Redesigning Methods and Procedures for the Delivery of Local … · 2020. 3. 31. · delivery. First, certain basic principles, methods and procedures of service delivery in such

ST/ESA/PAD/SER.E/12

Department of Economic and Social AffairsDivision for Public Economics and Public Administration

Redesigning Methods and ProceduresRedesigning Methods and ProceduresRedesigning Methods and ProceduresRedesigning Methods and Proceduresfor the Delivery of Local Servicesfor the Delivery of Local Servicesfor the Delivery of Local Servicesfor the Delivery of Local Servicesin Small Island Countriesin Small Island Countriesin Small Island Countriesin Small Island Countries

ii

United Nations • New York, 1999

iii

Notes

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication donot imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat ofthe United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area,or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The designations “developed” and “developing” economies are intended for statisticalconvenience and do not necessarily imply a judgement about the stage reached by aparticular country or area in the development process.

The term “country” as used in the text of this publication also refers, as appropriate,to territories or areas.

The term “dollar” normally refers to the United States dollar ($).

The views expressed are those of the individual authors and do not imply anyexpression of opinion on the part of the United Nations.

Enquiries concerning this publication may be directed to:

Mr. Guido BertucciDirectorDivision for Public Economics and Public AdministrationDepartment of Economic and Social AffairsUnited Nations, New York, NY 10017, USAFax: (212) 963-9681

iv

ForewordRecently, in many developing countries, a varietyof administrative reform efforts have beeninitiated as a means to promote sound develop-ment under the concept of promoting “goodgovernance.” One important consequence is thatthe improvement of government performance hasbeen examined from various aspects. So far,these studies have shed light on several importantelements of public organizational change includ-ing decentralization, privatization, new forms offinancial management and so on. In line with thistrend, great attention has been paid to efficientmanagement of government activities with dis-cussions on this especially focused on the role ofeffective government in terms of encouragingsustainable development.

However, issues regarding public servicedelivery, especially in developing countries—andparticularly as regards appropriate managementsystems, effective methods and procedures ofgovernment and the use of partnerships with otherservice providing bodies—has not receivedadequate attention. This is especially so asregards small island countries, which frequentlyface common problems for providing publicservices to their citizens—which, in turn, arecomplicated by both their geographicalcharacteristics as well as their limited resources.

The Symposium on Local Government and CivilSociety in Small States, which was organizedjointly by the United Nations and the Common-wealth Local Government Forum in Malta from17-19 March 1999, gathered local governmentpractitioners (elected councillors and senior offi-cials, including mayors), central governmentofficials and representatives of the private and thenon-governmental sectors, from Caribbean, Indian

Ocean, Mediterranean and Pacific small states toreview the current practices of and methods andprocedures for social service delivery and proposehow to develop partnerships between local gov-ernment and non-government sectors to improveservice delivery. During the Symposium, stafffrom the United Nations Department of Economicand Social Affairs gathered information on socialservice delivery from among the participants inorder to solicit practical examples of new andsuccessful innovations. Some of the informationobtained will be found in this report.

This publication is based on the presentationmade in the Symposium by Ms. Itoko Suzuki andMs. Mariko Nishizawa of the Governance andPublic Administration Branch (GPAB) of theDivision for Public Economics and Public Admin-istration (DPEPA) on the subject of reforms ofsocial service delivery in small island countries.The United Nations appreciates the contributionsprovided by Professor A. T. Rafiqur Rahman ofCity University of New York, Professor Mark M.Turner of Canberra University and ProfessorAllan Rosenbaum of Florida InternationalUniversity.

Finally, the United Nations especially expressesits gratitude to the Government of HiroshimaPrefecture of Japan for their support and contri-bution to this programme.

Guido BertucciDirectorDivision for Public Economics and PublicAdministrationDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs

v

Contents

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter 2: Definitional Issues of “Methods and Procedures” and “Delivery” . . . . . 3

Chapter 3: Principles of Service Delivery Methods and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Chapter 4: Current Trends in Social Service Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Chapter 5: Practical Experiences in Reforming Service Delivery in Small Island Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Annexes

Annex 1: References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Annex 2: List of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Chapter 1

IntroductionThe past decade has witnessed the gaining ofindependence by a number of small island coun-tries. Many of these small island countries have aspecial nature. Most are former colonialterritories and many are still attached by someformal ties to their former colonial overseer.

“Smallness” and “islandness” can be both anadvantage and a disadvantage for the sustainabledevelopment of countries, new and old alike. Forexample, small island countries are vulnerableCperhaps much more than non-small or non-islandcountriesCto natural disasters as well as to man-made disasters (e.g., chemicals dumped into thesea near them by other, larger countries).

On the other hand, many such countries havedemonstrated considerable ability to secure finan-cial and other support from the internationalcommunity and especially from countries whichmay at one time have experienced colonialresponsibility for them. In some cases, these andother circumstances—such as population migra-tion, lack of private sector employment oppor-tunity and reliance on the financial contributionsof other countries—have combined to create ahigh level of external dependence.

In general, small island states both need, andoften attract, relatively high per capita foreign aidallocations, unless, of course, they are wealthycountries, such as Brunei and Nauru. Thus, whenstructural adjustment loans requiring cut-backs ingovernment spending were being implementedduring the 1980s, the majority of small islandstates escaped the impact of this new instrumentof foreign aid. Small island states were perceivedas special cases, in part because the financialassistance they required was very small in theoverall context of aid flows. Interestingly, this iseven seen in the funding of United States “islandterritories” (Puerto Rico, Northern MarianaIslands, Guam, United States Virgin Islands,American Samoa and the Federated States ofMicronesia). Kent (1997) observes that their“problems receive little attention, partly because

they represent a very small percentage of thefederal budget.” The United States Department ofthe Interior accounts for less than one per cent ofthe federal budget and direct appropriations to theterritories are about one per cent of its budget.

With varying degrees of success, governmentsattempt to secure a balanced fit between the scopeof their public sectors, their local societies and theinternational political economy. Some analystswho specialize in the study of small states havesuggested that such fit is best achieved throughenhanced environmental awareness and theutilization of a distinctive set of public sectordesign principles. However, such principles arenecessarily broad because other than the com-monalties of being small and being islands, mostsuch nations are quite diverse in many of theircharacteristics.

Wettenhall (1992) has suggested that the majorproblems such nations face reflect the restrictionsof smallness, including limited natural resources,diseconomies of scale and susceptibility to naturaldisasters. Other problems include inappropriatemodels of public administration, often inheritedfrom colonial experience, and widening gapsbetween public expectations and administrativecapacity. However, these are also characteristicsof larger countries.

“Islandness” obviously can have a significantimpact upon transportation and communication.Since service delivery usually requires both trans-portation and communication, sea-locked coun-tries can be at a definite disadvantage as a resultof limited or unusually demanding transportationand communication resource requirements.

Oftentimes island countries find it especiallydifficult to provide effective delivery of neededgoods and services to a population dispersedacross several islands. However, the enormousdevelopment of infrastructure and informationtechnologies (IT) has eased the communicationproblems of island countries. Helicopters andairplanes have become ordinary means of trans-

2 Redesigning Methods and Procedures for the Delivery of Local Services in Small Island Countries

portation. IT and network communication havedrastically increased the interaction betweenpopulation dispersed among multiple islands.Even bridges and tunnels between small islandsare increasingly a possibility.

The future survival and success of small islandstates will depend on their capacity to negotiatetheir environments and to satisfy the non-rationalelements in their citizens’ minds (Turner, 1999).This undoubtedly entails major challenges forgovernment officials. These challenges areincreased as the current international donor-sponsored drives for “good governance” lead tochanges in the nature of the state and state-societyrelations.

At least in part, the survival and success of islandstates will also depend on how government offi-cials can take the lead in improving that service

delivery which is basic to their citizens. Thesevarious challenges may find one fundamentalcommon response, i.e., how effectively govern-ment and civil society can work together to create“good governance”.

This paper will look into the general trends inpublic sector reforms in small island countries,especially as they pertain to social servicedelivery. First, certain basic principles, methodsand procedures of service delivery in such stateswill be clarified. Then the current status of publicservice delivery in small island states, as well asefforts for improvement, will be reviewed. Final-ly, the possible gaps that need to be narrowedbetween best principles and current practices—with special attention given to examining thedrive for increased cooperation between govern-ment and civil society—will be identified.

Chapter 2

Definitional Issues of “Methods andProcedures”and “Delivery”

For our purpose, the term “methods” refersbroadly to the ways of doing something, a systemof procedures or conscious regularity. In turn, theterm “procedures” refers to the mode of conduct-ing business, as occur in a meeting, a firm or anorganization. In the context of this paper,“methods and procedures” will refer to the ways,processes, and systems through which publicservices are delivered. This will include theidentification of the individuals and groups whoparticipate in such processes, the technology andmechanism they use to deliver services and thesystem and process they use in assessing theeffectiveness of their service delivery, reviewingnecessary feedback and providing accountabilityfor the effectiveness.

“Delivery” usually refers to the transferring orgiving of something—whether it be a letter by apost office or goods by a firm. In a business set-ting, the concept usually refers to the simple, andnormally straightforward, process of transferringor handing over some finished product fromsomebody through some means or system to someother persons (Rahman, 1999).

In the case of “public service delivery”, there arevarious issues of institutional dependencies andthe complex involvement and interaction of actorsand processes in all phases of such activities. Thisis so even in the simplest and seemingly moststraightforward delivery. For example, post officeor postal carriers have no say in the content ofletters or packages that they carry, nor have theyany control over the persons or offices who willreceive these letters and packages. But the publicagencies, policy-makers, planners and designersthat develop these services must take into accountthe needs and desires of the people who willreceive them and the public officials or theassigned agencies that will carry out such servicedelivery. Also, the public officials initiating suchservices and the relevant delivery agencies and

recipients are constantly involved in developing,reviewing and evaluating these services.

