NIGERIAN PUBLIC SERVICE AND THE CHALLENGES OF …NIGERIAN PUBLIC SERVICE AND THE CHALLENGES OF...

Sahel Analyst: ISSN 1117-4668 Page 1

NIGERIAN PUBLIC SERVICE AND THE CHALLENGES OF

PRODUCTIVITY FROM 2000 – 2015: A THEORETICAL

PERSPECTIVE

A. I. Mustapha, PhD1

E-mail: [email protected]

C. K. Omorede, PhD1

[email protected]

Abstract

Productivity in the sense of the efficiency measurement viewed from

the lens of the economist has been a herculean task in the public service the

world over. The public sector in most developing countries is the largest

employer of labour, a major provider of services prior to the neo-liberal

reform postulations, and of course the consumer of both the tax revenue and

the revenue from other natural resources. Determination of public sector

productivity from the utilitarian and “value-add” lenses is the major

preoccupation of this paper. Secondary data were basically collected and

desk analysis was done. It found out the accountability deficit in the Nigerian

public service as the bane of its utilitarian “value-add” which characterises

the public service in other climes. It dwelled on this gap as a necessary

measure to bring productivity to bear in the Nigerian public service.

Responsible leadership, strong political will, constructive engagement of

trade unions and partnerships with relevant private sector organisations are

also recommended if public sector productivity in Nigeria must improve from

its present almost comatose level.

Keywords: productivity, public service, accountability, efficiency, customer

Introduction It is hardly controvertible that no nation has the capacity to develop beyond

the competence and capabilities of its public service whether it is a

developmental state or any other type for that matter, meaning that the

productive capacity of a nation will eventually be a product of the productive

capacity of its public service. Today, the broad consensus amongst Nigerians

1 Department of Public Administration, University of Benin, Benin-City, Nigeria

Sahel Analyst: Journal of Management Sciences (Vol.15, No.1, 2017), University of Maiduguri


is that our public service is broken and dysfunctional. The quality of public

servants and services they provide to our nation are both below expectations

(El-Rufai, 2013). Credence is given to the foregoing assertion by the Obasanjo

administration that took the reform of the dysfunctional public service as its

major focus and embarked on concerted effort to turn around the situation. It

focused, to start with, on the managerial component of the public service. A

retreat was organized for Ministers, Special Advisers and Permanent

Secretaries at the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies, Kuru,

between 23rd

and 25th

February 2001.

The Communiqué, popularly known as “Kuru Declaration 2” has 12

points out of which four are of immediate relevance to our present discourse.

The first is their “ …pledge to eschew the negative value of corruption,

slothfulness, nepotism, indiscipline, bitterness, prejudice, and other

manifestations of anti-social behaviours”. The second was their resolve to “…

undertake a critical review of practices and procedures in every MDA with the

aim of introducing and inculcating modern management techniques and

procedures in every department of government, so as to rapidly increase their

productivity and service delivery to the public”. The third was their resolve to

“…foster a culture of efficiency in the management of funds and other

resources; maintaining high standards of resource management and reducing

waste at all times” while the fourth was their undertaken “…to strengthen the

partnerships in working closely with the private sector since this translates to a

better appreciation of the wealth creating and job-creating capacity of this

sector and the need for government, through its various MDAs and legislative

processes to create an enabling environment for the sector to function

efficiently as the major driver of the economy” (Nwokedi, 2002).

At the heart of all these is good governance predicated on productivity

and efficiency of the public service. The management was expected to bring

the provisions of this communiqué to bear on their respective Ministries,

Departments and Agencies of government. Consequent upon this, the

Obasanjo administration introduced the „Service Compact with all Nigerians‟

or SERVICOM policy. The policy sought to give effect to “Customer

Orientation” to underscore the government‟s commitment to ensuring

efficiency and productivity in the public service in 2004 as part of its reforms.

As part of the initiative, all ministries, departments and agencies

(MDAs) were directed to establish SERVICOM Units. Each of the

SERVICOM Units is headed by a Nodal Officer on Grade Level 16 who is

assisted by three officers in charge of the Charter Desk, the service

improvement Desk and the Customer Relations Complaints Desk. The units

serve as channels for the entrenchment of SERVICOM principles which aim

at ensuring the delivery of quality services by the MDAs to their customers.

