Ethiopian Civil Service College

IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES OF SERVICE DELIVERY POLICY OF ETHIOPIA: CIVIL SERVANTS’ PERSPECTIVE

Bezabih Bekele Tolla Addis Ababa University

October 2009

Addis Ababa

IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES OF SERVICE DELIVERY POLICY OF ETHIOPIA: CIVIL SERVANTS’ PERSPECTIVE

Bezabih Bekele Tolla Addis Ababa University Postal code 150234 Email: bezabihb@bued.aau.edu.et or bezabih2000@yahoo.com Tel. No. +251-91-1606233 (Cell Phone) +251-11-1239733 (Office) Addis Ababa, Ethiopia October 2009

1

ABSTRACT

This paper focuses on key issues regarding the implementation and/or policy implementation challenges of the Service Delivery Policy (SDP) of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, which has been under implementation since 2001. SDP is one of the sub-programs of the Civil Service Reform Program (CSRP) of the FDRE. Because of the broad nature of the Program, this study attempted to find out the implementation problems of the Service Delivery Policy, as particularly perceived by the actual implementers (the civil servants). Thus, although analyses were made for the data collected from clients of the subject organizations, concerned officials/leaders of the CSRP in the executing organizations, and concerned officials in the Civil Service Reform Program Office, the largest proportion of data analyses and interpretations of the findings were made with reference to the responses of the civil servants of the subject organizations.

As perceived by stakeholders of the Policy (particularly by the Civil Servants), the practicality or implementation of some of the policy statements is questionable because of the complexity surrounding the Policy—policy requirements, numerous bottlenecks and contextual factors. Because the implementation problems were revolving around the Policy statements, this study attempted to examine the main policy statements (elements) in terms of their practicality and their problems of implementation so that a comprehensive insight could be gained about the implementation (stage) and the challenges of implementation of SDP.

Following the broad analyses that were made for the data collected from the four respondent groups, overall data interpretations were made to have a vivid picture about the nature of the problems or implementation challenges of the Policy, classifying them into four main themes (challenge areas): (1) Policy Communication and Awareness/Knowledge; (2) Policy Requirements—Inputs/Resources and Capacity; (3) Policy Executing Civil Service Institutions; and (4) Policy Implementers (Civil Servants).

Though there existed complex and many socio-cultural, political and resource/economic problems in the country during the execution of the reforms of the civil service (also the Service Delivery Policy) and the reform measures were too comprehensive and seemed ambitious, it was possible to observe some improvements as the result of the Policy intervention. In all the organizations under study, improvements were observed on the institutions’ delivery of services, on the behavior of civil servants and on their clients.

This study has identified the following major policy implementation challenges: (1) severe capacity limitations (individual as well as institutional); (2) staff dissatisfaction (mainly related to compensation); (3) lack of resources (mainly financial) for Policy execution; (4) inadequate policy communication and discussion with the civil servants about the Policy; and (5) suspicious civil servants about the Policy and its implementation.

Even if the set Policy objectives (expected outcomes) were not achieved as desired and/or there existed Policy under-performance, it can be surely said implementation of the Policy in these organizations had been bringing positive results in the provision of better services to the public. Thus, had it been possible to identify and give timely remedies for the figured out Policy implementation problems by this study, better improvements would have resulted in public service provision.

2

Acronyms/Abbreviations

AARTO: City Government of Addis Ababa Transport Branch Office—Subject

Organization

CSR: Civil Service Reform

CSRP: Civil Service Reform Program (of Ethiopia/EPRDF)

CSRP-O: Civil Service Reform Program Office (under the FDRE’s Ministry of Capacity

Building)—Subject Organization

CUST (AP): FDRE, Customs Authority (Airport Branch)—Subject Organization

CUST (KL): FDRE, Customs Authority (Kaliti Branch)—Subject Organization

Dergue: The previous military regime in Ethiopia which was overthrown by EPRDF in

May 1991

EPRDF: The Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front (in power since May

1991 and introduced the Reform/CSRP)

FDRE: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

IMMIG: FDRE, Immigration and Nationality Affairs Main Office—Subject Organization

INVEST: FDRE, Investment Commission (now Agency) —Subject Organization

NPM: New Public Management

OECD: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (countries)

PC: Percentile or per cent

SDP: Service Delivery Policy (One of the Sub-programs of the CSRP and this study

topic)

SDS: Service Delivery (baseline) Survey

SO.S (AA): Social Security Addis Ababa Branch Office—Subject Organization

SO.S (FD): FDRE, Social Security Authority—Subject Organization

3

Table of Contents

Contents Pages    Abstract                       1 Acronyms/ Abbreviations                    2 Table Of Contents                     3 List  Of Tables                      3  1  BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY                4  1.1  Introduction                    4 1.2  Statement of the problem                 5 1.3  Objectives of the study                  5 1.4  Significance of the study                  5 1.5  Scope of the study                  5 1.6  Methodology of the study                 6 

1.6.1  Sources of data and data collection instruments          6 1.6.2  Sampling                  6 1.6.3  Data analysis                  6 

1.7  Limitations of the study                  7  2  ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF MAJOR FINDINGS          7  2.1  Analysis of clients’ responses                7 2.2  Analysis of civil servants’ responses               10 

2.2.1  Workers’ years of experience in Government organization/s        10 2.2.2  Responses related to trainings on service provision and customer handling skills   11 2.2.3  Workers’ responses regarding the behaviour of civil servants in service provision  

and customer handling                11 2.2.4  Workers' opinions/observations on organization's overall service provision    11 2.2.5  Workers' knowledge about and attitude towards the CSRP (and the SDP)    12 2.2.6  Workers’ observations on and attitudes towards the implementation of the                                         

Service Delivery Policy (SDP)              15 2.2.7  Summary of civil servants’ responses to the ‘open‐ended’ questions on overall SDP   implementation                  16 2.2.8  Overall Interpretation                18 

 3  CONCLUSIONS                    23   

LIST OF TABLES Contents Pages     Table 1   Clients’ observation on the change of the organization’s service standard within the last 2 years  7 Table 2   Clients’ general rating of organization’s service standards and quality        9 Table 3   Progress or changes in service delivery for the last two years          12 Table 4   Workers’ understanding of the CSRP (especially the SDP)          13 Table 5   Workers’ attitude towards the implementation of the SDP          14 Table 6  Progress or changes in the organizations’ service delivery for the last two years      140    

4

1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

1.1 Introduction

Initiatives like Structural Adjustment Program, Good Governance of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and some donors have resulted in policy changes and reform measures in most of the Sub-Sahara African countries and in developing countries. Besides, the Government’s interest in changing the public administration/civil service system of the previous military regime, these initiatives and the support from these international organizations gave the impetus for taking measures in developing a comprehensive package, such as Capacity Building Programs, by the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). One of the Capacity Building Program activities of the FDRE is the Reform Program in the Civil Service sector.

Hence, in the year 2001, the FDRE designed new policy documents to reform the Ethiopian Civil Service in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the civil service in all civil service giving institutions. The policies were directly applicable to federal ministries, commissions, public authorities/enterprises and municipal administrations, as well as other agencies financed from the regular budget of the Federal Government.

The overall rationale (aim) of the Civil Service Reform Program (CSRP) of the FDRE was to alleviate the drawbacks and wrong practices of the previous military regime (from 1974 to 1991 civil service), and to build an efficient and effective civil service system, which would aid in facilitating the country’s developments in federal democratic, economic, and social aspects. The civil service reform program (CSRP) has five components/sub-programs to improve: (1) Top management systems; (2) Governance of financial resources management and control; (3) Accountability and transparency; (4) Governance of human resources management and control; and (5) Public service delivery.

Although it was most preferable to study all the sub-programs of the CSRP as a whole, the focus/purpose of this study is to investigate the major implementation problems of the initially launched Service Delivery Policy and particularly its implementation challenges in all of the institutions selected for the pilot program and for the study, as well. The piloted/trial institutions (for the Policy) were five organizations (listed in Section 1.5/‘Scope of the Study’).

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Notwithstanding the continuing inadequate services the public is getting from the institutions, some of the policy statements/elements could not be implemented effectively because of their own intrinsic deficiencies and general impracticality, as perceived by the actual Policy implementer (the civil servant).

The Service Delivery Policy (SDP) statements seem “ideal” as they are developed based on the basic concepts and principles of modern service delivery (New Public Management) and considering reform practices of a few countries (from least developing countries to developed countries). As perceived by stakeholders of the Policy (particularly by the Civil Servants), the practicality or implementation of some of the policy statements is questionable because of the complexity surrounding the Policy—policy requirements, numerous bottlenecks and contextual factors.

5

To this connection (or views of civil servants), this research has attempted to answer the following basic research questions:

1. What common Policy implementation variables and implementation challenges have existed in the subject civil service organizations as perceived by the civil servants?

2. What is the perception/attitude of most civil servants towards the Policy and its implementation?

3. What are the Policy implications/prospects?

1.3 Objectives of the Study

Generally, the research attempted to identify the major Policy implementation variables and implementation challenges that were common in the subject civil service organizations. Specifically, the research has tried to find answers for the listed three (three) Research Questions.