It may be noted that while the concept of publicservice delivery focuses on the implementation ofpublic policies and programmes, it sometimesconceals more differences than it reveals. Themechanisms and the process of delivery, as wellas the competence of those involved, are intri-cately related to the content and quality of publicservices (for example, when primary education isdelivered by untrained teachers or protection ser-vices provided by corrupt and ill-trained policeofficials, the results, or lack there of, will beobvious). This dependency is especially signifi-cant in the case of public service delivery as therecipients who receive these services usually haveno other alternative except to try to improve them,whereas in case of firms, or even mail delivery,recipients who can afford it have the choice ofrejecting poor services and seeking better ones(for example, the mail delivery in the UnitedStates).

Finally, the concept of “public service” requiressome clarification as regards to what it refers andhow it will be used here. In this paper, the term“public services” refers to the variety of servicesthat public agencies provide to the people. This isoften a vast array of services—sometimes verydifferent in scope and nature. While public ser-vices can be categorized in many ways, usuallythey comprise protection and justice services (forexample: defense, police, judiciary);infrastructure and utility services (for example:roads, highways and waterways; water supply,electricity, gas and other utilities; housing andpublic buildings); economic development andfiscal regulatory services (for example: banking,finance and investment; exchange rate, interestrate and monetary supply; financial protection forthe poor); and social services (for example:education, health, social insurance; protection


against unemployment; support for agingpopulation groups, orphans, the destitute; andother services for the poor).

The methods and procedures for the delivery ofthese various categories of services will differsignificantly based on the nature of services andthe immediate recipient (for example: educationand health services focus principally on indivi-duals and their personal needs, while water supplyand electricity also focus on such non-humanelements as space and their supply to neededplaces).

The methods and procedures for the delivery ofservices will also differ in terms of the technologydeveloped and the type of agencies used to deliver

the services (for example: the need for formal andrigid rules and procedures and hierarchical com-mand used by the police in delivering protectionservices as compared to the need for a more flexi-ble approach with greater professional autonomyin the delivery of social services). Other areas ofdifference involve the extent of monopoly andcompetition that exists in various categories ofpublic services (for example: defense, police andjudicial services are mostly government monopo-lies, whereas in the social services, government isonly one provider among a vast array of privateand non-profit agencies). In this paper the discus-sion of methods and procedures will focus onsocial services, principally education and health.

Chapter 3

Principles of Service Delivery Methods andProceduresThere are several general principles that frequent-ly guide the methods and procedures used in thedelivery of public services. Among the mostnotable are the following:

Equality and equity

Public services must be delivered in such a way asto maintain equality of treatment and opportunityin order to ensure that citizens do not feel discri-minated against or feel that public services arebeing dispensed unfairly and unequally. Forexample, citizens must have equal access topolice, judiciary, postal, health and educationservices irrespective of where they may live ortheir status or class. Indeed, the state must treatthem equitably so that they feel the same loyaltyand sense of belonging.

Efficiency and effectiveness

It is of utmost importance that government avoidswaste and seeks to attain maximum efficiency inthe use of public revenue for developing anddelivering public services. Probity and economyin the use of public funds should guide thoseresponsible for dealing with public money.Moreover, it is increasingly necessary to explorethe possibility of economic, in kind and othertypes of support from private sector individualsand groups in order to maximize the use of publicmoney in delivery of those public services that areamenable to joint public-private collaboration,such as education, health and infrastructureservices.

Transparency and accountability

Public services must be delivered in an open andtransparent way in order that all citizens knowwhat is delivered to whom and at what cost.Access to such information is one way ofensuring the accountability of those publicofficials and agencies involved in the delivery ofpublic services.

Public involvement in setting priorities andfinancing

In most developed countries, general understand-ing of the need for, and the seeking of, consensuson the priority and resources to be given to vari-ous public services is usually arrived at throughelection campaigns and subsequent legislativedeliberation. In many developing countries,debate, public knowledge of and agreement uponthe priority for and assignment of resources topublic services is minimal or almost non-existent.Promises are often made by politicians aboutoptimal targets—like universal primary educationand primary care medical treatment for every-one—without any consideration as to how thesewill be financed and managed. Because of thevoters’ lack of information on governmentresources and expenditure, and the disinclinationof politicians and bureaucrats to educate andinform voters on these issues, the question offinancing public services and the way theseservices will be delivered and managed often isnot raised and debated, either during or afterelections.

Voter-education on public resources (includingrevenue, external aid and the way these resourcesare being used for various public services) is pos-sibly the most critical function that a governmentcan perform in order to secure responsible publicparticipation and to link the political process withpublic decision-making. The issue of how apublic service will be financed and how it will bedelivered is too critical to be left only to publicofficials. Raising the consciousness and the parti-cipation of citizens often has worked as aneffective mechanism to provide a base of supportto formal government institutions.

Measuring the quality of public services

Recently, many analysts have suggested that therehas been a global trend towards the deterioration


of public services, especially in developing coun-tries, as a result of pressures to expand variousservices too rapidly. Police services are poor andcourts are overburdened with too many cases.Likewise, schools are overcrowded as greaternumbers of students have been admitted, whilethe proportion of students passing has declined.Even where the number of passing students hasremained the same or increased, the quality oftheir learning as measured by earlier standardsappears to have fallen significantly. Whileliteracy levels and the number of school andcollege pupils have increased, it is not clear howmuch knowledge and skills the current generationof students are acquiring as compared to theirpredecessors.

A similar situation has occurred in the area ofhealth services. Many developed countries, in-cluding the United States, are taking significantsteps to revitalize their methods and proceduresfor the delivery of these services. But in manydeveloping countries, because of populist concernby politicians, and donors’ preoccupation withnumbers, the concern for quality has not receivedthe attention that it deserves in either the nationalor the global context.

Appropriateness of methods andprocedures

There is a strong tendency on the part of manygovernments to follow uniform methods andprocedures in the delivery of all public services,creating rigidity, inefficiency and limited effec-tiveness. Each group of services (for example,social, protection and judicial, infrastructure andutility) has its peculiar objectives and needs anddifferent requirements, in terms of methods andtechnology, in order to best achieve its objectives.To use the techniques, orientation and methods ofthe policeman to teach school children ultimatelywould be a waste of time and resources.Similarly, to use the orientation and methods ofengineering, as used in the building andmaintenance of roads and waterways, for treatingindividual ailments would be highlyinappropriate.

However, the need for developing methodsappropriate to each service, or group of services,does not mean that there is no connection amongthese services or that the experience in oneservice is irrelevant to others. In fact, the contraryis true in public services as all of them are relatedin varying proportions (for example, the peopleare the ultimate focus of such services) and theexperience in one can be relevant to the others invarious degrees. Schools and hospitals needbuildings, water supply, and utilities—as well asengineers and designers to build and maintainthese facilities. But the methods and proceduresthat doctors, nurses, technicians and hospitalmanagement will use in treating individualpatients will be different from those used in con-structing and maintaining buildings and utilityservices.

Flexibility in the policy andimplementation process

In some areas of public service (such asprotection, judicial, infrastructure), policies andprogrammes can be prepared in more detail andtheir delivery can be made uniformly and mostlyin accordance with such plans and programmes.However, this is often not the case for the effec-tive delivery of social services—where policiesand programmes need to be broadly defined toallow public officials from different levels ofgovernment and from private and non-profitagencies to develop specific programmes andprojects of varying sizes to deliver these servicesto disparate groups of clientele. The needs insocial and other related services are diverse. Forexample, in education there are schooling needsfor all children; vocational needs for school drop-outs and other high school students; collegeeducation and different kinds of technical edu-cation; adult education; continuing education forupdating skills; the need to balance science andtechnical education with general liberaleducation; and the establishment of trainingfacilities for various professions like physiciansand engineers.

Similar distinctions can be made in the areas of

Principles of Service Delivery Methods and Procedures 7

health and other social services, such as thosefocused on social insurance for the poor, theelderly, orphans, the destitute and the unem-ployed. As government resources are limited,there is an increasing need for public agencies toseek the collaboration of private agencies andindividuals (including the beneficiaries) to defineservices and obtain resources and other support todevelop, deliver and maintain these services.Without considerable discretion and flexibility,public officials will not be able to effectivelydevelop and deliver such locally-orientedservices.

Decentralization of delivery mechanisms

As a corollary to flexibility in policy develop-ment, implementation and administrativeprocesses, it is also necessary that decisionsregarding the development and delivery ofspecific social services be brought as close asfeasible to the area and the people who willbenefit from them. This is needed to ensureeffective participation of the people and theirlocally elected representatives in decisions onservice delivery. Such collaboration helps inmonitoring the impact of delivery and offersopportunity for adjustments on the basis offeedback. Various models of involving localgovernments, from minimal to maximal—depending on the type and specific socialservice—are available.

In many countries, responsibility for financingand managing schools has been transferred torelevant local bodies (for example, primaryschools run by the lowest level local body;secondary schools by a higher but still localbody). In other countries, such as Nigeria,although responsibility for schools has beenformally transferred to local bodies, in reality alloperating decisions continue to be made in a top-down fashion. Teachers have no say in where theyare assigned to teach and are frequently trans-ferred. No effort has been made to involve parentsand other citizens, who are seen only as bene-ficiaries of public spending (Ostrom, 1996). In thecontext of small and/or island states, this principleof decentralization does need some modification.

