The Quality of Government Institute Quality of Government

The Quality of Government Institute Quality
of Government Survey 2008-2010
A Report
Stefan Dahlberg
Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg
Carl Dahlström
Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg
Veronica Norell
Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg
Jan Teorell
Department of Political Science, Lund University
2011-07-06
Introduction
Malfunctioning institutions is a big and persistent problem in the World today. This
is not only true for developing countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia, but also
for European democracies such as Italy, Greece, Portugal and Spain. For example, the
consequences of widespread corruption for the economic development and social
well-being have proven to be important in several dimensions. An increasing
number of scholars consider factors related to the quality of government – such as an
impartial state that guarantees fair rules of the game for all private-sector
entrepreneurs – to be more decisive than traditional variables in economics for
explaining sustained economic growth. In addition, it has effects on social well-being
as it contributes to worse educational attainment, lower objective and health
indicators, diminished levels of subjective happiness, worse protection of the
environment, impoverishment of social and political trust and higher levels of
violence (for a recent overview, see Holmberg, Rothstein and Nasiritousi 2009).
The current literature on the quality of government generally, and corruption more
specifically, focus mainly on the political side of the state, for example, on the effect
of democracy, electoral systems or veto players. Scholars have also successfully
created comparative datasets on political institutions.
There are however strong reasons to believe that bureaucratic structures have
important effects on political, economic, and social outcomes. Yet there is an almost
total lack of cross-country datasets on bureaucratic structure. In order to answer this
challenge this report presents the Quality of Government Survey (the QoG survey for
short).
The Quality of Government Survey
The general purpose of the QoG survey is to measure the structure and behaviour of
public administration across countries. The survey aims at filling a gap between two
highly dense research areas with a large variety of available indicators each. On the
one side, we have numerous cross-country datasets on the degree of democracy or,
generally speaking, the “input” side of the system, with well-established measures
(see, for example, Freedom House or the Polity project). On the other side, we have
also a large body of research on the quality of “outputs” of the system, either
regarding the “quantity” of state activity (e.g. how generous the Welfare State is,
which policies are provided) or the “quality” of the state (e.g. governance, state
capacity). Yet, we lack indicators on how state bureaucracies are structured and
operate.
The survey covers a variety of topics which are seen as relevant to the structure and
functioning of the public administration according to the literature, but on which we
lack quantitative indicators for a large number of countries, such as meritocratic
recruitment, internal promotion and career stability, salaries, impartiality, NPM
reforms, effectiveness/efficiency, and bureaucratic representation. Apart from
studying outcomes such as growth or economic well-being, the survey is designed to
explore consequences for public opinion such as generalized trust and subjective
well-being.
The reminder of this report describes three data-collections so far: the pilot survey,
the 2008-2009 survey and the 2010 survey.
The Pilot Survey
For the pilot, conducted in the winter of 2007-2008, we opted for a very open format
for recruiting experts: we simply “advertised” for respondents on our website
(www.qog.pol.gu.se), and anyone could then supply their responses for any country
in the world, free to their own choosing. In a couple of month’s time, this generated
83 respondents from 31 countries worldwide, but with a heavy concentration (not
surprisingly) to Sweden and the US (with 13 respondents each). The data from the
pilot was used as a check on the feasibility of the project, and most importantly to
calibrate the questionnaire.
The 2008-2009 Survey
After the pilot the 2008-2009 survey was administrated between September 2008 and
May 2009 as a web survey of public administration experts in a wide array of
countries. Although the theoretical scope of the survey is global in principle, we
realized at this stage that there would be a trade-off between the number of countries
we could include in the study, particularly from the developing world, and the
information we could acquire on potential public administration experts. The
solution to this problem that we opted for was to select experts first, and then let the
experts, by themselves choosing the country for which they wanted to provide their
responses, determine the selection of countries. In practice, what we did was to
assemble a list of persons registered with four international networks for public
administration scholars: The Network of Institutes and Schools of Public
Administration in Central and Eastern Europe (NISPACEE), The European Group of
Public Administration Scholars (EGPA), the European Institute of Public
Administration (EIPA), and the Structure and Organization of Government (SOG)
Research Committee at IPSA. The homepages of these scholarly networks provided
the bulk of names of public administration scholars that was sent the questionnaire,
but we also did some complementary searches on the internet, drew from personal
contacts of scholars at the QoG Institute, and used the list of experts recruited from
the pilot survey. We contacted these persons by email, including some background
information on the survey, a request to take part, together with a clickable link inside
the email leading to the web-based questionnaire in English. The only incentives
presented to participants were access to the data, a first-hand report, and the
possibility of being invited to future conferences on the Quality of Government.
After three reminders, 498 or 39 percent of these 1288 experts had responded,
providing responses for 54 countries. In order to cover some underrepresented small
European states, and to enhance the coverage of countries with critically low
response rates, we launched a renew effort of data collection beginning of January
2009. This fresh sample was based on extended internet searches and personal
contacts, with the addition of a snowballing component through which one
responding expert could suggest other experts on his or her country. 30 additional
valid responses (41.1 %) out of 73 sampled experts were collected this way, covering
9 countries (4 of which were not covered in the original sample). All in all, this
resulted in a sample of 528 experts providing responses for 58 countries
Figure 1 - QoG 2008-2009 - Countries represented in the survey and the number of experts
per country.
Comment: Only countries represented by three or more experts are included in the map.
The distribution of experts and the response rate across countries are provided in
Figure 1. While the number of respondents varies substantially, from only 1 for
China and Mauritius to a maximum of 28 in the Czech Republic, on average 9.1
experts per country have taken the time to respond to our survey. As should be
expected from the sampling frame, Western Europe and Northern America together
with post-communist Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union carry the weight
of countries covered. All European Union member countries are covered (although
with only two and one respondents for Malta and Luxemburg, respectively). Only
seven non-Western and non-post-communist countries are covered by at least three
respondents: India, Brazil, South Africa, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, and Turkey, the
last four of which are OECD members. By and large, then, our sample of countries is
heavily geared towards the developed world.
The 2010 Version of the QoG Survey
In order to cover countries in Afrika, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East a 2010
version of the QoG survey was launched. This sample was based on extended
internet searches, primarily through university web sites. Experts were also
contacted through national, regional and international organizations such as the
Latin American Centre for Development Administration (CLAD), the Caribbean
Center for Development Administration (CARICAD), Jamaica Social Investment
Fund, Interamerican Development Bank, Central American Institute of Public
Administration (ICAP), Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), Bangladesh
Institute of Development Studies (BIDS) and the African Training Research Centre in
Administration for Development (CAFRAD). As in the 2008-2009 version of the
survey, we also drew on personal contacts and a snowballing component through
which one responding expert could suggest other experts on his or her country.
All in all, this resulted in a sample of 1414 experts, of which 432 or 31 percent
responded between March and November 2010. However, for the sample of Latin
America (which was the greatest sample) the response rates is more than ten
percentage points higher compared the other three samples, 37,2 percentages. The
lowest response rates is to be found in the Middle East sample. Adding to this 13
persons who responded to an open link distributed to the Commonwealth
Association for Public Administration and Management (CAPAM), where we thus
cannot track the number of potential respondents, this sums to 445 experts having
provided responses for 81 countries (including 2 semi-sovereign territories: Hong
Kong and Puerto Rico).
Table 1. Response rates for the Quality of Government Survey 2010.
Sample:
Surveys sent
Surveys received
Response rate
Africa
139
38
27,3
Asia
468
129
27,6
Latin America
575
214
37,2
Middle East
232
51
22,0
Open QoG*
-
13
-
1414
432 (in total 445)
30,6
Total:
Note: *the 2010 study also used an open survey. This implies that we did not send the survey directly
to the presumptive participants. Instead we used a link to the survey that was distributed to members
of the Commonwealth Association for Public Administration and Management (CAPAM).
Figure 2. Response time for the Quality of Government Survey 2010.
For the 2010 version of the survey the questionnaire was translated into Spanish and
French. In Latin America and the Caribbean the respondents were able to choose
between the English and the Spanish version of the questionnaire. In Africa the
respondents could choose between the English and the French version and in Asia
and the Middle East the all English version was used. The first mail was followed by
two reminders.
In the 2010 survey, four new questions that were not included in the 2008-2009
version were added. The first of these new questions aimed at measuring to what
extent key ethnic and religious groups are represented in the public sector, while the
following three new questions addressed the consequences for whistle blowers in the
public sector, the transparency of the public sector and the efficiency of the media.
