Everybody needs access to goods and services to survive and thrive and go about their legitimate business. But the poor are frequently disproportionately disadvantaged in securing access to services. ‘Services for the poor’ are too often just ‘poor services’ – whether they are delivering healthcare and education, or the inputs and services people need to allow them to produce staple foods or trade commodities, or to secure access to productive assets and infrastructure, and their rights to security, safety and justice.

Service delivery systems for the poorest members of society are complicated by the very fact of poverty and lack of access and engagement in the first place. And service
delivery has also been compromised by insensitivity to social, gender and labour considerations, the capturing of advantage by local elites, and by the persistent supply of the ‘wrong’ services. Structural adjustment and privatisation, while improving service delivery at the aggregate level, has not adequately established a solid basis for pro-poor service delivery.

The challenge

Models for the effective and efficient delivery of services exist and can go a long way to meeting the goals of poverty reduction, growth, and social equity. But their acceptance and propagation is plagued by often contradictory economic, political and professional imperatives. The respective roles of the state, of the private sector (in its various forms) and of civil society are still often confused. Hard evidence of effectiveness, economic efficiency, added value, responsiveness and accountability to citizens is often sparse, and the scale and underlying causes of capacity shortfalls are daunting.

Ability to pay, subsidies, professional norms and standards, and variable interpretation of private- and public-goods are ubiquitous – and legitimate – concerns of policy-makers. New service delivery requirements relating to trade and the adherence to international norms and standards, and the cost of compliance with these, add another dimension to an already complex issue.

Thinking about service delivery therefore implies an analysis of, and influence on, complex economic, institutional and political factors.

theIDLgroup's work in the area of service delivery is informed both by current academic thinking and by our consultants’ considerable hands-on experience of reconfiguring and delivering services in difficult environments across Africa and Asia.

theIDLgroup was a key player in the early work on ‘2nd generation’ service delivery issues following structural adjustment. Looking initially at livestock and veterinary services, IDL’s policy research for DFID and review of animal health service delivery in developing countries became a standard text on service delivery reforms, and a benchmark for the differentiation of public and private goods, in that sector.

We have been deeply involved in subsequent debate on the emergence of community-based service providers and their acceptance by generally conservative professional bodies. theIDLgroup’s ‘Threat or Opportunity’ publication examines the policy issues and processes affecting the adoption of such service delivery models, including effectiveness, economics, regulatory frameworks, technical professional barriers, and the requirements of trade. theIDLgroup is now providing the institutional and political science inputs to a major multilateral initiative developing a global platform supporting the formation, innovation and dissemination of best practice with respect to livestock services for the poor.

Examples of Relevant Experience

theIDLgroup work in Bangladesh on the livelihood determinants of the rural poor highlighted, with a fresh perspective, the hugely more significant role that private sector service providers are now playing, both to the benefit and the detriment of the poor, and has led to new work on the transaction costs incurred by the poor in accessing basic services.

theIDLgroup has further examined market-based approaches to service delivery in the context of research and technology for poverty reduction, questioning the dominance of supply-side ‘Institute’ models and highlighting the lack of demand-side influence and accountability to citizens.

We are also currently working with donors and the private sector on developing a new public-private partnership for global vaccine development, identifying and building on the respective comparative advantages and utility of public and private finance in the context of risk-sharing, marketing and production.