Certainly, the situation in Australia will be muchdifferent from that of Singapore in terms of thesize of the State and the density and dispersion ofpopulation, not to mention topography andinfrastructure of the country.

Active involvement of community groups,non-governmental organizations and civilsociety

The generosity of individuals, groups and organi-zations, whether as a result of religious, humanistor philanthropic considerations, can be seen inmany social services in many parts of the world.This propensity of people to give can be best util-ized if public policies and programmes providethe flexibility needed to use such participation invarious forms in developing and delivering speci-fic social services. The need for such collabora-tion is all the more urgent as many developingcountries have limited financial and managerialresources to deal with vast challenges which theyroutinely face in the delivery of social services.Involvement of civil society in the delivery ofsocial services is widespread in developed coun-tries. In many developing countries, such involve-ment is minimal, mostly ad hoc and personal-ized—although non-governmental organizations(NGOs), both local and international, with donorsupport, have sprung up in recent years. Some ofthese NGOs have developed extensive networksto advance informal and formal primary educationand health care and increasingly are cooperatingwith public agencies.

In Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Rural Advance-ment Committee (BRAC) has organized about28,000 schools for about a million students incooperation with public agencies ( BRAC, 1994).Another NGO, Gonoshahajjo Sangstha (GSS)organized about 550 primary schools in ruralareas of Bangladesh for about 800,000 students(GSS, 1997). In both these cases, appropriatemethods are used to strengthen the relevance,continuity and sustainability of these services andinstitutions. Teachers are hired from local areasand given training. School calendars and teachingprogrammes are developed through experimenta-


tion in order to best suit the needs of parents forhelp from their children and to encourage a betterunderstanding of necessary concepts by reference

to relevant aspects of their daily lives. Parents,teachers and other interested persons, as well as

public officials, are organized as local groups towork with these schools. However, there is nodoubt that opportunities to involve various ele-ments of civil society, especially private busi-nesses, individual philanthropic groups andreligious groups are not fully utilized in manycases because of rigidity in public policies,bureaucratic orientation and an unfamiliarity withthe means for organizing and supporting suchcollaboration.

Professionalization of social services andthe training of social managers

It is important that not only physicians andteachers but also all social service providers begiven professional training and guidance. In

addition, those responsible for the management ofsocial services, including education and healthinstitutions, should be given appropriate manage-ment training. It needs to be emphasized that inthe context of the principles cited above, themanagement of social services will present com-plex problems. In some cases, these problems maybe resolved satisfactorily through the use ofknowledge and insights from managementsciences being strategically applied to socialservices. Such training and professionalizationraises the level and dignity of social services vis-à-vis other services provided by government andmay also serve to attract better qualified and moremotivated young people to join the field of socialservices.

Chapter 4

Current Trends in Social Service DeliveryThe current global movement to reform or“reinvent” government focuses primarily onproviding public services more efficiently andeffectively. A survey on service delivery made forthe 1997 World Development Report by theWorld Bank shows that “only 6 percent ofdomestic business people surveyed in fifty-eightdeveloping economies rated government servicedelivery as efficient, while 36 percent rated itvery inefficient. Mail delivery fared reasonablywell, followed by customs, services and roads;health services scored the worst” (World Bank,1997b: 86).

Various reforms in the methods and procedures ofservice delivery have recently been introduced inmany countries. Some of them include:

• Streamlining and right-sizing governmentministries and public administration systems;

• Decentralizing government machinery andstrengthening local government agencies;

• Creating performance-focused organizationsand training public servants for performance-oriented service delivery;

• Using non-public agencies under well-definedguidelines to organize service delivery;

• Creating and empowering community-basedor clientele-centered groups to participate inand monitor the delivery of public services;

• Establishment of citizens charters and othermechanisms (such as relaxing official secretsacts) to strengthen people’s capacity todemand services from public officials and tomonitor their performance;

• Providing more coordination among govern-ment agencies, particularly those involved insocial and economic decision-making; and

• Linking performance to salary increases,bonuses, promotions and other non-monetaryrewards and similar other changes.

One consequence of these reforms is that there istremendous diversity in terms of experimentationwith approaches, organization and methods andprocedures for the delivery of public services thatare carried out at all government levels—national,provincial and municipalCand nowhere is suchdiversity more visible than in the social services.One example is the recent creation of CharterSchools in the United States, which combinepublic and private funds in variousmanifestations. In other countries, deliverysystems are being managed by autonomousorganizations, usually on performance contracts,which operate like business organizations usingmany of the management methods and proceduresfrom the private sector in delivering publicservices.

While the trends of change in the delivery ofpublic services noted above are global, most ofthem are occurring in highly developed countries.A number of the less economically developedcountries are still in the midst of civil wars or arein recovery from extensive periods of politicalinstability. Yet others, where stability prevails,are struggling with various crises (for example,the recent financial crises in Asia and LatinAmerica or rampant corruption), making it hardfor most of them to improve their methods andprocedures for public service delivery. Inaddition, many of these countries are struggling toexpand various public services to meet risingneeds, while they are simultaneously facingdifficulty and constraints in providing qualityservices in a timely manner.

Among the small island states, one typical exam-ple is the case of St. Lucia. As in many smallisland countries, it is not always easy for thegovernment to adequately fulfill the needs of thecitizens in terms of social service demands. Therealways exists a vacuum for assistance, especiallyin financial and technical areas. One case in pointis much needed assistance to the mentallydisabled for proper housing facilities as well as


therapeutic programmes. Funding for currentservices is

primarily from government resources and fromsome grants through NGOs funded by interna-tional donors.

As one looks more closely at social servicedelivery in small island states, the followingproblems are often observed:

Low priority assigned to social services

Governments of many developing countries havenot been able to assign high priority to socialservices (for example, to education and health),despite pressures from inside and outside. Besetwith crises within the country and pressuresarising from globalization, many countries havehad to concentrate on economic, financial andinfrastructure problems while focusing upon theexpansion of industry and trade, especiallyexportable goods and services. The case of Fiji istypical in this regard. In Fiji, engineering services,i.e. construction, maintenance and upkeep ofroads, is the heaviest cost component in theoperations of all municipal councils. Funds forthis purpose are inadequate and government at thecentral level provides grants to councils with poorfinancial positions. Otherwise, councils must raiseloans with lending institutions to fund neededengineering services.

Even though the package of social services indeveloping countries may seem small (comprisedmostly of education and health) as compared tothat in more developed countries (where besideseducation and health, it also includes unemploy-ment insurance, social and health insurance forthe poor, the elderly, orphans and the destitute),there are diverse socio-economic programmes ofvarying size and intensity to deal with povertyalleviation/elimination that can be added to socialservices.

It cannot be said that these services routinelydraw high priority and attention in manydeveloping countries in terms of resourceallocation, status or the power and prestige of theministry, ministers and senior civil servants

involved or the ability to attract highly qualifiedpersonnel and various similar criteria. All toooften, the social sector does not generally havethe decision-making capacity necessary toinfluence in any significant way the fundamentalprocesses that would lead to the effective andwidespread fulfillment of its objectives. Veryfrequently, it is left out of decisions on “high-profile” issues such as the negotiation of theexternal debt trade policy and wage and pricepolicies (Kliksberg, 1995:5).

Inflexible rule-oriented methods andprocedures

There are two main methods for delivering socialservices: basic services (such as health and edu-cation) provided free of charge and other serviceswhich depend on a “means test” (e.g., children’sallowance, social assistance).All too often, thesystems and rules of management, inspection andcontrol used by the central government in agen-cies like the ministry of interior to deal withpolice services are used without much modifica-tion by ministries such as education and health toorganize and manage the services they deliver. Inmany countries, policy and administrative person-nel are frequently interchangeable among theseministries, making the use of flexible professionalapproaches more difficult in the social services(A.T.R. Rahman, 1999).

Even in a relatively progressive environment likeMalta, social services are mainly provided by thecentral government through the Department forSocial Security and some other government de-partments. Thus, the advantages of greater flex-ibility that would come with decentralizeddelivery through local government is notavailable.

Ineffective decentralization

There is an increasingly widespread realizationthat decentralization and the creativity of stronglocal governments can improve the delivery ofsocial services. If done properly and carefully,these efforts serve to empower and motivate peo-ple in government at all levels and in the com-

Current Trends in Social Service Delivery 11

munity as well. The Tokyo Declaration of theWorld Conference on Metropolitan Governancestated, “decentralization should strengthen localgovernment and administration. To make metro-politan governance autonomous, responsibilityand authority should be reassessed andreallocated between central and localgovernments or administrations, and coordinationmechanisms among different administrative levelsshould be improved” (United Nations, 1993:33).

With mixed results, almost all developingcountries are involved in varying degrees of effortat decentralization and strengthening their localgovernments. In some cases, these efforts aremade in a rush, without realizing that in order tobe successful they must be participative in charac-ter and require involvement over the long term byall stakeholders. Sometimes, decentralization isput at odds with the central government withoutfully realizing that an effective central govern-ment is an essential precondition for successfuldecentralization and a clear coordinating structureshould be in place as decentralization and thestrengthening of local bodies takes place. Inseveral countries, these efforts are, at best, highlyrhetorical and do not provide the local level witheither the authority for decisions and action or theresources necessary to support such efforts.

Likewise, there is not adequate and unbiaseddebate on how the government should move fromconventional administrative structures, whereroles are monopolized, to new pluralistic admini-strative systems where roles are shared throughdevolution and delegation. For example, policyformulation, coordination and co-financing workwith ease if centralized, while budgeting, per-sonnel decisions and operations and delivery ofservice should work more effectively whendecentralized (United Nations General Assembly,1996). The task entrusted to each country is todevelop workable strategies for introducingchange within existing administrative systems thatcombine different design guidelines, yet changeoutcomes and behaviors (United Nations, 1999).