Considering the response time for the 2010 survey, the minimum time for taking the
surveys was about 2 minutes while the maximum time was around 2 hours and 55
minutes (see Figure 2). This gives an average response time of approximately 21
minutes (to be compared with 17 minutes for the 2008/2009 survey). When
correcting for outliers with a response time of one hour or more the average response
time is decreasing to around 18 minutes (while being about 15 minutes for the
2008/2009 survey).
In sum, many of the countries missing in the 2008-2009 survey are covered in the
2010 survey. This is especially true for countries located in South America and Asia.
However, as reported in figure 3 and 4 on the next page, African countries south of
the Sahara, and island states in the Pacific and the Caribbean, are still highly underrepresented, and many times absent, in both survey waves.
Figure 3. QoG 2010 - Countries represented in the survey and the number of experts per
country.
Comment: Only countries represented by three or more experts are included in the map.
Figure 4. QoG 2008-2009 & 2010 - Countries represented in the survey and the number of
experts per country.
Comment: Only countries represented by three or more experts are included in the map.
To give some more details on the number of respondents per country table 2 and 3
reports each country covered in the data, listed together with the number of
respondents that have provided an answer for each specific country. Table 2 shows
the results for the QoG survey 2010, while table 2 shows the results for the pooled
samples consisting of both the QoG 2008/2009 survey and the survey for 2010.
Table 2. Number of Valid Responses by Country - The Quality of Government Survey 2010
Country:
No. Experts
Country:
No. Experts
Algeria
3
Honduras
3
Philippines
15
Argentina
17
Hong Kong
12
Puerto Rico
6
Australia
1
India
8
Rwanda
1
Bahamas
1
Indonesia
19
Saudi Arabia
4
Bangladesh
6
Israel
15
Serbia
1
Barbados
1
Jamaica
9
Seychelles
1
Bolivia
9
4
Sierra Leone
1
Botswana
3
Jordan
Korea,
South
8
Singapore
1
Brazil
5
Kuwait
2
South Africa
5
Burkina Faso
1
Lebanon
3
Sri Lanka
8
Cameroon
2
Lesotho
1
St Lucia
1
Canada
5
Malawi
3
Sudan
2
Chile
17
Malaysia
8
Suriname
3
China
3
Mauritania
3
Taiwan
3
Colombia
15
Mauritius
1
Tanzania
1
Costa Rica
14
Mexico
3
Thailand
10
Cuba
1
Moldova
3
Timor-Leste
1
Dominican Republic
5
Mongolia
2
Trinidad and Tobago
1
Ecuador
5
Morocco
3
Tunisia
1
Egypt
3
Mozambique
3
Turkey
15
El Salvador
11
Nepal
5
Uganda
2
Ethiopia
1
Nicaragua
17
United Arab Emirates
4
Gabon
1
Nigeria
3
United Kingdom
1
Ghana
1
Pakistan
3
Uruguay
10
Guatemala
18
Panama
2
Venezuela
22
Guinea
1
Paraguay
6
Vietnam
15
Guyana
1
Peru
9
Zimbabwe
Total 2010:
-
-
-
81
445
Total 2008-2009:
-
-
-
58
528
139 (126 unique)
973
Total 2008-2010
Country:
No. Experts
1
With regard to the number of countries in the sample, the 2010 survey covered 81
countries compared to 58 in the 2008-2009 survey. Considering the number of
experts, on the other hand, the result is the 2010 survey reached a total of 445
respondents compared to 528 in the 2008-2009 survey. Given the differences in the
number of countries between the two studies, the 2010 survey suffers a bit in quality
in terms of number of experts per country.
Table 3. Number of Valid Responses by Country 2008-2009 & 2010 (pooled samples)
Country:
No. Experts
Albania
11
Algeria
3
Argentina
Country:
No. Experts
Country:
No. Experts
Guatemala
18
Panama
2
Guinea
1
Paraguay
6
17
Guyana
1
Peru
9
Armenia
16
Honduras
3
Philippines
15
Australia
11
Hong Kong
12
Poland
11
Austria
5
Hungary
15
Portugal
9
Azerbaijan
6
Iceland
4
Puerto Rico
6
Bahamas
1
India
15
Romania
17
Bangladesh
6
Indonesia
19
Russian Federation
6
Barbados
1
Ireland
16
Rwanda
1
Belarus
9
Israel
15
Saudi Arabia
4
Belgium
9
Italy
7
Serbia*
3
Bolivia
9
Jamaica
9
Seychelles
1
Bosnia and Herzegovina
7
Japan
9
Sierra Leone
1
Botswana
3
Jordan
4
Singapore
1
Brazil
8
Kazakhstan
7
Slovakia
7
Bulgaria
22
Korea, South
15
Slovenia
11
Burkina Faso
1
Kuwait
2
South Africa
9
Cameroon
2
Kyrgyzstan
6
Spain
7
Canada
18
Latvia
7
Sri Lanka
8
Chile
17
Lebanon
3
St Lucia
1
China
4
Lesotho
1
Sudan
2
Colombia
15
Lithuania
11
Suriname
3
Costa Rica
14
Luxembourg
1
Sweden
10
Croatia
6
Macedonia
7
Switzerland
5
Cuba
1
Malawi
3
Taiwan
3
Cyprus
2
Malaysia
8
Tanzania
1
Czech Republic
28
Malta
4
Thailand
10
Denmark
13
Mauritania
3
Timor-Leste
1
Dominican Republic
5
Mauritius
2
Trinidad and Tobago
1
Ecuador
5
Mexico
14
Tunisia
1
Egypt
3
Moldova
3
Turkey
20
El Salvador
11
Mongolia
2
Uganda
2
Estonia
10
Morocco
3
Ukraine
11
Ethiopia
1
Mozambique
3
United Arab Emirates
4
Finland
11
Nepal
5
United Kingdom
12
France
6
Netherlands
14
United States
19
Gabon
1
New Zealand
12
Uruguay
10
Georgia
8
Nicaragua
17
Uzbekistan
3
Germany
12
Nigeria
5
Venezuela
22
Ghana
1
Norway
12
Vietnam
15
Greece
22
Pakistan
3
Zimbabwe
1
Total.
7,7 experts
(aver.)
126 countries
Note: Countries in bold pertain to the QoG survey of 2010 only.
*Serbia is represented by two experts in the 2008-2009, and by one expert in the 2010 survey.
In total, the pooled sample of the QoG expert surveys in 2008-2009 and 2010 contains
of 126 unique countries covered by about 8 experts per country on average.
Considering the number of countries with three respondents or more, the pooled
2008-2010 QoG-survey consist of 104 countries in total where 97 are unique countries,
i.e., seven countries with three or more respondents are covered by both survey
waves.
Table 4. Number of countries and experts represented in the Quality of Government Survey
2008/2009 and 2010.
2008-2009
2010
Total 2008-2010
Total no. of countries:
58
81
139
Total no. of experts:
528
445
973
No. of countries with experts>2:
52
51 (52)
103 (104)
No. of experts:
519
409
928
No. of unique countries:
58
67 (68)
125 (126)
No. of unique countries with experts>2:
52
44 (45)
96 (97)
Nresp>2 for Serbia if experts from wave 1 and wave 2 are pooled together, shown in parentheses
Concerning the background of the respondents, the results in table 5 shows that the
average respondent for the 2010 survey is a 51 year old highly educated man with a
master or a Ph.D. exam. On average the respondents also tends to live in the country
for which he/she has provided his/her answers, while working for a state or
governmentally related organization is less common. There is some tendency that
experts’ characteristics affect their responses. In particular, state employees tend to
evaluate their own public sectors less negatively than other experts. But even this
bias is only statistically significant in 9 items of the questionnaire, it is not very large
in substantive terms, and it hardly affects the relative placement of the country
averages.
In appendix A we present the verbatim coded comments provided by the experts for
the 2010 survey, and in Appendix B some descriptive statistics for each question in
the poled sample of experts from both surveys.
Table 5. Background information on the experts that participated in the Quality of Government Survey 2010.
Country:
No.