It should be noted here that SERVICOM is not expected to provide the

services by itself, rather it was designed to monitor the service delivery of the

MDAs, in conformity to the citizens‟ expectations, and it stands as a facilitator

Nigerian Public Service and the Challenges of Productivity from 2000 – 2015: A Theoretical

Perspective

Sahel Analyst: ISSN 1117- 4668 Page 3

of the social accountability framework of public service delivery in Nigeria.

As part of its mandate, the SERVICOM office coordinates the efforts of

MDAs to formulate and implement service charters. The office regularly

monitors the progress made by each MDA in performing their specific

obligations, which are enunciated in their service charters while reporting the

findings to the president (Oladayo, 2015). SERVICOM also promotes an

attitudinal change in the citizens particularly with regard to their right to

demand quality services from the MDAs as well as providing a feedback

mechanism on the service delivery processes in line with the public service

reforms.

Olaopa (2008:181) noted that SERVICOM was adopted by former

President Obasanjo, the Federal Executive Council (FEC) and representatives

of civil societies in 2004 as part of the initiative to re-orientate the Nigerian

Public as service users to demand quality services as a matter of right, and

service providers to deliver on agreed standard under contractual obligations

that are formalised in the SERVICOM charter.

Despite the laudable nature of SERVICOM without prejudice to the

„Annual Performance Evaluation Reports‟ (APER) that is filled on every

public service employee which has part of its components as measure of

efficiency and productivity, several other reforms including pay, monetisation

of fringe benefits etc., the performance of the public service still remains

abysmal. The discourse concentrates on education, health and agricultural

sub-sectors to do a succinct analysis. The current discourse focuses on

whether or not productivity is measurable in the public service; the

determination of hindrances to productivity measurement; and to determine

the policy and pragmatic steps that can be taken to reclaim the Nigerian public

service from the current tide of non-performance it is swimming against.

Theoretical Framework

State-in-society theory looks beyond the developmental state if there is

going to be any meaningful development particularly in a weak state

(Lambach, 2004) like Nigeria. The state and social organisations continually

compete for social control. The state by its nature lays claim, and justifiably

so, to the authority to regulate all social relations within its borders. This is not

to say that the relationship between the state and society is characterised by

the domination of one over the other. Both of them influence each other. The

state can transform society by altering the calculus of survival such as creating

new economic and social opportunities through the work of state agencies and

state policies (Migdal, 1988). When the state is weak and consequently unable

to insert itself into the strategies of survival of its citizens, the society, in turn,

fills that gap either by forming a partnership with the state or takes over

certain developmental activities while the state performs regulatory functions

(Odusola, 2006). The indication here is that it takes the collaborative efforts of

the state (the public sector) and the society (the private sector) to bring about



development. Where the public sector seems to be facing productivity

challenges, the contribution of the private sector in such sub-sector(s) may

provide the necessary succour if responsible regulatory checks and robust

policy thrusts emanate from the state.

Concept of Productivity in Public Service

Productivity viewed from the lens of the economist has to do with an

efficiency which has as its essential calculus the ratio of input and output.

Productivity determined by efficiency model of the economist is the ability of

the organisation concerned, whether private or public, to generate profit in

excess of its overall expenditure.

The economist‟s view of productivity definition faces serious

challenges in the public sector worldwide because of the nature of public

service. In the public service just like the private sector, it is easy to determine

the input as the cost made up of three major elements of labour, procurement

of goods and services, and capital consumption (Atkinson, 2005). While the

outputs are priced in the private sector and so, it is easy to determine or

calculate productivity or efficiency ratio, the contrary is the case in the public

sector because outputs are not often priced and most public services are

consumed collectively (Hatry, 1978).

Further to that is that the instrument to boost productivity at the

disposal of the private sector such as job rationalisation to reduce the costs of

producing outputs are rarely available to the public sector as any attempts to

do that have always been met with protests by workers and their unions to

limit management discretion aimed at increase in productivity (Kearney,

2006).

The multi-faceted nature of the public sector also constitutes a serious

hindrance to developing holistic productivity strategies and consequently, a

single definition of public sector productivity is a near impossibility (Afonso,

Schuknecht & Tanzi, 2003).

