Meeting basic needs in Asia, Part II: Improving the performance of government and local communities
| Author | Dennis A. Rondinelli,Marvin B. Mandell |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/pad.4230010302 |
| Published date | 01 July 1981 |
| Date | 01 July 1981 |
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT,
Vol.
1. 189-209 (1981)
Meeting basic needs in Asia, Part
11:
improving the
performance
of
government and local communities
DENNIS A. RONDINELLI
The Maxwell School
of
Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University
MARVIN
B.
MANDELL
The Maxwell School
of
Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University
SUMMARY
In nearly all Asian countries services available to rural populations are inadequate and
inappropriate. Improvement is crucial not
only
to fulfilling basic human needs, but for
raising productivity and generating more broadly based economic development. This
article reviews the types of obstacles
in
the way of improving service delivery, and
assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the major institutional arrangements for
delivering services. In the light of this review the article identifies four issues
of
major
importance, first, the priority to be given to providing social and productive services;
second, the most appropriate approach to delivering social and productive services; thud,
how to finance social services more effectively; and finally what alternative means there
are of improving the administration of services. This article follows on from Part
I
which
presented a comparative review
of
service needs in Asian countries.
Part I of this study reviewed the capacity and performance
of
governments in
Asia to meet basic human needs and to provide services that would stimulate
and support productive activities in rural communities. The review indicates that
some developing nations-the newly industrializing economies
of
Taiwan, South
Korea and Malaysia-have made substantial progress in reducing or eliminating
abject poverty and in satisfying demands for basic consumption goods and
community services. Other countries that are in a transitional stage
of
economic
development, such as Thailand and the Philippines, have been able to meet the
basic needs
of
only a portion
of
their rural poor and have succeeded in pro-
viding productive support services adequately only
to
some
of
those who live
in the major urban centres. They, and the majority
of
poor countries in Asia,
face severe problems in stimulating economic growth with social equity.
Large numbers
of
the rural poor in those countries have little or no access to
social services, productive resources
or
employment opportunities that would
provide the income needed to obtain adequate food, shelter, health care and
education.
Professor Rondinelli is Director, and Marvin Mandell a member,
of
the Graduate Program
in
Development Planning, The Maxwell School, Syracuse University, Syracuse, N.Y.
13210,
U.S.A.
Research for this paper was partially funded by the Local Revenue Administration Project at
Syracuse University through a collaborative agreement with the Office
of
Rural Development, U.S.
Agency
for
International Development. The conclusions and interpretations, however, are those
of
the authors and
do
not necessarily reflect the policies of the project
or
of
USAID.
0271-2075/81/030189-21$02.10
0
1981
by John Wiley
&
Sons, Ltd.
190
D.
A.
Rondinelli and M.
B.
Mandell
In
nearly all Asian countries the
level
and coverage
of
services provided
to
rural populations are far less than those aspired to in national development
plans or that have been attained by more prosperous societies. The services that
have been provided are often inappropriate to the needs
of
the vast majority of
the rural poor and the distribution has been highly inequitable. The quality of
services, even where they are available, is generally low.
PROBLEMS
OF
RESOURCE MOBILIZATION AND SERVICE DELIVERY
The developing countries
of
Asia face quite similar problems in overcoming
these deficiencies in resource mobilization and service delivery. Financial,
administrative and organizational problems vary in severity, and governments
differ in their capacities to deal with them, but the problems fall into four broad
categories: (1) low levels
of
capacity to mobilize existing resources to finance
social and productive-support services; (2) reluctance to allocate a larger share
of national resources to the service sectors;
(3)
weaknesses in local government
financial capacity to establish and maintain services within communities; and
(4)
low levels of administrative capacity at the national and local levels to plan and
manage service delivery programmes.
Low
levels
of
capacity
to
mobilize national
resources
The slow pace of economic growth in the poor and transitional countries limits
the amount of economic resources available for expanding services. As noted
earlier, growth in GNP averaged less than 2 per cent a year during the 1970s in
most poor countries, a rate that either lagged behind or barely kept pace with
population growth. Most governments in Asia have experienced great difficulty
in
mobilizing resources for services, or any for other development activity,
through savings, investment and public expenditure.
The poor countries have had low levels of gross domestic savings during the
1970s. Savings were well below
10
per cent of GDP in Bangladesh, Burma,
Nepal, and Pakistan in 1977. India, Indonesia and Sri Lanka and the transitional
economies have been able to mobilize a slightly higher percentage of GDP
through savings. Public consumption averaged about
10
per cent of GDP for the
seven poorest countries in 1977, and average annual growth rates in public
consumption from 1970
to
1977 were extremely
low
in all but Indonesia.
Inability to mobilize resources for domestic investment also inhibits government
from expanding service coverage and increasing access. In the poorest countries,
gross domestic investment averaged 15 per cent
of
GDP in 1977 and average
annual growth rates were 2 per cent or below in all poor countries except
Indonesia between 1970 and 1977. Public investment in Nepal, for instance, is
only about
10
per cent of
gross
domestic product and public revenues contribute
only about 7 per cent to GDP. More than half of Nepal’s development budget is
financed by foreign assistance (USAID, 1979a, p. 15). From 1974 to 1976 only
Burma had a public expenditure level that was greater than 50 per cent of GDP.
Among other poor countries in Asia public expenditure averaged about 21 per
cent of gross national product, providing a weak financial base for investment
in
and maintenance
of
services (see Table 1).
To continue reading
Request your trial