Experts
# of experts
(percent)
Gender (mean)
Edu (mean)
Age (mean)
Lives in country
State
employee
Algeria
3
0,7
1,0
10,0
63,0
1,0
0,3
Argentina
17
3,8
1,4
9,5
50,2
0,9
0,2
Australia
1
0,2
1,0
8,0
61,0
1,0
0,0
Bahamas
1
0,2
2,0
9,0
50,0
1,0
1,0
Bangladesh
6
1,3
1,0
9,8
50,2
0,7
0,3
Barbados
1
0,2
-
4,0
-
1,0
1,0
Bolivia
9
2,0
1,4
9,0
45,9
0,9
0,0
Botswana
3
0,7
1,3
9,3
47,0
1,0
1,0
Brazil
5
1,1
1,2
9,4
56,4
1,0
0,2
Burkina Faso
1
0,2
1,0
10,0
59,0
1,0
0,0
Cameroon
2
0,4
1,0
9,5
63,0
1,0
0,5
Canada
5
1,1
1,0
9,6
58,0
1,0
0,6
Chile
17
3,8
1,2
9,4
48,6
1,0
0,1
China
3
0,7
1,7
10,0
31,7
0,3
0,0
Colombia
15
3,4
1,2
9,7
45,1
0,7
0,0
Costa Rica
14
3,1
1,2
9,3
49,6
1,0
0,1
Cuba
1
0,2
1,0
10,0
58,0
1,0
1,0
Dominican Republic
5
1,1
1,3
9,0
46,8
0,8
0,4
Ecuador
5
1,1
1,2
8,8
41,2
1,0
0,0
Egypt
3
0,7
2,0
10,0
59,0
0,7
0,0
El Salvador
11
2,5
1,1
9,3
54,4
0,8
0,3
Ethiopia
1
0,2
1,0
10,0
57,0
1,0
0,0
Gabon
1
0,2
1,0
9,0
51,0
0,0
0,0
Ghana
1
0,2
1,0
9,0
48,0
1,0
0,0
Guatemala
18
4,0
1,2
9,3
49,4
0,8
0,2
Guinea
1
0,2
1,0
9,0
43,0
1,0
0,0
Guyana
1
0,2
1,0
10,0
69,0
0,0
1,0
Honduras
3
0,7
1,0
9,3
80,3
1,0
0,0
Hong Kong
12
2,7
1,2
10,0
54,1
1,0
0,0
India
8
1,8
1,1
9,8
51,9
0,8
0,0
Indonesia
19
4,3
1,2
9,6
47,3
0,8
0,2
Israel
15
3,4
1,2
9,7
50,3
1,0
0,0
Jamaica
9
2,0
1,4
9,0
48,0
0,9
0,4
Jordan
4
0,9
1,3
10,0
48,8
1,0
0,0
Korea, South
8
1,8
1,0
10,0
55,7
1,0
0,0
Kuwait
2
0,4
1,0
10,0
46,0
1,0
0,0
Lebanon
3
0,7
1,7
9,3
52,3
1,0
0,3
Lesotho
1
0,2
2,0
9,0
51,0
1,0
0,0
Malawi
3
0,7
1,0
9,0
57,3
0,7
0,3
Malaysia
8
1,8
1,4
9,8
47,0
1,0
0,4
Mauritania
3
0,7
1,0
9,0
43,3
1,0
0,7
Mauritius
1
0,2
1,0
10,0
60,0
0,0
0,0
Mexico
3
0,7
1,3
9,7
51,3
0,7
0,0
Moldova
3
0,7
1,0
9,3
57,7
1,0
0,0
Mongolia
2
0,4
1,5
9,5
45,5
1,0
0,0
Morocco
3
0,7
1,3
9,7
58,0
1,0
1,0
Mozambique
3
0,7
1,0
9,7
49,7
1,0
0,3
Nepal
5
1,1
1,2
9,4
54,8
1,0
0,0
Nicaragua
17
3,8
1,2
9,3
41,3
0,9
0,1
Nigeria
3
0,7
1,0
9,3
53,7
0,7
0,3
Pakistan
3
0,7
1,3
10,0
48,3
1,0
0,0
Panama
2
0,4
2,0
8,0
55,0
1,0
0,0
Paraguay
6
1,3
1,2
9,0
41,2
1,0
0,3
Peru
9
2,0
1,2
9,0
46,0
0,9
0,1
Philippines
15
3,4
1,4
9,7
59,8
1,0
0,1
Puerto Rico
6
1,3
1,2
9,8
56,3
1,0
0,0
Rwanda
1
0,2
1,0
9,0
48,0
1,0
0,0
Saudi Arabia
4
0,9
1,3
10,0
44,0
0,8
0,0
Serbia
1
0,2
1,0
10,0
33,0
1,0
0,0
Seychelles
1
0,2
1,0
9,0
45,0
1,0
1,0
Sierra Leone
1
0,2
-
9,0
52,0
1,0
1,0
Singapore
1
0,2
-
9,0
64,0
1,0
1,0
South Africa
5
1,1
1,4
9,8
52,8
1,0
0,2
Sri Lanka
8
1,8
1,0
9,4
54,1
1,0
0,1
St Lucia
1
0,2
1,0
9,0
45,0
1,0
1,0
Sudan
2
0,4
1,0
9,5
38,0
1,0
0,5
Suriname
3
0,7
1,3
9,0
38,3
1,0
0,3
Taiwan
3
0,7
1,0
10,0
55,3
1,0
0,0
Tanzania
1
0,2
1,0
10,0
66,0
1,0
0,0
Thailand
10
2,2
1,4
10,0
51,3
0,8
0,0
Timor-Leste
1
0,2
2,0
9,0
50,0
1,0
0,0
Trinidad and Tobago
1
0,2
2,0
10,0
53,0
1,0
1,0
Tunisia
1
0,2
1,0
10,0
45,0
1,0
0,0
Turkey
15
3,4
1,2
10,0
44,1
0,9
0,1
Uganda
2
0,4
1,0
10,0
52,0
0,0
0,5
United Arab Emirates
4
0,9
1,0
10,0
47,0
1,0
0,3
United Kingdom
1
0,2
-
10,0
54,0
1,0
0,0
Uruguay
10
2,2
1,3
9,4
48,2
1,0
0,2
Venezuela
22
4,9
1,3
9,6
49,1
1,0
0,0
Vietnam
15
3,4
1,3
9,3
42,4
1,0
0,1
Zimbabwe
1
0,2
2,0
9,0
29,0
1,0
0,0
445
100
1,2
9,5
49,6
0,9
0,2
Total 2010 (82):
Total 2008-09 (58)
528
100
1.3
9.8
47.4
0.9
Note: Gender is coded 1 for men and 2 for women. The response categories for education were as follows: 1 “None”, 2 “Incomplete primary”, 3 “Primary
completed”, 4 “Incompleted secondary”, 5 “Secondary completed”, 6 “Post-secondary trade/vocational school”, 7 “University undergraduate degree
incomplete”, 8 “University undergraduate degree completed”, 9 “Master” and 10 “PhD”. The variable “Lives in country” is coded as 1 if the respondents’
country of residence today equals the country of selection for the survey and 0 otherwise. “State employee” is a dichotomous variable coded as 1 if the
respondents are working for: “The current executive (presidential administration/cabinet)”, “A ministry, board or agency within the central government”, “A
ministry, board or agency within the regional/local government”, “A state-owned enterprise or another branch of the public administration as” and coded as 0
if the respondents are working for: “A public university”, “A private university”, “A private sector company”, “An NGO or a non-profit private organization” or
“Other”.
Appendix A: Comments from the participants on the Quality of
Government Survey 2010
1.
There is now key or clear instructions to incated which level which means I strongly agree, agree or strongly disagree, disagree. I just assummed
that from 1 is strongly agree and 7 strongly disagree, otherwise it could be easily interprented the other way round and hence getting misleading
information when analysing this data. I do not know how you will deal with this issue now that you did provide that information.
2.
I do not have any
3.
At the beginning of the survey it would be appropriate to know the ranking of the scale eg. 1is excellent and 7 is bad or 1 is poor and 7 is excellent.
4.
Greater differentiation bbetween the civil service and parastatals as well as between middle and top level ranks would have been helpful.
5.
Are you considering to provide the feedback from your study/survey to our Government? If YES, can it be in Portuguese and with(out) costs?
6.
7.
The list of employers in Q 15 should be broadened to include International Organizations or something related to that category
Please foward me final report of your study. Please let me know if you would like to present your results at our annual Public Sector Innovation
conference, in South Africa
8.
9.
was very interesting survey I wish I wil be able to get the report comparing the results of diferent countries
I think it would be useful in sheding light on the performance of the public sector in the country in question. This would be useful for those of us
interested in doing research on the subject
10.
Some questions are confusing.
11.
Very good Questionnaire, but how will the result be implemented?
12.
13.
La gouvernance du secteur public renvoie à la question centrale de la réforme de l'Etat.
La problématique de la promotion interne dans le choix de personnes aux hautes fonctions de l'Etat n'a pas été suffisamment couverte par
l'Enquete. de meme l'adéquation Profil/poste pourrait etre analysée.
