See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313824737

Model for Efficient Service Delivery in Public Service

Article  in  Journal of Public Administration and Governance · July 2012

DOI: 10.5296/jpag.v2i3.2157

CITATIONS READS

7 17,396

2 authors:

Samihah Khalil Abdulwaheed Salihu

Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah, Malaysia Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida University
7 PUBLICATIONS   21 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Kratom in Malaysia: Issues, challenges and prospect View project

Investigating the Impact of Community Based Health Insurance Scheme Among the Rural Dwellers of Sokoto State Nigeria View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdulwaheed Salihu on 28 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2012, Vol. 2, No. 3

Model for Efficient Service Delivery in Public Service

Dr. Samihah Khalil

Dean, Ghazali Shafie Graduate School of Government
College of Law, Government and International Studies
Universiti Utara Malaysia
Email: [email protected]

Dr. Salihu Abdulwaheed Adelabu (Corresponding author)

School of Government, College of Law, Government and International Studies
Universiti Utara Malaysia
Email: [email protected]

Received: July 04, 2012 Accepted: July 28, 2012 DOI: 10.5296/jpag.v2i3.2157

Abstract
This paper aims to design a modified model for efficient and effective service delivery by
governments’ ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs). There are several existing
models on service delivery, but it is noted that those models emphasized more on the
estimates voted for social/welfare services and the outcomes of services provided by MDAs.
Other variables such as managerial accountability and leadership quality are less emphasized.
This paper therefore designs a modified model that integrates funding/management of
resources, managerial accountability and leadership quality cum structure in order to ensure
adequate, efficient and effective service delivery by MDAs of various governments. There
seems to be a strong relationship between these variables in respect of service delivery. Lastly,
the paper is conceptual in nature, which gives room for critique by practioners, researchers,
scholars and public administrators in lieu of service delivery.

Keywords: Service Delivery, Fiscal Federalism, Decentralization, Managerial Accountability,

Leadership Quality.

85 www.macrothink.org/jpag
 Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2012, Vol. 2, No. 3

1. Introduction

The act of governance by government through various ministries, departments and agencies
(MDAs) is tending towards efficient and effective service delivery. But there seems to be
many variables militating against the delivery of efficient and effective infrastructural, social
and welfare services by various governments’ ministries, departments and agencies. Few
amongst the variables militating against efficient delivery of services in the public sector are
corruption, accountability, probity, prudence, insufficient funding, government policies,
government instability, leadership quality, etc. These variables need to be thoroughly studied,
if efficient and effective social/welfare services are to be delivered by MDAs. Several studies
on modus of operandi of improving on the delivery of social/welfare services are carried out
by scholars such as Benton and Rigos (1986), Schneider and Park (1989), Salant (1991),
Benton and Menzel (1991), Berman (1993), Cigler (1995), Park (1996), etc, these scholars
unanimously submitted that there is critical need to improve on the efficient and effective
delivery of social/welfare services by MDAs in the public services. In the same vein, studies
have equally shown the use of different models for the delivery of goods and services by
government’s MDAs (Dettoog, 1984; Ferris & Grady, 1988; Donahue, 1989; Stein, 1990;
Clinger & Feiock, 1997; Graves, 2000; Clifton & Duffield, 2006; Salihu, 2011).

