FLYING BLIND? EVIDENCE FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REFORM AGENDAS, IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOMES IN LOW INCOME COUNTRIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Although considerable resources and attention have been allocated to recent ‘good governance’ public management reform in low income and fragile states, there is little evidence as to what degree this agenda has been implemented nor as to whether it has led to improved services and outcomes for populations. To address this lacuna, we conduct a review of the large but almost entirely qualitative literature on good governance reform in the 49 countries classed as low income by the United Nations. We find only a small number of documents that link good governance public sector reform agendas with implementation. Fewer still assess outcome. We conduct an empirical analysis of the relationship between reform agenda (using data from the literature review), implementation, service delivery and outcomes, as measured by performance on Millennium Development Goals indicators. We report that there is little, if any, empirical evidence that reform enhances service delivery. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.068 | 0.230 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".