Je ne comprends pas la problématique. La traduction de l'anglais vers le français conduit à de petites confusions dans les terminologies et/ou la
pertinence de certaines questions. Enfin, j'aimerai bien connaître l'objet de l'enquête. Transparence? Gouvernance? Corruption?
14.
15.
certaines questions ne permettent pas de couvrir tous les cas de figure qui existent
16.
17.
je trouve le questionnaire très intéressant , merçi de m'envoyer les conclusions de l'enquete dans la mesure du possible
Je vous remercie et espère que ce travail aidera à donner quelques points indispensables pour améliorer la gestion du secteur public dans les pays
à faible revenu. En Guinée, les salaires du SP sont trop bas et moins attratifs, et cela occasinne lcorruption souvent au niveau des emplyés du
public. Merci
Le secteur public est régi par une multitudes de statuts dont la plupart ne sont pas motivants. Les salaires laissent à désirer ce qui encourage la
corruption Dans la pyramide du Secteur Public, plus on monte dans les grades plus les femmes se font rares. La nomination dans les emplois
supérieurs dépend d'autres considérations que le mérite et la compétence (Spoil system) Le dialogue social avec les syndicats n'est ni
institutionnalisé ni pris au sérieux et de bonne foi Les textes régissant le Secteur public sont soit inappliqués, soit ne cadrant plus avec le contexte
actuel de l'administration publique Les sanctions ne sont pas systématiques en cas de manquements graves aux principes du service public Il
n'existe pas une réelle culture de gestion des ressources humaines...
18.
19.
I wanted to know the results of the above mentioned survey. So much for my country like others
20.
It is important that the survey effectively takes into account the experience of small state economies like those of the caribbean.
21.
I am presently conducting research in the public service for my dissertation project. The information and feedback will be of great importance to me.
22.
Would like to receive the results of your study.
23.
Will I receive a copy of the study?
24.
25.
It is my hope that this information will be confidential.
Some questions are implicitly biased in the context of a small state and risk prejudicing responses. For example, when dealing with a small society
the odds are that you inevitably end up doing business with family and friends or getting their advice about service providers. It is accepted that this
can give way to corruption and inefficiencies in public administration. But does this ultimately mean that there is corruption or misappropriation of
funds? Is it corruption if the ‘right person’ for the job or the firm who ends up winning a contract happens to have familial ties with the public
servant? Thus, in the case of Q6 the consultants/middlemen and family/kinship need not be a different category but placing a figure in the latter
may automatically suggest corruption. 8. ‘Efficiency’ not always dependent on the civil servant but also about the rules and organisation of the
public service which actually promote inefficiencies and reduce the capacity for civil servants to be flexible and responsive. Also, political context
(ministers) may actually prevent efficiency through impositions on the civil service for favours for friends and allies. 16. Not sure my interpretation
correct: who brought the questionnaire to my attention = option 2. If who sent the live questionnaire = option 1
26.
Are these questions the only dimensions of quality of governance?
27.
28.
Good job, I would like to receive the result of this study
Efforts to improve impartiality, accountability and to create incentives for efficiency and transparency have been implemented, but have not proven
terribly effective in eradicating "business as usual" within the government sector. There are exceptions, but many Guatemalans still believe that a
government job is a permanent ticket for a higher income, not through the meager salary, but through the use of arbitrary power for personal gain.
I dont think adequate attention was given to the variation in recruitment and selection polies in government agencies(quasi private sector
organizations) vs ministries and departments
Tal vez se podría especificar más claramente a quién se busca referir con "funcionarios públicos". Si refiere al conjunto de empleados públicos, es
realmente difícil hacer un promedio sobre sus capacidades, esfuerzos, incentivos, etc.; por eso, creo que podrían agregarse preguntas referidas a
la heterogeneidad al interior de la administración pública: en qué áreas hay mejor o peor desempeño, qué factores se asocian a eso, así como
alguna medida de esa heterogeneidad entre distintas áreas (alta, baja, etc.). Es decir, pienso que la "media" no es un valor tan útil en
administraciones donde hay mucha desigualdad entre áreas, y tal vez analizar esa dispersión sería más interesante.
Un esfuerzo muy interesante. Ojalá pudiéramos seguir apoyando y mantener contactos con los trabajos de mi universidad.
www.sistemaspublicos.cl http://cl.linkedin.com/in/joseinostroza
Otros indicadores de medición de Calidad de Gobierno son; 1. Las políticas distributivas, en cuanto a precios, subsidios, salarios y acceso al
crédito; 2. Coordinación con el sector privado en el diseño de políticas públicas; 3. vías para conocer los intereses y necesidades de la población
29.
30.
31.
32.
por medio de las cuales los gobiernos obtienen los insumos para el diseño e implementación de las políticas públicas.
33.
Al menos una pregunta no está bien formulada en español. Considero que varias preguntas presentan un claro sesgo: por ejemplo la distribución
de ayudas a los pobres que se piensa como sinónimo de corrupción.
34.
35.
muy interesante me gustaria tener los resultados
Me gustaria, conocer los resultados de la misma, trabajo para un organismo de la Integración Centroamericana, ICAP, si hace falta mas
referencias de profesionales que puedan participar, con mucho gusto los puedo remitir.
El país en cuestión esta en un proceso de transición, cambio de partido político y cambio de cultura política, sin embargo, sobre una débil
constitucionalidad que no ha permitido al ejecutivo un avance efectivo en el proceso modernizador. se ha mostrado una falta de interés en preparar
a los cuadros medios y operativos.
36.
37.
38.
Excelente iniciativa, felicidades!
Sin mayores consideraciones. Tal vez habría incluído una pregunta respecto a si pienso o no que existen sobornos en el Estado. Una pregunta
trata el tema, pero tiende a dar por sentado que los sobornos existen. Creo que eventualmente pueden existir, pero no en gran medida.
39.
40.
éxito, felicitaciones
Para Latinomérica habría que considerar fuertemente la variable del partido político en el reclutamiento y desempeño de los funcionarios públicos,
así como en la prestación clientelista de los servicios públicos. En el caso de Nicaragua, se obligado a todos los funcionarios públicos a afiliarse al
FSLN en actos públicos.
41.
Me parece muy util. Gracias por la invitacion y el trabajo que realizan. Saludos, Carlos A. Mendoza.
42.
Quisiera conocer el resulta final de esta encuesta
43.
44.
No pude comprender la pregunta 2g. La redacción es algo confusa.
Colombia tiene un entorno social y político muy complicado. Por ejemplo estamos muy mal en respeto a los derechos humanos. Los niños y las
mujeros son los grupos más vulnerables de la población.La educación de base ha venido menorando pero la calidad y el cubrimiento son
insuficientes. Los niveles de pobreza son extremos y afectan más a las minoria etnicas como negros e indigenas.
Si bien hacen referencia a "promedios", en la práctica esto es muy difícil de ponderar, y las distancias son muy pronunciadas entre organismos, y
entre niveles de gobierno. Es probable que estas distancias generen lecturas muy diferentes entre los encuestados.
Al menos en Colombia existen enormes diferencias entre el servicio público en el nivel del gobierno nacional y el de las regiones y localidades.
Sugiero que en otro estudio se puedan diferenciar esos niveles o almenos, que el encuestado pueda precisar a que nivel refieren sus respuestas.
Igualmente, hay una diferencia no tan sutil entre quedarse personalmente con el dinero público o utilizar todos los recursos ( no solo los
financieros) al servicio de intereses políticos particulares. Por ejemplo, en Colombia, los altos funcionarios normalmente NO se quedan con el
dinero a título personal, pero SI utilizan las políticas públicas para mantenerse en el poder, excluyendo a los demás partidos u organizaciones
políticas.
La pregunta 2. g. deberían de reformularla porque no es clara. Los felicito por este emprendimiento y les pido que me informen de sus actividades
para colaborar con ellas.
-Algunas palabras de la encuesta no son las más adecuadas para obtener una respuesta, lo que puede deberse a un problema de traducción. Por
ejemplo: oposición es muy distinto de examen formal, para acceder a un puesto público.
Creo conveniente separar las estructuras publicas en ejecutivo, legislativo y judicial, diferenciando tambien entre gobierno nacional y municipal,
pues no todas las estructuras publicas se comportan igual y no es correcto forzar un promedio en las ponderaciones solicitadas
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
Hay preguntas que son difíciles de comprender, sobretodo la no. 6
51.
existen variaciones entre los distintos organismos públicos, hay respuestas que no se ajustan a las realidades discímiles.