Limited participation and lack of clearguidelines on procedures

Even in the absence of a fully developed localgovernment system, any attempt to use a localbody or a local administration to deliver specificservices, say water supply, will be more effectiveif real participation from local people and users isensured. A recent study of 121 rural water supplyprojects in 49 developing countries tested therelationship between participation and projectperformance. Participation was measured on ascale of:

(1) Simple information (transparency);

(2) In-depth consultation with beneficiaries;

(3) Shared decision-making; and

(4) Full beneficiary control over decision-making.

A strong correlation was found between the levelof participation and project success. Of the 49projects with low participation only 8 percentwere successful, but of the 42 projects with highparticipation, 64 percent were successful (WorldBank 1997b: 119).

This kind of user-participation as a method inproject design and implementation is most neces-sary where an alternative source of a specific ser-vice is not an option. For instance, in urban watersupply and other non-contestable markets, it isparticularly necessary. But where there is com-petition, as in city transport, users may reject amode of service and choose another alternativerather than press for participation in policydecision-making.

Adequate attention is still not given to thedevelopment of clear guidelines on operationalprocedures and the participation of relevantgroups in the implementation of social pro-grammes. Although there are trends in manydeveloping countries to use NGOs supported bydonors in organizing and running social services(like schools, health centers, vocational trainingcenters and banks for the poor), this has not yetbecome the main channel for the delivery of suchservices. This does not mean that social servicesshould be delivered mainly by NGOs. All toooften, however, social services organized by


public agencies do not involve active participationof community groups and various stakeholders.But many developing countries have taken theinitiative, often prodded by local pressures andsometimes as part of donors’ conditions, to beginto involve non-governmental groups and agenciesin the delivery of social services.

There is a growing realization in many countriesthat the participation of relevant players (such asregional and local level administrators, membersof the targeted community, non-governmentalorganizations and other elements of civil society)is necessary, not only in the implementationprocess but also in the planning and design ofspecific activities. Such participation, with afocus on methods and guidelines, will create asense of ownership for the programme and morelikely lead to the development of flexible,adaptive and transparent procedures to suit theneeds of targeted groups. Guidelines may clarifythe respective roles in social services among allthe key players.

Weaknesses in management systems,capacity and orientation

In the context of methods and procedures, fre-quently there are severe inadequacies in themanagement capacity, style and systems in manysocial development programmes—including heathcare, education and social security. There are notenough trained social workers and managers and,often, even those who are trained may lack theappropriate orientation, such as a spirit of open-ness, a commitment to learn and a customer-orientation.

Management procedures are often complex andnot readily adaptable to meet the needs or capa-cities of target groups or of local managers. Inmost cases they are not performance-oriented orresponsive to feedback from clients and otherstakeholders in social development. Internally, themanagement still adheres to a bureaucratic modeof hierarchy in decision-making, providing littlescope for much needed participatory and flexibleprocesses of decision-making in which all mem-bers of the organization can provide inputs and

teams of workers can contribute to the enhanceddelivery of all programmes.

Limited use of innovative methods andprocedures for financing social services

One critical area which gets little attention even atthe national level is the financing of social devel-opment. The trend in many developing countriesis to make loud pronouncements about the need toget an allocation in the national budget of at leastfive percent of the GDP for social services, butnot much is said about how financial resourcescan be raised from various private and non-governmental sources and how the efficient use ofexisting resources can be enhanced. The usualpromoters of social services use poverty as ablanket cover to suggest full dependency ongovernment for expansion of social services. Theyhave not sufficiently explored the use of user fees,co-financing or financial incentives to businessand wealthy individuals to assist in the support ofsocial services. Enough attention is not paid tocost reduction and good financial managementpractices in the organization and management ofsocial services. Innovative practices need to bemore vigorously explored.

One small island state looking toward innovationand improving the management of its social ser-vices is the Solomon Islands. There the govern-ment is at present undergoing a major reform ofthe public sector. This has meant much retrench-ment, including the reduction of 550 publicofficers. The savings from this exercise is in-tended by the government to be redirected toother sectors, such as social services. Thegovernment is also reviewing the provincialgovernment system to make it more efficient andeffective in delivering services to the people. Inthis reform, health and education services will belooked at carefully so that some functions may becorporatized, e.g., charging fees to the users. Atthe moment, medical service is free and educationis compulsory.

Weak monitoring and system ofaccountability and decline in quality

Current Trends in Social Service Delivery 13

One final issue that needs to be underlined is theinadequate attention to monitoring, evaluation andaccountability and the maintenance of quality inthe delivery of public services. There are manycountries where programmes of social develop-ment use systematic monitoring and evaluationprocedures to oversee the quality as well as quan-tity of services delivered. There are other coun-tries, including many developing ones, where themethods and procedures of monitoring, evaluationand accountability are not sufficiently enforcedand the deterioration of the quality of social ser-vices, particularly in health and education areas,continues unabated. In many of these countries,even the development of detailed and appropriateprocedures to meet the peculiar characteristics ofthe situation and clientele were not developed.

There is an urgent need to enforce systems ofaccountability—starting from the national level in

the executive and legislative branches and goingto the level of managers responsible for thedelivery of specific social programmes in alocality. Systems of local accountability, moni-toring and evaluation, involving both technicaland supervisory staff, as well as relevant stake-holders, should be used systematically, hopefullyleading to the arrest of the decline in quality ofsocial services. Frequently, however, this does nothappen. In the case of Malta, local municipalitiesare not responsible for social services; conse-quently, it is only through public scrutiny of cen-tral government agencies, which focuses uponissues of accountability and transparency, that anydegree of accountability can be maintained. Thisis done through the Ombudsman, the PublicAccounts Committee of the House of Represen-tatives and the Auditor General.

Chapter 5

Practical Experiences in ReformingService Delivery in Small Island CountriesDespite the general trends and problems notedabove, small island states have made significantefforts to improve service delivery, especiallywithin the context of improving governance.Due to the large number of policy interventionsavailable under the umbrella of governance andthe diverse features and histories of small islandstates, there is much variation in the adoption ofreform policies. These efforts are summarizedbelow in the following reform agenda. Many ofthese reforms have not necessarily been directedto improving the social services, but rather toreforming public service delivery in general.However, they often have had significantconsequences for social services.

Decentralization and central-local relations

There are numerous variations among smallisland states in terms of the ways that theyorganize their central-local relations. These rangefrom no local governments to two tiers of localgovernment. Examples from the SouthPacific—drawn from Larmour’s (1999) recentwork—raise issues in central-local relations ofsmall island states. It is significant that smallnesshas not dampened the enthusiasm fordecentralization in South Pacific nations, themedian size of which is about 55,000 inhabitants.Larmour notes that apart from Nauru, whichabolished its Local Government Council in theearly 1990s, all the 21 Pacific island states andterritories surveyed have local government.

There are various forms of central-local relationsin the South Pacific, each “determined by tradi-tional forms of government, by the way theislands were colonized and by post-colonial poli-tics” (ibid.). For example, tradition in Melanesiatended towards equality and self-management,while in Polynesia, hierarchy and deference toleaders has been characteristic. Regarding theimpact of colonialism, the British rulers in Fijigoverned the indigenous population through a

“kind of bureaucratized chieftain system” (ibid.),while federalist ideas permeate the constitutionsof the United States territories. Decolonizationresulted in disaggregation of colonial possessionsinto even smaller units as centrifugal forcesbecame evident.

Despite its name, the Federated States ofMicronesia is actually only a part of a formercolonial territory. There have been and still areseparatist movements. Bougainville in Papua NewGuinea is a prominent example. Vanuatu has alsoseen secessionist attempts, while in the SolomonIslands, the Guadalcanal Liberation Army is caus-ing concern. Consequently, it is not surprisingthat local government systems have been intro-duced less in response to technical efficiencyarguments and more as statements of localidentity and assertions of local authority. Thus,the efficiency ideals of decentralized localgovernment found in models of good governancemay often be missing in South Pacific practice.Given the smallness of the states and societies,Political considerations are often paramount withmany local ramifications.

It should come as no surprise to find that whilethe powers and functions listed in legislation areoften exercised in practice, capacity problems arecommon—with both staff and finance in shortsupply. In many cases, the original legislationmay well have been modeled on metropolitanlines without due consideration of smallness,“islandness” and/ or other environmental factors.The penetration of local government andgovernance by established traditional practice andbeliefs means that such authority is currentlyplaying extremely important roles in law andorder, cultural production, sport and land tenure.Because of the resurgence of traditional authority,contemporary reforms increasingly seek toenhance traditional leadership’s part in localgovernment, sometimes joining elected local

Practical Experiences in Reforming Service Delivery in Small Island Countries 15

representatives with traditional elders and,sometimes, even replacing the former with thelatter.

Despite their legitimacy, traditional institutionsand local governments have not always beensuccessful in delivering the benefits associatedwith development. They are too small for someservices and lack the technical expertise forothers. Central government is a more appropriatedeliverer of services which could affect neigh-bouring local government areas if not undertakenproperly, e.g. immunization. In a number of smallisland states, central governments are the samesize as local governments in larger countries.With the fiscal crisis experienced by many PacificIsland states, the consequent thrust for smallgovernments and the growing disillusionmentwith the capacity of local governments to deliverservices, there has been a general swing towardscentral provision of services. The efficiencies thattheoretically derive from devolution are notnecessarily found in the Pacific where smallness,remoteness, resource constraints and othercountry-specific factors militate against localgovernment as a provider of services.