1.4 Significance of the Study

The major contribution of this study is that it would help policy makers and policy stakeholders (like the public, clients of the subject organizations, researchers, press organs, other governmental and non-governmental organizations) to have insight into the implementation state and the implementation challenges of the SDP. More importantly, the outputs of this study would be taken as a policy analysis paper by the Government/Civil Service Reform Program Office, by the subject civil service institutions (executing organizations), and by civil servants to clearly identify the implementation challenges of the Policy and to work together towards the implementation of the Policy in a better manner.

Further, using same framework of this study, future studies would be made to compare the performance and the contemporary challenges of the SDP in the subject civil service organizations and in other Policy executing organizations at Federal, Regional or Local level, as well. Thus, decision makers and concerned officials, at the different levels, could use it to make decisions (policy interventions) which would contribute to the successful execution of the Policy.

In addition to its contribution to enriching the body of knowledge on SDP, policy designers would use it to figure out and to reconsider the major deficiencies and implementation challenges for future problem restructuring and/or to modify the Policy.

1.5 Scope of the Study

In order to observe the achievements of the CSRP (areas of success and failure), it would be more useful to conduct a research on the overall program of the civil service reform. However, because of the broad nature of the Program, this study attempted to find out the implementation problems of the Service Delivery Policy.

Although the study had collected data from clients of the subject organizations, concerned officials in the Civil Service Reform Program Office and concerned officials/leaders in the executing organizations, the largest proportion of data analysis and interpretations of the findings are made with reference to the responses of the civil servants of the subject organizations.

The following institutions, which were selected by the Government for the pilot-testing program, are subjects of this study. The selected institutions for the pilot program were: (1) FDRE, Investment Commission (now Agency); (2) FDRE, Customs Authority; (3) FDRE, Social Security Authority; (4) FDRE, Immigration and Nationality Affairs Main Office; and (5) City

6

Government of Addis Ababa Transport Branch Office. Including the two branches of the Ethiopian Customs Authority (Airport and Kaliti) and the Social Security Addis Ababa Branch Office, thus, subject organizations of this study are seven different organizations.

1.6 Methodology of the Study

Because of the nature of the problem (Policy analysis), descriptive research method and analytical research method were used complementary.

1.6.1 Sources of Data and Data Collection Instruments

Four types of questionnaires were distributed, sequentially, to: Clients of the subject organizations (Questionnaire Type I, collected 419); Civil servants of the subject organizations (Questionnaire Type II, collected 279); Concerned Officials of the subject organizations—managers/directors and section heads of the Reform Offices of the executing institutions (Questionnaire Type III, collected 10); and Officials of the Civil Service Reform Program Office/CSRP-O (Questionnaire Type IV, collected 6). More than 90 percent of the distributed questionnaires were collected from each sample group.

To keep the confidentiality of the subjects’ responses and to increase the credibility of responses (except questionnaires collected from client-subjects), questionnaires from the rest subjects were collected in sealed envelopes.

The following secondary sources were used to complement the primary data: Service Delivery Policy (April 2001); nine (9) main policy-related Government documents (reports/researches); previous researches on the FDRE’s SDP and literature review, specific on Service Delivery Policies/Reforms; and executing organizations’ service delivery baseline survey results, strategic plans and reports related to SDP.

1.6.2 Sampling

Purposeful sampling technique was used to select the five organizations (also the two Branches of Customs Authority and the Addis Ababa Social Security Branch Office) from other governmental institutions. This was done to assess the stage of SDP’s implementation within the selected institutions for the Pilot program, since the introduction of the Policy.

Questionnaires Type I and Type II were distributed randomly to the clients and to the civil servants of the subject organizations, respectively. Nevertheless, for the third and the fourth groups, Questionnaires Type III and IV, respectively, were distributed purposefully because of the limited number of managers and by virtue of the office they held.

1.6.3 Data Analysis

Along the quantitative analysis made for the responses collected from the four groups of respondents, qualitative analysis was incorporated to describe the picture of the Policy from different angles and with reference to the different policy-relevant documents.

Quantitative analysis was made for responses obtained through the questionnaires. Analysis and presentation of the findings from the four respondent groups were made following the sequence of questionnaire distribution/collection (i.e., Clients’ responses, Civil servants’ responses, Officials’ responses from the subject organizations, and finally, Officials’ responses from the Civil Service Reform Program Office).

7

SPSS software was used to analyze the data obtained from the civil servants. For responses of same/similar items (that appeared in all the four types of questionnaires), comparisons were made between/among responses. Frequency tables, pie charts, areagraphs, bargraphs, paretographs, and cross-tables (involving Pearson Chi-square significance test value) were used to display the findings. Along the single frequency (univariate) tables, crosstabulations (2X2 bivariate table analysis) were made to support the analysis and to figure out if relationships (direct or indirect) existed between the two variables (the independent and the dependent variables). A test of statistical independence (Chi-square significance value) was also used to see the relevance or the association between the responses of the items of Questionnaire Type II (filled by the civil servants).

Moreover, it was mandatory to make policy analysis in terms of those Policy statements with which implementation challenges said to exist (revolve around them). For this significance, non-statistical (qualitative) analysis was used as well.

Finally, findings of this study (both quantitative and qualitative aspects), coupled with the broad literature review, conclusions were drawn.

1.7 Limitations of the Study

The research method was neither experimental nor longitudinal, making inferences about causality tentative for each subject organization. Notwithstanding the fact that many intertwine factors influence an organization’s service provision (service standard/quality), as is the case in most public policy researches/analysis, the study used Policy intervention as the study variable. For example, the nature and type of organization can be considered as an implementation variable, as well as a process. However, the identified factors or implementation variables in this study have explanatory and predictive power about SDP’s performance.

Besides, deep investigations were not made on each organization’s: Service delivery-related technical aspects and performances (like evaluation of the mission statement/s, service standards, service delivery plans, analysis of service processes and business process re-engineering works); Implementation of the other Civil Service Reform Sub-programs and parametrically assess their effects on the Policy; and Implementation problems of every Policy statement.

Because it was mandatory to distribute the four types of questionnaires to the four groups of respondents in different sequential times and the extended time respondents had taken to reply the bulky questionnaires, the study could not be completed in the proposed time of reporting.

2 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF MAJOR FINDINGS

2.1 Analysis of Clients’ Responses

In promoting positive attitude toward the public service, the Policy states that civil service institutions are required to:

- develop the culture of courtesy and helpfulness among the staff; - provide as much as possible attractive physical facilities and basic services to service

users; and - design and enforce a system by which service users can easily recognize front-line staff

by name (FDRE, April 2001:10).

8

The Policy further states that in order to facilitate easy access, institutions should take measures to minimize red tape and other undesirable administrative and management practices.

According to the Government document, one of the problems and drawbacks of the Ethiopian civil service in the delivery of services was that the civil servant had not developed positive attitude towards public service to the desired extent (FDRE, April 2001:3). One of the obligations of civil servants (as is explained in the policy itself and in modern service delivery or new public management theories and practices) was the workers’ politeness, readiness and willingness to help their clients or the public. With this regard, improvements had been observed in change of behaviours (in customer handling) from the point of view of the workers as perceived by a number of the many subject organizations.

In four of the subject organizations [CUST (AP), SO.S (FD), SO.S (AA), and INVEST], on average, 75pc of the respondents witnessed their satisfaction regarding the civil servants’ politeness and cooperation and the positive attitudes the civil servants had shown to their customers. In particular to INVEST, almost all the respondents were either satisfied or very satisfied by the behavior of the staff (by their customer handling). This result is also similar to the outcome of the SDS study the Government consultant revealed the attitudes and behaviors of the Commission’s workers in February 2005.

From the responses of the clients of these organizations, it can be said that workers had been recognizing that they were civil servants and were there to serve their customers/the public. Workers of the executing organizations also shared this opinion. However, from the responses of a number of workers of these organizations, more had to be done in creating awareness on the obligations and responsibilities of civil servants or in handling customers and in changing their attitudes (or drawbacks which were identified by the Task Force in the course of developing the Service Delivery Policy) (reported on December 2001).

Table 1 Clients’ observation on the change of the organization’s service standard within the last 2 years

(In percent) CUST (KL) CUST (AP) SO.S (FD) SO.S (AA) IMMIG AARTO INVEST Average 5. Highly improved 2 34 42 36 23 9 18 23 4. Improved 44 44 21 52 31 56 29 40 3. Shown no change 16 5 17 0 9 17 7 10 2. Reduced 28 5 8 8 3 9 0 9 1. Do not know 10 12 12 4 34 9 46 18 0. Missing (in count) 1 13 2 4 20 16 42 14

Clients were also requested to rate the organizations’ service standards/qualities or to indicate whether changes had been observed in the service delivery of the organizations within the last 2 years (since the years 2005/2006, or since the implementation of SDP).

During the times of SDS (which was reported in February 2005), clients of the Ethiopian Customs Authority were asked to evaluate how the service standards of the Authority had shown changes within two years or since the implementation of SDP. In response to how service delivery standards had changed during the previous 24 months, 43pc thought that the standard had shown improvement whereas 24pc thought that service standards had shown little improvement.