52.
Gracias por tomarme en cuenta. Miguel Castillo UFM Guatemala
53.
54.
En cierto momento la traduccion no necesariamente expresa el objetivo del Investigador
En especifico la encuesta fue dificil contestar para el caso de Honduras por su reciente crisis política. Durante el gobierno pasado (2006-2010) las
posiciones del ejecutivo y los funcionarios publicos fueron más drasticas de lo "histórico" y la pelea de poder entre los poderes del Estado y
políticos atrasaron al país del rumbo que venía desarrollando . Recién el pais cambió gobierno en enero 2010 tras las elecciones generales de
noviembre 2009, y el nuevo gobierno apenas viene asentandose como para poder calificar su actuación. Es por esto que en mis respuestas
sobre la comparación de la situación con 10 años antes indico que ha habido poco cambio.
Me gustaría recibir el resultado del estudio. Muchas gracias y quedo a sus gratas órdenes para futuros estudios. Miguelángel Carvallo. Asesor de
la Secretaría de la Función Pública del Paraguay.
55.
56.
57.
Agradeceria si pueden mandar copia de los resultados finales del estudio. Gracias.
GENERALMENTE, EL PERFIL DE LOS EMPLEADOS DEL SECTOR CENTRAL EN BASTANTE MÁS ALTO QUE EL DE LOS EMPLEADOS DE
LOS GOBIERNOS LOCALES QUIENES SON, EN LA MAYORÍA DE LOS CASOS, NOMBRADOS MÁS POR RAZONES POLÍTICAS QUE POR
MÉRITOS. ADEMÁS, HAY UN PROBLEMA GRAVÍSIMO DE "NÓMINAS PARALELAS" YA QUE LAS ENTIDADES PÚBLICAS CONTRATAN UN
EXAGERADO NÚMERO DE PERSONAS POR FUERA DE LAS PLANTAS DE PERSONAL, BAJO LA MODALIDAD DE CONTRATOS DE
PRESTACIÓN DE SERVISIOS PARA TAREAS FRECUENTES Y BAJO SUBORDINACIÓN, ES DECIR, CONTRARIO A LA NATURALEZA DE SU
MODALIDAD DE CONTRATACIÓN.
58.
59.
Las preguntas han sido elaboradas con precision.
En Colombia, las normas jurídicas y políticas oficiales son generalmente adecuadas a estándares internacionales de gobernabilidad desde el
punto de vista formal, pero la implementación de las mismas está sujeta a muchas excepciones y reglas especiales que diluyen la efectividad de
las políticas de buena gobernanza.
Comparing current public sector performance with that 10 years ago can be misleading, as the discredited Aleman administration was followed by
the Bolaños administration that received relatively good marks, to be followed by the current Ortega administration, under which many aspects
deteriorated again. Comparing with 10 years ago thus does not take into account the volatility of the quality of government.
MUI BUENA ENCUESTA PERO LAS PREGUNTAS NO DIFERENCIA LOS FUNCIONARIOS EFECTIVOS DE CARRERA DE LOS
COMISIONADOS CONTRATADOS BAJO VINCULO DE CONFIANZA POR EL GOBIERNO.
60.
61.
62.
63.
Desde ya muchas gracias por permitirme participar en la encuesta. Atentos saludos
Muchas gracias por haberme contactado. Me parece muy buena e interesante la agenda de trabajo del Instituto QoG. Quisiera saber cómo fui
contactado?
64.
Es dificil dar respuestas de forma tan general. La situacion cambia mucho de una administracion a otra y segun el nivel administrativo. las
respuestas pueden ser muy sesgadas en funcion de que si piensa en la administracion nacional, local, d euna ciudad grande o pequeña.
65.
66.
Muy interesante la investigación. Me interesan mucho los resultados. Me gustaría saber cómo me ubicaron.
Es un instrumento que requiere que la información colectada sea contextualizada, las referencias al pasado son insuficientes. Se parte de
supuestos generalizables, cuando en muchos casos no lo son, ej. los funcionarios públicos. Se parte del supuesto que todos los Estados hacen
política pública, cuando en muchos casos son políticas privadas, así como no toda práctica estatal obedece a una planificación ni poseen acciones
coordinadas en las instituciones estatales.
67.
68.
Sugiero indagar sobre el momento politico de manera que la estacionalidad de las respuestas sea adecuadamente reflejada segun pais.
Para el caso de Costa Rica existen algunas consideraciones particulares sobre respecto a los altos mandos, ya que los máximos jerarcas de las
instituciones los designa el Gobierno, así como sus Juntas Directivas y también convergen con estos nombramientos cuadros gerenciales sujetos
a la carrera administrativa y el servicio civil.
Actualmente profesor universitario. Anteriormente 15 años dedicado a la gestión pública en distintos cargos y niveles territoriales de la
administración pública. Ex-integrante del gabinete (adscrito al despacho del gobernador) a nivel estadal
En dos o tres casos la traducción al español (castellano) no es correcta, aunque creo que sólo en un caso es difícil entender lo que se está
preguntando.
En El Salvador, despues de un golpe de estado que se dio hace 30 años, el gobierno fue administrado por un gobierno de Derecha. Pero hace 9
meses, llego al poder por primera vez en la historia un gobierno de izquierda, el cual comienza su gestión, con muchos problemas y con algunos
desaciertos similares a los gobiernos anteriores. No obstante considero muy temprano hacer juicios de valor sobre una gestion publica que no
tiene aun ni un año. Por lo que he tratado de ser prudente y responder sobre lo evidenciado a la fecha. Pero considero ademas necesario observar
la evolución en los proximos años.
Estimados Miembros del QOG: Me parece un esfuerzo interesante, sistematizar para todos los países este tipo de preguntas. Un cordial saludo
María C. Castro
Es imposible hacer un promedio "razonalbe" sobre las características de los funcionarios públicos" Por ejemplo, más del 30% de los funcionarios
son docentes, que tienen un sitema, cultura, etc. muy difernte del resto. Algo así comoel 10% son de seguridad (policía y afines) y otro tanto de
salud (medicos y paramedicos). Su situación es diametralmente distinta de la del "Escalafon General" (empleado administrativo). De igual forma, la
situacion es muy diferene en el Estado Central (20% del empleo) que en los Estados (70% de empleo) que en los municipios (10% de empleo).
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
Me parece muy interesante y espero conocer los resultados.
En Cuba las relaciones monetario mercantiles no tienen el peso que poseen en Occidente en la implementación de las políticas sociales entre los
grupos de personas en desventaja social. Esto puede sesgar las respuestas al cuestionario.
Felicitaciones por este emprendimiento y gracias por hacernos parte del mismo. Por mi parte quedo a sus atentas órdenes para seguir
apoyándolos. Atte, Gustavo Adrianzén (Cel 51 1 99792 4525)
algunas preguntas tendenciosas. ejemplo se suguiere representacion proporcional de grupos etnicos o religiosos, yo creo en los mejores para el
cargo, no en distribucion proporcional, no es una muestra proporcional, sino una administración gubernamental. igualmente, muy entretenida
afectuosamente jose pablo acevedo (sociologo, candidato a magister en gerencia pública)
En el caso de Chile se hace notar que para los puestos de altos directivos existen las normas del "Sistema de Alta Direccion Publica", el cual se ha
ido expandiendo progresivamente, pero aun no abarca al conjunto de los actividades. En este caso los procesos de seleccion de personal son
distintos, si bien para los muy altos cargos siguen imperando criterios politicos. (Ejemplo, el recien elegido Directorio de la Empresa CODELCO).
1.- Con el tema de la representacion de la mujer en la administracion pública, el tema es la disparidad de salario y la posición, más que la cantidad
representadad. 2.-El tema de la efciencia y eficacia de la administración pública en la República Dominicana depende mucho del área de trabajo.
Por ejemplo en el caso de los medicos, Fuerzas Armadas y Policias y profesores la permanencia es bastante estable, no así en las otras areas.
