World Development Report Highlights Failure of Developing World Governments to Provide Basic Services

The World Bank’s World Development Report 2004 concludes that many developing countries fail to provide even the most basic of services to their citizens and the developing world is likely to miss the targets of the Millennium Development Goal. The Millennium Development Goal called for halving poverty and improving meeting basic needs of people in developing countries by 2015.

The problems with services range from lack of improved sanitation to few educational opportunities. For example, 2.5 billion people still lack access to improved sanitation around the world.

The report finds that — surprise — simply throwing money at these problems rarely arrives at solutions. The Middle East, for example, spends more per capita on education than any other developing region, but still has some of the highest illiteracy rates in the world due to unequal access for women and girls.

According to a press release announcing the report,

The productivity of public spending varies enormously across countries. Ethiopia and Malawi spend roughly the same amount per person on primary education – with very different outcomes. Peru and Thailand spend vastly different amounts – with similar outcomes.

The Report concludes that no one size fits all. The type of service delivery mechanism needs to be tailored to characteristics of the service and circumstances of the country. For instance, if the service is easy to monitor, such as immunization, and it is in a country where the politics are pro-poor, such as Norway, then it can be delivered by the central government directly, or contracted out. But if the politics of the country are such that these resources are likely to be diverted to the well-off by way of patronage, and the service is difficult to monitor, such as student learning, then arrangements that strengthen the clientÂ’s power as much as possible are necessary. Means-tested voucher schemes, as in Colombia or Bangladesh, community-managed schools as in El Salvador, or transparent, rule-based programs, such as MexicoÂ’s ‘Progresa”, are more likely to work for poor people.

The report recommends three basic ways to improve basic services to the poor,

1. By increasing poor clientsÂ’ choice and participation in service delivery, so they can monitor and discipline providers. School voucher schemes – such as a program for poor families in Colombia, or a girlsÂ’ scholarship program in Bangladesh (that paid schools based on the number of girls they enrolled) – increase clientsÂ’ power over providers, and substantially increased enrollment rates. Community-managed schools in El Salvador, where parents visited schools regularly, lowered teacher absenteeism and raised student test scores.

2. By raising poor citizensÂ’ voice, through the ballot box and making information widely available. Service delivery surveys in Bangalore, India, that showed poor people the quality of the water, health, education and transport services they were receiving compared to neighboring districts, increased demand for better public services, and forced politicians to act.

3. By rewarding the effective and penalizing the ineffective delivery of services to poor people. In the aftermath of a civil war, Cambodia paid primary health providers in two districts based on the health of the households (as measured by independent surveys) in their district. Health indicators, as well as use by the poor, in those districts improved relative to other districts.

Sources:

Basic services ‘fail world’s poor’. The BBC, September 21, 2003.

World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work For Poor People. World Bank, September 2003.

Dean Has Nothing to Hide — And Just to Make Certain, He’s Keeping His Records Secret

This Newsweek story about Howard Dean and me laughing out loud in my office this morning.

The best line comes near the end where Dean’s legal counsel chief counsel David Rocchio complains that Dean’s opponents are distorting his record as governor of Vermont. So if you’re a politician who is concerned about others distorting what you really did, what is the obvious recourse?

Exactly — hide all the records for a decade so neither reporters nor your political opponents can have access to them!

Then last January, Dean’s chief counsel David Rocchio negotiated a sweeping agreement that resulted in about 140 boxes of Dean records containing several hundred thousand pages of documents being locked up for 10 years at a state archive in Middlesex, said Greg Sanford, the state archivist. The sealed papers include Dean’s correspondence with advisers on, among other matters, Vermont’s “civil unions” law and a state agency that critics charged was used to grant tax credits to Dean’s favored firms.

As with the Bush administration’s penchant for hyper-secrecy — which Dean himself has criticized — hiding the records simply increases the speculation that there’s something there worth hiding.

Source:

WhatÂ’s in Howard DeanÂ’s Secret Vermont Files?. By Michael Isikoff, Newsweek, December 8, 2003.

BBC to Its Own Reporters: Shut Up Already

The BBC’s Greg Dyke has spent the last few weeks telling anyone who will listen just how much superior the BBC coverage of the invasion of Iraq was to that of American media (as long as you ignore minor problems like the Andrew Gilligan affair).

Apparently Dykes and the BBC have such faith in their correspondents that they are going to pay them not to wrote for British newspapers. According to the Telegraph,

Under new rules, which are being introduced by the BBC because of concerns raised during the Hutton Inquiry about its journalists’ activities, senior broadcasters including John Humphrys, the Today presenter, and Andrew Marr, the corporation’s political editor, will be prevented from writing columns, which can earn them as much as £100,000 a year.

. . .

The corporation hopes that these payments will avert the risk of senior journalists defecting to rival channels, where they would be free to resume newspaper work.

. . .

Andrew Gilligan, a reporter for the Today programme, who first raised the issue in a radio broadcast, further infuriated Downing Street when he expanded on his claims in The Mail on Sunday.

The subsequent death of Dr David Kelly, who was Mr Gilligan’s original source for the story, led the Government to establish a committee of inquiry under Lord Hutton. That inquiry is expected to be critical of the way the BBC and its board of governors, in particular, handled the affair.

So Gilligan’s reporting wasn’t fair and balanced? Who would have thunk it.

(Hint to the BBC: you might try actually hiring quality reporters rather than hiring flakes and then paying them extra not to write embarassing articles putting their biases and inadequacies on full display).

Source:

BBC pays £2m to key staff for not writing. Chris Hastings and Martin Baker, The Telegraph, November 11, 2003.