In view of this, scholars have developed different models that could be used by practioners to
deliver efficient and effective social/welfare services through MDAs in the public sector. Few
amongst these models are Quantitative Service Delivery Survey (QSDS), Public Expenditure
Tracking Survey (PETS), Expenditure Service Delivery Survey (ESDS), Contracting-Out
Model, Direct Labor Model, “Own-Right” Service Provision Model, Contestability Model
(CM), Competitive Tendering Model (CTM), Collaborative Venture Model (CVM), etc. Most
of the models mentioned in this paper emphasized the issue of finance majorly. Most of the
models do not look vividly look at other variables may hinder efficient and effective delivery
of social/welfare services in the public sector. Despite the fact that most of these models have
strong strengths in determining the quantity and quality of services delivered by MDAs, there
are other weaknesses observed in the existing models. In line with the noted weaknesses,
United Nation Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA, 2007) postulated that finance,
management and technical challenges continue to limit the capacity of MDAs to provide
adequate services and infrastructure development. In view of UNECA statement, this paper
therefore advocates for integration of funding, managerial accountability and leadership in
order to make room for more coherent delivery system by MDAs. Studies have equally
shown that efficient and effective service delivery depends largely on institutional reforms.
The importance of institutional reform cannot be over-emphasized, while the need for greater
capacity of MDAs is equally needed to deliver efficient and effective social/welfare services
to the public (Rakodi, 1997; McGill, 1988; Rakodi, 2001; UN-Habibat, 2008). The
institutional reforms therefore can only take place when funding, managerial accountability
and leadership quality are integrated together to bring about efficient and effective service
delivery to the public in the public sector (Salihu, 2011).

Modified Quantitative Service Delivery Model (MQSDM) is therefore designed using three

86 www.macrothink.org/jpag
 Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2012, Vol. 2, No. 3

major variables, viz-a-viz: funding, managerial accountability and leadership in order to

ensure efficient and effective service delivery in the public sector. It is intended that the new
model will bring about innovative administrative techniques that will ensure maximum
efficiency in the production and delivery of public goods and services in public service. It is
assumed that countries with weak institutions, especially Africa and Asia such as Thailand,
Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Nepal, Nigeria, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Mali, Uganda, Namibia,
Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Madagascar, etc can be using this modified model to
deliver efficient and effective social/welfare services to the public.

2. Literature Review

One of the justifications for having MDAs in public organization is to serve as an instrument
of service delivery (Ola, 1984; Finn, 2008). Adamolekun (1983) further lends credence to the
statement by stating that the goal of MDAs is to deliver efficient welfare, social and essential
services to the public. Improving service delivery is without doubt a cardinal pillar in the act
of governance. So, managerial and governance reforms have been revolving around how to
engender efficient and effective service delivery by MDAs. Indeed there exist numerous
studies on local government and service delivery, of which Mass (1959), Oladosun (1981),
Adamolekun (1983), Ola (1984), Aghayere (1987), Okeem (1989), and Lawal (2000) just to
mention a few did a lot of critique and thorough studies on efficient service delivery by
MDAs.

In the light of criticism over public sector expenditure on service delivery, the concept of
New Public Management (NPM) was introduced in 1982. The concept embraces many new
innovations such as managerialism, market-based governance, enterprenualism, and reforms
that are widely deem necessary to bring about effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery of
welfare, social and essential services. According to Hood (1991), NPM is seen as a politically
neutral movement that is concerned with improving efficiency, effectiveness and
accountability, especially in the area of infrastructural development and social/welfare
services. The advent of the modified model intends to corroborate the concept of NPM in
order to attain efficient service delivery by MDAs. Out of the numerous models that are being
used for service delivery, governments of emerging and developing economies are still
searching for new ways of improving public sector efficiency in order to address the issue of
service delivery to the yearning of the fast majority of the citizens. Hudges (1994) posited
that the model of public management will eventually change the way the public sector
operates in term of service delivery. And Savoie (1992) argued that public managers require
new skills and knowledge to be effective in delivering infrastructural development and
social/welfare services. Smith (1996a) further lends credence by saying that managers had to
develop new concepts, values, skills and new mindsets about public service. He went further
by saying that the managers need to develop their staff, and engage them in the change
processes in order to deliver efficient and effective social/welfare services to the public.

