Syndicate content

Blogs

Measuring Corruption Risk using ‘Big’ Public Procurement Data in Central & Eastern Europe

Tina George Karippacheril's picture

In June, a joint team from Operations Risk, Public Sector Governance and Integrity and Controllers invited researchers from the Corruption Research Center Budapest (CRCB) – Mihály Fazekas and István János Tóth – for a week of discussions with Bank staff on the measurement of corruption risk in public procurement, utilizing big data.
 
CRCB is an NGO made up of an interdisciplinary team of political scientists, economists, computer scientists and lawyers. Their goal is to help citizens understand corruption in public spending and quality of government, focusing on the public procurement process. Over the past few years, CRCB have been collecting vast quantities of previously unexploited data on public procurement for some countries in Europe, sifting through these datasets to analyze risk of corruption and evidence of cartels, using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods.

Beyond romance and nostalgia: A clear-eyed view of long term career-based incentives in the public sector

Nick Manning's picture

Teacher and studentsAs we argued in the previous post, the evidence on performance-related pay (PRP) is limited but generally supportive.   However, the evidence base for, or against, PRP is distinctively weak in relation to core civil service jobs outside of the OECD.   The conclusion of our recent report1 urges cautious experimentation, breaking out of the evidence-free certainties which have driven so many donor recommendations for reform. 

In some cases a more detailed empirical look will likely show that long term career-based incentives provide a better alternative to the short term motivation provided by PRP.  In complex public sector environments, with complex and occasionally contradictory objectives and multiple principals, there are arguments that incentives for performance should rely on information which is hard to game as it emerges over the longer term.2

Performance-related pay in the public sector: Experimentation with humility is an appropriate stance, given the state of the evidence

Nick Manning's picture

Pay Flexibility book coverA new publication on Pay Flexibility and Government Performance[1] finds that, in this area as in so many aspects of public sector management, practitioners are hampered by a lack of high quality evidence, particularly for PRP in core administrative public sector jobs.  The publication draws on a two sets of data: a review of the literature on Performance-Related Pay in the Public Sector[2] which disaggregates the available evidence by the different public sector contexts, the different types of public sector jobs, the quality of the empirical study, and the economic context; and case studies of PRP in emerging market and OECD countries, which included large perception surveys of government officials.

A related article in the World Bank Research Observer notes that this has not limited the remarkable certainty which opponents and proponents of PRP adopt concerning recommendations for reform.  Opponents march behind populist banners such as that provided by Pink[3], appealing to the idea that monetary and other extrinsic incentives are both counterproductive (because they frequently undermine intrinsic incentives) and unnecessary (because intrinsic incentives can be harnessed and used to maximize individual productivity).

How can we measure state capacity? Do you start upstream or downstream?

Nick Manning's picture

About a year ago, Frank Fukuyama released an article entitled “What is governance?” in the Governance journal that became an “instant classic” in the field. Within a month it had elicited over 15 responses from prominent scholars on the Governance blog, not to mention commentary posted elsewhere—including this blog. It already has over 40 google citations, including articles in Spanish, Italian and Portuguese. And a month ago, Governance journal published two more commentaries on Fukuyama’s original article (by Robert Rotberg and Craig Boardman), reinvigorating the debate.

Corruption, Politics and Public Service Reform in the Digital Age

Tina George Karippacheril's picture

//jenniferbussell.com/research/Last week, we invited Jennifer Bussell from UC Berkeley to present her fascinating study on corruption, politics and public service reforms in the digital age. The study is based in India and draws on a wealth of qualitative and quantitative data collected in 2009 from 20 subnational states, investigating how pre-existing institutional conditions influence e-Governance reforms.
 
Public service reforms in the digital age constitute a new era of relations between the citizen and the state. However, scholars have argued that much of the discourse on e-Government has been normative, with fairly optimistic predictions, and wanting deeper moorings in public management theory (Coursey & Norris, 2008; Heeks & Bailur, 2007; Yildiz, 2007).

Thinking politically about the role of MSIs in Governance

Brendan Halloran's picture

The recent rapid expansion of multi-stakeholders initiatives (MSI) promoting improved governance raises critical questions about the role of these mechanisms in addressing problems of government transparency, responsiveness, and accountability, specifically whether and how they generate on-the-ground impact.

HOW DO WE THINK MSIs CONTRIBUTE TO CHANGE?  MSIs, like other efforts to promote change, are built around a theory of change (TOC) about how they will contribute to the achievement of their goals.  These proposed causal pathways may be explicitly stated or implicit.  How do MSIs in the governance sphere articulate their role in contributing to change?  Do they base their theories of change on questionable assumptions, or lack a change hypothesis altogether?  TOCs also reflect a specific understanding of the challenge they seek to address.  It should not be surprising that a technical framing of governance problems would lead to a technocratic approach to a solution.  For example, the framing in OGP of ‘open’ government, with little explicit emphasis on democratic governance, may contribute to an emphasis on open data, e-government, and other technical aspects of governance, which are unlikely to address the core political dynamics that underlie governance deficits.

Holding a Mirror to the Governance Partnership Facility (GPF): $89 Million Multi-Donor Trust Fund Releases Annual Report

Petrus Henricus Van Heesewijk's picture

Click on image to read the report.The Governance Partnership Facility (GPF), a multi-donor trust fund, has released its 2013 Annual Report. The GPF was created in 2008 as a partnership between the World Bank and leading donors from the UK, Australia, Norway, and the Netherlands, in the field of governance with the aim of facilitating the implementation of the Bank’s Governance and Anti-Corruption (GAC) strategy.

I forgot facilitation! A reflection on the importance of dynamic, creative management of diverse actors in multi-stakeholder initiatives

Kate Bridges's picture

Participating in a multi-stakeholder initiative (MSI) sometimes feels rather more like duty than pleasure. As my eye travels around the room, it takes in the occasional snoozing civil society representative, the conspicuously empty chairs, and the combative government official languidly tapping on his blackberry. The meeting began an hour late after a straggler finally brought us to the necessary minimum number for a quorum. I find myself pondering, “Is this really working?” “Is this room of disparate stakeholders, with varying commitment and sundry objectives really going to solve one of Zambia’s most complex development challenges?”

Governance of the last resort? - When to consider a multi-stakeholder approach

Jonas Moberg's picture
And it should be realised that taking the initiative in introducing a new form of government is very difficult and dangerous, and unlikely to succeed. The reason is that the old order will be opposed to the innovator, whereas all those who might benefit from the new order are, at best, tepid supporters of him.”
 
Machiavelli, The Prince

Pages