Document Library

Comparing Services: A Survey of Leading Issues in the Sectoral Literatures

Author: D Moran
Date: 2006
Size: 10 pages (114 KB)

Access full text: available online

Summary

What does the literature say about the interaction between state and non-state provision of basic services? What does it tell us about government capacity to regulate, facilitate and contract non-state providers (NSPs)? This article from the journal Public Administration and Development reviews recent research into government interventions in non-state provision of education, health, water and sanitation, and identifies gaps in the literature.

The state’s capacity to regulate and contract NSPs is often limited by the availability of information and political and economic instability. Regulation is usually weak or inappropriate and the quality of service is often poor. The state’s engagement with informal NSPs is frequently limited by a lack of knowledge about NSPs’ activities, the diversity and weak political status of NSPs, and the influence of professional groups. Very little attention has been given to the interaction between state and non-state provision and the policy dialogue in which this relationship is framed.

Policy dialogue between the state and NSPs in a particular country or sector may be harmonious, adversarial or non-existent, depending in part on historical circumstances. The literature points to weaknesses in the state/non-state relationship and government motivation in regulating and facilitating NSPs as two areas of concern:

• Governments are wary of endorsing informal NSPs due to concerns over service quality and cost. This presents a dilemma, since informal NSPs often fill a gap in public service provision.
• Regulation can be costly in terms of time and money, raising the possibility that increased private sector involvement may not create public expenditure savings.
• Contracting NSPs implies a change in the role of government from direct provision to managing provision by others. Competitively contracted health services have been successful, but depend on government capacity to contract.
• Institutional factors, including union opposition, weak non-state actors, bureaucracy, corruption and lack of transparency and political backing, limit government capacity to contract NSPs.

The literature suggests a number of ways in which the relationship between government and NSPs could be improved. Governments could:

• recognise NSPs, thus establishing the basis for a positive policy dialogue on government intervention
• encourage informal NSPs to ‘go formal’, either by recruiting them into public service programmes and providing resources and training, or by reforming taxation
• integrate NSPs into state provision of health care, making better use of existing capacity, rather than creating potentially unwanted and unmanageable new capacity
• control entry to the education ‘market’ through a rigorous accreditation process or by issuing permits to operate schools
• work in partnership with NSPs by helping to establish self-financing community schools or subsidising private education
• officially permit the operations of informal water NSPs, enabling the provision of government support and allowing collaboration with government agencies.

Access full text: available online

Source: Moran, D., 2006, 'Comparing Services: A Survey of Leading Issues in the Sectoral Literatures', Public Administration and Development, vol. 26, issue 3, p 197-206
Author: Dominique Moran , d.moran@bham.ac.uk