In an earlier study, Larmour and Qalo (1985)described the typical local government of aPacific island state as an administrative body thatcarried out public works, education and a fewother functions. Funds were obtained from centralgrants and some local fees and charges, althoughthe latter could prove difficult to collect. Threetypes of local government arrangements wereidentified. First, was the “minimal” type, wherethe local government did little beyond minorworks, maintaining tidiness and contributing tothe law and order system. Employees numberedno more than two. The second was the “weakdevelopmental” type, which had multiple func-tions with development responsibilities. Lack ofresources meant that they often were not carriedout and that even the coordination of centrallyprovided services was problematic. The third typewas the “decentralized” approach, which involvedthe transfer of central government functions tolocal levels. Funding was through central gov-

ernment grants and staff were employed by thesubnational government, although some centraltechnical staff were seconded.

Some changes have occurred since then (Larmour1999). The “minimal” group has stayed con-stant—American Samoa, Niue and Tonga. Therehave been capacity-building efforts to strengthenthe “weak developmental” states—Fijian Admini-stration, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. The two “decen-tralized” casesCPapua New Guinea and SolomonIslandsChave reduced provincial autonomy. TheSolomon Islands is currently considering whetherit actually needs to have two layers of subnationalgovernment. In Papua New Guinea there is thepromise that substantial resources will be placedat the local government level (below the pro-vince), but technical and management capacity atthis level is in extremely short supply, while thepolitics of resource distribution is keenly foughtover by the fragmented communities whichinhabit local government territories.

Turner (1999) asserts that there are severallessons which can be drawn from the SouthPacific experience which have a wider relevancefor small island states:

• First, smallness does not diminish the desirefor decentralization;

• Second, the assertion of identity is often themajor purpose of local government from theperspective of local actors;

• Third, the state may well be weak and bothlocal and central government may havelimited control over the routines of everydaylife;

• Fourth, tradition has not necessarily beenobliterated by colonialism but can flourish toeither join or challenge imported modes ofgovernment;

• Fifth, local governments are often poor atdelivering services for a variety of reasonsand may well be more usefully engaged infunctions such as law and order, culturalconstruction, land tenure regulation and thearticulation of interests. Basic services such


as health, transport and education can oftenbe more efficiently provided by centralgovernments, although the politicalacceptability of this may vary acrosscountries.

Downsizing

The fiscal imperative of reducing the cost ofgovernment has been a leading theme in publicsector reform generally and for many smallislands as well. It is related to the concern withefficiency in government and to the promotion ofan increased role for the private sector. Typicalpolicy initiatives include downsizing governmentemployment; restructuring departments andagencies; improving budgeting and financialcontrol; and privatization.

A few examples will illustrate current cost-cuttingactions. Tiny Niue’s public service was slashedby almost 50 per cent in 1995; while in 1996Vanuatu’s government eliminated 550 jobs,approximately 10 per cent of its public sectorworkforce (Ray 1998). Vanuatu’s ComprehensiveReform Programme (CRP) has identified a further400 jobs for elimination and a continuation of thecorporatization of government agencies such aspostal services (Pacific Report 1998, 11, 21 and1999, 12, 1). To obtain a balanced budget in theSolomon Islands for 1999, there have been drasticcuts to the funding of some ministries (PacificReport 1998, 11, 24).

In Nauru, the 1998-99 budget contains fundreductions of 60 per cent from the previous yeardue to the decline in its once lucrative phosphateearnings (Pacific Report 1998, 11, 20). Cost-cutting measures include the elimination of 258public positions, the reduction of working hoursand lowering the age for voluntary retirementfrom 60 to 55 years and for mandatory retirementfrom 65 to 60 years. In Western Samoa there havebeen moves to introduce output-based budgetingand other “structural reforms aimed at improvingthe efficiency of resource allocation within thepublic sector” (MacPherson and MacPherson1998).

The Cook Islands has “staggered from one

financial crisis to the next” (MacDonald 1998).Between 1989 and 1996, its public service grewby 1,000 filled positions to a total of 3,100 publicemployees. A donor-driven financial bail-outpackage has involved reducing governmentdepartments from 50 to 20, cutting the civilservice by 60 per cent and halving the salaries ofthe remaining public employees (Ray 1998).

Generally speaking, small island countries whichhave experienced sustained economic growthand/or demonstrate financial strength have muchless concern with cost-cutting. These countries ordependencies may run public sectors which arejudged to be large by conventional standards (e.g.number of public servants per 1,000 population orpercentage of GDP accounted for by the govern-ment), but their secure financial position enablesthem to avoid drastic cost-cutting strategies andinstead opt for politically easier reforms from theample governance menu.

Private sector promotion

Privatization is not a new phenomenon for smallisland states. However, the vigour with whichthese pro-private sector policies have been pur-sued in the 1990s is novel. The enthusiasmderives from strong beliefs in the efficacy of themarket for organizing the production of goods andservices, the undoubted inefficiency of manystate-owned enterprises (SOEs) and the fiscalimperative to reduce the cost of government.

Jamaica was one of the earliest and most radicalexamples of a small island state experimentingwith privatization. During the decade from mid-1981 to mid-1991, 90 per cent of its SOEs weredivested, generating US$2.5 billion while alsoaccounting for a marginal increase in totalemployment (Gayle 1994). A variety of privati-zation methods were employed across a range ofsectors from hotels to banking, cement productionand swamp draining. Gayle’s analysis emphasizesthe importance of “complementary attention tothe improvement of both public and private-sectorproductivity” (ibid. 89). He also notes that therewas “no decisive evidence that a specific privateenterprise will necessarily perform either better or


worse than its public sector analog, in terms ofproductivity, efficiency, output sales or net profit”(ibid.).

Caribbean neighbours have followed Jamaica’slead in privatization. For example, Trinidad andTobago divested 21 of its 87 SOEs between 1992and 1994. In addition, the national airline wasprivatized, electricity generation was partiallydivested and private interests were brought in tomanage the water authority (World Bank home-page). There is no report on the privatization ofsocial services, but this is the area which attractedthe least efforts at new privatization due to thenature of its “non-profitness”.

The fiscal crisis of South Pacific island states hasalso catapulted privatization into policy promi-nence, alongside the more traditionalprescriptions and donor urgings to boost theprivate sector. Ray (1998, 11) advises a cautiousapproach to Pacific island privatization in case itleads to “monopolistic or oligopolisticarrangements which, in small economies, canencourage rent-seeking behavior.” He cites thecase of the Seychelles Marketing Board (Gabbayand Ghosh 1992) to demonstrate that whereeffective market competition cannot be achieved,“carefully constructed and administered publicundertakings may be the second best alternative”(Ray 1998, 11).

In Fiji there are plans to sell an estimated US$50million of government-owned houses occupied bysenior officials (South Sea Digest 18, 22, 1998).Forty-nine per cent of Fiji Telecommunicationshave been sold to the Fiji National ProvidentFund, while another 20 per cent have been soldthrough the Suva stock exchange and the govern-ment retains 31 per cent (Pacific Report 12, 2,1999).

In Tuvalu, the banking sector has beenrestructured by merging the operations of theDevelopment Bank of Tuvalu with the NationalBank of Tuvalu to create a single multipurposebank (Pacific Report 12, 1, 1999).

In Samoa, the government proposes to corporatizethe Posts and Telecommunications Department

and views strengthening its partnership with theprivate sector as a priority (Pacific Report 11, 24,1998).

Vanuatu has also demonstrated a preference forcorporatization (Bolenga 1997; Pacific Report 12,1, 1999).

In budget-slashing Nauru, security and cleaningservices will be outsourced in 1999 to achieve anestimated saving of US$600,000.

Privatization can lead to unwanted foreign domi-nation or domestic monopoly contributing toincreased inequality and political tension. Inno-vation, however, offers one way forward. Forexample, countries such as the Comoros andJamaica are experimenting with social funds toboost the private sector while also generatingincome, increasing skill levels, boosting employ-ment, reducing poverty and increasing self-reliance (van der Gaag 1995).

Delegating services to civil societyorganizations

Among South Pacific islands, civil society hasenjoyed a growing role and is viewed as an inte-gral part of the good governance agenda. Some ofthe formal organizations found in larger countries(e.g. trade unions, professional associations) arenot present in the smallest states, but the churchhas played a significant role in welfare provisionfor many years while more recently NGOs havebeen increasing in number. There are now esti-mated to be over 1,000 NGOs in the Pacificislands. Taylor (1997, 23) advises that “countriesthroughout the South Pacific have becomeincreasingly reliant on NGOs for the provision ofbasic services” and points to growing activity infields such as education, health, social welfare,water and sanitation, community development andnatural resources management.

Some NGOs have strong advocacy roles, such asin the Solomon Islands, where the SolomonIslands Development Trust (SIDT) has worked tocombat forest destruction and to pioneer sustain-able forestry since 1982 (Roughan 1997). Notsurprisingly, in some situations, these activities


can bring NGOs into conflict with government.For example, the government’s recent budgetspeech in Vanuatu contained criticism of foreign-funded NGOs as agents for foreign opposition(Pacific Report, 12, 1, 1999).

The role of NGOs is unlikely to diminish in theshort term—especially as long as funding fromofficial development assistance and from northernNGOs and churches is maintained. Despite this, itis still not clear as to whether NGOs are as effi-cient and effective as their adherents claim andwhether their work does lead to sustainable devel-opment. The NGOs themselves appreciate thatinternal capacity-building is necessary. Fragilityis evident. For example, several South PacificNGOs which were engaged in appropriatetechnology research and dissemination have hadto close as a result of lack of support (Marjoram1994).