3.- el tema de la estabilidad del funcionario esta respaldada por una ley, pero en la práctica funciona de manera muy débil. 4.- En cuanto a la
pregunta del ejemplo hipotético de los 1000 dolares entregado al funcionario para distribuir a los pobres, existe una diferencia, la ayuda a los
pobres, en Rep. Dom. se realiza a través de transferencia condicionada, e independiente de su efectividad para disminuir la pobreza, la misma se
realiza sin importar el partido político. Ahora bien, los funcionarios tienen otros recursos estatales para distribuir entre sus simpatizantes
(clientelismo político)
Me preocupa generalizar, ya que entre los funcionarios públicos hay dos tipos, los que entran por la vía del Servicio Civil. que es más por méritos y
los altos ejecutivos de gobierno, que son nombrados politicamente. Las preguntas debían preveer esta situación, o preguntar por ambos grupos.
sobre el cuestionarrio me parece queincluye una serie de preguntas repetidas, el 1 y el 2 que desubican al entrevistado, me hubiera gustado
conocer las hipotesis y ante la internalizacion del estudio me parece que debieron haber separado los puestos altos de los medios ya que
recomiendan pensar en un empleado medio, pero las preguntas son direccionadas en muchas ocasiones a puestos altos en las adminsitraciones.
me gustaria tener acceso a los resultados y unirme a la red que representan, en estos mometnos me encuentro finalizando mi doctorado en la
Universidad de Valencia, España y el tema es el impacto de la GEstion de la calidad total en la empresa privada exporadora, de manera que si
sabeis de algún estudio o paper relacionado agradezco el envío..
Un alto porcentaje de las preguntas se ha orientado a temas de corrupción. Este es un tema importante, pero estimo que hay mas aspectos sobre
la transparencia en si misma y la gobernabilidad, que pueden y deben ser impulsados en las investigaciones.
Existen algunas preguntas cuya forma de presentación es confusa o ambigua. Por ejemplo: 2. g. ¿Las empresas que ofrecen los sobornos mas
favorables a los altos funcionarios se adjudican los contratos públicos a favor de empresas que realizan la oferta más baja? NO ENTIENDO QUé
ES LO QUE PREGUNTA; o 8.i ¿Están las mujeres representadas de manera proporcional entre los empleados públicos? DEPENDE DEL NIVEL.
A NIVEL AGREGADO DIRIA QUE ESTAN SOBRE REPRESENTADAS PERO EN LOS NIVELES ALTOS ESTAN SUBREPRESENTADAS.
It was very difficult to answer the survey. The translation is not very good (for instance, it is not possible to understand the question 2g). As far as
the Brazilian public service is complex, there are important nuances for each question (question 8h for example). Consequently, the responses are
not accurate.
Es relvante de mencionar que las normas preven el acceso por la via del concurso pero en la práctica no siempre se aplica y ademas solo tiene
aplicabilidad para el Gobierno Central y no así para los Gobiernos SubNacionales. Las reglas de permanencia tampoco están definidas, es decir,
de cargos porlíticos pueden pasar a ser cargos adminsitrativos por ejemplo.
Duda en el primer grupo de preguntas. Si bien en el sector público Costarricense existe un sistema de reclutamiento y selección y se nombra
según requisitos profesionales, de escolaridad y de experiencia esto no niega que aquellos que estén vinculados a los partidos políticos en el
poder sean promovidos más fácilmente. El nivel de influencia es a partir de cumplir los requisitos exigidos formalmente
87.
La "buena gobernanza" muchas veces depende o se influenciada para bien o para mal, de la visión ideológica
88.
89.
Sobre mi actual empleo soy profesora e investigadora universitaria, y tambien desempeño cargo en la administracion publica.
En Mexico, existe una gran diferencia entre lo que sucede en el gobierno federal y en los estados y municipios (Mexico es una republica federal
como Estados Unidos). Algunas de las preguntas contenidas en este cuestionario son muy generales y crean confusion en el lector...las
respuestas (al menos en el caso de mi pais) varian significativamente dependiente del nivel de gobierno que se tome en cuenta. Buena Suerte!
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
Estas colocaciones no se referem somente a mi area de trabajo mas a la area municipal (departamental) y provincial - jo estoy en la unión federal
Agradecer al Instituto QoG su intreres en estos temas y pedir que nos avisen al concluirla para utilizarla pues será un valioso recurso para las
investigaciones
En El Salvador ha ocurrido un cambio de gobierno despues de 20 años de estar gobernado por un partido de derecha, pero el nuevo gobierno sólo
tiene un año de haber asumido y aun no se persive la profundidad de los cambios.
En el caso dela pregunta 7 sobre los porcentajes no tengo elementos de juicio para determinar los mismos. Lo que si es cierto es que existe una
distribución desigual de la riqueza que algunos estudiosos de la materia consideran que al 80% de la población tiene acceso a aproximadamente
al 20% de la misma.
DEBIDO A MI PASO POR LA ADMINISTRACION PUBLICA DE LA REPUBLICA DOMINICANA Y CONOCIENDO SUS IDIOSINCRACIAS, ME HA
PERMITIDO RESPONDER CON OBJETIVIDAD. ME GUSTARIA PARTICIPAR MAS DE LOS DEBATES DE SU ORGANIZACION.
Gracias por incluirme en su encuesta. Estoy dispuesto a seguir cooperaandolos. Alberto Bonadona
Es muy dificil responder a estas preguntas sin tener en cuenta diferentes niveles de la funcion pública y la diversidad de situacion que existe entre
adm nacional, departamental y municipal asi como si se trata d euna ciudad grande o un pequeño municipio.
97.
98.
Me gustaría poder ampliar la encuesta en su aplicación en Bolivia , que necesito hacer para ello?
Nicaragua en los ultimos tres años sufre la peor crisis política de su historia y mis respuestas son el reflejo de la dictadura política y economica que
se asienta en la actualidad. No hay estado de derecho y la justicia está parcializada y partidarizada. Las elecciones del 2008 fueron fraudulentas,
por lo que el sistema electoral está controlado por el gobernante actual.
99. Las respuestas a las preguntas corresponden principalmente a la situación en el gobierno central. Hay casos excepcionales en algunos gobiernos
subnacionales (alcaldías y gobernaciones)
100. Al tratarse de un cuestionario de percepciones es muy difícil pensar parámetros si lso puntajes no están acompañados por criterios que guien la
evaluación.
101. Me gustaria conocer los resultados globales del estudio
102. Me excuso por responder tarde, fue buena idea de su parte insistir envíando varios correos electrónicos. Es bueno saber que estos temas sean de
interés para su institución.
103. Es muy interesante el instrumentos. Solamente que la hablar de políticos y diferenciar de funcionarios públicos, hay que ver que los altos cargo de
funcionarios públicos son de "confianza" y corresponde al partido político que gobierna o que está en alianza, por tanto, podría haber una
"similitud" entre ambos actores.
104. Esta muy interesante. SIn embargo, hay respuestas que son relativas. En Venezuela los funcionarios de algunos ministerios estan muy bien
pagados y en otros no. El poder judicial y los altos cargos ministeriales tienen altos salarios. Los trabajadores de salud y educacion primaria y
universitaria tienen sueldos muy bajos. En cuanto a transparencia, hay mas transparencia en el nivel municipal que en el poder nacional
105. Favor compartir resultados.
106. Some questions in the questionnaire required the subjective answers from my judgement. Be careful to generalize as a whole country
107. Would like to implement this kind of survey at provincial level in my country to rate public service performance in the provinces (33 provinces)
108. The term public sector employee is inexact. I treated it as a government employee. I answered for the US. Some of the questions don't make sense
as most political appointees are under a separate personnel/legal system from career civil servants. I'm not sure what "senior official" is intended to
mean. Political appointee or career? It could be either and it makes a difference.
109. pls provide me the results
110. Nepal being in transition of Communist (Maoist) comming to main line politics has created spesicall situation. The politicians are rather see only
public resource and intend to use in the political cause and end. Corruption control mechanisma is there but it has no strong teeth and tools to
control except for medica publicity. People are having less trust with politicians on their common wisdom and honesty and capability as leaders.
politicians are still playing with extreme nationalism rather on reality that makes good for thecountry in the long run and ultimately people will be
benifitted. dinesh raj sharma, founder president , Nepal Natural and Human Resource Development Association, (NAHUDA) Lalitpur, Nepal
[email protected], [email protected] 9771 5528388/5008556(w) present: 47 B Ramsden Rd , Balham, London SW 12 8RA
111. it is a good effort to measure the quality of government but I have some reservation about the relevancy of some questions asked.
112. I am very happy to complete this survey.
113. I think the questionnaire needs to include the influences of politiall parties in public management. Most of the developing countries, the influences of
political parties basically in the implementation are abudant.
114. It is an interesting study. Behavior and performance of public sector employees are dependent on ethics and integrity and level of good
governance, especially political governance.
115. Very good questionnaire. Though I had difficulties answering the questions about salaries and impartiality. On Salaries due to the nature and extent
of informal (but legal) sources of salaries in certain positions in the public sector. On impartiality, due to the nature of one-party government system.
