Equity in Public Services in Tanzania and Uganda
The context of this note is the concern in both Uganda and Tanzania that the distribution of public servants in both countries has been uneven, leading to inequity in the delivery of public services, with lower quality services linked to persistent...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Language: | English en_US |
Published: |
Washington, DC
2013
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2011/04/17068854/equity-public-services-tanzania-uganda http://hdl.handle.net/10986/12213 |
Summary: | The context of this note is the concern
in both Uganda and Tanzania that the distribution of public
servants in both countries has been uneven, leading to
inequity in the delivery of public services, with lower
quality services linked to persistent poverty in certain
underserved or hard-to-reach and stay (HTRS) areas. The note
looks in detail at the nature of the problem as it affects
education and health services, assesses measures already in
place to tackle inequity, and makes recommendations to
address the problem in the immediate as well as the
long-term. In focus in this note are those areas that suffer
from having far below average numbers of public servants,
and consequently far below average public services. In
Tanzania such areas are more commonly referred to as
under-served and again additional resources have been
allocated to them. Governments have so far responded with
relatively conventional measures, such as financial
incentives for staff and improved living conditions. While
both of these are important, the scope and depth of the
issue requires a more radical approach. A range of ideas is
offered for each country, and these are then presented in a
matrix. Three priorities needs emerge for both countries: 1)
to consider demand as well as supply-side measures, in
particular to strengthen Government accountability; 2) to
address fiscal constraints by changing policies on
allowances which currently favor those at the centre of
government, and by giving HTRS areas greater financial
management flexibility; and 3) to put a time limit on the
assessment of measures to fix the state, leaving open the
possibility that market mechanisms might eventually present
the best option in dealing with inequity in public services. |
---|