Government at a Glance: Well-being and quality of public service provision

This blog, by Wikichild co-ordinator Melinda George, takes a look at the well-being aspects and the quality of public service provision in the OECD's "Government at a Glance 2013" report. The post is part of Wikiprogress' December spotlight on governance. 

Last month, the OECD’s Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate (GOV) launched its flagship publication “Government at a Glance 2013”. The report presupposes that governments are expected to take into consideration the well-being of their citizens when making policy decisions. Trust in government has been identified as essential for well-being and social cohesion, and the report looks intensely at citizens’ trust in their government. This trust “represents the confidence of citizens and businesses in the actions of government to do what is right and perceived as fair” and can be established through ensuring citizens’ well-being through service provision.

The second and the final chapter in the OECD’s “Government at a Glance 2013” report both provide a first attempt to measure the quality of key public services in a comparable way. As a Special Feature, the reports analyses four key public services which OECD member countries’ governments provide to their citizens: education; health care; justice; tax administration. The quality of these services is measured using several indicators for each service (viz. affordability; timeliness; reliability; efficiency; cost-effectiveness; satisfaction), chosen as a result of data availability and comparability across OECD member countries. The report also looks at the availability of public services via online channels, which can facilitate access to a wider range of users, provide convenience and reduce costs.

Below are the graphs from the report regarding quality of public service provision for the four services analysed.

Education

“Government performance assessment is particularly crucial in sectors such as education and health care that are fundamental to citizens’ well-being,” states the report. Affordability can be a major barrier to accessing public services, such as tertiary education. The OECD’s “Education at a Glance 2013” report looks at tuition fees and financial aid to assess the affordability of education in member countries (slide 1, see below). To measure efficiency, the report compares national cumulative expenditure per student with student performance (slide 2). The report looks at the public Net Present Value (NPV) of schooling, by comparing total benefits of education (i.e. economic returns) to costs, to determine the cost-effectiveness of education (slide 3). Finally, the World Gallup Poll surveys the levels of satisfaction with the education system and schools in 2007 and 2012 (slide 4).

 Health Care

Looking at out-of-pocket expenditures by income group is how the report determines affordability of health care in countries (slide 1). To determine timeliness of health care, wait time for both seeing a specialist and undergoing an elective surgery were measured (slide 2). Five elements were considered in the report to establish the reliability of health care (i.e. patients’ rights and involvement) (slide 3). The report looks at the average length of stay (ALOS) in hospitals to determine the health care systems’ efficiency (slide 4). In order to assess cost-effectiveness, the report compares improvements in life expectancy to total health expenditure per capita (slide 5). The report also looks at Gallup World Poll survey results for the question “In the city or area where you live, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the availability of quality health care?” (slide 6).

  

Justice Sector

The share of cases which received legal aid helped specify the affordability of judicial services in a country’s justice sector (slide 1). Trial length is a common indicator of timeliness in the justice sector and is the indicator used in this report (slide 2). To indicate the efficiency of a country’s justice sector, the report looked at the cost of trial compared to the national average trial length (slide 3). While no question was asked in the Gallop survey regarding satisfaction with the justice sector, the report does include the results from the question about confidence in the local police force (slide 4).

Tax Administration

To determine the timeliness of the tax administration, the report considered the average processing time for personal tax returns (slide 1). Whether a country has a formal or administrative approach to specify the rights and obligations of tax payers can influence whether citizens’ rights are ensured, which affects the tax administration’s reliability (slide 2). The tax administration’s efficiency was decided by comparing the annual costs of administration to the total revenue collected (slide 3).

Online Services

The report states that “online channels can facilitate access to a wider range of users and provide a greater convenience, while also reducing costs” (pp. 154). Therefore, an increase in online public service provision and use could greatly affect how well a government is serving its citizens. Looking at the percentage of business which have e-government uptake (slide 1) and the percentages of citizens’ uptake across age groups (slide 2) provides a clearer picture of the efforts a government is making to serve.

While measuring citizens’ trust in their government has been one way to determine the well-being aspect of governance, this report provides a more cross-cutting approach and a better picture of the relationship between citizens and state. While the picture is far from complete and measurements are missing in several countries, it at least is a sizeable step towards comparing governments' involvement in improving the quality of citizens’ lives. One thing was clear from the report’s findings: satisfaction with these services is higher than confidence in national government by a considerable amount of percentage points. In this case, we should continue moving beyond measuring trust in governments, as it alone may not indicate the quality of a government.

