Have policy makers and citizens in developing countries played a significant role in reforming their service delivery systems? This article, published in Development and Change, examines the process of public service reform and identifies its leaders, supporters and resisters. It argues that the involvement of international lenders and donors can undermine accountability in that process and lead to disappointing outcomes.
In many developing countries, reforms have been introduced into a political climate favouring direct public ownership or state management of public services. Challenging this model appeared to threaten the state itself. Moreover, the initiative for reforms often arose amid economic crisis, meaning that they were carried out in stressful circumstances, leading to suspicion and resistance. This study examines reforms in the sectors of urban water supply, curative health, business development and agricultural marketing services in four core countries: Ghana, Zimbabwe, India and Sri Lanka. It compares these processes against an ideal ‘principal-agent’ framework in which citizens are the principals over policy makers as their agents, and policy makers are the principals over public officials as their agents.
In reality, public service reform is complicated by the fact that civil servants are both the agents and objects of change. In addition, external actors (international financial institutions and donors) often significantly influence the process. The case studies reveal that:
- The supposed ‘agents’ – international and key domestic officials – are often in fact the ‘principals’. This was especially so with earlier reforms regarding macro-economic stabilisation, allowing quick implementation.
- More recent reforms in the organisation of service delivery have proved harder to achieve because they have less clear-cut goals, offer uncertain benefits, involve multiple actors and challenge existing provider groups.
- In the social sectors, particularly health, citizen pressure for improved services is weak, and tends to act more as a drag on change. Policy makers have little capacity to control providers.
- Reform is generally an elite process and takes place mainly in the bureaucratic arena. There are exceptions, however, such as the imposition of user fees.
- Health and water reforms have received less high-level political support. Ministry officials and professional staff have played a key role in implementing change and have often hindered it.
In crisis situations, external actors often determine policy, which is then articulated by national political leaders. This can give an impression of ‘ownership’ without substance and undermine accountability between national principals and agents. This has resulted in the imposition of radical reforms with only modest outcomes, particularly in African countries with weak governments. To increase the possibility of successful reform, governments and donors should:
- Build on the momentum of earlier reform with the support of the agents and beneficiaries of the process.
- Understand the political constraints and opportunities, helping to form alliances and outwit the opposition.
- Ensure that agents deliver benefits to citizens. This is more likely if contracts with providers establish clear obligations.
- Phase in reforms with the aim of developing capacity, particularly in the health sector. First, build up a management team who can act as core advocates of change.
- De-link organisational reform from direct threats to the status of employees. It is easier to implement re-organisation later in the process.