On the issue of funding and management of resources, transparency and accountability

becomes an issue. Major feature of transparency and accountability is fairness. Thus,

87 www.macrothink.org/jpag
 Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2012, Vol. 2, No. 3

government must be accountable to the entire citizenry, and not just to a select group of
stakeholders. Peters (2001) noted that the issue of equality raises important questions about
accountability. How can public management be both flexible and fair? Accountability for
finances and responsibilities reflect concern for how government does what it does, that is
what is actually accomplished and how it is accomplished (Behn, 2001). Government is
expected to use the available fund and other resources prudently, treat everyone fairly and
must be able to accomplish public purposes. This implies accountability of performance, thus
referring to the consequences of government action. Accountability of performance embraces
the planning-oriented approach where accountability is given much importance as improved
efficiency, effectiveness and service quality is emphasized. Behn (2001) concluded his work
on democratic accountability by saying that existing institutions of accountability not only
overemphasize accountability for finance and fairness, and undercut performance, but they
undercut the capacity of government’s productive units from achieving the results they were
created to pursue.

On the other hand, the issues of fiscal federalism and decentralization of resources and
responsibility need to be well established in the act of governance. This concept encourages
efficient and effective delivery of infrastructural development and social/welfare services to
the public. By enshrining fiscal federalism, either federal-state-local relations, state-state
relations or state-local relations is given autonomy to develop their economic sector, and the
proceeds from the economic activities or internally generated revenue (IGR) by either the
federal, states and/or local governments are given autonomy to utilize the generated revenue
in delivering infrastructural development and social/welfare services to the public through
MDAs. And in order to address the issue of insufficient funding by other two tiers of
government (i.e. state and local government), it becomes inevitable for the central
government to decentralize funds and responsibilities among the three tiers of government so
that the two tiers of government can deliver the required services to the public. Management
of resources is viewed from view-lens of fiscal federalism and decentralization in order to
give room for efficient and effective delivery of social/welfare services by MDAs.

Having dealt with funding and management of resources, the need arises to consider
leadership quality and structure in MDAs. Public managers suppose to acquire skills,
knowledge and possess professional competence in the administration of public resources, if
efficient and effective social/welfare services are to be delivered. The issue of leadership
within public organizations is assuming a new dimension and now extends to a range of staff
with resource management responsibilities. New processes are emerging for leading change
and focusing complex organizations (Vardon, 2000; Kotter & Cohen, 2002). So, preference is
given to leadership qualities and structure in the public sector in order to deliver efficient
services to the public.

3. Modified Quantitative Service Delivery Model (MQSDM)

This paper aims to introduce a new modified model, having diagnosed other existing models
used for service delivery by MDAs such as (Ablo & Reinikka, 1998; Steffensen &

88 www.macrothink.org/jpag
 Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2012, Vol. 2, No. 3

Trollegaard, 2000; Reinikka, 2001; Xiao & Sudharshan, 2002; Reinikka, Svensson & Dehan,
2002; Dehn, Reinikka & Svensson, 2003). It is observed with keen interest that most of the
existing models focus on funding and management of resources, without giving consideration
to managerial accountability, prudential management of resources, and leadership quality and
structure in relation to efficient and effective service delivery by MDAs. In view of this
argument, a new modified model on efficient and effective delivery of infrastructural
development and social/welfare services is proposed, and baptized as Modified Quantitative
Service Delivery Model (MQSDM). It is the belief of the authors that the modified model
embraces all the attributes of other existing models, and other factors militating against
adequate, efficient and effective service delivery to the citizens are taken care of.

The model is given below as:

The Modified Quantitative Service Delivery Model (MQSDM)

Factors Influencing
Efficient Service Delivery

Managerial Accountability
 Transparency
 Accountability

Funding/Management of
Resources
Service Delivery
 Fiscal Federalism
 Decentralization

Leadership
 Quality
 Structure

Source: Service Delivery by Local Government in Nigeria (Salihu et al. 2011)

89 www.macrothink.org/jpag
 Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2012, Vol. 2, No. 3

4. Discussion

This study provides a useful research model for exploring the challenges in assessing
adequate, efficient and effective service delivery by MDAs. The issue of delivering efficient
and effective social/welfare services is a continuous process, so government should embark
on several institutional reforms in order to bring about efficient and effective service delivery.
Most of the reforms should adopt different methodologies, strategies and models to improve
on the delivery of social/welfare services. In fact, there are numerous studies on
methodologies, strategies and models of improving social/welfare service delivery by MDAs
by researchers such as Mass (1959), Oladosun (1981), Adamolekun (1983), Ola (1984),
Aghayere (1987), Okeem (1989), Lawal (2000), and Salihu (2011) just to mention but a few.
So, methods, strategies and models of delivering efficient and effective social/welfare
services by all tiers of government are opened to intellectual discourse and further researches
on ways of improving service delivery are often encouraged by public administrators.