 - Melinda George

What we learn from the PISA 2012 results

This post on the PISA 2013 results by Andreas Schleicher, Deputy Director for Education and Skills at the OECD  is part of the Wikiprogress series on Education and Skills.

International comparisons are never easy and they aren’t perfect. But the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) shows what is possible in education, and it helps countries see themselves in the mirror of the education opportunities and results delivered by the world’s leaders in education. Even those who claim that the relative standing of countries in PISA mainly reflects social and cultural factors must now concede that improvement in education is possible. In mathematics, countries like Brazil, Mexico, Tunisia and Turkey rose from the bottom; Italy, Portugal and the Russian Federation advanced to the OECD average or close to it; Germany and Poland rose from average to good; and Shanghai-China and Singapore have moved from good to great. Indeed, of the 65 participating countries, 40 saw improvement in at least one of PISA’s three subject areas. These countries did not change their culture, or the composition of their populations, nor did they fire their teachers; they changed their education policies and practices.

We focused this year’s PISA assessment on mathematics. Each year, OECD countries invest over 200 billion euro in math education in schools; but poor math skills still severely limit people’s access to better-paying and more-rewarding jobs and, at the aggregate level, inequality in the distribution of math skills closely relates to how wealth is shared within nations.

This PISA 2012 assessment came at a time when countries were still grappling with the aftermath of the economic crisis - a period that has brought home the urgency of equipping more people with better skills to collaborate, compete and connect in ways that drive our economies forward, foster employment and reduce social inequality. 

A large part of the challenge in education lies in addressing underperformance. Across countries, almost one in four 15-year-olds did not even reach Level 2, the PISA baseline level of proficiency in mathematics, where students have to do little more than employ basic algorithms or procedures involving whole numbers. But in Canada, Korea, Shanghai-China and Singapore, it is one in ten or fewer. According to one estimate, if all 15-year-olds in the OECD area attained at least PISA Level 2 in math, they would contribute USD 200 trillion in additional economic output over their working lives. While such estimates are never wholly certain, they do suggest that the benefits of improvement dwarf any conceivable cost. Part of the issue lies with students living in social disadvantage, and many school systems amplify that disadvantage. According to PISA, advantaged and disadvantaged schools show particularly wide differences in levels of teacher shortages. Attracting the most talented teachers and school leaders to the most challenging classrooms will therefore be key to making headway. Indeed, PISA finds that higher-performing countries allocate educational resources more equitably among advantaged and disadvantaged schools. 

A belief that all students can achieve at a high level and a willingness to engage all stakeholders in education – including students, through such channels as seeking student feedback on teaching practices – are other hallmarks of successful school systems. New results from PISA also show that students whose parents have high expectations for them tend to have more perseverance, greater intrinsic motivation to learn math, and more confidence in their own ability to solve math problems.

But the challenges of school systems are not just about poor kids in poor neighbourhoods, but about many kids in many neighbourhoods. Only 2% of American students reach the highest level of math performance, demonstrating that they can conceptualise, generalise and use math based on their investigations and apply their knowledge in novel contexts. That compares with an OECD average of 3%, and proportions of up to 31% in Shanghai-China. The world economy will pay an ever-rising premium on excellence, and a number of countries have shown how the share of top performers in school can be raised significantly, including in high performers, such as Hong Kong-China and Korea, and low performers, such as Italy, Portugal and the Russian Federation. It is important that raising excellence and improving equity are not seen as conflicting policy objectives. Indeed, of the 13 countries that significantly improved their math performance since 2003, three also show improvements in equity in education, and another nine improved their performance while maintaining an already high level of equity.

Of course, raising outcomes is easier said than done. The status quo has many protectors, and countries need to be bold in thinking and in execution to effect real changes. Obviously, we can’t copy and paste school systems wholesale. But PISA has revealed an encouraging number of features shared by the world’s most successful school systems. 

Everybody agrees education is important. But the test comes when education is weighed against other priorities. How do countries pay their teachers, compared to other highly skilled workers? Would you want your child to be a teacher rather than a lawyer? How do the media talk about teachers? What we’ve learned from PISA is that the leaders in high performing systems have convinced their citizens to make choices that value education, their future, more than consumption today. 