As can also be seen from Table 1, 46pc of CUST (KL) clients witnessed that there were changes on the service delivery of the branch within the last two years (since the years 2005/2006). Compared to the ranking responses of clients of the other organizations, these improvements

9

might not be enough to conclude that the branch’s service delivery had shown satisfactory improvements/changes as expected by its clients and as expected by the SDP, as well.

In response to how service delivery standards had changed in the Ethiopian Investment Commission during the previous 24 months, the majority (82pc) of the SDS sampled clients thought the standard had raised. It was also concluded by the SDS researcher that customers seemed highly satisfied with the manner with which the staffs in the Commission interacted with them, combined with a high success rate in meeting clients’ requests for services, relatively quick processing times, and the absence of large crowds and queues (FDRE, February 2005).

Changes in service standards within the last two years were particularly witnessed by the clients of CUST (AP) [78pc] and by the clients of SO.S (AA) [88pc)]. More than half of the clients who replied this item also witnessed as the service standards of SO.S (FD) , IMMIG and AARTO had shown improvements [clients replied ‘highly improved or ‘improved’].

It can be generalized that the service standards of the organizations had shown improvements since the implementation of the Service Delivery Policy in April 2001. However, the results could not guarantee that improvements had been observed or performances had been observed or achieved as desired.

Table 2 Clients’ general rating of organization’s service standards and quality

(In percent) CUST (KL) CUST (AP) SO.S (FD) SO.S (AA) IMMIG AARTO INVEST Average 5. Very good 2 24 42 31 23 11 46 26 4. Good 4 33 25 45 36 20 34 28 3. Average (Fair) 28 26 25 17 32 31 14 25 2. Poor 38 17 4 4 8 27 6 15 1. Very poor 28 0 4 3 1 11 0 7 0. Missing (in count) 1 12 2 0 8 11 5 6

Clients were also asked to generally rate the subject organizations’ service standards and quality. To start from the SDS results of February 2005 (FDRE, February 2005), subjects of this study, the clients, differently rated at the general service standards and quality of the Ethiopian Customs Authority. Of the sampled clients, it was reported that 67pc rated the quality of the Authority’s service as ‘good’ or ‘very good.’ In this study, however, 57pc of the subjects of the CUST (AP) who responded the item (same item to the SDS) rated the general service provision (standard and quality) of the organization as ‘very good’ and ‘good.’ Almost equal per cent of clients of the two custom branches, (CUST (KL) [28pc] and CUST (AP) [26pc], rated the overall service provision of the branches as ‘average.’ Different from other organizations, only 6pc of clients of CUST (KL) who responded the item rated the service standards and quality (service provision) of the branch as ‘average.’ Here, it can be said that the clients of CUST (KL) were dissatisfied by the overall service provision of the branch. Comparison between the responses of the clients of the two branches revealed that clients of CUST (AP) had been better served than clients of CUST (KL).

According to the result of the SDS, all of the sampled respondents rated the quality of service of INVEST as ‘good’ or 'very good,’ with 94pc saying the standard was ‘very good’ and 6pc saying it was ‘good.’ Eighty (80pc) of clients who responded this same item to the SDS study affirmed the overall service provision of the Commission as ‘very good’ or ‘good.’ While 14pc of the respondents rated the level of service standards and quality of the Commission ‘average.’ Only 6pc of them rated it as ‘poor.’ From these two research results of this item, it can be generalized that the Commission was in a better position than the other subject organizations in providing standard and quality services to its clients and had been successfully implementing the SDP throughout all these years (since the implementation of the SDP).

10

Except the 31pc (‘very good’ and ‘good’) ratings of the AARTO, the general service provision of the rest organizations [SO.S (FD) , SO.S (AA) and IMMIG] was perceived as ‘fair’ by clients of the respective organization. Almost equal proportion (30pc) of clients of IMMIG and clients of AARTO rated as the overall service provisions of the two organizations was ‘fair.’ But three-quarter (76pc) of clients of SO.S (AA) rated the service provision of the organization either as ‘very good’ or ‘good’ while a quarter (25pc) of clients of SO.S (FD) rated the Authority’s general service provision as ‘fair/average.’ Sixty-seven per cent of the authority’s clients expressed their satisfaction by the services of the authority indicating either ‘very good’ or ‘good.’ Sixty per cent of the clients of IMMIG perceived as the general service provision (service standards and quality) of the organization was ‘very good’ or ‘good.’ From the analysis of general service provision ratings of the clients of the six subject organizations, with the exception of the CUST (KL), it can be concluded that the service provisions of these organizations had shown improvements since the implementation of the Service Delivery Policy. However, it should be noted, here, that the survey results were indicative of possibilities for bringing more changes and improvements on service standards and qualities in these organizations as was recorded by the Ethiopian Investment Commission.

2.2 Analysis of Civil Servants’ Responses

The responses of civil servants in this section are analyzed following the tabular presentations under each sub-section and also following each table. Analysis for each subject organization civil servants’ responses are placed next to the overall analysis of the responses of the whole sample (civil servants) of the seven subject organizations.

In the many parts of the analysis of this section, only very meaningful and/or significant figures are used to write the discussions. Except the missing (count values), the figures in the tables are percentiles. The crosstabulation analyses are mainly made between independent variables and dependent variables. The lower the significance value, the less likely it is that the two variables are independent (unrelated).

2.2.1 Workers’ years of experience in Government organization/s

About 85pc of the respondents had served in government organization/s for more than 5 (five) years, out of which the majority of them had served for more than 15 (fifteen) years. Therefore, respondents could give their comments and make comparisons regarding service provisions of civil service institutions throughout these times. That is, basing their long years of observations on different regimes’ or governments’ service deliveries, respondents could make comparisons and evaluations on the service delivery of the different regimes and on the service delivery policy (SDP) of this administration.

From the overall responses of the three items (for services in Government organization, current organization and current section/department), thus, a reliable data could be obtained from the workers regarding the implementation of the SDP and the resulting changes in the service delivery/provision of the organizations as observed and perceived by the workers.

2.2.2 Responses related to trainings on service provision and customer handling skills

In promoting positive attitude toward the public service, the Policy states that civil service institutions were required to plan and continuously conduct service user-focused staff training and development programs and ensure cautious recruitment and placement of positive and knowledgeable staff particularly in the frontline and key posts (FDRE, April 2001:10).

11

Except the INVEST and SO.S (FD), most respondents in the other organizations denied that their organization had invited and adequately participated them in service delivery improvement workshops, seminars and trainings. Half of the respondents of these organizations even completely disagreed with the item.

From the crosstabulation analysis it is possible to see the association between civil servants’ participation in service delivery improvement workshops, seminars and trainings and their knowledge of the five-year SDP plans and objectives.

Similar results were obtained for related items presented regarding workers’: knowledge of the five-year SDP plans and objectives; understanding of the SDP; attitude towards the SDP; information on relevant SDP regulations, directives, principles; communication of policies/information on time to workers; and knowledge of the FDRE's SDP.

2.2.3 Workers’ responses regarding the behaviour of civil servants in service provision and customer handling

The Government believes that the ability to bring about this change in the mind-set of service providers would be the most significant challenge of service delivery improvement in Ethiopia (FDRE, April 2001:9).

Asked whether workers had been developing polite ways of treating their customers, 62pc of the total respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they had been developing polite ways of treating their customers since the implementation of the SDP. Of course, one-fifth (21pc) of them less agreed with the statement implying that workers’ behaviour in treating their customers would require improvement.

Those workers who had served relatively for many years in civil service institutions witnessed that workers had been trying to serve the public with good behaviours and had been recogned that they were employed to serve the public. A crosstabulation result also indicates that there existed a direct relationship between the service years of workers and their belief that workers had been changing/adjusting their behaviour in treating and receiving their clients. Overall, there existed a positive association between workers’ recognition of their roles and duties to serve the public and their change of behavior in treating customers.

2.2.4 Workers’ opinions/observations on organization’s overall service provision

In this section, discussions will be made on the organizations’ service provisions or on changes in service provisions of the organizations referring an overall assessment of the civil servants’ observations/opinions.

On average, about 80pc of the respondent workers of the organizations rated ‘good’ or ‘very good’ thinking that their organization had been providing quality services to its customers.

From the area graph, only a few numbers of workers considered their organization’s service provision or service quality as poor or very poor. No worker of the INVEST, SO.S (FD) and SO.S (AA) was against his/her organization’s providing better services to its

Very goodG

oodA

veragePoor

Very poorR

ating of workers' service delivery (quality)

SO.S(AA)SO.S(FED)INVESTCUST(AP)CUST(LA)IMMIGAARTO

ORGANIZATION

302520151050

Cou

nt

302520151050

Cou

nt

302520151050

Cou

nt

302520151050

Cou

nt

302520151050

Cou

nt

12

clients.

Table 3 Progress or changes in service delivery for the last two years

Progress or changes in service delivery for the last two years

AARTO

IMMIG

CUST (LA)

CUST (AP)

INVEST

SO.S (FD)

SO.S (AA)

Row (%)

Cum. (%)

1 No suggestion 5 9 13 14 18 7 17 11 11

2 Deteriorated 0 0 6 10 0 0 7 3 14

3 No improvement 16 14 21 10 0 7 3 11 25

4 Improved 59 20 46 52 32 36 40 41 66

5 Well improved 20 57 13 14 50 50 33 34 100

Valid Count = 260, Missing Count = 19, Median = 4

On average, three-fourth (75pc) of the respondent workers of the organizations believed as their organization’s service delivery had shown improvement in the two years (years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007). Similarly, general service provision ratings of the clients of the six subject organizations, with the exception of the CUST (KL), clients of the five organizations witnessed as the service provisions of these organizations had shown improvements since the implementation of the Service Delivery Policy.