As postulated by Davies (2000), the relationship between service delivery and managerial
accountability is subject to some critical analysis. Lynn, Heinrich and Hill (2001) supported
this argument by discussing governance in terms of “the regime of laws, rules, judicial
decisions, and administrative practices that constrain, prescribe, and enable the provision of
publicly supported goods and services”. It therefore becomes pertinent to critically look into
methods to ensure managerial accountability with reference to accountability and
transparency in the public sector in order to ensure efficient and effective service delivery.
Thus, it needs to be viewed from view-lens of discipline, openness, fairness, equity,
transparency, accountability, honesty, integrity, credibility, etc in the management of public
resources to ensure efficient and effective delivery of social/welfare services. It is when this
is done that managerial accountability is guaranteed, that is, where public servants display
credibility in the performance of their responsibility. If managerial accountability can be
guaranteed in public organizations, then there is bound to be adequate management of public
funds and resources. In return, there will be efficient delivery of services by MDAs.

Evidences from previous researches have been showing that more spending does not translate
to corresponding social/welfare service delivery (Pritchett, 1996; Reinikka, 2001; Reinikka &
Svensson, 2001b; Gupta, Gauri & Khemani, 2004). Filmer, Hammer and Pritchett (2000)
posited further that lack of data, often formed constraints for researchers to conduct empirical
studies on the relationship between public spending and service delivery outcomes. Salihu
(2011) corroborated their position by saying that incomplete data resulted in incomplete
inferences on the relationship between estimated budget on social/welfare services to be
delivered and what is actually spent on service delivery outcomes. Also, empirical studies on
how prudent are MDAs in their financial management and the impacts of this management of
resources on service delivery are lagging. So, there ought to be binding relationship between
managerial accountability and funding cum management of resources, if adequate and
efficient welfare, social and essential services is to be delivered. It is therefore suggested
that emphasis should be given to the issues of fiscal federalism and decentralization by all
tiers of government. If fiscal federalism and decentralization is embraced, the rate of service

90 www.macrothink.org/jpag
 Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2012, Vol. 2, No. 3

delivery is bound to increase. And, managerial accountability and funding/management of

resources should be integrated in order to achieve efficiency in the area of service delivery in
the public service. With the integration of these two variables, the need arises to look into
leadership quality and structure in the public sector.

There are changing conceptions and approaches with nature of public leaders and leadership
style in the public service throughout the universe. Executive leadership, according to
Campbell and Wyszomirski (1991) is beyond the level of senior service, but shows
relationship between appointed and elected leaders. Leadership is said to be a product of an
organizational context. This refers to the density of administrative competence. The question
that most often raised is “how significant is leadership? The responses range from positions
that leadership is either unimportant (Kaufman, 1981) or change is determined
environmentally, to arguments that individual leadership does register an impact (Doig &
Hargrove, 1987; Sanders, 1998). Some scholars are of the opinion that leadership may be
subtle (Rayner & Theakston, 1999). A more inclusive approach is given by Rockman (1991),
who sees leadership as interrelated with and dependent upon situation, factors, administrative
culture, institutional forms and the agenda of political leaders.

Issues about the nature of and potential for leadership in the civil service are yet to be
resolved. One strong argument is that civil service leadership is quite different from business
leadership because of constitutional and political context. Senior civil servants cannot be
rated as leaders in terms of the business management literatures because they are managers or
clerks (Performance and Innovative Unit, 2001; Theakston, 1999). Yet, some management
studies focus on corporate change across public and private sectors and the type of leader that
are associated with different tasks (Stace & Dunphy, 2001). But, there has been movement in
the conceptions and analysis of civil service leadership. Specific leadership rather than
leadership is now in focus. The issue of leadership within public organizations has acquired
new dimensions and now extends to a range of staff with resource management
responsibilities. New processes are emerging for leading change and focusing complex
organizations (Vardon, 2000; Kotter & Cohen, 2002).