These constraints to determining productivity in the public sector have

been a serious concern to scholars of public administration and public sector

governance. Their concern stems from the criticisms by those who opine that

most of the services being provided by the public sector are better provided by

the private sector that is productivity and efficiency driven. In order to wriggle

out of the seeming deficiency of productivity definition that is economically

“rational”, many countries have assumed productivity in the public sector to

be the output as a measure of value equal to the value of inputs (Boyle, 2006).

This solution, that public sector outputs are equal to the cost of producing

them, meaning flat productivity assumption, is very dangerous as it leaves the

public sector performance to the whims of the public office holder. This

perhaps accounted for lacklustre attitude and corruption that attended the

handling and running of most public enterprises the world over that gave rise

to the spate of calls for privatisation of such enterprises which ordinarily were

supposed to be cash cows rather than conduct pipes through which public


Perspective


funds were corruptly converted to private wealth. The flat productivity

assumption is definitely a nil accountability model that put the public sector at

serious risk. To pull the public sector out of that risk it has been perpetual,

public sector productivity must be measured or at least determined.

Measuring Public Service Productivity Perhaps because the World Bank has been a major financier to

countries public sectors in form of aid and loans, it has not been less

concerned about public sector productivity than the recipient countries

themselves. It has always emphasised governance indicators as a measure of

public sector productivity and performance. As noted by Kaufmann, Kraay

and Mastruzzi (2005), the governance indicators used by the World Bank

since 1996 measure six dimensions of public sector notably the voice of

citizens and accountability to same; political stability/instability and violence

or lack of it; government effectiveness; regulatory quality; rule of law; and

control of corruption. Most relevant to the scope of this study are

“government effectiveness” indicator. This aims to measure the competence

of the bureaucracy and the quality of public service delivery. Emphasising

further on government effectiveness parameters of measurement, Van de

Walle and Bouckaert (nd) note that a broad range of related concepts such as

red tapes, quality of public schools, government stability, bureaucrats

expertise, quality of health care, food security, ability to deliver basic

infrastructure and policy consistency in relation to all the aforementioned

must not escape our attention in public sector productivity measurement.

To Afonso, Schuknecht and Tanzi (2003) public sector productivity

measurement must be hinged on seven public sector performance sub-

indicators. In their study of twenty-three industrialised OECD countries, they

developed measures of both public sector performance, which they define as

the outcome of public sector activities; and efficiency, which they define as

the outcome relative to the resources employed. The first four of the seven

sub-indicators examine administrative, education, health and public

infrastructure outcomes. They tag these “opportunity” indicators concerning

the role of government in providing opportunities and a level playing field for

its citizens. The other three sub-indicators measure income distribution,

economic stability, and economic performance as measures of government

efficiency. Observed very closely, the outcome – efficiency template here is

not fundamentally at variance with the economists‟ model of input-output

ratio. However, there appears to be a convergence of opinion among the three

scholarly positions that have so far been considered concerning what should

be measured when talking about public sector productivity. These are the

competence of the bureaucracy (the administration), quality of public schools

(education), basic infrastructure, quality of health care, economic well-being

(food security etc.) and public policy consistency that will guarantee these and

more.



In developed societies where the majority of these public sector

performance parameters can be taken for granted, they are still concerned

about productivity measurement against the backdrop of the inability of any

society to effectively put prices on public goods and services. They have thus

variously designed ways of determining public sector productivity at the least.

The United Kingdom, for instance, uses the multi-factor productivity

measures where the volume of input measure is the aggregate of all inputs

including labour, intermediate consumption and capital; while for outputs, the

principle of „value-add‟ for public services to the economy was applied. The

UK instead of inputs equal to outputs paradigm of measuring public sector

productivity, which can be said to obviate any modicum of accountability,

accounts for quality change effected on the economy or society by the public

sector organisation under consideration. Both the input and output in the

productivity measurement or determination must have the quality and volume

components. By volume of input is meant the amount. For instance in the

education sub-sector, the volume of input may consider the teacher - students

ratio in the basic education, the budgetary allocation in terms of UNESCO

standards, the amount of learning materials in terms of books and ICT,

students – classroom ratio while the volume of output/output might take into

consideration the number of pupils/students that complete the basic education

out of the number admitted at the beginning. The quality of input in the sub-

sector under consideration will go beyond a number of teachers to the

qualifications and the right type of personality to deliver quality service, the

motivation in terms of pay and other conditions of service of the personnel

and the conducive work environment that could stimulate optimal

performance. It will also consider not just the number of classrooms and

laboratories but how well equipped the laboratories and classrooms are. The

quality of output or outcome may be the numbers of students who are able to

pass their senior secondary school examinations with results that can

guarantee matriculation in tertiary institutions or that enables them to fit into