Crosstabulation between—Progress/changes in service delivery for the last two years (Item B) Vs Civil servants years of service in current organization (Item A)—Most civil servants who had been serving for more than five years in their organization believed that progresses had been observed on their organization’s service delivery for the past two-year time (since the implementation of the SDP in their organization). Especially, workers who had been serving in their current organization for a couple of years (i.e., since the implementation of the Service Delivery Policy (SDP) could witness that their organization’s service delivery had been showing progress for the past two years (2006/7). Most workers of the seven subject organizations who had been serving for a couple of years in their current organization largely chose alternatives ‘Improved’ and ‘Well Improved’ for Item B. Because, in sum, those workers who had been serving in the subject organizations for a relatively longer period had observed the changes in the service provision of their organization, it can be inferred that the introduction of the SDP in these organizations could result in the provision of better services to the public. This, however, does not mean that the SDP was being implemented in these organizations as desired/planned or had effected the provision of quality services to the public or to clients of the subject organizations.

2.2.5 Workers’ knowledge about and attitude towards the Service Delivery Policy

Almost no employees of the subject organizations believed that their customers had enough understanding about the implementation of FDRE’s SDP. This shows that it was impossible to create about (or to communicate clients about) the implementation of the SDP by the executing organizations or by any other responsible government body.

The Ethiopian Government believes that effective implementation of the Policy requires that all civil servants, service users and other concerned bodies to have sufficient understanding of the objectives and content of the policy as well as the underlying concepts and principles.

Workers were also asked whether they had specifically known the five-year SDP plans and objectives. Only 13pc of the total workers of the seven organizations agreed or strongly agreed to the statement that most workers knew or were communicated by their organization about the

13

five-year SDP plans and objectives.

The crosstabulation analysis also shows that there is a direct relationship between civil servants’ participation in service delivery improvement workshops, seminars and trainings and their knowledge of the five-year SDP plans and objectives. Also, there appears to be an association between timely communication of policies and information on time by the management and workers’ knowledge of service delivery. There was also a relationship between civil servants’ attitude towards the CSRP (the SDP and their knowledge about the SDP. There appears to be an association between the attitudes of workers towards SDP and their belief in the possibility of providing effective service to the public by effectively implementing the SDP.

Table 4 Workers’ understanding of the CSRP (especially the SDP)

Most workers have good understanding about the CSRP (especially the SDP).

AARTO

IMMIG

CUST (LA)

CUST (AP)

INVEST

SO.S (FD)

SO.S (AA)

Row (%)

Cum. (%)

0 Difficult to respond 11 13 7 12 6 11 10 10 10

1 Strongly disagree 11 3 25 12 3 14 10 12 22

2 Disagree 23 10 27 29 16 17 29 21 43

3 Less agree 40 42 32 24 29 25 29 32 75

4 Agree 9 29 9 24 32 31 24 21 96

5 Strongly agree 6 3 0 0 13 3 0 4 100

Valid Count = 215, Missing Count = 64, Median = 4

Further, responses for the item confirm as most workers had little understanding of the CSRP (especially the SDP). Only 45pc of the respondents of INVEST agreed or strongly agreed that most workers had the understanding about the Civil Service Reform Program of the FDRE and particularly the Service Delivery Policy or Reform.

From the foregoing results, it could be possible to infer that workers would be unable to effectively and rightly implement government policies, directives and strategies unless they had carefully and clearly understood them. Rather, misunderstanding or little understanding of the policies, directives, strategies, tactics, etc. would result in confusion and challenges during actual implementation by civil servants, majority of whom the respondents of this study were non-managerial workers and had direct contact with clients in their respective organization.

According to the crosstabular results civil servants believed that adequate communication of laws/proclamations, regulations and principles of the SDP would help them in understanding the SDP in a better way. From the results, it can be concluded that thorough induction and explanation of the Policy to civil servants would have effects in developing positive attitude towards the CSRP/SDP and to get better cooperation from the part of the civil servant in the course of Policy implementation.

Workers need to carefully understand policies in order to correctly evaluate the appropriateness and the outcomes of these policies. Though the responses of the civil servants about their understanding of the CSRP, especially the SDP, seemed to be generally inadequate, on average of the largest (30pc) proportion of the respondents of the subject organizations agreed that most of the civil servants had positive attitude towards the CSRP (especially the SDP). However, about 28pc of the respondents less agreed (less agreed) with the statement.

The two variables (Civil servants’ attitude towards the CSRP/the SDP Vs Civil servants’ understanding of the CSRP/SDP crosstabulation indicate that the degree of Policy knowledge level of civil servants could significantly influence their belief about and

14

cooperation/commitment for its implementation. In addition, it was implied that thorough induction and explanation of the Policy to civil servants would have effects in developing positive attitude towards the CSRP/SDP and to get better cooperation from the part of the civil servant in the course of Policy implementation. A Pearson Chi-Square, significance test value of 0.000, of the two items (Item B and Item A) also shows as there is a relationship between the responses of the two items—Possibility to provide effective service to the public by effectively implementing the SDP (Item B) Vs Civil servants’ attitude towards SDP’s implementation (Item A).

Table 5 Workers’ attitude towards the implementation of the SDP

Workers have good attitude towards the implementation of the SDP.

AARTO

IMMIG

CUST (LA)

CUST (AP)

INVEST

SO.S (FD)

SO.S (AA)

Row (%)

Cum. (%)

0 Difficult to respond 18 13 11 18 6 19 16 14 14

1 Strongly disagree 3 3 18 12 3 5 11 8 22

2 Disagree 6 10 18 12 23 5 0 11 33

3 Less agree 39 17 32 35 29 27 26 29 62

4 Agree 24 37 16 18 26 35 42 27 89

5 Strongly agree 9 20 5 6 13 8 5 9 98

Valid Count = 211, Missing Count = 68, Median = 4

From the result of Table 5, almost 62pc of the workers of the subject organizations either strongly disagreed, or disagreed, or less agreed with the statement or could not certainly comment on the attitudes of workers towards the implementation of the SDP. It is possible to say that failure to adequately accomplish primary activities, such as making consultations on the Policy and its implementation with the main implementers of the Policy/civil servants and making manifestations on the necessity and appropriateness of the Policy by responsible bodies could make the civil servants to be suspicious of the Policy and its implementation.

Civil servants also noted that failure to integrate the service delivery sub-program with the other civil service sub-programs and failure to implement all policy strategies and other service delivery policy relevant projects simultaneously, such as rewarding best performers, performance-based compensation system, trainings and developments had resulted in dissatisfaction and suspicion on the part of many civil servants.

It is a fact and also mentioned in the Policy itself that common consensus on the policy particulars and on implementation of policies by the actual implementers was mandatory for gaining support from civil servants and ultimately for the successful implementations of public policies. Contrary to this fact, however, most subject workers in the civil service system had not even developed positive attitudes toward the SDP and its implementation. Lack of cooperation from the actual implementers of public policies usually appeared for many reasons such as lack of clear understanding of policies (policy statements, implementation tools, directives, strategies, outcomes/objectives, etc.).

The area graph clearly depicts, except the workers of the IMMIG, not satisfactory number of workers of the subject organizations had good attitude towards the implementation of the SDP.

Stronglyagree

Agree

Lessagree

Disagree

Stronglydisagree

Difficult

torespond

Workers have good attitude tow

ards the implem

entation ofthe SD

P.

SO.S(AA)SO.S(FED)INVESTCUST(AP)CUST(LA)IMMIGAARTO

ORGANIZATION

12

8

4

0

Cou

nt

12

8

4

0

Cou

nt

12

8

4

0

Cou

nt

12

8

4

0

Cou

nt

12

8

4

0

Cou

nt

12

8

4

0

Cou

nt

15

2.2.6 Workers’ observations on and attitudes towards the implementation of the Service Delivery Policy (SDP)

Response analysis on opinions of the subject civil servants are made specific to the purpose of the study, such as the evaluations of civil servants on the CSRP, the SDP and the BPR works and the implementation/success of the SDP as well.

Table 6 Progress or changes in the organizations’ service delivery for the last two years

Progress or changes in service delivery for the last two years

AARTO

IMMIG

CUST (LA)

CUST (AP)

INVEST

SO.S (FD)

SO.S (AA)

Row (%)

Cum. (%)

1 No suggestion 5 9 13 14 18 7 17 11 11

2 Deteriorated 0 0 6 10 0 0 7 3 14

3 No improvement 16 14 21 10 0 7 3 11 25

4 Improved 59 20 46 52 32 36 40 41 66

5 Well improved 20 57 13 14 50 50 33 34 100

Valid Count = 260, Missing Count = 19, Median = 4

The two highest proportions of the responses for the item of the above table were ‘well improved’ and ‘improved.’ Workers witnessed as tangible/observable progresses had been observed in the provisions of the services in their respective organizations for the last two years (2005/6 to 2006/7). This means that these tangible changes in the service delivery had resulted because of the implementation of the SDP in the subject organizations.