Accountability

Anti-corruption movements have come to play anincreasingly important role in public sectorreform in small island countries. For example, inexamining the Mauritius success story, Carrolland Carroll (1997, 469) claim that accountabilityis the “key” to its successful model of goodgovernance and is a “necessary if not sufficientcondition for good governance.”

Since independence in 1968, “Mauritius hasrelied on merit as the primary criterion forrecruitment and promotion” (ibid. 475). It has alsomade considerable use of in-service training toavoid the feeling of exclusion engendered by highentry qualifications. This has contributed to thehigh degree of representation of ethniccommunities in its public service. In so doing, thishas eliminated the possible perception of thepublic service as an elite group distinct from themass of the population.

The use of an in-service diploma (now a degree)from the University of Mauritius was made aprerequisite for advancement and has “fostered acommon set of values within the civil service”(ibid.). These values are tied to national values.Non-partisanship has been a tradition of the

public service, thus giving the bureaucracy astrong legitimacy. The movement of civil servantsbetween agencies has assisted in building anoverarching loyalty to the public interest ratherthan to specific agencies or ministers. SeniorMauritian public servants spend time interactingwith interest groups but do not act as their agents.They also see themselves as subordinate to thepolicy direction given by political leaders. As aresult, when they retire at 60 years, few, if any,senior bureaucrats enter politics.

A second example of promoting accountabilityhas been demonstrated by the VanuatuOmbudsman. The country’s 1980 Constitutionprovides for an Ombudsman “to investigatecomplaints and other evidence of governmentwrongdoings, publish reports on findings andrecommend follow-up actions by other govern-ment departments” (GSHDP homepage). The firstOmbudsman was not appointed until 1995, but byOctober 1997 the office had a staff of seventeenand an annual budget of US$250,000. The inst-itution has gained such widespread popularity thatchurch prayers are sometimes said for theOmbudsman. The Pacific Island NewsAssociation awarded its Freedom of Informationprize to the Vanuatu Ombudsman in July 1997,recognizing her as “the best investigative reporterin the Pacific islands today.” The Ombudsmanhas distributed free reports throughout the archi-pelago, has had stories published in the localpress and has run radio campaigns.

The concept of the Ombudsman has not beenwithout controversy in Vanuatu. Despite donor-funded institutional strengthening, which hashelped to build its institutional capacity, only 10per cent of its recommendations have been actedupon by the relevant government departments.The Ombudsman also has had to fight off attacksfrom powerful interests, including the High Court.Moreover, in November 1997, the Parliamentrepealed the Ombudsman Act. A change ingovernment, however, saw renewed emphasis onaccountability with the introduction of theLeadership Code Act and a new Ombudsman Act(Crossland 1998).


The promotion of government accountability,which has been dealt with through a variety ofefforts in governance for capacity-building, hasparticularly focused upon the development ofimproved financial management and informationsystems. Good performance management requirestransparency that goes beyond the moretraditional focus on stamping out corruption,which in small island states can be highlyproblematic. Smallness means that there is greaterimportance attached to personal face-to-facerelations. Such closeness can make it both easierand more difficult for government officials toengage in the abuse of public office for privategain.

Because of the complexity added by the dimen-sion of smallness, it is all the more important toput in place policies and procedures that ensuretransparency through the use of effective pro-gramme evaluation and performancemeasurement which will generate the kind ofinformation that guarantees transparency. In Fiji,as part of the process of evaluating the capacity-building programme for social service delivery,key data which also encourages transparency iscollected. This includes:

• Analysis of annual financial statements;

• Comparison of income/expenditurestatements;

• Assessment of annual reports on activities;

• Reports of the Auditor General’s office;

• Reports of consultants on operations ofCouncils; and

• Investigation reports and reports of theCommittee of Enquiries commissioned by theMinister for Local Government.

Capacity-building, training andperformance improvement

Small island states have frequently been identifiedas lacking institutional capacity. Capacity-building is often seen as the answer. This involvestraditional measures such as improved staff train-

ing, institutional restructuring and streamlining ofwork processes. More recent additions to thearsenal of capacity-building are such techniquesas performance management (manifested inperformance indicators and benchmarking) andregulatory reforms.

In reality, all small island states, whether en-couraged by external donors or not, are engagedin capacity-building. Even a wealthy state such asBrunei “is committed to bringing about a para-digm shift in the system of management and workculture in the civil service” through a programmeof capacity-building reforms (Brunei). Likewise,oil and gas-dependent Trinidad and Tobago is“committed to strengthening the core publicsector by introducing incentive-based systems ofpublic management, improving levels ofprofessional skills, delegating authority, andimproving client orientation and accountabilityfor performance” (World Bank homepage).Similarly, the last fifteen years have witnessed acontinuous succession of public sector reforms incountries like Jamaica (e.g. Gayle 1994; Davis1995).

That small island states are engaged in suchactivities is at least in part due to external encour-agement. For example, the latest World Bank-funded initiative, the Public Sector ModernizationProject, promises a range of capacity-buildingstrategies for the strengthening of the Jamaicanpublic sector. These include improving servicequality; enhancing policy formulation capability;improved monitoring and evaluation; moreefficient performance of corporate functions;greater efficiency in government procurement andcontracting; and enhanced public financial andpersonnel management (World Bank homepage).In Cape Verde, these capacity-buildingapproaches are embedded in all six World Bank-funded activities (ibid.). Similarly, in theMaldives, “building government capacity” hasbeen a permanent feature of World Bank projectsthere since such assistance began in 1979.

Schoeffel (1997a) notes that human resourcedevelopment (i.e., education and training) isfrequently identified as a means to overcoming


management deficiencies in Pacific island states.For example, the Simons Report on AustralianAid (AusAID 1997) recommends that Australiadevelop and make available specific short-termadministrative courses through regional andnational training institutions. Schoeffel (1997)believes that a more hands-on approach is oftenthe most appropriate method of providing neededskills and knowledge for small Pacific islandstates. Such activities, however, have not alwaysbeen supported.

The largest Pacific island public sector trainingorganization, the Institute of Administration(formerly Administrative College) in Papua NewGuinea has just lost its government budget after

almost 30 years of operation. While this organi-zation has had the potential to provide appropriateregional training services, this has not seemed tooccur and both the relevance of its trainingactivity and the efficiency of its operation havebeen questioned (Turner 1985 and 1989).

In contrast, it was Papua New Guinea’s PersonnelDepartment which organized new programmes,such as strategic planning workshops for seniorofficials, when the Department embraced newpersonnel management projects (PERMIT andPIMS projects) in the early 1990s. Theseworkshops helped senior managers to gain acommon understanding of the needed reforms inpublic human resources management.

Chapter 6

Conclusion and RecommendationsIn small island countries, public service reformshave frequently focused upon the downsizing ofgovernment and, to some extent, decentralization.However, there generally are still not strongresponses to the growing need for improvingsocial service delivery. This is especially so sincefrequently decentralization was advocated not outof consideration of efficiency or responsiveness,but as a result of the assertion of political or com-munal interests. The reality is that due to lack ofcapacity and resources, local governments oftencannot be the promoters of social services in thetypical small island state. Outsourcing, whenexperimented with, has not proven effective.Privatization has been undertaken, but not verymuch in the social services. The growing attentionof international donors to issues of good gover-nance has recently served to encourage andmotivate the use and growth of NGOs in socialservice delivery. However, even with this, parti-cipative approaches have not been vigorouslyadopted. Increased capacity-building is, withoutdoubt, desired by all providers of social ser-vices—both civil servants and NGO personnel.

The systematic preparation of personnel to workin social services in small island states requirestraining beyond traditional management skills andis certainly long overdue. The delivery of socialservices requires skills that go beyond the scopeof orthodox textbooks, which often offer onlyvery rudimentary instruction on the techniques ofplanning, coordination, organization, directionand control. In fact, the most valuable skillsneeded in managing social services are the abilityto innovate, experiment, modify, improvise andlead.

Social service managers conduct highly sensitiveprogrammes that can affect the daily lives ofthousands of people. They are also vulnerable toinfluences and pressures from the vagaries ofworking with clients who are afflicted by many

complex problems. Thus, stress and burnout arequite common difficulties facing those whoadminister social services. Purely technicalapproaches and attitudes must be replaced by afirm commitment to the ideals of social servicecombined with realistic expectations and awillingness to assist communities in findingeffective solutions to their problems. With such acommitment, social service managers will be ableto transcend the current limitations found withinthe organization, methods and procedures ofsocial service delivery.

However, it is both unfair and counterproductiveto leave issues of efficiency and quality of socialservices in the hands of only a few individuals.Systemwide capacity-building programmesshould be built to enhance the delivery of socialservices. This would not only help individualmanagers in both the civil service and NGOs, butalso promote social services as a whole.

National or local systemwide capacity-buildingprogrammes may be strengthened by emphasizingthe following points:

• If the social services are to gain moreresources, policy-makers, programmemanagers and citizens must be sensitized tothe important role they play in sustaining thesocial order. Public awareness of thenecessity of social services is especiallycrucial in small island countries.

• It is necessary to have flexible guidelines forthe improvement of methods and proceduresof public and/or social service delivery. Suchmethods and procedures must be based on anaccurate assessment of the particular situationin each country.

• It is important not only for civil servants, butalso NGOs and other service providersinvolved in social services, to be providedwith appropriate professional training.


Good governance initiatives can be used topromote such capacity-building programmes.International donors and technical cooperationagencies should assist small island countries toorganize their capacity-building programmes.

The agenda for the next decade must includeguidance on how to promote effective cooperationamong all of the stakeholders of an effectivesocial service delivery system.