the world of work. This could be termed the „value-add‟ paradigm for

measuring public school basic education productivity (Edwards, 2011).

The Canadian model of public sector productivity measurement

focuses on efficiency and effectiveness indices. Efficiency has to do with

managerial control that culminates in saving costs of governance. Private

sector measures are employed in transactional human resource and other

forms of procurement, information technology, critical data collection and

entry with the sole aim of spending to save costs (Mitchell 2014). On the

effectiveness front, sub-sectors outcome associated with them are intangible,

and quantitative measurement with accuracy is near impossible, government,

therefore, consider how quality and effectiveness of outcomes can be

improved within the existing resources. For example in the education sub-

sector, the higher education quality council of Ontario (HEQCO) has been

able to develop measurable elements that higher education institutions can


Perspective


adopt as indicators or quality, with a view to improving attendance, sound

academic records and graduation rates (Ibid). A combination of efficiency and

effectiveness should, therefore, be able to answer the questions whether or not

citizens are satisfied with the type and quality of the services that they are

being provided; whether or not the public funds being expended have desired

effect; and how could these services be provided more cost-effectively. Again,

these questions speak to the issue of accountability.

The Australian example is not radically different. Its own public

service productivity hinges principally on “government efficiency dividend”.

By that, they mean how much a particular sub-sector is able to reduce the cost

of running with relatively improved performance based on already determined

indicators. The reduction in the cost of governance without compromising the

quality of benefits to the citizenry‟s satisfaction is the Australian government

efficiency dividend. The productivity assessment here majorly depends on

leadership perception or management preferences and biases.

Methodology

The study is mainly ex-post facto and so the cause-effect comparative

analytical method was used. The method basically investigates the effect of

certain causal variables and the observable consequences are subsequently

crystallized. The work relies essentially on existing facts and data from

secondary sources notably academic journal articles, newspapers articles,

books and government publications. Education, health and agriculture sub-

sectors were selected for analysis because the three are somewhat measurable

as productivity indices especially in developmental states.

Public Sector Productivity: Analysis of Education, Health and

Agriculture

It is important to approach the determination of public sector

productivity from a multi-sub-sectoral perspective so that the exercise will not

be unwieldy and futile. For the present purpose, the education, health and

agriculture subsectors constitute our focus as we discuss public sector

productivity within the purview of the state-in-society theoretical framework.