116. No other consideration
117. It's a good survey in terms of substance. However, it can hardly capture real issues in the public sectors of participating countries because of
language barriers. What you will have is the views from those who can read English only, while public sector employees in non-English speaking
countries have better insights.
118. confidentiality and anonimity pf respondents
119. Situation in China varies a lot across localities. For example, , improving public service may be a bigger concern for government officials in costal
areas such as Guangdong and Shanghai than public officials in inland regions such as Qinghai and Gansu. I feel a bit difficult to generalize the
situation of the whole China when answering some questions.
120. I am happy to provide additional comments, supports to the surveys if appropriate.
121. In answering your questions, I understand public sector employees to include agencies that operate at arms length from the core bureaucracy,
including public corporations and non-departmental public bodies. The employees of these agencies are not civil servants by status.
122. I would like to have this kind of survey's questions for my research later on. Would you please send the form by e-mails and not as an attachment?I
also would like to join activites of the QOC Institute in the future. Thank you very much.Best.
123. let me know your report
124. Some terminologies like political leadership, public empoyees are not clear in their connotation. There is a big differece between political employees
and regular civil servants in their personnel management.
125. Thank you for you invitation to fulfill this questionnaire. It is very useful to know comparation of lcen government of the countries. Hope my answer
useful. with best regards, -akhmadi126. Vietnam is emerging from the very low basis, people who do not have opportunities to go out of the border seems to be happy with the move but
the elite they do not satisfy with what Vietnam is having and think that the country deserve a better condition.
127. This is a very good comparative global study. Congratulations!
128. Why did you now me?
129. pl send the survey result world wide with all group of countries separetly
130. higher rank of government officials are more politized than lower rank of government officials
131. Some questions are rather vague and difficult to assess
132. Just make sure I will truly be furnished with the survey results
133. For non English speaking people, the questions can be constructed more concisely. Also the term "much less/more common today" is rather wordy.
Instead, getting worse/better seems to be more understood. Gender aspect is not explored properly.
134. The questions are too much in absolute terms & perhaps do not reflect the cultural nuances of a particular country.
135. hello! kindly furnish me a copy of the results of this survey if ok with you. please, send me also questionnaires on anything about public
administration surveys especially on anti-corruption, human rights, public policy, women and indigenous community rights. if possible please share
with me also materials on anything about good governance. i also write from time to time articles on the above advocasies, is it possible for me to
send articles for publication in your journals if you have? i am also willing to attend seminars, conferences, symposia either as a participant or as a
resource person on public administration. Thank you very much. Valentino G. Baac, Ph.D. Director Office of the President Management Staff
Emilio Aguinaldo College 1113-1117 San Marcelino Street Ermita, Manila 1000 Philippines Telephone: (632) 521-2710 local 5431 Mobilephone:
(63) 09088916604 email: [email protected]
[email protected]
136. I am not at all clear about the considerations of this survey.
137. To make administration transparent this kind of survey will be useful to viibrate the civil society.
138. please uncover my identity for non research purpose
139. I would like to receive the final result of this survey and would be interested to have discussion on it. Thanks and all the best.
140. India is a very big country with 29 states, where political culture / administrative culture differs largely from one state to another. I am from West
Bengal. Consequently it will be disastrous to generalize the answers without verifying it on a cross-cultural basis.
141. Thank you for inviting me to participate.
142. The choice of answers to many of the questions are too simplistic to capture a complex situation. Many public servants are hard working, honest,
and efficient. Some are not. There are many independent variables. Given the way the questions are framed, I wouldn't pay much attention to
your results.
143. Be careful in interpreting the results regarding the impartiality. To avoid prejudice bias, may be needed to understand the context of each country
as well.
144. The first 50% of questions are too general, hence difficult to respond. Question on the "hypothetical case" is also difficult to answer. The figures are
not reliable.
145. Please furnish me the results of the QoG Survey 2010-Asia. Thank you and more power!
146. I am looking forward to see the final report. This is a great idea.
147. I believe this study will be a valuable study.
148. This is an interesting survey and I look forward to receiving the results once collated and analyzed.
149. Thanks for uppertunity to share my ideas ,My PhD is runnning and it is sanguage program between Bergen University,Norway and Trivuwan
University Nepal on "NGO Accountability status in Nepal".I am expecting your result.
150. would appreciate the end report if shared
151. When I answer about 'senior public official' I mean the Secretary/ Minister level and two levels below. In the Philippines, this is at the
Undersecretary and the Assistant Secretary level.
152. The future questionnaire should separate senior public officials from political appointees.
153. I needed the "save" function key in the middle of answering the questions. Last time I lost the part I answered and was very much discrouaged to
try again.
154. I'll be happy to get the data.
155. This survey is excellent in finding the phenomena of quality of a government, but it would be more fair if it is mre widespread. In my country, and
other developing countries, the condition of public service employees is so various.
156. in India the Public Sector and the Public Service (Civil Service) are quite different and so some of the answers are very different for the 2
categories, public sector and civil service.
157. The only problem is with the question about political control of the public sector. I am from Hong Kong, and the top political executive cannot come
from a political party, but he can control the political appointments of top levels "ministers" (called secretaries in Hong Kong). However, the
management of the entire public sector is subject to transparent and systematic regulation developed under British rule.
158. Respondents should have been given an opportunity to explain some of their answers. Some responses need to be qualified to take into account
the political and cultural context of the public service of the respondent's chosen country. In the context of many less-developed countries, things
are not what they appear to be. All the formal rules and institutions are present, but practice is often at variance with what is prescribed; there is, in
other words, a lot of formalism. There are elaborate processes but results and outcomes are very meager. This leads to frustration among the
underprivileged and to corruption of public officials by those who can afford.
159. I am very please to answer all of the questions. But I do also insist to know the final result of the survey. I look forward to hearing from you.
160. Hve responded to the questionnaire on the basis of my experience in the public services. It is interesting to find out what professionals think about
the public service. However there can be tructural constraints that this questionnaire may not be be able to capture. These are as important. The
situation will also differ according to the perspective of the level of government from which the questionnaire is answered. However overall the
answers do give a feel for critical aspects of governance standards that exist in a country.
161. Questions are srictly designed for developed nations. Any third world country profile particularly in most west African states will have similar results.
162. I will very much appreciate if the university can use the answers provided to influnce political leadership in sub-Saharan Africa.
163. I would be grateful if you could share the results of your research.
164. It is not clear how these questions are going to be analyzed. Choosing respondents is not random...thus I am concerened about the accuracy of
generalizations this study would make from findings. My name in the email sent to me was spelled incorrectly.
165. A survey worldwie should take into consideration local differences of pub administration, employment and other systems. The survey seems to be
not adequately flexible, asumming there are universal practices in the public administration systems of different countries. Just to give an example,
in my country, recuiretment is only posible through a highly formalized and almost totally objective central examination. However, those who receive
a certain grade in that examination arre subject to interviews by individual institutions which are usually open to subjective considerations. My
answers about the recruitment issue may be conflicting with one another due to this hybrid system. This is just an example. Thank you.
166. Some of the qeustions in the first set don't distinguish whether certain mechanisms *exist* from whether they're *effective in reaching fulfilling their
purpose* (e.g. examination system for candidates for public jobs). Should be made clearer.
167. In Israel, a few ministries are highly professional, non-politicised, striving for efficiency etc. Other ministries, however, are exactly the opposite. This
quationnaire does not cater for such a differentiation between government departments over most of the questions asked.
168. I'll be happy to see the results
169. The lack of democratic tradition and the low level of civic culture have the most negative impact on my country.
170. to consider my answers as Confidential
171. The survey is very good and I would like to find out what are the results in the future.
172. It would be very helpful, and probably more accurate for your survey, if you add “not applied” to the options of your questions. GOOD LUCK
173. Excellent structure of the questions of the survey. However, not enough consideration is given to the diversity/heterogeneity/plurality of citizens as
end-users of the public services, and the room for "variations and variability" in the transactions with the administration, based on criteria of politicalpoliticized character, or geographic belongingness, or tribal and/or religious affiliation, or others...
Appendix B: Descriptive statistics for the QoG expert survey 2008-2010
Variable
q2_1
q2_2
q2_3
q2_4
q2_5
q2_6
q2_7
q2_8
q2_9
q2_10
q2_11
Mean
overall
4.363543
Std. Dev.
