Several developing countries have recently initiated reforms to improve the ways in which public services such as health or water are delivered. These present a much harder task than the economic stabilisation reforms of the 1980s and 1990s. Unclear goals and uncertain benefits make their implementation difficult. Additionally, as they involve multiple actors and challenge existing provider groups, conflicts and resistance within the system slow down the process. A long-term commitment to these reforms is needed. But, in poorer countries, particularly with weak government systems, reforms are highly politicised and difficult.

Research from the University of Birmingham examines the part policy-makers and citizens play in demanding, designing and directing reforms in service delivery systems. The study analysed the reforms being taken up in the water and health sectors in a range of developing countries. These reforms involved a decentralisation of management, introduction of user-charges, contracting out of services and other ways of promoting private sector participation in the delivery of public services. Analysing the process of reform rather than its outcomes or effects, the researcher identified the key interest groups and actors within the reform process.

The researcher found that:

• the key initiators of change have usually been external actors such as donors and international financial institutions
• public service officials and ministers of leading government departments are essential allies in reform: sometimes this complicates the issue as they are both allies to and the objects of change
• support for the reforms within the government came from the core ministries such as finance, planning commissions and presidential offices but not from specific sector ministries (such as health or water) - which were often opposed to reform
• citizens do not have any direct interest in the ways in which service delivery may be organised and the struggle for change generally remains within the bureaucracy
• citizens also lack awareness and the capacity to organise themselves to press for improved services – particularly in the health sector
• policy makers have relatively little power to assert control over the performance of service providers

Successful social reforms are usually led by a small team that include donors and key officials from both core and sector ministries. In countries where international lenders and donors take the primary role and become deeply involved in the process, local ownership and accountability are undermined. Donors such as the IMF and World Bank wield substantial influence on weak governments, particularly those highly dependent on aid and with very little capacity to negotiate. In such cases, proposals for reform have often been sweeping and the consequence of this has been a large gap between radical goals for reform and disappointing actual outcomes.

To make the reform process smoother and more acceptable, it is essential that:

• reformers are more strategic and analyse thoroughly the opportunities as well as constraints that reforms bring up: alliances to outwit opposition can be built
• support for the process is built and cultivated consciously: reform is constrained due to lack of political commitment and by resistance from those who stand to lose from the change.
• reforms are introduced in a phased and incremental manner rather than through a broad and sweeping approach. Building a core group of reform supporters, building capacities to plan and implement could be the first steps before re-organising the sector
• donors resist the temptation to impose massive and varied packages of reform that do not relate to national conditions, overwhelm systems and undermine local political accountability
• reformers are able to distinguish between the real and temporary capacities and constraints of the institutions.

Resistance to the reform system can be overcome through proper measures.  One way in which donors can support locally directed change is by helping governments to gather information and build from other successful experiences.

Source(s):
‘The Politics of Service Delivery Reform’ in Development and Change 35 (1): 31 – 56, by R. Batley 2004-05-28

Funded by: Department for International Development, UK

id21 Research Highlight: 6 October 2004

Further Information:
Richard Batley
Development Administration Group
School of Public Policy
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT
United Kingdom

Tel: + 44 121 414 4985
Fax: + 44 121 414 4987
Contact the contributor: R.A.Batley@bham.ac.uk

University of Birmingham

Other related links:
'Comparing institutional performance to inform health policy: evidence from Mexico'

'Global or local: what factors most affect health policy in South Africa?'

'How would you like to pay? Health care financing reforms and popular values in Bulgaria'

'Putting policy into practice: can local government cope?'

'Decentralization and public services: the case of immunization'

'Reforming Institutions for Service Delivery: A Framework for Development Assistance with an Application to the Health, Nutrition, and Population Portfolio [of the World Bank]'