As can also be seen from the area graph on the right, almost no workers had replied that the service provision of their organization had been deteriorating for the past two years. Therefore, the implementation the Service Delivery Policy in these organizations had been bringing positive results in the provision of services to the public whether the desired outcomes which were stated in the Policy document were achieved or not.

Clients’ observation on the change of the organizations’ service standard within the last 2 years also witnessed as there were improvements in the service provisions of the subject organizations.

From the similar and closely related crosstabulation results of the respective variables and their 0.00 significance value, it can be generalized that there is direct relationship between civil servants’ knowledge of the SDP, their attitude towards the SDP and its implementation and their belief in the possibility of providing better services by implementing the Policy in a continuous and appropriate manner—civil servants’ attitude towards the CSRP (the SDP) Vs civil servants’ knowledge about the SDP; civil servants’ attitude towards the CSRP (the SDP) Vs civil servants’ understanding of the CSRP/the SDP; possibility to provide effective service to the public by effectively implementing the SDP Vs civil servants’ attitude towards the CSRP/the SDP; and possibility to provide effective service to the public by effectively implementing the SDP Vs civil servants’ attitude towards SDP’s implementation.

Well im

provedIm

provedN

oim

provement

Deteriorated

No suggestion

Progress or changes in service delivery for the last two

years

SOC.S.(AA)SOC.S.(FED)INVESTCUST.A.(AP)CUST.A(LA)IMMIGRAARTO

ORGANIZATION

10.0%8.0%6.0%4.0%2.0%0.0%

Perc

ent

10.0%8.0%6.0%4.0%2.0%0.0%

Perc

ent

10.0%8.0%6.0%4.0%2.0%0.0%

Perc

ent

10.0%8.0%6.0%4.0%2.0%0.0%

Perc

ent

10.0%8.0%6.0%4.0%2.0%0.0%

Perc

ent

16

2.2.7 Summary of civil servants’ responses to the ‘open-ended’ questions on overall SDP implementation

In this section, the responses of the open-ended items were coded and summarized for similar/closely related responses and are presented in their ascending order depending on the number of the frequencies given.

In addition to mentioning the common dissatisfaction causes (poor compensation scheme/benefits/services), server capacity limitation, inadequate financial resources and work facilities, subject workers had mentioned the following problems which could have hindered the implementation of the Policy:

- Lack of proper monitoring and evaluation of the Policy; - Problem of reporting on routing activities rather than on the actual implementation of the

Policy; - Difficulty of executing the Policy in a continued manner; - Poor compensation compared to the workload; - Setting inappropriate evaluation factors/parameters for Policy implementation; - Imposition of the Policy on the civil servants; - Lack of awareness of the civil servants about the policy and its requirements; - Existence of unsought implementation problems; - Requirement of large sum of money and time for Policy implementation and the related

limitations; - Lack of commitment from managers to properly implement the Policy; - Difficulty and problems in implementing Result-oriented System and its resultant effect

on the SDP implementation; - Difficulty of implementing the Policy in an integrated manner with the rest sub-

programs/reforms; - Lack of awareness of clients regarding their rights and obligations; - Absence of consultation with clients on service provisions with the organization; - Difficulty of differentiating work from political feelings; and - Past wrong mentality and perceptions of public service provision (both by civil servants

and clients).

It was possible to observe that most front-line workers of all organizations (except the INVEST) were busy serving their clients. It was also possible to witness that these workers had been working in stress. Even, most subject civil servants who were working, particularly in the IMMIG and AARTO, had returned the distributed questionnaires after a month time because of the over workload.

In addition, a number of workers had orally explained that lack of rewards (especially absence of adequate financial rewards) could be taken as the major source of dissatisfaction, which would harm their work motivation and diligence, would also hinder them to whole heartedly accept of the Policy and have a greater influences on the implementation of the Policy.

In the end of the questionnaire, workers gave response to two open-ended items: to suggest some improvement areas of the civil service reform and the service delivery policy (itself); and to give some advice how to better implement the Service Delivery Policy. Most respondents provided almost similar answers for both questions, mainly providing possible solutions for the effective implementation of the Policy such as:

- providing the right compensation, benefits and services to the civil servant immediately;

17

- evaluating the performance of workers continuously and frequently; - motivating high achievers (workers and/or organizations); - revising Result-Oriented system which have discouraged workers and affected the

implementation of the SDP; - focusing on outcomes rather than on fault finding in order to develop a positive attitude

towards the Policy by the civil servant; - refilling positions by the right/qualified persons, not only political appointees

(assignment only by merit); - providing training on the Policy (not only to managers, but also to implementing

workers); - creating more understanding to induce the civil servants accept the Policy; - creating enough exposures and giving opportunities to workers to understand the Policy; - creating more awareness about the Policy and communicating on service-requirements to

clients using media; - encouraging clients to present their complaints and ask their rights; - building the capacity of the policy implementers aggressively and continually till getting

the required qualified civil servants if it is intended to provide quality service to the public;

- creating and developing mutual trust between Government and civil servants; - consulting bottom line (front-line) workers in policy design and policy implementation; - differentiating politics from service provision and assigning only qualified managers for

the work; - developing systems of transparency and accountability; - assigning appropriate and optimal amount of jobs to workers and providing enough time

to internalize the Policy; - getting clear and final consensus from workers on the Policy and getting their agreement

before trying to implement the Policy; - assigning qualified personnel who are just and solely responsible for the implementation

of the Policy, who should not perform other office/routine or administrative matters of their organization;

- making advance preparation and consultation regarding integrated service provision between responsible bodies and organizations;

- extensively using and providing information communication technology (ICT) based services while integrating related services of different offices of the same organization and integrating other inter-dependent organizations;

- developing implementable plans and contextual policies by organizations regarding their service provisions;

- implementing the SDP in a sustainable manner, not taking it as a one time activity or campaign;

- improving the implementation of the policy by revising and making compatible to situations particular to each executing organization;

- distributing clear and easily understandable policies and work procedures; - distributing copies of the policy and policy-related document to each worker for his/her

daily reference and policy assimilation; - clearly re-stating the SDP to show its relationship with other policies and its integration

with the other sub-programs; - continually solving implementation problems and giving corrections; - revising the policy in terms of time, money and commitments; - redesigning the Policy considering the Country’s development stage and facts; - rewriting a policy which is totally free of political interests/influences; - preparing neutral (unbiased) reports on the stages of implementation of SDP and the

service qualities to the public;

18

- taking best practices of other Countries’ experiences in service provisions and service delivery policy development and execution; and

- not only executing organizations, but also the Government should closely follow-up the implementation of the policy and should support its execution both technically and financially.

Some of the above suggestions were specific to a subject organization’s work-related and administrative problems while some others are policy-related solution for better implementation of the SDP and even some others were totally different from the philosophies of SDP or in a different direction as opposing the policy statements, implementation directives, tactics and strategies of the FDRE’s Service Delivery Reform.

It was also evident that more than half of the civil servants who completed the questionnaires either had not given responses to the open ended questions and/or expressed that they had no enough knowledge to provide further explanations/reasons about the Policy and the challenges faced in its implementation. Thus, it is possible to say that the most members of the civil service, especially the front-line workers, had not well understood the policy statements, the requirements, the directives, the tactics and its strategies and the expected outcomes. How can an implementer who has not understood and who has not been well communicated about the policy successfully implement the policy and properly tell/witness about issues concerning it?

It would not also be possible, to expect analytical assessment about the appropriateness of the SDP and to get the possible right suggestions for the better/proper/successful implementation of the SDP from the civil servant who has not actually known the objectives of the Policy and his/her obligations/roles in implementing it.

2.2.8 Overall Interpretation

Because of the broad analysis of the data collected from the four respondent groups and the number of implementation variables, it is necessary to give a concise picture about the nature of the problems or implementation challenges of the Policy by way of classifying them into 4 (four) main themes (challenge areas).

1. Policy Communication and Awareness/Knowledge 2. Policy Requirements—Inputs/Resources and Capacity 3. Policy Executing Civil Service Institutions 4. Policy Implementers (Civil Servants)

1 Policy Communication and Awareness/Knowledge

Civil servants (actual implementers of the SDP) were required/trying to implement the Policy without having the required awareness and knowledge of the Policy, which the Policy itself clearly stated that active participation of the civil servants was the primary and the mandatory factor in order to effectively implement it. Compared to what was stated in the Policy, Policy related activities in communicating, in creating awareness/understanding of the Policy and in bringing the required behavioural changes were very minimal leaving the largest proportion of the civil servants (particularly the front-line workers) to execute a Policy which they did not thoroughly understand. Induction and explanation of the Policy to civil servants would have effects in developing positive attitude towards the CSRP/SDP. Failure to do so and lack of inadequate communication in turn had adversely influenced attitudes of workers towards the Policy and their belief in the possibility of providing better service to the public by implementing the SDP in an effective way.

19

It is also possible to conclude that workers would be unable to implement government policies, directives and strategies effectively and rightly if they did not understand cautiously and clearly. Misunderstanding or little understanding of the policies, directives, strategies, tactics, etc. would inevitably result in confusion and creating challenges during actual implementation by civil servants as the majority of the respondents of this study were non-managerial workers who had direct contact with clients in their respective organization.