Leadership in the opinion of the authors is the professional competence, skills and knowledge
of leader in order to deliver the set- goals. This implies that leaders must be a goal getter.
Considering the scope of this paper, a leader must be self discipline, well respected, and
manage the resources of the organization efficiently in order to deliver welfare, social and
essential services to the public. In light of this, leadership quality and structure needs to be
integrated with the variables earlier mentioned (i.e. managerial accountability and
funding/management of resources). With the integration, it translates to a new modified
model on service delivery by MDAs, which is tagged as Modified Quantitative Service
Delivery Model (MQSDM). This model is designed for professionals in order to ensure
adequate and efficient service delivery by government through MDAs.

5. Recommendation

This paper recommends that the three major variables, namely managerial accountability,

91 www.macrothink.org/jpag
 Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2012, Vol. 2, No. 3

funding cum management of resources and leadership quality should be seen as main issue in
delivering social services by MDAs. Since this model embraces both strengths and
weaknesses of other existing models, modified quantitative service delivery model should be
used in the public organizations to see whether there could be an improvement in the delivery
of social/welfare services by MDAs in the public sector.

The model is equally good for countries with weak institutions because emphasis on
managerial accountability, funding cum management of resources and leadership quality is
elaborated. The integration of these variables will surely strengthen the public institutions,
and in effect increase the delivery of services to the people. Therefore, MDAs should
endeavor to use modified quantitative service delivery model and gauge the quantity of
services delivered by MDAs.

It is the belief of the authors that if MQSDM is being used by MDAs for the delivery of
required infrastructural development and social/welfare services, there is bound to be
efficient and effective service delivery by MDAs in the public sectors. Therefore, the three
variables of the model should be seen as the watch-words of MDA.

6. Conclusion

The discussion of the Modified Quantitative Service Delivery Model (MQSDM) has shown
that research knowledge can be effectively transferred in different ways in order to achieve
the design results. In this context, the major concern is to seek for ways of enhancing and
ensuring adequate and efficient service delivery by government through MDAs. Besides, the
paper is conceptual in nature that tries to show how managerial accountability,
funding/management of resources and leadership quality cum structure are integrated
together in order to achieve an improved way of ensuring efficient service delivery by
government through MDAs.

There are still issues that can be raised using the new modified model in order to ensure
efficiency in the provision of social/welfare and/or essential services by government through
MDAs. So, further researches are required on the workability and comparability of other
existing models with the new modified model in order to come out with more advance and/or
acceptable model for attaining adequate, efficient and effective service delivery model by
government through MDAs.

7. Consideration for Future Study

Study of this nature needs to be carried out continuously since professionals are seeking for
methodologies, surveys and models that could be used to enhance and ensure adequate,
efficient and effective provision of services to the public by various governments through
their ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs). So, working groups with diverse
experience on service delivery can be formed to look into ways of achieving efficient service
delivery by government through MDAs, and offer suggestions for further study.

92 www.macrothink.org/jpag
 Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2012, Vol. 2, No. 3

References

Ablo, E. & Reinikka, R. (1998). “Do budgets really matter? Evidence from public spending
on education and health in Uganda”. (Policy research working paper 1926). Washington DC:
World Bank Development Researcg Group.

Adamolekun, L. (1983). Public administration: A Nigerian and comparative perspective.

London: Longman.

Benton, J. E. (2002). Counties as service delivery agents: Changing expectations and roles.
New York: Praeger.

Benton, J. E. (2000a). County government structure and service delivery. San Diego,
California: A paper presented at the America Society for Public Administration Annual
Conference, April 1-4.

Benton, J. E. (2000b). The impact of structural reform on government service provision.

