dashboard for Government Performance Management: Pilot results 2012 Area/Indicator Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Ministry of Industry and Technology Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development PAR Management Reform of Administrative Procedures Reform of State Administration Apparatus Building and improving quality of human resources Innovation of management mechanism for public administration agencies and service delivery units Modernization of State Administration Performance of area management function Source: Ministry of Home Affairs (2012) REPORT RESULTS OF PILOTING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFORM MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) INDICATORS (PAR INDEX)

22 Identifying other key drivers of Government Performance (i) PAPI 2012 and PCI 2012: Citizens and businesses assessments of Government Performance 2012 Provincial Administrative Performance Index Provincial Competitiveness Index 95% CI Fitted values PAPI

23 Identifying other key drivers of Government Performance (ii) Justice & Governance: Hand-in-hand according to citizens Integrity Justice & Control Corruption go together in provinces.

24 Identifying other key drivers of Government Performance (iii) Relevant External Findings from June 2013 Votes of Confidence The strongest correlates of citizens satisfaction with government (measured on a 100 point feeling thermometer) are perceptions of health and education services. This is the reason that PAPI weights the public services index so highly (about 44% of the total index), above measures of participation, transparency, and corruption control. Further disaggregating the different public services that are measured, it is clear that Education and Health stand alone. Their relationship with citizens satisfaction is twice the level of assessments of infrastructure and law & order. (UNDP, 2012) Edmund, J. Malesky (2013) Source: confidence vote results for vietnam leaders announced

25 Identifying other key drivers of Government Performance (iii) Relationship between Query Appearances and Confidence Voting Number of Times a Minister was Queried ( ) Construction Inspectorate MOSTE Chief MOJ Justice OOG President Foreign Procuracy Affairs Defense VP Prime Minsiter Culture Information DPM DPM DPM DPM Public Security MOLIA Interior Health MONRE Transport MPI State Bank Education MARD Proportion of Low Confidence Votes MIT Source: Edmund, J. Malesky (2013) Understanding the Confidence Vote in Vietnamese National Assembly: A Preface to Adverse Effects of Sunshine. In London, Jonathan (2013) (ed) Politics in Viet Nam: Party, State, and Authority Relations. Palgrave MacMillan (forth coming)

26 Contents The Context Description of the main features of the Government Performance Management in Vietnam = PAPI Impact of PAPI Similarities and differences with Indian approach Lessons of experience

27 Impacts of PAPI Provincial Increasing evidence of provinces discussing PAPI findings and ways to improve performance (e.g. Bình Định, Quảng Ngãi, Hà Tĩnh, Kon Tum, Đắk Lắk, Đắk Nông, TP. Hồ Chí Minh, Đà Nẵng, Hà Giang, Phú Yên, An Giang, Cà Mau, Nghệ An, Bình Thuận, Hà Nam ); Kon Tum s action plan to improve performance (Decision No. 703/QĐ-UBND on 03/08/2012); Quảng Ngãi and the Directive No. 19/CT-UBND on 29/11/2012; Đắk Lắk and the Official Letter No. 2211/UBND-TH on 03/05/2012; Thái Nguyên and Resolution No. 15/2012/NQ-HĐND dated 15/12/2012 (which provides for that improving PAPI to enhance public administration reform, transparency, simplification of administrative procedures, and the effectiveness and efficiency of the state apparatus) Đồng Tháp and Directive No. 13/CT-UBND Bình Định and Directive No. 13/CT-UBND Cà Mau and Directive No. 06/CT-UBND Diagnostic workshops with provinces to share concrete findings and advise ways to improve performance (Bình Định, Hà Tĩnh, Kon Tum, Đà Nẵng, Đắk Nông, Thái Nguyên, Hà Giang, An Giang, ) Provincial in-depth analysis of PAPI findings (Hồ Chí Minh City, Đà Nẵng, Hà Nam, Ninh Bình, Cao Bằng, Điện Biên, Phú Yên, Quảng Nam )

28 Impacts of PAPI National PAPI 2011 data used in the report Corruption from the Perspective of Citizens, Firms and Public Officials by the Government Inspectorate and the World Bank; PAPI 2011 used in donors joint policy brief: Revising the 2003 Law on Land in Vietnam: Creating Equitable Treatment for Land Use Right Holders submitted to the National Assembly; Some PAPI data included in the GI s report to the Steering Committee of the National Assembly; Used as external source of data for the monitoring and evaluation of corruption situations and anticorruption work being developed by GI; Used as external source of data for the monitoring and evaluation of public administration reform in the PAR Index being developed by MOHA; PAPI as output and means of verification of governance in the One UN Plan as agreed upon by the Government of Vietnam and the United Nations in Vietnam (signed on 27 March 2012); PAPI used in the Vietnam Human Development Report 2011: Governance and Human Development International PAPI s framework, methodology and philosophy highlighted as a international example in several international discussions (Beijing, Nepal, Tunisia, ASEAN + ROK, Indonesia, India, Myanmar) and in the governance assessment portal (GAP) PAPI model to be replicated in Thailand Provincial Governance Index (PGI) Academic community, i.e. Jandl, Thomas (2013) Vietnam in the Global Economy: The Dynamics of Integration, Decentralization and Contested Politics. Lexington Books. Makes extensive use of PAPI data.

29 Contents The Context Description of the main features of the Government Performance Management in Vietnam = PAPI Impact of PAPI Similarities and differences with Indian approach Lessons of experience

30 Similarities and differences (i) PAPI is an independent but complementary Government Performance Management assessment Similarities: Innovative approaches to measure performance Efforts to monitor progress and improve provision of public goods Put pressure on delivery quality services and achieving results Differences PAPI based on citizens experiences PAPI mostly provincial level based but can be aggregated at national level PAPI external monitoring source (flipping the coin) and complementing self-assessments

31 Similarities and differences (ii) PAR Index from Ministry of Home Affairs most similar with India s Government Performance Management system Similarities: Government managed exercise Focus on delivery units assessment and inputs self-assessment Central (ie Ministerial) and Provincial Differences: PAR Index in Vietnam still a pilot PAR Index in Vietnam combines samples of sources PAR Index in Vietnam does not set up benchmarks for Ministries or Provinces to achive

32 Contents The Context Description of the main features of the Government Performance Management in Vietnam = PAPI Impact of PAPI Similarities and differences with Indian approach Lessons of experience

33 Lessons (i) Dispelling myths and looking at people-centre experiences: International benchmarking of indicators Lao PDR Viet Nam Administrative Map (63 provinces) China Monochromatic understandings of provincial performance one metric for all 63 provinces Governance and Public Administration measured by self-assessments subjective and input oriented Thailand Flipping-the-coin and looking at citizens experiences and interactions as outputs Cambodia No Government Performance Assessment is complete without the experiences of users/citizens 33

34 Lessons (ii) Some Policy Implications from PAPI 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 Reference tool for NA Members, provincial NA Delegations and People s Councils to access objective data on actual implementation and performance of provinces Identify strengths and weaknesses in performance Call local authorities to account Made and/or adjust policy for improved performance Have evidence for votes of (no-) confidence 34

35 Nam 1aHZQ5nqP6U_DVfw