Indian Journal of Sustainable Development

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

What Makes People Satisfied with Local Government Service Delivery : An Empirical Investigation in the Context of West Bengal, India


Affiliations
1 Chandragupt Institute of Management Patna, Bihar, India
2 Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


In the changing paradigm of governance and public policy sphere, the importance of local-level governance institutions and expectations from them in delivering services has increased in the recent past. The present study analyses the framework of delivery of basic services. It attempted to measure the delivery and satisfaction out of service delivery by developing indices following the data-driven weightage method. Based on users’ feedback, it attempts to examine how the satisfaction from services from local government varies according to household characteristics. Four basic services from local government viz. drinking water, roads, sanitation and public health are evaluated on the basis of four objective parameters viz. availability, accessibility, reliability and quality. Along with, level of satisfaction over services delivered have been assessed subjectively based on feedback. Regression method used to identify the determinants of satisfaction. The findings suggest that apart from the level of service delivery, the intrinsic household characteristics make people satisfied. The study identifies the possible presence of clientelism in service delivery. The study suggests redesigning policy to create space for citizen engagement for coproduction and reduce clientelism in service delivery by local government.

Keywords

Citizen Feedback, Clientelism, Co-Production, Local Government, Public Service Delivery, Satisfaction.
User
Subscription Login to verify subscription
Notifications
Font Size

  • Akinboade, A. O., Mokwena, M. P., & Kinfack, E. C. (2013). Understanding citizens’ participation in service delivery protests in South Africa’s Sedibeng district municipality. International Journal of Social Economics, 40(5), 458-478.

  • Banerjee, A. V., Banerji, R., Duflo, E., Glennerst, R., & Khemani, S. (2010). Pitfalls of participatory programs: Evidence from a randomized evaluation in education in India. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2(1), 1-30.

  • Banerjee, T., & Mandal, K. (2011). Revisiting the Midnapore model after ten years of ‘Total Sanitation Campaign’ in India. New Delhi: India: National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies.

  • Bardhan, P., & Mookherjee, D. (2000). Capture and governance at local and national levels. American Economic Review, 90(2), 135-139.

  • Bardhan, P., & Mookherjee, D. (2012). Political clientelism and capture: Theory and Evidence from West Bengal, India. International Growth Centre.

  • Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2008). Co-production: The third sector and the delivery of public services: An introduction. In T. Brandsen, & V. Pestoff, Coproduction: The third sector and the delivery of public services. London & New York: Routledge.

  • Carvalho, C., Brito, C., & Cabral, J. S. (2010). Towards a conceptual model for assessing the quality of public services. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 7, 69-89.

  • Chatterjee, P. (1993). Nation and its fragments: Colonial and postcolonial histories. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Cotlear, D. (2000). Peru: Reforming health care for the poor. LCSHD Paper Series No. 57, Human Development Department. Washington DC: World Bank.

  • Decancq, K., & Ana Lugo, M. (2013). Weights in multidimensional indices of wellbeing: An overview. Econometric Reviews, 32(1), 7-34.

  • Deichman, U., & Lall, S. V. (2003). Are you satisfied? Citizen feedback and delivery of urban services. World Bank. Washington DC: World Bank.

  • Eckersley, P. (2017). A new framework for understanding subnational policy making and local choice. Policy Studies, 38(1), 76-90.

  • Gannon, C., & Liu, Z. (1997). Poverty and transport. TWU discussion papers. World Bank.

  • Gruber, J. (2011). Public finance and public policy (3rd ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.

  • Hoogland, D. R., Lowery, D., & Lyons, W. E. (1990). (1990). Citizen satisfactionw ith local government: A test of individual, jurisdictional, and city-specific explanations. Journal of Politics, 52(3), 807-837.

  • Isham, J., & Kähkönen, S. (1999). What determines the effectiveness of community based water projects? Evidence from Central Java, Indonesia on demand responsiveness, service rules and social capital. Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No. 14. Washington D C: Social Development Department, World Bank.

  • Joshi, A., & Moore, M. (2004). Institutionalised co-production: Unorthodox public service delivery in challenging environments. The Journal of Development Studies, 40(4), 31-49.

  • Kampen, J. K., Van De Walle, S., & Bouckaert, G. (2006). Assessing the relation between satisfaction with public service delivery and trust in government: The impact of the predisposition of citizens toward government on evaluations of its performance. Public Performance & Management Review, 29(4), 387-404.

  • Koutsoyiannis, A. (2001). Theory of econometrics. New York: Palgrave.