Annex 1

ReferencesAusAID (1997), One Clear Objective: Poverty Reduction Through Sustainable Development (Simons

Report). Canberra: AusAID.

Baker, R. (1992), “Scale and Administrative Performance: the Governance of Small States andMicrostates,” in R. Baker (ed.) Public Administration in Small and Island States. West Hartford:Kumarian, pp. 5-25.

Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (1994), Annual Report. Dhaka, Bangladesh: BRAC.

Bolenga, M. D. (1997), “The Relevance of Privatization to Small-Scale Pacific Island States,”Development Bulletin (Canberra), 42, July, 19-21.

Brunei Darussalam (1998), “Preparing the Brunei Darussalam Civil Service for the 21st Century,” Paperpresented at the EROPA 45th Executive Council Meeting and Seminar on Administration inTransition, Macau, 25-29 October 1998.

Burns, T. and Stalker, G. (1961), The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.

Carroll., B. and T. Carroll (1997), “State and Ethnicity in Botswana and Mauritius: a Democratic Routeto Development,” Journal of Development Studies, 33 (4) 464-486.

Commonwealth Secretariat (1997), The Future for Small States: Overcoming Vulnerability. London:Commonwealth Secretariat.

Conyers, D. and M. Kaul (1990), “Strategic Issues in Development Management: Learning fromSuccessful Experience – Part II,” Public Administration and Development, 10, 289-298.

Crossland, K. (1998), “Interpretation of the Ombudsman’s Role by Vanuatu’s First Ombudsman,” paperpresented at the Conference on Accountability and Corruption in the Pacific: Evaluating the Role ofthe Ombudsmen and Leadership, Canberra, Australian National University, 6-10 December 1998.

Dahl, C. and B. Raynor (1996), “Watershed Planning and Management: Pohnpei, Federated States ofMicronesia,” Pacific Viewpoint, 235-253.

Davis, C. (1995), “Achieving Improvements and Sustaining Progress in Economic Transitions—theJamaican Example,” Public Administration and Development, 15 (3) 249-252.

Dunleavy, P. and C. Hood (1994), “From Old Public Administration to New Public Management,”Public Money and Management, July-September, 9-16.

Fallon, J. (1994), The Vanuatu Economy: Creating Conditions for Sustained and Broad BasedDevelopment. Canberra: AusAID.

Ferlie, E. et al. (1996), The New Public Management in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gabbay, R. and R. Ghosh (1992), Economic Development in a Small Island State: A Study of theSeychelles Marketing Board. Academic Press.

Gayle, C. (1994), “Expanding Jamaica’s Private Sector: Policy Sources and Interim Consequences,”International Review of Administrative Sciences, 60 (1) 71-101.

Gonoshahajjo Sangstha (1996), Annual Report, July 1994-June 1995. Dhaka, Bangladesh: GSS.


Jain, Randhir B. (1997), “Increasing Effectiveness of Government in Developing Countries: theExperience of NGOs as a Third Sector in Strengthening Policy Processes in India,” a paper presentedat the International Institute of Administrative Sciences Round Table, Quebec City, 14-17 July 1998.

Kelman, Herbert (1996), “Negotiation as Interactive Problem-Solving,” International Negotiation: AJournal of Theory and Practice, 1 (1).

Kent, J. (1997), “Public Administration and the Overseas Territories: What’s a Mother Country to Do?”Administration and Society, 29 (3) 372-385.

Kersall (1987), “Government Administration in a Very Small Microstate: Developing the CaymanIslands,” Public Administration and Development, 7 (1) 95-107.

Kliksberg, Bernardo (1995), “Mobilizing the State for Social Development: Some Key Questions,” apaper prepared for the Twelfth Meeting of Experts on the United Nations Programme in PublicAdministration and Finance, New York, 1995.

Larmour, P. (1999 forthcoming), “Scale and Governance in the South Pacific,” M. Turner (ed.). Central-Local Relations in Asia-Pacific: Convergence or Divergence? London and New York: Macmillanand St Martin.

Larmour, P. (1998a), “Making Sense of Good Governance,” State, Society and Governance in MelanesiaDiscussion Papers 98/5.

Larmour, P. (1998b), “Introduction,” in P. Larmour (ed.) Governance and Reform in the South Pacific.Canberra: Australian National University, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, pp. 1-20.

Larmour, P. and R. Qalo (eds.) (1985), Decentralization in the South Pacific: Local, Provincial and StateGovernments in Twenty Countries. Suva: University of the South Pacific.

MacDonald, B. (1998), “Good governance and Pacific Island States” in P. Larmour (ed.) Governanceand Reform in the South Pacific. Canberra: Australian National University, Research School ofPacific and Asian Studies, pp. 21-53.

MacPherson, C. and L. MacPherson (1998), “Creeping Paralysis: Dependency and Sovereignty inPeripheral Pacific States,” in P. Larmour (ed.), Governance and Reform in the South Pacific.Canberra: Australian National University, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, pp. 74-98.

Marjoram, T. (1994), “Managing Technology for Development in the Pacific Islands,” DevelopmentBulletin, (Canberra), 43, October, 23-26.

Management Development Programme, Commonwealth Secretariat (MDPCS ), “Public Management inSmall States: an Agenda for Management Development,” in R. Baker (ed.) Public Administration inSmall and Island States. West Hartford: Kumarian, pp. 283-289.

Migdal, J. (1998), “Why Do So Many States Stay Intact?” in P. Dauvergne (ed.) Weak and Strong Statesin Asia-Pacific Societies. St Leonard: Allen and Unwin, pp. 11-37.

Migdal, J. (1988), Strong Societies and Weak States: State-Society Relations and State Capabilities in theThird World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Murray, D. (1981), “Microstates: Public Administration for the Small and Beautiful,” PublicAdministration and Development, 1 (3) 245-256.

Nsibambi, Apolo (ed.) (1998), Decentralization and Civil Society in Uganda: The Quest for GoodGovernance. Kampala, Uganda: Fountain Publishers.

References 25

Ostrom, Elinor (1996), “Crossing the Great Divide: Co-production, Synergy and Development,” WorldDevelopment, 24 (6) 1073-1087.

Pacific Report (1998-1999) Various issues.

Ray, B. (1998), “Good Governance, Administrative Reform and Socio-Economic Realities: a SouthPacific Perspective,” State, Society and Governance in Melanesia Discussion Papers 98/2.

Robinson, M. and G. White (1998), “Civil Society and Social Provision: the Role of CivicOrganizations,” in M. Minogue, C. Polidano and D. Hulme (eds.) Beyond the New PublicManagement: Changing Ideas and Practices in Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 228-245.

Rondinelli, D. (1981), “Government Decentralization in Comparative Perspective,” International Reviewof Administrative Sciences, 47 (2) 133-145.

Rondinelli, Dennis A. (1983), Development Projects as Policy Experiments: An Adaptive Approach toDevelopment Administration. New York: Methuen.

Roughan, J. (1997), “Solomon Islands Non-Governmental Organizations: Major Environmental Actors,”The Contemporary Pacific, 9 (1) 157-166.

Schahczenski, J. (1990), “Development Administration in the Small Developing State: A Review,”Public Administration and Development, 10 (1) 69-80.

Schoeffel, P. (1997a), “Building Assistance for Development on Firmer Foundations,” DevelopmentBulletin (Canberra), 43, October, 8-10.

Schoeffel, P. (1997b), “Myths of Community Management: Sustainability, the State and RuralDevelopment in Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu,” State, Society and Governancein Melanesia Discussion Papers 97/8.

Smith, B. (1993), Choices in the Design of Decentralization. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

South Sea Digest (1998-1999) Various issues.

Taylor, J. (1997), “NGO Capacity-Building in the Pacific,” Development Bulletin, (Canberra) 43,October, 23-26.

Tendler, J. (1997), Good Government in the Tropics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Turner, M. (1999 forthcoming), “Central-Local Relations: Themes and Issues,” in M. Turner (ed.)Central-Local Relations in Asia-Pacific: Convergence or Divergence? London and New York:Macmillan and St. Martin’s.

Turner, M. (1989), “‘Trainingism’ Revisited in Papua New Guinea,” Public Administration andDevelopment, 9 (1) 17-28.

Turner, M. (1985), “Efficiency and Effectiveness in Public Service Training: the Case of theAdministrative College of Papua New Guinea,” Administration for Development, 25, 1-59.

Turner, M. and D. Hulme (1997), Governance, Administration and Development: Making the StateWork. London and West Hartford: Macmillan and Kumarian.

United Nations (1999), Administrative Decentralization: Strategies for Developing Countries.


United Nations (1996), Local Governance, Report of the United Nations Global Forum on InnovativePolicies and Practices in Local Governance, Gothenburg, Sweden, September 1996.

United Nations (1993), Metropolitan Governance: Towards a New Urban Century, Report of the WorldConference on Metropolitan Governance, Tokyo, Japan, 1993.

United Nations (1995), Metropolitan Governance: Patterns and Leadership, Report of a High-LevelInterregional Meeting, Quito, Ecuador, April 1995.

United Nations (1996), Strategies for Development, Report of a Sub-Regional Colloquium on Municipaland Metropolitan Governance, Warsaw, Poland, May 1996.

United Nations (1996), Report of the Economic and Social Council (A/50/919, 3 April 1996). Annex onReport of the International Conference and Workshop on Public Administration and SocialDevelopment, Stockholm, Sweden, 16-20 October 1995.

United Nations Development Programme (1995), “Public Sector Management, Governance andSustainable Human Development,” a discussion paper. New York: UNDP.