But placing a high value on education is just part of the equation. Another part is the belief that all children can achieve. The fact that students in some countries consistently believe that achievement is mainly a product of hard work, rather than inherited intelligence, suggests that education and its social context can make a difference in instilling the values that foster success in education.

In the past, different students were taught in similar ways. Today’s top school systems embrace diversity with differentiated instructional practices; they realise that ordinary students have extraordinary talents and they personalise educational experiences. High-performing school systems also share clear and ambitious standards across the board. Everyone knows what is required to get a given qualification. This remains one of the most powerful system-level predictors in PISA.

And nowhere does the quality of a school system exceed the quality of its teachers. Top school systems pay attention to how they select and train their staff. They watch how they improve the performance of teachers who are struggling and how to structure teachers’ pay. They provide an environment in which teachers work together to frame good practice. And when deciding where to invest, they prioritise the quality of teachers over the size of classes. Not least, they provide intelligent pathways for teachers to grow in their careers. 

High performers have also moved on from administrative control and accountability to professional forms of accountability and work organisation. They support their teachers in developing innovations in pedagogy, in improving their own performance and that of their colleagues, and in pursuing professional development that leads to stronger education practice. The goal of the past was standardisation and compliance; now, top performers enable teachers to be inventive. In the past, the policy focus was on providing education; in today’s top school systems, it’s on outcomes, shifting from looking upwards in the bureaucracy towards looking outwards to the next teacher, the next school, about creating networks of innovation. 

Perhaps the most important outcome of world-class school systems is that they deliver high-quality education across the entire school system so that every student benefits. Overall, Finland did not come out quite as impressively as in previous assessments; but what makes Finland still special is that only 6% of the performance variation among students lies between schools. In other words: every school succeeds. 

Last but not least, high-performing systems tend to align policies and practices across all aspects of the system, they make them coherent over sustained periods of time, and they see that they are consistently implemented. 

Of course, there is no single combination of policies and practices that will work for everyone, everywhere. Every country has room for improvement, even the top performers. That’s why the OECD produces this triennial report on the state of education across the globe: to share evidence of the best policies and practices and to offer our timely and targeted support to help countries provide the best education possible for all of their students. With high levels of youth unemployment, rising inequality, a significant gender gap, and an urgent need to boost growth in many countries, we have no time to lose. 

Andreas Schleicher

Deputy Director for Education and Skills and Special Advisor on Education Policy to the OECD's Secretary General

This post first appeared on the OECD education today blog site on 3 December 2013, here. 

Links:
PISA 2012 Results
OECD Programme for International Student Assessment
OECD Youth Portal
OECD
PISA for Development
Post-2015 Education and PISA 
What can OECD's PISA bring to global education post-2015? (blog)
What are we learning? PISA will cast a wider net post-2015

Smart Aid - Where ODA will still be useful

This post by Raundi Halvorson-Quevedo, a substantive reviewer for the OECD Development Co-operation Report 2013 provides a first look at Jon Lomøy’s piece for the Report. This post is part of the Wikiprogress  series on Post-2015. 

Concessional development finance is no longer the key source of finance for national development; non-concessional lending from both public and private sources has increased significantly over recent years and is now playing an important role.  Does all this mean that public concessional finance has become irrelevant, or does it still have a role to play?

The author has assessed empirical data regarding official development assistance (ODA) flows over the past decade and identified a number of trends that show how concessional finance from Development Assistance Committee members has adapted over time to emerging needs and urgent concerns – and drawn the following conclusions about where ODA will still be useful in future and how to ensure that aid will be even “smarter” in that context.

• Targeting the neediest  Providers of ODA have historically given priority to the poorest of the poor.  Since 2008, ODA to low-income countries (which today comprise 36 countries) has been around 30% of total ODA. Within this group, however, there are some countries which are not receiving enough ODA to meet their needs. The existence of under-aided countries – or “aid orphans” – results largely from donors’ uncoordinated allocation practices: one donor rarely takes into consideration how other donors allocate their ODA when making their own decisions. To address this vacuum, the OECD-DAC has developed a methodology for identifying potentially under-aided countries and monitoring assistance to them. This analytical tool will help us better target ODA, making it smarter still.