There existed a direct association between civil servants’ understanding/knowledge of the CSRP (especially the SDP) and their attitude towards the CSRP /the SDP. However, failure to accomplish primary activities adequately, such as making consultations on the Policy and its implementation with the main implementers of the Policy (civil servants) and making successful manifestations on the necessity and appropriateness of the Policy by responsible bodies could have made the civil servants to be suspicious of the Policy and its implementation.

Most members of the civil service, especially the front-line workers, had not carefully understood the policy statements, the requirements, the directives, the tactics and the strategies of the policy and the expected outcomes. How come an implementer who has not understood and who has not been well communicated about a policy would successfully implement the policy and properly tell/witness policy related issues? This would not surely help to get the possible right suggestions for the better/proper/successful implementation of the SDP from the civil servant who did not certainly know the objectives of the Policy and his/her obligations/roles in implementing it. Degree of knowledge of civil servants could significantly influence their belief about and their cooperation/commitment for the better implementation of the Policy. Therefore, it can be concluded that thorough induction and explanation of the Policy to civil servants would have effects in developing positive attitude towards the CSRP/SDP and then to get better cooperation from the part of the civil servant in the course of Policy implementation. Thus, the level of understanding about the objectives/expectations of the Policy and the measurement of its execution by the four types of respondents (including clients of the subject organization) were different. Lack of adequate participation of workers in planning, implementation and evaluation of the service delivery policy had resulted in lack of understanding of the Policy. Furthermore, along other implementation problems, this failure would not help workers to develop positive attitudes towards the SDP and its implementation.

It is clear to anyone that thorough induction and explanation about the Policy, at least to the actual Policy implementers (civil servants), would have positive effects in developing positive attitudes toward the Service Delivery Policy and in getting cooperation in an effort of implementing the Policy in a better way.

2 Policy Requirements—Inputs/Resources and Capacity

Those problems and necessary conditions and Policy inputs which were identified by Government and by former researches on SDP were still lacking or not available for successful Policy implementation. After all these years, capacity limitations (both individual and institutional) and poor compensation scheme were cited as the major reasons for the dissatisfactions of the majority of the civil servants which have had negative implications (adverse effects) in the implementation of the SDP. These reward-related dissatisfaction causes had resulted high turnover rate of staff from the executing institutions, including staff from the main government policy executing responsible unit, even. To the contrary, however, civil servants of this study revealed that employees had been recognizing that they were civil servants to serve the public and had been developing polite ways of receiving and providing services to their respective organizations. If these problems continue to exist, it will certainly question the implementation of the Policy in a better and in a sustainable manner.

20

According to the Government’s Policy document, one of the problems and drawbacks of the Ethiopian civil service in the delivery of services was that resource constraints could not let the civil service institutions improve their services to the desired level. Problems related to finance and other resources had existed in all of the subject organizations. It was found out that successful implementation of the Policy would be possible only when such resources were provided to the implementers adequately. Then, it can be concluded that like the human resource-related (capacity and motivation) problems, resources for the Policy/service delivery could be mentioned as major challenges for the successful implementation of the Policy.

On no other variable does the analytic literature on service delivery policy implementation seem as unanimous as on the need for effective implementation capacity. This study identified capacity as a key variable even more overwhelmingly. The Task Force (of the Government) report also revealed the existence of an overall system failure in the civil service was also manifested because of the poorly trained and demoralized staff and the inadequate and/or inappropriate skills among managers and staffs. These problems could also be taken as the major ones affecting the civil servants role in implementing the Policy or in providing quality services to their clients. It is not surprising that almost all workers had expressed their training needs on the areas of customer handling, work-related problem solving, ICT/computer application, and/or Reform related areas so that they would improve their service delivery and work competency.

3 Policy Executing Civil Service Institutions

As witnessed by both subject clients and civil servants, among the seven subject organizations, INVEST was in a better position for providing standard and quality services to its clients and implementing the SDP in a better way throughout all these years (since the implementation of the SDP). Those detailed directives and strategies of the policy were not even being applied by all sections of each organization equally and uniformly. This varying level of implementation of the Policy clearly indicates that implementation variables seemed to be contextual. Variations in the level of implementation in the seven subject organizations (even in the two branches of the Customs Authority) were evident because of a number of organization-specific issues, such as staff competency, institutional capacity, resources, number/qualification of staff, number of clients to be served, structure and size of the organization and many other reasons.

Although the majority of the respondents believed that better results had been observed in the service delivery of their organization since the implementation of the Policy, not a few number of civil servants had expressed their doubt that better services would have been provided to the public by effective implementation of the Policy. This result indicates the existence of implementation challenges in the course of implementing the Policy.

Even though it was believed by the majority of civil servants of these organizations that improvements had resulted because of the Policy intervention, this does not mean that the SDP had been under implementation in these organizations as desired/planned or had effected the provision of quality services to the public or to clients of the subject organizations. Similarly, almost none of the concerned officials in the executing organizations and none of the CSRP-O agreed that the policy outcomes or policy performance indicators of the SDP were achieved as desired. This again means that the Policy was not implemented satisfactorily as evaluated by these respondents. Despite this fact, the Government had not made the right policy interventions for improved achievements of the Policy objectives and/or for better policy execution/performance.

To conclude, even if the most parts of the Policy outcomes were not achieved, it is possible to surely say that implementation of the Service Delivery Policy in these organizations had been

21

bringing positive results in the provision of better services to the public. Thus, had it been possible to identify and give remedies to implementation challenges and variables by both the Government and the executing organizations timely, better improvements would have been clearly seen in public service provision.

Absence of sound and transparent performance evaluation and appraisal system in the organization had its own contribution in dissatisfying workers as this cause of dissatisfaction, as a result, would adversely have affected civil servants’ provision of services to their clients. Denial of workers’ expectations in rewarding best performers or outstanding performers in the organization would not let workers show commitments and efforts for the provision of services as satisfying as possible or as desired. It is evident that if appropriate actions were taken in the design and implementation of compensation scheme, civil servants’ commitment and cooperation would be more likely for the better implementation of the Policy.

Achievements and acceptance of BPR work in the seven-subject organization were different either because of workers’ attitudes towards the BPR or because of the appropriateness of the design and the implementation of the BPR initial work. Although BPR works were not actually done by involving employees, in general, more than half of the subject civil servants (and also all subject ‘officials in charge’ in the executing organizations and officials in the CSRP-O) believed that re-engineering was useful in facilitating work and providing better services to the public. Thus, BPR work, if done in a better and refined way, would largely help the implementation of the Policy and the provision of better/quality services to the public.

Insufficient co-ordination of policy implementation and failure to execute the Human Resource Management Reform Sub-program simultaneously with the SDP had significantly hampered implementation of the latter. With regards to the diagonal effects of the implementation of the other Sub-programs on the SDP, particularly of Result-oriented System and the Performance-based Compensation scheme were the major causes for civil servants’ dissatisfaction and even had resulted in turnover of skilled personnel from the executing organizations. This obviously had its own negative impacts on the implementation of the Policy and the delivery of quality services to the Public. Civil servants also noted that failure to integrate the service delivery sub-program with the other civil service sub-programs and failure to implement all policy strategies and other service delivery policy-relevant activities simultaneously, such as rewarding best performers, performance-based compensation system, trainings and developments had resulted dissatisfaction and scepticism on the part of most civil servants. In particular, the late and improper execution of the Human Resource Management Reform Sub-program would result high turnover of qualified staff.

In not few areas/cases, the effectiveness of the Service Delivery Reform Sub-program had suffered from the ineffective implementation of the other Reform Sub-programs (especially the Human Resource Management Sub-program, particularly the result-oriented and the Performance-based pay systems). Thus, there was a need to ensure that the Policy work was coordinated and sequenced effectively.

4 Policy Implementers (Civil Servants)

The lessons of implementation literature are straightforward: successful policy making is difficult, and its challenges are exacerbated by complexity. Human services will always be the most difficult case. Related to this fact, another key finding from the actual policy implementers was that SDP’s implementation had suffered from the absence of a people driven process. It was evident that the increasing imbalances in wages between the public (executing institutions) and private sector, leading to a brain-drain from the public sector. This was also true for positions

22

that were held by staff mainly responsible for the reform programs, the executing organizations and for staff of the CSRP-O, as well. The high turnover rate and the frequent shifting of staff would have negative impacts in reform execution—leaving the executing institutions and the CSRP-O from getting the advantage of policy learning in the course of implementation activities (policy-execution, monitoring, evaluation and restructuring).

Highly motivated and qualified employees are the key elements in public policy implementation. For one or another reason, it was evident that including Government appointees, there was high turnover of skilled professionals who were largely responsible for the close execution of the Service Delivery Policy and/or the Civil Service Reform Program. Surprisingly, this was also a fact in the main responsible body which was established by the Government for the execution of the Policy—the Civil Service Reform Program Office under the Ministry of Capacity Building.