In the education sub-sector, there is gradual disappearance of the

developmental state as education sector has become a contested terrain

between the private sector participants and the government giving a sort of

credence to the state-in-society theory. At the Basic Education level, private

Nursery, Primary, and Secondary schools have become so proliferated that

public ones have become the alternative available to the children of the

extremely poor parents. At the tertiary level of education, the existing 40

Federal Government owned universities, and the 43 State Governments‟

owned cannot cater for the educational needs of Nigerians. Apart from the

fact that their academic calendars are no longer predictable, the quality has

nose-dived considerably symptomatic of abysmally low productivity. The



private sector is equally competing within the contested terrain with 69 private

universities in the country at the last count in October 2016. Despite the

existence of 152 universities both public and private, with a total capacity of

550,000 with about two million candidates scrambling for admission makes

education tourism to other countries almost inevitable. Many who could not

find space in the local universities with over-crowded lecture theaters, with

poorly motivated and highly corrupt lecturers, schools perennially shut

because of strikes thus extending a four-year course to six years or falling

standards producing sub-standard graduates typify public sector failure at the

tertiary education sub-sector (Adegboyega 2016). The financial implications

especially capital flight and foreign exchange burden on the country is

enormous. It was reported that “… Nigerian students abroad cost the country

about N1.6 trillion per annum. Ghana alone gets N160 billion of the funds,

United Kingdom gets about N80 billion. In 2014, about 75,000 Nigerians

were said to be studying in Ghana paying about US$1 billion annually as

tuition fees and upkeep as against the US $ 751 million for all federal

universities. In 2011, there were 17,585 Nigerians studying in UK

universities, about 1,000 more than the 16,680 registered in the 2009/10

academic session, making Nigeria‟s students population the third largest from

non-European Union countries, trailing 39,090 recorded for India and 67,325

for China according to statistics provided by UK council for International

student Affairs (Abayomi & Arenyeka, 2016).

The same is applicable to medical tourism resulting from the sorry

state of our hospitals and general health care delivery system. According to

the Chief executive Officer of the Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority,

about 30,000 Nigerians spend $1 billion on medical tourism annually. This

added to the N1.6 trillion for education tourism is almost two-thirds of Nigeria

annual budget (Adegboyega, 2016).

Our public policy and practices in agriculture today is a negative

departure from what it was in the immediate post-independence period.

Agriculture had been the mainstay of the Nigerian economy contributing on

the average 55.8 per cent of the GDP between 1960 and 1970. In real terms

and for the purpose of introspection, the country was the world‟s largest

exporter of groundnut producing over 1,000,000 tons; the second largest

exporter of cocoa producing over 305,000 tons; second largest exporter of

palm produce and kernel producing over 800,000 tons all in 1970 (Udeaja &

Obi, 2015). The situation has since changed. The Minister of Agriculture,

Audu Ogbeh recently remarked that Nigeria spends about 7 trillion Naira

yearly on food importation covering rice, wheat, fish and poultry products.

This is about 22 billion US Dollars drain on the country‟s foreign reserves.

Within the breakdown, 517 billion Naira was reportedly spent importing rice

while 660 billion Naira was spent on imported chicken in 2014 (The Sun

News, August 16, 2016).


Perspective


The failure of the three sub-sectors examined is connected to the

failure of the management of the MDAs initially brought together at a retreat

to give direction and control that would eventually translate to anticipated but

thwarted success stories. The SERVICOM, that was to give effect to customer

charter and eventual public satisfaction of services rendered to them by the

management and the staff they control has so far existed in name. It has not

lived up to the essence of its establishment.

Though SERVICOM is a customer charter enforcement body, it has

not been linked to accountability which other claims that have been very much

concerned about public sector productivity have taken as a major and

important component of public sector productivity measurement or

determination. Theirs is a persistent maintaining engagement with government

and opposition and more importantly working on how parliament holds the

public service accountable is a major priority (Edwards, 2011). It is worthy of

note that accountability to the parliament where it truly represents the people

is accountability to the people by proxy. Unfortunately, this is hardly the case

in typical developing countries like Nigeria. Accountability component of

public sector productivity is hardly heard and to that, we now turn our

attention.

Theoretical Perspective of Public Sector Accountability

Accountability simply refers to answerability for one‟s actions or

behaviour. It involves the evaluation of the performance of duties by units and

individuals within the organisation against the objectives and established

standards in the organisation (Olowu, 2002). Accountability has to do with the

core mandate (Organisational goals), clear definition of responsibility backed

with commensurate authority, reporting mechanisms and a system of review,

rewards and sanctions as its crucial components. While the assignment of

responsibility flows downward between superiors and their subordinates,

accountability flows upward from subordinates to their superiors and laterally

among professional peers or coordinates (Stoner, Freeman and Gilbert, 2008).

There has been considerable debate as to whether the state, as a sovereign,

should be accountable to anyone since it was the sole guarantor of social

peace, or whether the state should be treated as a moral and responsible agent.

By extension, whether the institutions that constitute agents of the state should

be held accountable for their actions. The preponderant view is that while

state must be self- accounting on the basis of the constitution and the law of

the land, the individuals who exercise state authority and render services to

the citizens can be held accountable for the actions of the state they represent

(Olowu, 2002; Sarens & De Beelde, 2006). This position could perhaps have

been responsible for why the holders of office under the immediate past

government in Nigeria and their cronies are being called to account for their

roles in the corrupt enrichment of themselves and misappropriation of public

funds particularly the $2.1 billion arms procurement funds alleged to have



been misappropriated by the immediate past chief security adviser to President

Goodluck Jonathan, Colonel Sambo Dasuki.