Wettenhall, R. (1992), “Small States: Some Machinery of Government Considerations,” In R. Baker(ed.), Public Administration in Small and Island States. West Hartford: Kumarian, pp. 49-70.

Wijeweera, B. (1992), “Public Administration in the Small Developing State,” International Review ofAdministrative Sciences, 58 (3) 391-402.

World Bank (1997b), World Development Report,. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank (1998), World Development Report 1998. New York: Oxford University Press.

World Bank (1996), The World Bank Participation Sourcebook, Washington DC: World Bank.

World Bank (1992), Governance and Development, Washington DC: World Bank.

Annex 2

List of ParticipantsSymposium on Local Government and Civic Society in Small States:Service Delivery Methods and ProceduresMalta, 16-19 March 1999

Bahamas

Mr. Harrison L. ThompsonDepartment of Local GovernmentP.O. Box N 3040Nassau, Bahamas Fax: 1-242-32-65561Tel.: 1-242-32-54185

Belize

Mr. Dylan VernonAssociation of National Development AgenciesBox 1766Belize City, BelizeFax: 501-2-32367Tel.: 501-2-35577

Mr. Wayne UsherMinistry of the Sugar Industry, Local Government and Latin American Affairsc/o Ministry of Local GovernmentNew Administrative BlockBelmopan, BelizeFax: 501-8-23365Tel.: 501-8-23405

Cyprus

Mr. Christos HadjiyiangouLegal Officer/Assistant SecretaryUnion of Cyprus MunicipalitiesRegaena StreetNicosia, CyprusFax: 357-246-7230Tel.: 357-245-9150

Dominica

Ms. Udean GroveP.O. Box 605RoseauCommonwealth of DominicaFax: 1-767-448-1616Tel.: 1-767-448-2557

Fiji

Mr. Ben TeusiaOfficer-in-ChargeLocal Government SectionMinistry of Local Government, Housing and EnvironmentP.O. Box 2131Suva, FijiFax: 679-303515Tel.: 679-211715

Mr. Aniel Kumar SinghSecretary/TreasurerLocal Government Association29 Batiki StreetSuva, Fiji Fax: 679-362755Tel.: 679-361666

Jamaica

Mr. Keith MillerMinistry of Local Government, Youth and Community Development85 Hagley Pk. RoadKingston 10, JamaicaFax: 876-754-1007Tel.: 876-754-0992


Mr. Keith OsborneTown ClerkKingston and St. Andrew Corporation11 Aylsham Heights Kingston 8, JamaicaFax: 925-7839Tel.: 925-7839

Malta

Dr. Ian Micallef LL.D.President of the Local Councils AssociationMayor of Gzira Malta153 Main StreetBalzan Fax: 446427Tel.: 444296

Mr. Joseph BorgVice President (Local Affairs) of the Local Councils AssociationMellieha CouncillorMalta153 Main StreetBalzanFax: 446427Tel.: 444296

Mr. Joseph M. CassarVice President (International Affairs) of the Local Councils AssociationMayor of ZurrieqMalta153 Main StreetBalzanFax: 446427Tel.: 444296

Mr. Anthony AttardMember of the Local Councils AssociationMayor of XaghraMalta153 Main StreetBalzanFax: 446427Tel.: 444296

Mr. Noel FormosaMember of the Local Councils AssociationMayor of San LawrenzMalta153 Main StreetBalzanFax: 446427Tel.: 444296

Mr. Oreste AlessandroExecutive SecretaryLocal Councils Association153 Main StreetBalzanFax: 446427Tel.: 444296

Mr. Mario DarmeniaExecutive MemberThe Local Councils Secretaries AssociationMaltac/o Gzira Local Council111/4 Manoel De Vilhena StreetGziraFax: 341616Tel.: 341034

Mr. Lino BartoloThe Local Councils Secretaries AssociationMaltac/o Msida Local Council17 Church StreetMsidaFax: 342424Tel.: 334343

Mr. Maurice CaruanaAdviserThe Local Councils Department(Office of the Prime Minister)21 Château de la VilleArchbishop StreetVallettaFax: 231969Tel.: 243790

List of Participants 29

Mr. Natalino AttardPrincipal The Local Councils Department(Office of the Prime Minister)21 Château de la VilleArchbishop StreetValletta CMR 02Fax: 223911/224904Tel.: 226528

Mr. Paul BugejaMayor of St. Paul’s Bay552 St. Paul’s StreetSt. Paul’s BayFax: 583058Tel.: 585888/585801

Mr. Hector CassolaSecretary of St. Paul’s Bay 552 St. Paul’s StreetSt. Paul’ s BayFax: 583058Tel.: 585888/585801

Dr. Austin GattParliamentary SecretaryOffice of the Prime MinisterAuberge de CastilleValletta CMR 02Fax: 250700Tel.: 226808

Fondazzjoni Wirt Artnac/o Planning AuthoritySt. Francis Ravelin FlorianaMaltaTel.: 356-240976

Mauritius

Dr. the Hon. James Burty DavidMinister of Local GovernmentEmmanuel Aquenti BuildingsPort Louis, MauritiusFax: 208-1450Tel.: 201-1253

Mr. S. RanganAssistant SecretaryMinistry of Local Government and theEnvironmentEmmanuel Aquenti BuildingsPort Louis, MauritiusFax: 208-1450Tel.: 201-1253

Mr. S. NathooTown ClerkMunicipal Council of Vacoas-PhoenixSt. Paul RoadVacoas, PhoenixMauritiusFax: 230-696-4668Tel.: 230-686-3085

Mr. Ram NookadeeMauritius Council of Social ServiceAstor Court, 2nd FloorLesley Geoffroy Street Port LouisFax: 208-4425Tel.: 212-0242/205-84425

Seychelles

Ms. R. OnézimeMinistry of Local Government, Youth and SportsOcean Gate HouseVictoriaMathe, SeychellesFax: 248-225770Tel.: 248-225477

Solomon Islands

Mr. Milner TozakaDepartment of Public ServicesOffice of the Prime MinisterP.O. Box 840Honiara, Solomon IslandsFax: 25130Tel.: 25131


St. Lucia

Mayor Irving JohnCastries City CouncilCastries, St. LuciaTel.: 4522121

Mr. Auguste GaspardMinistry of Community Development, Culture, Local Government and CooperativesNew Government BuildingsCastries, St. LuciaFax: 1-758-4537921Tel.: 1-758-4526847

St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Mr. Cecil RyanProjects Promotion LtdP.O. Box 1443KingstownSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesFax: 784-456-2226Tel.: 784-457-2604

Trinidad and Tobago

Hon. Mr. Dhanraj SinghMinister of Local GovernmentTrinidad and Tobago

Mr. Winston SiriaramExecutive MemberTrinidad and Tobago Association of Local Government AuthoritiesChaguanas Borough CorporationCor. Taitt and Cumberbatch Sts.ChaguanasFax: 868-665-5637Tel.: 868-665-1288

Mr. Mulchan LewisExecutive MemberTrinidad and Tobago Association of Local Government AuthoritiesRailway Road CourtFax: 1-860-636-9161Tel.: 1-860-636-1389

Mr. Verne RichardsTrinidad and Tobago Association of Local Government Authorities36, Samcipriano SteetArimo, Trindad and Tobagoor:TALGA, 3rd FloorCity HallTrinidad and TobagoFax: 675-0701Tel.: 675-0201

Ms. Jacqueline J. BurgessDeputy ConvenorWorking Women for Social Progress28 St. Cecila StreetTunapuna, Trinidad and TobagoFax: 868-663-6482Tel.: 868-663-5280/ 662-1231

List of Participants 31

Resource Team

Commonwealth Local Government Forum (CLGF)

Mr. Carl WrightDirector35 Great Smith St.London SWIP 3BJ United KingdomFax: 44-171-799-1731Tel.: 44-171-664-3190

Ms. Sonia LambertInformation and Research

Ms. Lucy SlackProject Coordinator

Dr. Bishnu Ragoonath (Consultant)University of the West IndiesSt. AugustineTrinidad and TobagoFax: 1-868-662-6295Tel.: 1-868-663-1334

Commonwealth Foundation

Mr. Colin BallCommonwealth FoundationMarlborough HousePall MallLondon SWIY SHYUnited KingdomFax: 44-171-839-8157Tel : 44-171-930-3783

Commonwealth Association for Public Administration and Management

Dr. Edward WarringtonCAPAMDepartment of Public PolicyUniversity of MaltaMsida MSD 06Fax: 356-340251Tel.: 356-3290 2730


Government of Malta

Mr. Victor RizzoDirectorLocal Councils Department21 Château de la VilleArchbishop StreetValletta CMR 02Fax: 224904Tel.: 226534-6

Mr. Antony V. SammutSenior PrincipalLocal Councils Department21 Château de la VilleArchbishop StreetValletta CRM 02Fax: 224904Tel.: 226534-6

Ms. Deborah SpiteriClerkLocal Councils Association153 Main StreetBalzanFax: 446427Tel.: 444296

United Nations

Ms. Itoko SuzukiChief, Governance and Public AdministrationBranchDPEPA/DESARoom DC1-980United NationsNew York, NY 10017Fax: 1-212-963-2916Tel.: 1-212-963-8418e-mail [email protected]

Ms. Mariko NishizawaAdvisor, Governance and Public AdministrationBranchDPEPA/DESARoom DC1-970United NationsNew York, NY 10017Fax: 1-212-963-2916Tel.: 1-212-963-2299e-mail [email protected]

Documents

Redesigning Methods and Procedures for the Delivery of Local … · 2020. 3. 31. · delivery. First, certain basic principles, methods and procedures of service delivery in such