• Support to fragile states is fundamental for eradicating poverty  The past two decades have seen the rise of conflict and fragility as major global concerns, with serious implications for poverty eradication.  Between 2000 and 2010, support from DAC members to fragile states more than doubled – from USD20 billion to USD50 billion – reaching 38% of all ODA given by DAC countries. This support is fundamental for addressing global poverty: in 2010 these countries accounted for one-third of the world’s poor and by 2015 they are projected to be home to half of them, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Many argue that this is where the main future use of ODA should be.

• Tapping new resources   While traditional development finance, notably ODA, will continue to be important, there is now agreement that extra financing will be needed for sustained development in the majority of developing countries. The challenge for smart aid is to provide ODA in ways that will stimulate additional resources for development. Using aid to strengthen tax collection systems, for example, can capture home-grown resources for development.  ODA can also be used to encourage foreign investment, engage the private sector and encourage new innovative financing mechanisms such as guarantees, insurance facilities, “green” bond funds and advanced purchase arrangements to create incentives for private sector investment.

• A great deal more money will be needed to deal with climate change  To meet the challenges of climate change, substantial new financial resources will be required – from private investments to new forms of taxation. ODA for climate will also continue to be important, but it will need to be smart – using innovative mechanisms to attract other finance and to create the systems and capacity for monitoring and assimilating these resources in diverse developing country settings.

Raundi Halvorson-Quevedo

Can we Really End Poverty? A Debate on the Future of Poverty

Watch the debate live-stream from 7pm-8.30pm (UK time) on 5th December, here

Mind the gap: Well-being differences growing in several countries in the EU

This post, written by Saamah Abdallah of the new economics foundation (nef), is part of the Wikiprogress focus on How's Life? 2013 chapter on "Well-being and the global financial crisis" and or series on Subjective Well-being.

There is a strong perception that the economic crisis has ‘disproportionately hit those who are already vulnerable’ (European Commission) and has ‘deepened inequalities’. This month, the European Foundation for the Improvement of Working and Living Conditions has published a report showing that, in several countries in the EU, this growing inequality can be seen in well-being as well as more traditional metrics such as income inequality.

The report looks at how subjective well-being changed between 2007 and 2011 in the 27 countries of the EU over that time. As might be expected, average life satisfaction in several countries fell significantly, including in Greece and Estonia, as well as in some Nordic countries such as Sweden and Finland.  But it rose in several other countries, including the new accession countries (Romania and Bulgaria), Poland, Spain and Italy. Some countries presented mixed patterns, with some measures appearing to show increases in well-being, whilst others showed decreases (for example perceived social exclusion rose in Spain despite increases in life satisfaction). Overall, the pattern was one of declining well-being on the majority of measures.

What was more interesting, however, was the differences in trends when one looked at different population groups within countries. For example, whilst average life satisfaction did not change in the UK and Ireland, it fell significantly for those in the bottom income quartile, and rose significantly for those in the top income quartile.  Meanwhile in Spain, Italy and Portugal, the surprising increase in life satisfaction can only be seen for those in the top half of the income distribution – there was no increase in life satisfaction for people in the bottom half of the income distribution. Indeed, overall happiness fell significantly for those in the second income quartile and perceived social exclusion rose. Finally, in Greece, despite the brutal economic crisis, there has been no fall in life satisfaction for those in the top half of the income distribution.  In contrast, average life satisfaction fell by a whole 1.0 points (on a scale of 1-10) for those in the bottom income quartile.

In summary – the effects of the economic crisis are not being felt equally in many parts of Europe.  And whilst some people argue that high economic inequality is acceptable and even desirable because it stimulates effort, it is hard to see a positive side to growing well-being inequality. You can theoretically argue that people have chosen to forfeit income in exchange for more free time, for example, but you can’t argue that people have willingly chosen to have lower well-being.  And reducing the well-being of the poorest is hardly an effective way to increase their motivation, given that it is usually positive emotions that lead to people being able to improve their situation (according to broaden-and-build theory).  Growing well-being inequality is the clearest manifestation yet of the unfair impact of the economic crisis.

Saamah Abdallah

Read "Quality of life in Europe: Subjective well-being".