Accountability in the public sector is premised on certain principles if

it must be effective. The first is clear performance expectations. The

objectives to be pursued, the accomplishments expected which are

encapsulated in the core mandate of the organisation must be understood and

agreed upon as the basis upon which performance assessment would be done

at a specified time. The second deals with the assignment of roles and clearly

designed and specifically assigned responsibilities to the parties in the

accountability relationship (Stoner, Freeman & Gilbert, 2008). The third is

balanced expectations and capacities which are demonstrated in the authority,

skills and resources at the disposal of persons concerned upon which his or

her performance can be assessed after delivery. The fourth is credible

reporting system put in place to get timely information about what has been

achieved at particularly determined, specified and agreed intervals that would

give room to the formative evaluation of the process; and lastly is the fair and

informed review and feedback on performance. This should be carried out by

parties. Here the achievements and difficulties are recognised, appropriate

corrections made, and appropriate consequences are carried out (Edwards,

2011).

Public Sector Accountability Enforcement Strategy Apart from the principles of effective accountability, public sector

equally has well-established accountability enforcement strategy. At the

managerial control, the level is the internal mechanisms designed to effect the

principles earlier highlighted. Organisational hierarchy by which each unit and

staff member are subordinated to another for control, supervision, monitoring

and evaluation of work performance is a major strategy. This strategy is

reinforced by inspectorate or quality assurance department in ministries,

departments and agencies (MDAS). A merit system of recruitment which is

linked to continuous education, training and retraining to improve skills of all

those in the organisation equally reinforces the strategy. Other internal

strategies include the public service rules (PSR), the system of performance

appraisal and remuneration; and disciplinary procedures against any form of

infractions as provided for in the relevant sections of the PSR. (Olowu 2002;

Olowu & Erero, 2009).

In order to ascertain that the internal mechanism of managerial control

is effective, there are the institutional mechanisms that are external to the

organisation (Adebayo, 2004). The first among them is the Federal Executive

Council (FEC) in Nigeria. The President as the head of the Council is

constitutionally empowered to appoint a minister who is the executive head of

the ministry to whom all civil servants are expected to be accountable who in

turn is responsible to the president and accountable to the FEC. Next to that is

the legislative control. The National Assembly performs oversight functions

on the MDAs through its different committees. They supervise and vet


Perspective


appropriations and are to monitor the performance through the oversight

activities. Apart from the legislative control, the office of the Auditor-General

of the federation audits the finance activities of the MDAs. The judiciary is

another independent branch of government that plays important role in

making the public service accountable in that citizens who might have been

adversely affected by administrative actions or inaction contrary to the law

could approach the courts for judicial remedies.

Despite all these institutional mechanisms, systemic corruption has

compromised all such that accountability that they are supposed to guarantee

has continued to elude the nation. The judiciary which had, hitherto, been the

pride of the nation even beyond the shores of Nigeria has recently

demonstrated that it is also neck-deep in the systemic corruption that has

bedevilled the entire spectrum of Nigerian society especially the public

service. El-Rufai in describing the challenge his team to reform the federal

public service says the “…central management organs: the Civil Service

Commission and the Office of the Head of the Civil Service, had become

corrupt, inept and ineffective. We learned that appointments, promotions,

postings and discipline were bought and sold by civil servants almost the same

way shares are traded on the stock market” (El-Rufai, 2013:317). Systemic

corruption undermines accountability and its essence and in the absence of

accountability, productivity will be non-existent or at the best exist at its

lowest ebb. Such is the situation with the Nigerian public service.

Conclusions

This paper concludes that it is possible to determine productivity and

effect same in the public service. Though the quantitative measurement of

input and output ratio of the economist's efficiency may not be applicable in

most public sector sub-sectors, value-add, citizens‟ as customers‟ satisfaction

and reduction in the cost of governance would serve as acceptable indicators

of good governance that public service is purposed to ensure. When an

average citizenry talks about public sector productivity, what they have in

mind is the value they are receiving from public services in return for the

application of public funds. The accountability component will, no doubt,

underscore the superiority of the citizens as consumers in the public realm. It

will, in addition, erase or reduce to the barest minimum the widespread public

perception that public sector organisations are generally wasteful and that they

earn so big for doing so little.