According to the Government document, one of the problems and drawbacks of the Ethiopian civil service in the delivery of services was that the civil servants had not developed positive attitude towards public service to the desired extent (FDRE, April 2001:3). With this regard, change of behaviour (in customer handling) could be observed from the part of the workers as perceived by the majority of the clients. Half of the subject workers also shared this opinion while other half of them did not believe that most workers had positive attitudes towards their clients. Contrary to the workers’ response, sampled officials in CSRP-O shared the latter respondents’ opinion that it would not be possible to say that most workers in the public organization had considered themselves as civil servants and had been developing the necessary awareness about public service provision. This level of variation indicated as more had to be done in creating awareness on the obligations and responsibilities of civil servants, in handling customers and changing their attitudes. In another token, those workers who had served relatively for many years in civil service institutions witnessed that workers had been trying to serve the public showing good behaviours and had recognized that they were employed to serve the public. Therefore, it can be concluded that there existed a direct relationship between the service years of workers and their beliefs that workers had been changing their behaviour in treating/receiving their clients. These results clearly showed that not all workers in the civil service had unanimously revealed that most civil servants were serving the public honestly and diligently, as one of the primary requirements to work in the civil service.

Response variations were also evident in obligations of civil servants in implementing Government Policies, in that about 60pc of workers of AARTO, IMMIG, and SO.S (A.A) confirmed that as long as they were working in government offices, civil servants had to implement government policies whether they accepted them or not. On average, only about half (53pc) of the sampled workers believed that civil servants had obligations to implement government policies. Not a few numbers of the workers of the organizations did not certainly know that they were required to implement government policies whole-heartedly as long as they are pare of the civil service. In addition, based on their responses for the other items, it is possible to say that enough awareness had not been made by the executing organization on the workers’ obligation of implementing SDP. Surprisingly, no clear or measurable resistance had been observed from the part of the civil servants on the implementation of the Policy because of lack of confidence in the Policy itself.

Almost the same observations and opinions were made by all types of subjects (workers/civil servants, ‘officials in charge in the executing organizations’ and ‘officials in the CSRP-O’) about civil servants’ understanding/knowledge of the SDP, attitude towards the Policy and its implementation. Overall, officials in charge of the executing organization seemed optimist than officials of the CSRP-O for the responses given for these items—for items on civil servants’ knowledge/understanding of the SDP; attitude towards the Policy and its implementation. It is

23

impossible to say that most workers of the subject organizations had the required knowledge/understanding of the Policy, or developed positive attitudes towards the CSRP/especially the Service Delivery Policy/ and its implementation. However, most respondents believed that some progresses had been observed since the implementation of the Policy. Including those who did not respond that civil servants had good understanding of the Policy and those who had doubts on the implementation of the Policy, the majority of the respondents witnessed that improvements had resulted in service provision since the implementation of the Policy in their organization started.

As has been indicated in the Policy itself general consensus on the policy particulars and its implementation by the actual implementers was mandatory for gaining support from civil servants and/or for the successful implementations of the Reform. Contrary to this fact, however, most subject workers in the civil service system had not even developed positive attitudes toward the SDP and its implementation. Usually, lack of cooperation from the actual implementers of public policies might have resulted from many factors such as lack of clear understanding of policies (policy statements, implementation tools, directives, strategies, outcomes/objectives, etc.) and observed problems of implementation.

3 CONCLUSIONS

Though there existed complex and many socio-cultural, political and resource/economic problems in the country during the execution of the reforms of the civil service (also the Service Delivery Policy/Reform Sub-program) and though the reform measures were too comprehensive and seemed ambitious, it was possible to observe some improvements as the result of the Policy intervention.

In all the subject organizations, improvements were observed on the institutions’ delivery of services, on the behavior of civil servants and on their clients. It is possible to say that executing organizations started developing annual plans for service provisions, set service objectives, tried to set service standards and worked towards the implementation of plans. Efforts were also made to develop a sense of civil service on the part of the workers. Some improvements were observed on the behavior of civil servants in recognizing their roles as civil servants (to serve the public), in changing their attitudes towards their clients and in handling their clients in a better manner. Recognizing/fear of accountability, workers had shown commitments to complete their work duties or assignments in given times. Although it could not be said the Policy had resulted positive reactions or accepted behaviours on the part of the civil servants, after the introduction of the Policy, workers seemed to be punctual, were engaging in their work and try to provide better services to their clients.

Certain behaviours could also be observed on the part of the public or some clients of the organizations. Clients were beginning to request their rights and make their complaints on organizations’ service provision. Sometimes, some clients of the executing organizations were willing to comment on service delivery issues and even suggesting how they would prefer to get the services from public organizations. Although these improvements were resulted because of the Policy (intervention), the Policy could not be implemented successfully or as desired.

This study has identified the following major policy implementation challenge-areas (causes): (1) sever capacity limitations (individual as well as institutional); (2) staff dissatisfaction (related to compensation); (3) lack of resources (especially financial) for Policy execution; (4) inadequate policy communication and discussion among the civil servants about the Policy; and (5) suspicious civil servants about the Policy and its implementation.

24

To conclude, even if the set Policy objectives (expected outcomes) were not achieved as desired and/or there existed Policy under-performance, it can be surely said implementation of the Policy in these organizations had been bringing positive results in the provision of better services to the public. Thus, had it been possible to identify and give timely remedies for the figured out Policy implementation problems by this study, better improvements would have resulted in public service provision. To this end, unless the right policy interventions are taken to the identified problems, the unsolved problems further will certainly put in question the implementation of the Policy in a better and in a sustainable manner, which may even cause policy reversal in time.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adamolekun, L. et al. 1996. ``Political Transition, Economic Liberalization and Civil Service Reform In Malawi'', Paper Presented at Conference of IASIA, Durban, South Africa. Available from: <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com> [Accessed January 21 2008]

Alford, J. 1993. “Towards a New Public Management Model: Beyond Managerialism and Its Critics”, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 52, (pp: 135–148). Available from: <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com> [Accessed August 10 2008]

Atreya, Binod and Anona Armstrong. 2002. “Evaluation Of The Applicability of NPM Reforms To Developing Countries: A Case from Nepal”, Victoria School of Management, Working Paper Series, Victoria University of Technology Melbourne, Australia, Working Paper 17. Available from: <http://www.business.vu.edu.au> [Accessed January 05 2007]

Batley, Richard. Jan 2004. “The Politics of Service Delivery Reform”, Development and Change, Vol. 35, Issue 1, (pp: 31-56). Available from: <www.blackwellsynergy.com> [Accessed January 1 2008]

Benton, J. Edwin. Jul 2002. “County Service Delivery: Does Government Structure Matter?” Public Administration Review, Vol. 62, Issue 4, (pp: 471-479). Available from: <www.blackwellsynergy.com> [Accessed January 30 2008]

Bovaird, Tony and Robert Hughes. 1995. "Re-engineering Public Sector Organizations: A Case Study of radical change in British Local Authority", International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 61, (pp: 355-372). Available from: <http://unpan1.un.org > [Accessed December 30 2007]

Brynard, Petrus A. December 2005. “Harnessing The Partnership Of The Public And Non-State Sectors For Sustainable Development And Good Governance In Africa: Problems And The Way Forward (Topic: Policy Implementation: Lessons For Service Delivery)”, African Association for Public Administration and Management: 27th AAPAM Annual Roundtable Conference, Livingstone, Zambia 5th – 9th, (pp: 3, 49, 135). Available from: <http://unpan1.un.org > [Accessed December 30 2007]

Chalmers, Jim and Glyn Davis. June 2001. “Rediscovering Implementation: Public Sector Contracting and Human Services,” Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 60, Issue 2, (pp: 74-85). Available from: <www.blackwellsynergy.com> [Accessed February 23 2007]

Chane, Paulos. 2000. “Civil Service Reform in Ethiopia: Problems and Prospects”, Regional and Local Development Studies (RLDS) Working Paper, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa. (p.57).

25

Chase, R.B. and Bowen, D.E. 1991. Service Quality and the Service Delivery System. In S.W. Brown, E. Gummesson, B. Edwardsson, & B. Gustavsson (Eds.), Service Quality. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. (pp: 157–178). Available from: <www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight> [Accessed May 10 2007]

Coplin, William D. 1975. Introduction to the Analysis of Public Policy Issues from a Problem-Solving Perspective. New York: Learning Resources in International Studies.

Corkery, J. et al. 1998. Management of Public Service Reform: A Comparative Review of Experiences in the Management of Programmes of Reform of the Administrative Arm of Central Government. Amsterdam: IOS Press. (pp: 1, 14).

Dada, Joseph O. December 2006. “Motivating the Public Service for Improved Service Delivery”, African Association for Public Administration and Management, 4th – 8th. Available from: <http://unpan1.un.org > [Accessed May 10 2007]

Draper, Gordon M. October 2001. “The Civil Service in Latin America and The Caribbean: Situation and Future Challenges: The Caribbean Perspective”, Inter-American Development Bank Regional Policy Dialogue, Public Policy Management and Transparency Civil Service, (pp: 18-22). Available from: <http://idbdocs.iadb.org > [Accessed May 14 2007]

Dunn, William N.1994. Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall: New Jersey. (pp: 2, 15-16, 20-26, 70, 196, 335, 405-406).

