Syndicate content

Governance & Public Sector Management

Thinking through unorthodox ideas for governance change in difficult contexts

Tina George Karippacheril's picture
 Accountability Lab/Morgana WingardWe are curating a new monthly series on Digital Gov. in developing countries. The series seeks fresh perspectives and insights into the policy, institutional and technical dimensions of technology and public management to understand how to make services work for businesses and citizens. In the second post of the series, we reflect on unorthodox, locally adapted solutions for institutional transformation in fragile states.

Some 1.5 billion people live in fragile states, “a group of countries at the bottom that are falling behind, and often falling apart” (The Bottom Billion, Collier, 2007). These states are marked by repeated cycles of violence, and weak institutional capacity and an inability to deliver basic services to their citizens.

Meet your new friend, the finance minister

Philipp Krause's picture

Finance on scrabble board with buildings superimposed on it.King James had it right early on. “All Treasurers, if they do good service to their masters, must be generally hated”, he remarked after he couldn’t protect his own treasurer Lionel Cranfield from being thrown into the Tower of London in chains. Cranfield had made too many powerful enemies by opposing an expensive war the treasury couldn’t afford. His many successors through the ages can probably relate without too much difficulty.

Grievances as a Public Good

Margaux Hall's picture

This summer, I made a project visit to a government clinic in northern Sierra Leone.  It is a clinic pretty much in name only, being constructed as 1-bedroom living quarters for a teacher and subsequently converted into a health facility.  The nurse took me on a tour, pointing out the problems: a broken scale to weigh infants, no waiting room for early stages of labor, animals grazing and

A missing "G" in ESG? - an emerging case for integrated environmental, social and governance analysis

Michael Jarvis's picture

Governance issues are prominent on the development agenda - as exemplified by the recent G8 focus on transparency or in discussions of the post 2015 agenda. However, at least among most donors, the governance aspects are dealt with separately from discussions of social or environmental (or even economic) aspects. Is this a useful distinction? Or are we missing a trick from the financial and private sectors in not developing integrated environmental, social and governance (ESG) approaches?

M-government? – Innovations from Punjab

Ana Bellver Vazquez-Dodero's picture

Two recent blogs (Mobile Apps for Health, Jobs and Poverty Data  and Transformational Use of ICTs in Africa) talked about how mobile applications facilitate access to services in the financial, trade, agriculture, and social sectors.
 
Despite proliferation in business applications, most government applications only provide information about public services and agencies. The potential is huge and now there is a level playing field for developed and developing countries.  Take the USA where government applications are still quite limited in scope and quantity (see the 10 best).  Aware of their unleashed potential, President Obama issued a directive on May, 23rd 2012 to every federal agency “to make two government services the American people depend on, available on mobile phones.”  Yes, May 2012.

Multistakeholder Mid-Life Crisis? - Time for a support group

Michael Jarvis's picture

In a surprisingly rainy Sydney, over 1200 people gathered last week for the Global Conference of the Extractives Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) – a multistakeholder effort bringing together stakeholders from government, civil society, oil, gas and mining companies and investors in support of transparency to help ensure citizens see the benefits from their country’s natural resources.

Government choice and donor competition - a catalyst for doing development differently?

Nick Manning's picture

The Aid Transparency Initiatives and the focus on the use of country systems, emphasized in the Paris Declaration, encourage donors to publish what they fund and to use existing country public financial management systems. However, this focus on the how of development assistance somewhat distracts from the what. The bigger question really is why donors and governments focus on those particular areas and why those donors are the right partners to begin with.

 

Public Participation in the Budget Process in the Republic of Korea

Young Kyu Kang's picture

A recently released Open Budget Survey conducted by the International Budget Partnership (IBP) ranked the Republic of Korea as the top performer in public participation in the budget process. With a score of 92, Korea rose to the top as the only country “that provides extensive opportunities for public participation” (IBP 2012). Of 100 countries surveyed, the average score for public participation in the budget process was 19 out of 100. IBP found that in many countries there are limited, if any, opportunities provided to the public for engagement in the budget process. So what is it about Korea that makes it an exception?

The many faces of corruption: The importance of digging deeper

Francesca Recanatini's picture

About a month ago two colleagues (Greg Kisunko and Steve Knack) posted a blog on “The many faces of corruption in the Russian Federation”. Their post, based on the elegant analysis of the 2011/2012 Russian BEEPS, underscores a point that many practitioners and researchers are now beginning to appreciate because of the availability of new, disaggregated data: corruption is not a homogenous phenomenon, but rather a term that encompasses many diverse phenomena that can have profoundly different impact on the growth and the development of a country. If we delve deeper into this disaggregated data, we observe that within the same country can coexist significantly different sub-national realities when it comes to the phenomenon we label “corruption”.

What do discussions about aid modalities and institutional change have in common?

Heidi Tavakoli's picture

What do discussions about aid modalities and institutional change have in common?

A lot, very little, would you expect them to?  Clarifying these somewhat nebulous terms may be a first step to address this question.
 
An aid modality (or aid instrument), describes a way of delivering ODA.  Different modalities are defined according to how funds are managed and disbursed: Is the funding ‘on budget’? Who signs off on the funding releases? The concept says nothing about the content of a given aid programme; it is purely concerned with the process used to transfer the funds. While budget support and project aid are the most common types of aid modality, the term also encompasses a host of other funding mechanisms, including funding for skills transfer.


Pages