Translation of mursya’s post (RUS)

Editor’s Note: with sadenova’s permission, we are publishing this wonderful piece – perhaps, it will spark a discussion. Below the text you will find a few interesting comments.

I’ve been reading about the quality of public administration in Kazakhstan on neweurasia.net/ru and in thousand_pa’s LiveJournal, and I always want to point out that “quality of public administration” is not the most appropriate term. First of all, the very idea of public administration is too broad to be evaluated qualitatively. In theory, public administration includes officials (selection, training, re-training, rotation, meritocracy, etc.), services provided by the government (in our country, this means medicine, primary education, security in the streets, etc.), public goods (roads, streetlamps, ecology, national security, among others), decision-making style, and so on ad infinitum.

Second of all, we are all very different, and even if we decide what “quality public administration” consists of in one country, our criteria might not apply at all to another. I understand it is better to talk about the quality of services provided by the government, which are distributed among ministries. I decided long ago to study up on indicators of effective public administration. The World Bank calls its set of parameters World Governance Indicators, currently the best tool for studying public administrations with a ten-year history.

For example, here is a chart showing the effectiveness of public administration in CIS states:

The leaders are Armenia, Russia and Georgia (with a dramatic curve), followed by us.

Cadre management and decision-making are ordinary housework; the most universal are (1) indicators of the extent to which a population is covered by services, their quality, and budget cost (i.e. efficiency), and, of course, (2) the effectiveness of state programs. Everything else – strategies, national agendas, budgets, etc. are just superstructures of these programs. The programs are concrete measures, towards which money must be allocated and which must produce concrete results – and, by the way, which require a good oversight system…

This is why I support the current reform that seeks to implement performance-based budgeting and systems of strategic planning.

I want things to look like they do on this site, where the US federal government gives its various programs effectiveness ratings.

UPD: An excerpt from a relevant article.

Nietzsche is right again?

“This week, the head of the presidential administration’s law enforcement department, Alik Shpekbaev, announced that the president is working on a decree that calls for a set of criteria for evaluating the work of local and federal government agencies. Officials will now receive points and bonuses depending on “how well they implement strategic plans and programs,” as well as the efficiency with which they do it.”

As an expert in sadomasochism, I sense danger, particularly on the regional level, because the majority of district and city akims have problems with the above criteria. Just to think of all the beautifully named projects and programs – village support, potable water, “100 Schools, 100 Hospitals,” housing projects… Was a single one of them completed anywhere close to satisfaction?

I’m curious what the new system of counting points-tricks-seconds-kiloton-meters? Like in figure skating? Like in soccer, with red cards? Like at the races, with betting on favorites?”