Download Standards Setting Planning Asset Creation Operation

PETS and Absenteeism:
The Indian Perspective
Anit Mukherjee
Fellow, NIPFP
Results For Development Workshop
July 21, 2009
What are the issues?
• Over the last decade, significant changes have taken
place in social sector expenditure in India
• These changes have been systemic, structural, and
strategic
• A large part of these changes have taken place due to
the accepted wisdom that increased expenditure was
not translating into better outputs
• The main reasons were: (a) money not reaching the
target service provider or beneficiary; (b) the lack of
accountability of the service providers themselves
Fund Flows and Accountability
• PETS and Absenteeism studies are the appropriate
research methodologies to address these systemic
failures
• Examples:
– Public Report On Basic Education (PROBE), 1999
– Missing in Action: Teacher and Medical Provider Absence
in Developing Countries (World Bank), 2004
• Outcome: Increased awareness of lack of
accountability in public service delivery
• Action: Increase in social sector expenditure;
structural changes in delivery systems
The Broader Picture
• South Asia is considered to be one of the regions
lagging behind in human development – especially
education and health
• Governments are being increasingly held
accountable for failure to provide universal schooling
or healthcare
• Within countries like India, different states/regions
are competing amongst themselves – which is a
healthy sign and helpful for advocacy
• Donor focus has shifted from project-based funding
to budgetary support – increasing importance of
PETS type studies
The current drawbacks
• After a spurt in PETS and Absenteeism in the late
nineties and early part of this decade, there seems to
be a dearth of research of late
• Cross-country studies have almost dried up – so this
initiative is very welcome
• Most academics and policy-makers still quote the
figures from the World Bank study
• Situation on the ground is far more complex than it
was in the beginning of the decade when the earlier
PETS/Absenteeism studies were conducted
Changing Nature of Fiscal Transfers
Figure 1: Transfers to States: 1990-91 to 2006-07
7.00
(Per cent to GDP)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Tax Dev olution
Grants
Total Transfers
20
06
-0
7
20
04
-0
5
20
02
-0
3
20
00
-0
1
19
98
-9
9
19
96
-9
7
19
94
-9
5
19
92
-9
3
19
90
-9
1
0.00
Off-Budget Transfers
Nearly $10 billion (1% of GDP) goes directly to sub-national
entities outside the budgetary grants system
Federal Government Allocations
• Allocations have increased in subjects that were under the
domain of the States
Growth Rate 2001-02 to 2006-07
300.00
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
Total
Expenditure
Social Services
Education
Health
Rural
Employment
Structural Change - Decentralized Framework
Pre- Universal Education Program
Broad Function
Responsibility
Village
Central
Govt
Standards Setting
Planning
Asset Creation
Operation - Non Teacher
Operation - Teacher
Monitoring and Evaluation
State
Govt
District
Block
GP
Village
Groups
Service
Provider
(School)
Structural Change – Decentralized Framework
Post – Universal Education Program
Broad Function
Responsibility
Village
Central
Govt
Standards Setting
Planning
Asset Creation
Operation - Non Teacher
Operation - Teacher
Monitoring and Evaluation
State
Govt
District
Block
GP
Village
Groups
Service
Provider
(School)
Planning and Implementation
Still not harmonized across states – plan sizes big, implementation capacity is weak.
Need to be careful about selection bias in choosing location of the study
In summary – Future of PETS
Future PETS studies need to factor in changes that
have happened over the last decade or so. These can
be classified into three basic problems:
• Planning Capacity
• Fund Flows
• Absorptive Capacity
The ultimate objective is to increase efficiency
of public expenditure and better quality of
public service delivery