PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY, INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY, AND SOCIAL EQUITY IN MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES
Keywords:
GInstitutional capacity, Public service delivery, Social equity, Marginalized communities, Governance, Public administrationAbstract
Institutional capacity is key to the success of public service delivery and to the facilitation of equitable development, especially in the delivery of basic public services to marginalised communities where access to such services is limited. The quantitative cross sectional research design was used in this study to examine the relationships between institutional capacity, public service delivery and social equity in marginalized communities. The primary data were obtained from 300 respondents selected using stratified random sampling technique by administering structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was based on a five point likert scale to capture institutional capacity, public service delivery and social equity. Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation analysis were employed to analyze the data. The results indicated that the respondents' general perception of institutional capacity was more positive (M = 3.74), followed by public service delivery (M = 3.67), and social equity (M = 3.60). The results of the correlation yielded that all the variables in the study were significantly positively correlated. There was a high correlation between institutional capacity and public service delivery (r = 0.71), and moderate correlation between public service delivery and social equity (r = 0.76) while institutional capacity and social equity had a moderate correlation (r = 0.65). The results indicate that there is a positive link between institutional capacity and better public service delivery, as well as between public service delivery and perceptions of fairness and equitable access to public services. The study findings indicate that building the institutional effectiveness is not enough without responsive and accessible service delivery systems, which are inclusive. Policymakers should thus focus on institutional changes that increase administrative capacity, ease access to services, increase accountability, and increase equitable access to public services for the marginalised groups. The results are valuable for the research on public administration and useful for improving inclusive governance and sustainable development.
References
[1]Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2017). Building state capability: Evidence, analysis, action. Oxford University Press.
[2]Baekgaard, M., Moynihan, D. P., & Thomsen, M. K. (2021). Why do policymakers support administrative burdens? The roles of deservingness, political ideology, and personal experience. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 184-200.
[3]Baniamin, H. M., & Jamil, I. (2023). Effects of representative bureaucracy on perceived performance and fairness: Experimental evidence from South Asia. Public Administration, 101(1), 284-302.
[4]Benda, N. C., Veinot, T. C., Sieck, C. J., & Ancker, J. S. (2020). Broadband internet access is a social determinant of health!. American journal of public health, 110(8), 1123-1125.
[5]Berwick, E., & Christia, F. (2018). State capacity redux: Integrating classical and experimental contributions to an enduring debate. Annual Review of Political Science, 21(1), 71-91.
[6]Brambor, T., Goenaga, A., Lindvall, J., & Teorell, J. (2020). The lay of the land: Information capacity and the modern state. Comparative Political Studies, 53(2), 175-213.
[7]Brandsen, T., Steen, T., & Verschuere, B. (2018). Co-production and co-creation. New York: Taylor & Francis.
[8]Christensen, J., Aarøe, L., Baekgaard, M., Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2020). Human capital and administrative burden: The role of cognitive resources in citizen‐state interactions. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 127-136.
[9]Chudnovsky, M., & Peeters, R. (2021). The unequal distribution of administrative burden: A framework and an illustrative case study for understanding variation in people's experience of burdens. Social Policy & Administration, 55(4), 527-542.
[10]Ding, F., Lu, J., & Riccucci, N. M. (2021). How bureaucratic representation affects public organizational performance: A meta‐analysis. Public administration review, 81(6), 1003-1018.
[11]Hanson, J. K., & Sigman, R. (2021). Leviathan’s latent dimensions: Measuring state capacity for comparative political research. The Journal of Politics, 83(4), 1495-1510.
[12]Jenkins, K., McCauley, D., Heffron, R., Stephan, H., & Rehner, R. (2016). Energy justice: A conceptual review. Energy research & social science, 11, 174-182.
[13]Kattel, R., & Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policy and dynamic capabilities in the public sector. Industrial and corporate change, 27(5), 787-801.
[14]Lythreatis, S., Singh, S. K., & El-Kassar, A. N. (2022). The digital divide: A review and future research agenda. Technological forecasting and social change, 175, 121359.
[15]Masood, A., & Azfar Nisar, M. (2021). Administrative capital and citizens’ responses to administrative burden. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 56-72.
[16]Mazzucato, M., & Kattel, R. (2020). COVID-19 and public-sector capacity. Oxford review of economic policy, 36(Supplement_1), S256-S269.
[17]Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A., & Sicilia, M. (2017). Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of coproduction. Public administration review, 77(5), 766-776.
[18]Nisar, M. A. (2018). Children of a lesser god: Administrative burden and social equity in citizen–state interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), 104-119.
[19]Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: a suitable case for treatment?. Public management review, 18(5), 639-653.
[20]Peeters, R. (2020). The political economy of administrative burdens: A theoretical framework for analyzing the organizational origins of administrative burdens. Administration & Society, 52(4), 566-592.
[21]Rasul, I., & Rogger, D. (2018). Management of bureaucrats and public service delivery: Evidence from the nigerian civil service. The Economic Journal, 128(608), 413-446.
[22]Riccucci, N. M., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2017). Representative bureaucracy: A lever to enhance social equity, coproduction, and democracy. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 21-30.
[23]Salemink, K., Strijker, D., & Bosworth, G. (2017). Rural development in the digital age: A systematic literature review on unequal ICT availability, adoption, and use in rural areas. Journal of rural studies, 54, 360-371.
[24]Sieck, C. J., Sheon, A., Ancker, J. S., Castek, J., Callahan, B., & Siefer, A. (2021). Digital inclusion as a social determinant of health. NPJ digital medicine, 4(1), 52.
[25]Sovacool, B. K., Burke, M., Baker, L., Kotikalapudi, C. K., & Wlokas, H. (2017). New frontiers and conceptual frameworks for energy justice. Energy policy, 105, 677-691.