  • Kumasey, A. S. (2014). Service quality and customer satisfaction: Empirical evidence from the Ghanaian public service. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(6), 2222-2839.

  • Lall, S. V., & Lundberg, M. (2008). What are public services worth, and to whom?: Non-parametric estimation of capitalization in Pune. Journal of Housing Economics, 17, 34-64.

  • Nayak, N. C., & Samanta, D. (2014). Understanding the role of participation in public service delivery: Evidences from rural West Bengal India. International Journal of Public Administration, 37(12), 875-884.

  • Oliver, R. L. (1980). A congitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460-469.

  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide; Co-production, synergy, and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073-1088.

  • Pandey, P., Goyal, S., & Sundararaman, V. (2010). ‘Public participation, teacher accountability and school outcomes in three states. Economic and Political Weekly, 45(24), 45-83.

  • Perišić, A. (2015). Data-driven weights and restrictions in the construction of composite indicators. Croatian Operational Research Review, (6), 29-42.

  • Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2004). Solutions when the solution is the problem: Arraying the disarray in development. World Development, 32(2), 191-212.

  • Ravindra, A. (2004). An assessment of the impact of bangalore citizen report cards on the performance of public agencies. World Bank Operations Evaluation Department. Washington D.C: World Bank.

  • Roy, M. N. (2008, May). Parisheba pradan O panchayat (panchayat and service delivery). Panchayati Raj, 1(6), 5-15.

  • Seetharamu, A. S. (2004). Beneficiaries of public services. Bangalore, India: Institute for Social and Economic Change.

  • Sekhar, S., Nair, M., & Reddy, V. (2005). Are they being served: Citizen Report Card on Public Services for the poor in peri-urban areas of Bangalore. Bangalore: Association for Promoting Social Action and Public Affairs Centre.

  • Sen, A. (2009). Development as capability expansion. In S. Fukuda-Parr, & A. K. Shiva Kumar, Handbook of Human Development (pp. 3-16). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

  • Stradling, S., Anable, J., & Carreno, M. (2007). Performance, importance and user disgruntlement: A six-sep mthod for measuring satisfaction with travel modes. Transportation Research, 41, 98-106.

  • Strydom, J. W., Jooste, C. J., & Cant, M. C. (2000). Marketing management (4th ed.). Cape Town: Juta.

  • Van de Walle, D., & Cratty, D. (2002). Impact evaluation of a rural road rehabilitation project. Washington DC: World Bank.

  • Weber, E. P., & Khademian, A. M. (2008). Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 334-349.

  • Whitaker, G. P. (1980). Coproduction: Citizen participation in service delivery. Public Administration Review, 40(3), 240-246.

  • World Bank. (2004). World development report: Making services work for poor people. Washington DC: Oxford University Press.

  • World Health Organization. (1950). Technical report series no. 10, expert committee on environmental sanitation. Geneva: World Health Organization.

  • World Health Organization. (2001). Macroeconomic and health: Investing in health for economic development: Report of the commission on macroeconomics and health. Geneva: World Health Organization.

  • Zama, S. B. (2012). Citizen report card surveys: A tool for effective social accountability. HSRC Policy Brief.


Abstract Views: 333

PDF Views: 0




  • What Makes People Satisfied with Local Government Service Delivery : An Empirical Investigation in the Context of West Bengal, India

Abstract Views: 333  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Debabrata Samanta
Chandragupt Institute of Management Patna, Bihar, India
Narayan Chandra Nayak
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal, India

Abstract


In the changing paradigm of governance and public policy sphere, the importance of local-level governance institutions and expectations from them in delivering services has increased in the recent past. The present study analyses the framework of delivery of basic services. It attempted to measure the delivery and satisfaction out of service delivery by developing indices following the data-driven weightage method. Based on users’ feedback, it attempts to examine how the satisfaction from services from local government varies according to household characteristics. Four basic services from local government viz. drinking water, roads, sanitation and public health are evaluated on the basis of four objective parameters viz. availability, accessibility, reliability and quality. Along with, level of satisfaction over services delivered have been assessed subjectively based on feedback. Regression method used to identify the determinants of satisfaction. The findings suggest that apart from the level of service delivery, the intrinsic household characteristics make people satisfied. The study identifies the possible presence of clientelism in service delivery. The study suggests redesigning policy to create space for citizen engagement for coproduction and reduce clientelism in service delivery by local government.

Keywords


Citizen Feedback, Clientelism, Co-Production, Local Government, Public Service Delivery, Satisfaction.

References