Atlanta, Geogia: A paper presented at the 2000 Southern Political Science Association
Meeting, November 8-11.

Benton, J. E. (2002). County service delivery: Does government structure matter? Public
Administration Review, 62(4), 471-479.

Dehn, Reinikka, & Svensson (2003). “Survey tools for assessing performance in service
delivery”. In Bourguignon & Pereira da Silva, eds. Evaluating the poverty and distributional
impact of economic policies. Washington DC: Oxford University Press, and World Bank
Research Group.

DeHoog, R. H. (1984). Contracting out for human services: Economic, political and
organizational perspectives. Albany NY: Suny Press.

Ferris, J. & Graddy, E. (1988). “The production choices for local government services”.
Journal of Urban Affairs, 10(2), 273-289.

Hood, C. (1991). “A public management for all seasons?” Public Administration, 69(1), 3-19.

Hughes, R. L., Robert, C. G., & Curphy, G. J. (2006). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of
experience (5th Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin Inc.

Lawal, S. (2000). “Local government administration in Nigeria: A practical approach”.

Ibadan: University Press Limited.

McGill, R. (1988). “Planning for strategic performance in local government”. Long-range

Planning, 21(5), 77-84.

Newman, J. (2001). Modernising governance: New labour, policy and society. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.

93 www.macrothink.org/jpag
 Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2012, Vol. 2, No. 3

Ola, R. F. (1984). Local administration in Nigeria. London: Kegan Paul International.

Oyugi, W. O. (2000). Decentralization for good governance and development: The unending
debate. Regional Development Dialogue, 21(1) spring, 3-22.

Park, K. O. (1996). Determinants of county government growth, in the American county:

Frontiers of knowledge, edited by Donald C. Menzel, 34-50. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of
Alabama Press.

Parker, D. (1995). Privatization and agency status: Identifying the critical factors for
performance improvement. British Journal of Management, 6, 29-43.

Pavlov, P., & Katsamunska, P. (2002). The relationship of leadership and new public
management in Central Government: Bulgarian specific, Bulgaria: Varna Free University.

Performance and Innovation Unit (2001). Strengthening leadership in the public sector: A
research study by the PIU. London: Cabinet Office.

Peters, B. G. (1996). The future of governing: Four emerging models. Lawrence, KS:
University Press of Kansas.

Rakodi, C. (1997). The urban challenge in Africa: Growth and management of its large cities.
New York: The United Nations University Press.

Rakodi, C. (2001). “Forget planning, put politics first? Priorities for urban management in
developing countries”. JAG, 3(3), 15.

Salihu, A. A. & Khalil, S. (2011). Service delivery by local government in Nigeria: The
delivery of primary education and healthcare service by local government in Nigeria.
Germany: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing GmbH & Co. KG.

Schneider, M. & Kee, O. K. (1989). Metropolitan counties as service delivery agents: The
still forgotten governments. Public Administration Review, 49(4), 345-352.

Smith, A. (1997). “Studying multi-level governance: Examples from French translations of

the structural funds”. Public Administration, 75(4), 711-729.

Steffensen, J. & Trollegaard, S. (2000). Fiscal decentralization and sub-national government

finance in relation to infrastructure and service provision (synthesis report of 6 sub-saharan
Africa country studies). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Stoker, G. (1998). “Governance as theory: Five propositions”. International Social Science

Journal, 15(2), 17-28.

UN-Habitat (2008). The state of Africa cities: A framework for addressing urban challenges
in Africa, Nairobi, United Nations Human Settlement Program: 206.

94 www.macrothink.org/jpag
 Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2012, Vol. 2, No. 3

United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) (2007). Public expenditure and
service delivery in Africa: Perspectives on policy and institutional framework, Addis Ababa,
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa: 62.

Xiao, Ye & Sudharshan, C. (2002). “Efficiency of public expenditure distribution and beyond:
A report on Ghana’s 2000 public expenditure tracking survey in the sectors of primary health
and education”. (Africa region working paper series 31). Washington, DC: World Bank.

95 www.macrothink.org/jpag

View publication stats