Min
1.59854
1
between
1.189583
1.882353
within
1.073257
.1413205
overall
4.30817
1.810987
between
1.400192
within
1.234874
overall
4.492693
1.600359
within
1.408175
overall
4.801897
1.422462
within
1.643223
overall
4.662791
1.276471
within
1.201262
overall
4.715921
1
1
1
1.666667
1.262263
.4492542
1.931331
1.437138
within
1.363405
overall
3.809168
1.252096
within
1.373368
overall
3.960129
between
1.431047
within
1.461058
overall
3.180761
1.254974
within
1.404225
overall
3.018711
1
1.155709
within
1.324071
6 n=123
8.475835
1
8.960129
1
T-bar=7.54472
7 n=125
8.395047
1
T-bar=7.568
7 N=962
1
-.381289
n=123
7 N=946
1
-.2636833
T-bar=7.62602
7 N=928
1 6.388889
-.3928119
T-bar=6.98361
7 N=938
1
1.658599
between
7 n=122
7.882629
-.3019427
T-bar=7.62698
7 N=852
1
1.723811
between
7 n=126
8.993699
-.4507042
1.95514
T-bar=7.568
7 N=961
1
1.727683
between
7 n=125
9.287791
1
1.258462
T-bar=7.53175
7 N=946
1
1.678121
between
7 n=126
9.88523
-.4483204
T-bar=7.664
7 N=949
1
within
3.882629
7 n=125
9.845634
.1703178
T-bar=7.6746
7 N=958
1
between
overall
7 n=126
7.863725
-.5073069
T-bar=7.70635
7 N=967
1
1.61718
between
7 n=126
7.626701
-.5153598
2.032115
between
7 N=971
1
2.009239
between
Max
7 n=125
7.352044
T-bar=7.696
Variable
q2_12
q3_1
q3_2
q3_3
q3_4
q3_5
q3_6
q3_7
q4
q5
q6_1_1
Mean
overall
4.283316
Std, Dev,
1.84183
between
1.351542
within
1.454846
overall
4.439457
Min
1.552962
Max
No, of Obs,
1
7 N=953
1
-.4389064
7 n=125
8.930375
1
T-bar=7.624
7
N=958
between
1.008189
1.833333
7
n=125
within
1.282197
-.0272095
9.212184
T-bar=7.664
1.620355
1
7
N=951
overall
4.560463
between
1.170734
1
7
n=125
within
1.242387
.1229627
9.33319
T-bar=7.608
1.590302
1
7
N=942
overall
3.987261
between
1.09857
1
7
n=125
within
1.381813
.4872611
8.209483
T-bar=7.536
1.550547
1
7
N=945
overall
4.393651
between
1.06865
1
7
n=125
within
1.367745
-.0769374
7.607937
T-bar=7.56
1.341699
1
7
N=942
between
.8278203
1.833333
7
n=124
within
1.163556
.1267516
8.355323
T-bar=7.59677
1.498937
1
7
N=952
overall
overall
3.926752
3.686975
between
1.01671
1
7
n=125
within
1.307793
-.1880252
7.922269
T-bar=7.616
1.421399
1
7
N=930
overall
3.864516
between
.9273834
1
6
n=124
within
1.233117
-.0402458
7.864516
T-bar=7.5
overall
4.397275
1.579789
between
1.056781
within
1.203102
overall
4.239334
.9047988
within
1.135744
54.29217
22.72648
within
20.60584
7 n=124
9.260911
1
7 n=123
8.875698
1
T-bar=7.81301
100 N=869
5
-19.80783
T-bar=7.69355
7 N=961
2
.4536197
29.20689
between
7 N=954
2
-.019392
1.366623
between
overall
1
100 n=124
133.2207
T-bar=7.00806
Variable
q6_2_1
q6_3_1
q6_4_1
q6_5_1
q6_6_1
q6_7_1
q8_1
q8_2
q8_3
q8_4
q8_5
Mean
overall
17.26808
Std, Dev,
12.708
between
11.22086
within
10.63975
overall
17.40866
8.314087
within
10.22521
14.83416
9.663087
within
9.878574
overall
13.66286
6.875587
within
6.935175
overall
15.06275
9.349042
within
10.42763
100.0898
16.70516
within
4.777762
overall
4.328512
1.113176
within
1.196988
4.945135
.9235376
within
1.15709
overall
4.354037
.9918824
within
1.149552
4.914849
0
5
1
1
1
.9148494
1.678858
1.398124
7 n=126
8.23639
1
2.529412
T-bar=7.66667
7 N=963
7 n=126
8.200564
1
T-bar=7.64286
7 N=943
1
-.5096376
T-bar=7.66667
7 N=966
2
1.137616
1.154029
7 n=126
7.834023
.6267645
T-bar=7.68254
7 N=966
3
1.070349
within
7 n=126
8.275881
.9451346
T-bar=7.09677
7 N=968
2
1.511913
between
260 n=124
161.3398
.4396235
T-bar=2.74194
260 N=880
94
within
4.313892
50 n=93
79.06275
11.02727
T-bar=4.54717
100 N=255
0
between
overall
30 n=106
46.9962
-19.93725
T-bar=4.79091
50 N=482
0
1.469877
between
overall
0
1.364271
between
50 n=110
84.09886
-5.837137
T-bar=6.31624
90 N=527
1
1.550772
between
overall
0
8.01335
between
60 n=117
83.13088
-9.040844
T-bar=4.93043
90 N=739
3
13.00348
between
overall
1
8.765063
between
70 n=115
88.10141
-5.34134
No, of Obs,
100 N=567
0
-6.898589
11.8486
between
Max
0
11.8346
between
overall
Min
7 n=124
7.956749
T-bar=7.60484
Variable
q8_6
q8_7
q8_8
q8_9
q8_10
q8_11
q8_12
q8_13
Gender
Education
Country - birth
Mean
overall
5.787751
Std, Dev,
1.478649
between
.9094509
within
1.310281
overall
3.767591
1.219724
within
1.446914
3.221622
.9391498
within
1.366414
overall
4.233998
1.238422
within
1.526484
overall
3.572115
1.382356
within
1.459384
4.802326
1.380122
within
1.690648
overall
3.631579
1.421366
within
1.379812
4.876712
1.268616
within
1.404925
overall
1.293233
.2749345
within
.4133515
9.66908
.4222791
within
.4577069
overall
96.28972
1
1
52.75583
within
24.40603
7 n=80
8.802326
1
7 n=80
8.455108
1
7 n=81
8.376712
1
2 n=124
2.226566
7
10 n=126
10.86908
2
T-bar=7.6746
195 N=963
2
-44.64361
T-bar=7.50806
10 N=967
8
6.904374
T-bar=5.40741
2 N=931
1
.4598997
T-bar=5.4625
7 N=438
1
.8178888
T-bar=5.375
7 N=437
1
-.4309211
T-bar=5.4026
7 N=430
1
58.34711
between
7 n=77
7.572115
-.0548173
T-bar=7.56349
7 N=416
1
.5592304
between
7 n=126
8.019712
-.4278846
T-bar=7.34127
7 N=953
1
.4554891
between
overall
1
1.701623
between
7 n=126
7.602574
-.0993354
T-bar=7.44444
7 N=925
1
1.820931
between
overall
1
1.883679
between
7 n=126
8.545368
-.445045
T-bar=7.51587
7 N=938
1
1.758858
between
overall
1
1.801849
between
7 n=126
8.454417
-.1212983
No, of Obs,
7 N=947
1
.6059326
1.54218
between
Max
1
1.697929
between
overall
Min
189 n=126
240.4564
T-bar=7.64286
Variable
Resident country
Employer located in country
Who do you work for
Who sent you this survey
Age
No. of experts
Mean
overall
97.83005
Std, Dev,
58.23368
between
53.50944
within
22.39858
overall
1.14977
.3090389
within
.3968181
5.707483
1
2.118783
1.333333
1.773912
-.042517
.5266876
between
.3915631
within
.4656818
overall
48.44641
7.423557
within
11.23278
overall
between
within
12.39774
9 n=81
10.37415
3 n=79
3.927267
25
161.002
1
6.032762
n=126
T-bar=7.62698
28 N=973
1
0 12.39774
T-bar=5.5443
162 N=961
29 80.33333
20.64641
T-bar=5.44444
4 N=438
1
-.3584475
6.131538
T-bar=5.35802
9 N=441
1
12.80541
between
2 n=81
3.05886
1
1.839357
T-bar=7.65873
3 N=434
1
within
1.141553
195 n=126
254.0967
.1497696
No, of Obs,
195 N=965
3
-56.91995
between
overall
Max
2
.4489273
between
overall
Min
28 n=126
12.39774
T-bar=7.72222