It is also noted that the three sub-sectors observed have failed

productivity assessment as they have clearly demonstrated their inability to

render service to the public satisfaction in terms of value addition, quality

service or being a source of savings to the government in terms of its

expenditure in foreign exchange. This is a manifestation of the failure of the

managerial component of the public service, the holder of the trust of the

political head at the instance of whom the retreat to broker productivity and



general turn-around of the sector that has a very bad image before the

citizenry, the taxpayers and the de facto employers of the public service

workforce.

It is apparent from this work that participation of the private sector in

the provision of some of the services in the three sub-sectors examined is

important. This is in tandem with state-in-society theoretical mould. If the

current number of universities in the country can only accommodate less than

25 percent of applicants for admission, it then means that there is the need to

improve the supply side of education through the issuance of licenses for more

private universities to be established and for the facilities in the public ones to

be expanded to accommodate more than double their current carrying

capacity. It is also a clear indication that there is under-investment in the

three sub-sectors focused. Any investment in these three sub-sectors that can

provide services comparable to what is available outside the shores of Nigeria

at an affordable cost will surely enjoy patronage.

Recommendations

There is no doubting the fact that productivity initiatives will likely be

more successful when elected officials are supportive of public sector

productivity objectives. There must be that political will on the part of the

government showing seriousness about effecting a change of attitude toward

adding value to public service. The Minister‟s commitment to making the

Ministry he superintends over productive is important. More important is that

of the members of the National Assembly whose oversight functions can

motivate or de-motivate the productivity initiatives. For them to be taken

seriously as an institution committed to public sector productivity, they must

first purge themselves of gluttonous earnings that are antithetical to

productivity initiatives. Their conduct must be seen to add value to the

populace perception of public service contrary to the general belief that public

servants earn more for less service. They must show a high-level transparency

and accountability in their conduct of public affairs so they can, in turn, hold

the management of the various MDAs designated to them to perform

oversight functions.

Apart from the strong political will, many productivity initiatives

whether channelled to value addition or reduction in government expenditure

to achieve more rely as much on behaviour as they are in the process.

Ministers and the Permanent Secretaries should start to do things differently

from the existing order so as to provide good governance and better

stewardship. Leaders can shape organisational attitude towards productivity

endeavours. Leaders can dictate the tone of the organisation in terms of

attitude to work, punctuality, responsiveness, customer care, intolerance of

indolence, slothfulness, and corruption. They should, in fact, as leaders

demonstrate in practical terms all the items on the communiqué popularly


Perspective


known as “Kuru 2 Declaration” and all other officers down the line will

follow suite knowing fully the consequences of default.

A collection of productivity data is highly recommended. This has not

been the practice in the Nigerian public service. There is the need for

collection of data/information about the outcomes of government policies and

programmes for accountability measures. The feedback loop is virtually non-

existent or where it exists, it is extremely weak. This can be achieved easily if

life is brought back into SERVICOM.

The government should show more commitment to expanding the

three sub-sectors examined. On the education front, it should strive to meet

the UNESCO recommended 26 percent of annual budget allocated to

education. Countries like Ghana who have keyed into the adequate funding of

education now have success stories to tell to the extent that they reap

maximally from the education market available in Nigeria which Nigerian

entrepreneurs including the governments have failed to tap into. The health

sub-sector too should have the same attention. It should be funded to the

extent that there should be medical facilities for most of the specialist cases

that lead to medical tourism among Nigerians. It should get to the extent of

earning public confidence that our public office holders will have no attraction

to flying abroad for medical treatments. The current policy on importation of

food items notably rice and others should be sustained. While that is on,

adequate attention and funding should be given to agricultural sub-sector in a

manner that the country will gravitate toward food sufficiency and even

export. Private sector participation in this sub-sector is equally important. The

conducive environment that will encourage this should be created. Job

creation through agriculture should also be explored to engage our teeming

youth population. Incorporation of this into the National Youth Service

scheme will give a boost to the policy. By the time the country is able to

reverse the import dependency syndrome in these three sub-sectors of

education, health and food, the productivity deficit of our public sector would

have diminished tremendously.



