top of page

Corruption in Eduction: a quick look at Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys.

Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS) are examinations of financial flows that seek to establish whether resources reach their destination, identifying any discrepancies or shortfalls along the way, in what is often a journey with many diverging paths. Basically though, they follow the money. Here we are going to take a quick look at PETS as identifiers and measures of corruption in the eduction sector, the three studies here looked at public funding (from government to schools). My initial work was done a few years ago, I've expanded a bit, but kept the three countries and studies the same. I'd like to take a look at some more recent numbers and different sectors in the near future. This one though, it's going to be high level but the sources will be included if you want to go deeper!


The website Curbingcorruption.com (CC), founded by stalwart practitioners and anti-corruption/governance academics Mark Pyman and Paul Heywood, studies types of corruption by sector, understanding, analysing and disaggregating via the 'Sectors Focus Reformulation Action' approach (SFRA). The approach makes a lot of sense from the practical side, they advocate dealing with sectors rather than the whole systems of government - not only is it more efficient in analysing data, it allows for more pointed research, results and rectification.


They also importantly state that in the fight against corruption "Strategies have to be alert to the language, customs and characteristics of the particular sector." If there ever was a place where nuance was key, it is in the study of corruption. In relation to the education sector they show 36 different corruption types - that sounds insane so I have included the chart from their website.

ree

If anyone ever asks you how corruption impacts eduction, you can show them the above, or you can punch them in the face, it should have the same effect (jk -don't punch anyone)! It's important to break it down, though it's grim and disappointing to see the reality of it, the smallest things all add up - bad actors and bad systems can lead to bad behaviour and corruption.


UGANDA


'Leakage' is the term that is used to describe the funds that do not reach the intended destination (schools). That is a kind term to use, as you could just call it embezzlement and inefficiency - those inefficiencies might be in delivery mechanisms, or other measurable variables (speed, overcharging, record-keeping, weak tender process, poor management). If these areas are reconciled, the remaining gaps could be corruption related.


As per a 1995 PETS and follow up done in 2002, the leakage of capitation grants from central government to primary schools was reduced drastically.



It was suggested that the publicity of the campaign was the contributing factor in improving performance and reducing leakage. This is a reassuring statistic but it's not viable to do a PETS every year, it's too resource heavy and unrealistic - but the threats of PETS could be a decent deterrent. Alongside that potential, there should controls and anti-corruption systems need to be in place to ensure that 'no PETS' doesn't equate more embezzlement.




ZAMBIA


This diagram shows the public education fund flows in Zambia, per a comprehensive public expenditure report published in 2016. Allocation and distribution of funds from central to local levels can involve a number of entities or layers increasing the exposure to potential corrupt actors. While we have the diagram specifically for Zambia, the flow is likely similar for Cambodia and Uganda. PETS are granular in nature, and can uncover disjunctures in budget and behaviour.


SOURCE: World Bank
SOURCE: World Bank

MoF = Ministry of Finance;

MESVTEE = Ministry of Education, Science, Vocational Training & Early Education; 

DEBS = District Education Board Secretaries; 

PE = personal emolument (salary);

PEO = Provincial Education Office.






PETS can be an effective proxy measure of corruption, they are objective and focused in nature, as opposed to the broad scope of aggregate tools such as the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) and the Index of Public Integrity (IPI). In this case there was no specific mention of corruption but the link shows the study and its comprehensive nature. As long as it's a fair study/analysis, and not tampered with, it can be relatively easy to find untoward trends and patterns of failure or misuse.


Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys are obviously not primarily done to uncover corruption but to assess education expenditure/allocation, systemic efficiency, find general shortcomings and areas that require improvement. Per a detailed breakdown of expenditure and money flows at each level, studies can identify whether any issues are administrative or potentially corruption related. If a local study is also done with an outcome that shows high perceptions of corruption, this then aligning with any missing funds (and taking other variables into consideration) suggests a reasonable deduction would be that the potential for corrupt activity is high.




CAMBODIA


While distinguishing between corruption in sectors and comparison of indices is tricky, pitting the educated perceptions vs educational reality in Cambodia in 2015, throws up a discrepancy - one that is welcome. The country presented low scores in the 2015 Index of Public Integrity and 2015 Corruption Perceptions Index which were true to form, and signal omnipresent corruption, representing high perceptions and nothing out of the ordinary.


However a PETS done in the same year suggests otherwise, in public education funding, a niche for sure but begging the questions, how reliable are perceptions? And where else might this disparity show up?  Of course we can't rule out that this pipeline was an outlier or that the perceptions are true, and the result of the survey was tampered with - I hope that's not the case though. While not ideal, I like the idea that even if transparency is low in government/administration technically increasing the opportunities for corrupt behaviour, that doesn't necessarily mean that there is malfeasance occurring behind the scenes.


Wishful thinking on my part but the PETS done in 2015 shows no leakage in distribution from central government to schools. There were other deficiencies such as speed and record keeping - but we can let them off with that. Measuring corruption is extremely nuanced and challenging, context is key in understanding the comparisons made between indexes and other studies (that's too much for this article).

**higher perception of corruption / *PETS suggests zero corruption in this particular case
**higher perception of corruption / *PETS suggests zero corruption in this particular case

The opposite is also possible and seems, at least initially, more likely - that a country with low perceptions of corruption, might have a survey or a scandal that uncovers a sector with poor controls. In that scenario - one can imagine the sector being assessed (maybe with SFRA) and being improved. While the Cambodian PETS is encouraging and such local actions may spur change, it's unlikely to change wider perceptions or a national system on a meaningful level.




FINAL THOUGHTS


Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys can bring both objective and subjective changes in the realms of public engagement, anti-corruption and justice. The thorough process, though time and resource intensive (pros and cons), allows for elimination of causes as the money is followed and might immediately discover or eventually uncover corrupt activity. 


In education funding is where PETS analysis was born (Uganda). Education is a key social and economic factor and it aligns with anti-corruption goals in that efficient and honest education funding will, a priori, have beneficial effects for society in economic growth, health, moral values and crime prevention.


In his 2016 book Corruptible, political scientist and adept storyteller, Brian Klass, mentions the Uganda story in a section that looks at mass surveillance and social credit systems. The publicity from that story had a huge impact on local corruption levels and the idea that people were being watched. His point is that, it's not the people that should be watched it's those in power. An obvious thought but the key is, as noted above, that if people think they are being watched or monitored with the potential of a random survey - it can make a significant difference to their behaviour. The corrupt actors 'get' the threats of PETS and similar devices.


PETS are a valuable objective proxy measure for corruption, and a useful benchmark for comparison against perception-based measures, which are often as broad as PETS are granular. Rather than PETS vs Perception, digging into the individual parts of aggregate measures, could alongside PETS and SFRA, allow for a more detailed corruption focused understanding of a sector. As per the SFRA approach, targeting sectors and processes with PETS might be resource heavy but is certainly a fruitful endeavour, and empirical measures of corruption that offer answers and lead to solutions are more than welcome. These can then help guide perceptions and inform real world controls.


Thanks for reading.



Yours Educationally,


Alvin





REFERENCES & LINKS





https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/31679/Cambodia-Education-Sector-Public-Expenditure-Tracking-and-Quality-of-Service-Delivery-Survey.pdf?







Comments


bottom of page