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE), Ministry of Capacity Building. Civil Service Reform Program Office. K2-TECHTOP CONSULT LTD, Management & Information Technology Consultants. February 2005. Service Delivery Survey for the Ethiopian Investment Commission. Addis Ababa: Civil Service Reform Program Office

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). Ministry of Capacity Building. December 2001. Service Delivery Policy Sub-Program—Performance and Follow-up Reports. Vol. I /English-Amharic Version/. Addis Ababa: Ministry of Capacity Building

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). Ministry of Capacity Building. Task Force Report. December 2001. Research Results on the Ethiopian Public Administration and Public Service Delivery: Actions Taken Based on the Findings and Plans for Actions /Amharic Version/. Addis Ababa: Ministry of Capacity Building

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). Ministry of Capacity Building. Civil Service Reform Program Office. K2-TECHTOP CONSULT LTD, Management & Information Technology Consultants. February 2005. Service Delivery Surveys in Ten Federal Institutions and Three Regional Governments. Addis Ababa: Civil Service Reform Program Office

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). Ministry of Capacity Building. Civil Service Reform Program Office. K2-TECHTOP CONSULT LTD, Management & Information Technology Consultants. February 2005. Service Delivery Survey for the Ethiopian Customs Authority. Addis Ababa: Civil Service Reform Program Office

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). Ministry of Capacity Building. Civil Service Reform Program Office. K2-TECHTOP CONSULT LTD, Management & Information Technology Consultants. September 2004. Manual for Conducting Service Delivery Surveys

26

in the Ethiopian Civil Service. Addis Ababa: Civil Service Reform Program Office

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). Ministry of Information. February 2002. Strategies and Programs for Capacity Building /English-Amharic Version/. Addis Ababa: Ministry of Information

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). April 2001. National Capacity Building Program: Civil Service Reform Sub-program /Draft Report/. Addis Ababa

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). April 2001. Service Delivery Policy in the Civil Service. Addis Ababa

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). December 2002. Directive for Handling Service Users’ Complaints in Civil Service Institutions /Draft Document/. Addis Ababa

Ferraz, Joaquim Filipe and Esteves De Araújo. Jan 2001. “Improving Public Service Delivery: The Crossroads Between NPM and Traditional Bureaucracy”, Public Administration, Vol. 79, Issue 4, (pp: 915-932). Available from: <www.blackwellsynergy.com> [Accessed December 27 2007]

Fountain, Jane E. Jan 2001. “Paradoxes of Public Sector Customer Service”, Governance, Vol. 14, Issue 1, (pp: 55-73). Available from: <www.blackwellsynergy.com> [Accessed January 10 2007]

Fowler, Alan. 1997. Gurus for Government: Lessons from Management Gurus for Local Government Managers. Hemel Hempstead, UK: ICSA Publishing Limited. (pp: 36-37, 118). Available from: <https://www.alibris.com > [Accessed December 27 2007]

Gebre, Yemane Halefom (No Year). Challenges and Prospects of Implementing Public Service Delivery Reform (PSDR) in Ethiopia”, (pp: 42-43, 47-61). Available from: <http://www.iss.nl> [Accessed August 21 2007]

Gebru, Gebregziabher Haylesilasie. June 2005. “Business Process Reengineering and Perceived Employees’ Performance In Ethiopian Public Organizations”, A Research for Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the Degree Of MBA, Addis Ababa University, School of Graduate Studies, Addis Ababa (Unpublished). (pp: 68-69).

Goodsell, C.T. 2001. “Public Administration's Soul Reincarnated”, Paper Presented at Sixty-Second National Conference of American Society of Public Administration, Newark, (pp: 1-11). Available from: <http://eprints.vu.edu.au> [Accessed March 30 2007]

Keast, R., M.P., Mandell K. Brown and G. Woolcock. 2004. “Network Structures: Working Differently and Changing Expectations”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 64, Issue 3, (pp: 363-371). Available from: <www.blackwellsynergy.com> [Accessed February 24 2008]

Keast, Robyn and Kerry Brown. 2006. “Adjusting to New Ways of Working: Experiments with Service Delivery in the Public Sector”, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 65, Issue 4, (pp: 41-53). Available from: <www.blackwellsynergy.com> [Accessed January 30 2008]

Kickert, W.J.M., Klijn E-H. and Koenjan J.F.M. 1997. “Managing Networks in the Public Sector: Findings and Reflections”, In Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector.

27

London: Sage, (p: 733). Available from: <http://doi.wiley.com> [Accessed January 22 2007]

Kiragu, Kithinji. February 2002. “Improving Service Delivery Through Public Service Reform: Lessons Of Experience From Select Sub-Saharan Africa Countries”, DAC Network on Good Governance and Capacity Development, Second Meeting, Government Room Document No. 8. , (pp: 5-21). Available from: <www.oecd.org/dataoecd> [Accessed December 24 2007]

Lipsky, M. 1980. Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. (pp: 27–28). <http://userwww.sfsu.edu> [Accessed March 14 2008]

Matland, R.E. 1995. “Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict Model of Policy Implementation”, Journal of Public Administration: Research and Theory, Vol. 5, No. 2. <www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight> [Accessed March 22 2008]

Mazmanian, Daniel A. and Paul A. Sabatier. 1989. Implementation and Public Policy. Rev. Ed. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Mengesha, Getachew Hailemariam and Richard K. Common. 2006. “Civil Service Reform in Ethiopia: Success in Two Ministries (Ministry of Trade and Industry and Ministry of Education)”. (p: 1). <http://www.hull.ac.uk/hubs> [Accessed October 30 2007]

Mokgoro, T. J, July 2004. “Enhancing Service Delivery: Translating Policy into Implementation”, Presentation at the 3rd Annual Service Delivery Learning Academy (Power Point Presentation), Feathermarket Centre, Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape. <www.dpsa.gov.za> [Accessed May 03 2009]

Monteiro, Oscar. December 2002. “Institutional and Organizational Restructuring of the Civil Service in Developing Countries”, Public Administration and Management Innovation in Developing Countries, Paper No. 1 , the Fourth Global Forum on Reinventing Government: Capacity Development Workshops, Workshop No. 3, Marakkech, Morocco. <http://unpan1.un.org> [Accessed May 03 2009]

Naschold, F. 1995. The Modernisation of the Public Sector in Europe. A Comparative Perspective on the Scandinavian Experience. Helsinki, Ministry of Labour. <www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight> [Accessed March 22 2008]

O’Toole, Laurence J. Jr. 2003. “Interorganizational Relations in Implementation.” In Handbook of Public Administration, (pp: 202, 234–344). <www.jpart.oxfordjournals.org > [Accessed March 2008]

Ocampo, Romeo B. 2000. “Models of Public Administration Reform: New public management (NPM)”, Asian Review of Public Administration, Vol. XII, No. 1, (pp: 37, 248-255). <http://unpan1.un.org> [Accessed February 2 2008]

Patashnik, Eric. April 2003. “After the Public Interest Prevails: The Political Sustainability of Policy Reform”, Governance, Vol. 16, Issue 2. <www.blackwellsynergy.com> [Accessed January 18 2008]

Polidano, C., Hulme, D. and Minogue, M. 1998. "Conclusions: Looking Beyond the New Public Management", Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, (pp: 278-292). <www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight> [Accessed March 22 2008]

28

Raadschelders, Jos C.N. Jul 2000. “Domestic Reform in Sub-Saharan African Governments under International Influence” Public Administration Review, Vol. 60, Issue 4, (pp: 376-382). <www.blackwellsynergy.com> [Accessed February 10 2008]

Rieper O, Mayne J. 1998. “Evaluation and Public Service Quality”, International Journal of Social Welfare, Vol. 7, Issue 2, (pp: 118-125). <www.blackwellsynergy.com> [Accessed January 13 2008]

Sahni, Pardeep and Medury Uma (Editors). 2003. Governance for Development: Issues and Strategies. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited. (pp: xv, 2,15, 18, 21-22, 24-25, 35, 41).

Schick, A. 2000. “Opportunity, Strategy and Tactics in Reforming Public Management In OECD” (Eds), Government of the Future, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. <http://www.olis.oecd.org> [Accessed February 23 2006]

Schneider, B., & Bowen, D.E. 1992. “Personnel/Human Resources Management in the service sector”, In G.R. Ferris & K.M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in Personnel/Human Resources Management, Vol. 10. (pp: 1–30). <www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight> [Accessed March 10 2008]

Schofield, Jill. September 2001. “Time for a revival? Public policy implementation: a review of the literature and an agenda for future research”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 3, Issue 3, (pp: 245, 248). <www.blackwellsynergy.com> [Accessed June 11 2007]

Siddiquee, N. A., 2007. “Public service innovations policy transfer and governance in the Asia-Pacific region: The Malaysian experience”, JOAAG, Vol. 2. No. 1. <http://www.joaag.com> [Accessed June 25 2008]

Subramony, Mahesh, Terry A. Beehr and C. Merle Johnson. 2004. “Employee and Customer Perceptions of Service Quality in an Indian Firm”, Alied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 53, Issue 2, (pp: 311–327). <www.blackwellsynergy.com> [Accessed December 26 2007]

Wescott, Clay. 1999. “Guiding Principles on Civil Service Reform in Africa: An Empirical Review”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, MCB University Press, Vol. 12, No. 2, (pp: 145-170). <www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight> [Accessed August 12 2007]