References

Abayomi, A. and Arenyeka, L. (2012). “Nigerians pay N160bn tuition on

71,000 children in Ghana”; (Accessed online at www.vanguardngr.com

on 11 November 2016)

Adebayo, A. (2004). Principles and practice of administration in Nigeria;

Ibadan: Spectrum.

Adegboyega, T. (2016). “Time to look inward” in The Nation, Sunday,

February 28, pg 13

Afonso, A., Schuknecht, L., and Tanzi, V. (2003). “Public sector efficiency:

an international comparison”; European Central Bank Working Paper

No. 242; Frankfurt: European Central Bank.

Boyle, R. (2006). Measuring public sector productivity: lessons from

international experience; Ireland: Institute of Public Administration.

Edwards, M. (2011). „Shared accountability‟ in service delivery: concepts,

principles and the Australian experience. Vienna: UN Committee of

Experts on Public Administration, July.

El-Rufai, N.A. (2013). The accidental public servant. Ibadan: Safari Books

Ltd.

Hatry, H.P. (1978). “The status of productivity measurement in the public

sector” in Public Administration Review; Vol. 38, No. 1; January –

February.

Kearney, R.C. (2006). “The labour perspective on civil service reform in the

states”, in Kellough J.E. and Nigro, L.G. (eds). Civil service reform in

the states: personnel policy and politics at the sub-national level;

Albany: State University of New York Press.

Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. and Mastruzzi, M. (2006). “Governance matters V:

aggregate and individual governance indicators for 1996 – 2005; The

World Bank.

Migdal, J.S. (1988). Strong societies and weak states: state-society relations

and state capabilities in the third world; Princeton: Princeton University

Press

http://www.vanguardngr.com/


Perspective


Mitchel, D. (2014). “Changing the game: public sector productivity in

Canada”; Canada Public Policy Forum (Accessed online at

www.ppforum.ca on Saturday, 12 November 2016).

Nwokedi, S.C. (2002). “Kuru declaration” in Lecture modules for Intensive

Training Programme for Federal Civil Servants on Grade Level 12 – 14

organised by Samfort Associates and the Office of Head of the Civil

Service of the Federation.

Odusola, A. (2006). “Economic foundation of NEEDS”; in Ariyo, A.,

Odusola, A., and Ayorinde, F. (eds). NEEDS and Nigeria‟s sustainable

development.Ibadan: Centre for Public-Private Cooperation.

Olaopa, T. (2014). “Is the Nigerian civil service reformable?” in The Nation

on Sunday, December 28.

Olowu, D. and Erero, J. (2009). “Federal public service reform programme”;

Department for International Development.

Schlenker, B.R., Weigold, M.F. and Doherty, K. (1991). “Coping with

accountability: self-identification and evaluation reckonings”, in Snyder,

C.R. and Forsynth D.R. (Eds.). Handbook of social and clinical

psychology (pp. 96 – 115). New York: Pergramum.

Searl, A.D. and Waite C.A. (1980). “Current efforts to measure productivity

in the public sector: How adequate for national accounts?” in Kendick,

J.W. and Vaccara, B.N. (eds). New developments in productivity

measurement; University of Chicago Press (Accessed online at

www.nber.org on Wednesday, 12 October 2016.

Udeaja, E.A. and Obi, K.O. (2015). “Determinants of economic growth in

Nigeria: evidence from error correction model” in Developing Country

Studies; Vol. 5, No. 9 (Accessed online at www.iiste.org on Thursday,

10 November 2016).

Van de Walle, S. and Bouckaert, G. (nd). “Public service performance and

trust in government: the problem of causality”, in International Journal

of Public Administration, Vol. 29 (8 and 9): 891 – 913.

Wright, K. (2004). “Public sector reform: World Bank recruitment,

performance, promotions/transfers and terminations final report”; Adam

Smith International.

http://www.ppforum.ca/

http://www.nber.org/

http://www.iiste.org/

Date post:	29-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

NIGERIAN PUBLIC SERVICE AND THE CHALLENGES OF …NIGERIAN PUBLIC SERVICE AND THE CHALLENGES OF...

Documents