Eduardo Fagre
Ejecutivo de la Dirección de Evaluación de Impacto y Aprendizaje de Políticas de CAF
Phrases such as “modernization of the public sector through technology,” “innovations and digitalization of the state, “e-government” and many others on role of technology within the state are becoming increasingly commonplace. In short, it has become clear that, over the past 10 years, efforts to modernize public services through various technological tools have grown substantially.
The so-called open government, technological reforms to automate and enhance various processes such as public processes and project tenders, interfaces designed to involve citizens in public decision-making and in monitoring procedures and e-justice, etc., are actions that have taken center stage in recent years. Now, how important is this process for Latin America? How has it been implemented? Have public services really improved with these innovations?
Numerous studies highlight the importance of such innovations within public administration, not only for their potential for process optimization, but also for their gains in transparency, participation and citizen oversight. However, there is also more cautious research about these changes, highlighting the enormous difficulties for their implementation, as well as the institutional changes necessary for proper operation. For example, some digital solutions for the public sector are often imported from e-commerce and/or the private sector, where citizens are perceived as customers and not as individuals with rights and obligations. These aspects are vital in citizens’ relationship with the state.
In addition to these operational and institutional hurdles, the Latin American public sector seems to face significant challenges to appropriate and incorporate a significant variety of technological innovations into government administration. Two impact assessments conducted by CAF—development bank of Latin America—shed light on this issue and underscore the importance of advancing this agenda.
The first assessment, carried out in Colombia, evaluated the Single Procedure Information System (SUIT) as a technological platform to enhance the policy of procedure optimization throughout the country. It works as follows: Agencies must first record procedures they offer to the public, which leads to a second phase in which optimization actions are carried out for each procedure, such as reducing requirements requested from citizens, extracting information from databases of other entities, increasing transparency in the collection of fees, among others. Although the assessment was designed to evaluate the SUIT as digital innovation, the exercise changed radically when it identified that the use of the system by agencies was extremely low. Therefore, in 2017, only 40% of the procedures nationwide were recorded, and 31% of agencies across the country had not entered a single procedure successfully in the system. This changed the focus of the exercise to identify effective mechanisms to promote registration of procedures by agencies.
The second assessment faced a similar problem. The exercise was conceived with the aim of evaluating PRESET, a platform for recording, assessing and monitoring water and sanitation infrastructure projects in Peru. PRESET was conceived as a technological innovation to improve project cycle and bidding processes, which was extremely inefficient and costly: Formulation demanded multiple trips to Lima, had an average duration of 48 months, required hiring of agents who supposedly streamlined the process when, in fact, it was a source of corruption, among other issues. In other words, the objective of the exercise was to quantify improvements in the swiftness of the process and in the quality of projects designed through PRESET, compared to those presented by traditional processes. However, a new problem was identified with the use and widespread implementation of the platform: Some 35% of agencies did not submit any projects through PRESET, it took an average of 296 days to start and complete project registration (first phase of the formulation process) and only 40% completed the registration of some of their projects. As in the assessment in Colombia, this diagnosis on the use of the platform refocused the exercise towards an intervention with behavioral elements sent through text messages and emails in an attempt to increase presentation and registration of projects in PRESET.
So the question is, why have these technological innovations failed to function properly and meet the goals for which they were originally conceived? What factors might be hindering their widespread use in Latin American public institutions?
Finding answers to these questions is no easy task. Noteworthy is also that, before starting the assessment in Peru, a survey was sent to all public institutions that would be able to formulate water and sanitation projects, and responses were obtained from little more than 400 agencies. The results are quite interesting, as they help rule out some hypotheses. Regarding the assumption that users were unaware of the platform or considered it a useless tool, the results are compelling in that these do not seem to be reasons that discouraged their use. On the contrary, officials surveyed emphasized that untrained staff and constant comments by platform analysts were the main barriers to project submission. The second reason could also be a reflection of the low capacities of government agencies for formulation of quality projects. Lastly, in Peru and Colombia a significant amount of funds have been reportedly allocated to ensure an adequate operation of both platforms, which rules out the theory that platform functionality could be one of the main obstacles to their use.
This resistance in the region to technological innovations could be due to human-related factors and their difficulties in internalizing and implementing these changes as part of their work. We are not only referring to insufficient skills of public officials, but also of work teams without the scale or will necessary to face the day-to-day tasks in addition to the efforts it would require to work, for example, with a new technology platform and/or process.
Therefore, implementation of technology tools in the state must be supported by strategies that help prepare and encourage public officials for use and appropriate massification such as training, incentive mechanisms through rewards or performance elements, and other actions that take into account the limitations and concerns of public servants. In doing so, separating this process of modernization of the state from human capital limitations will continue to be a barrier to consolidation in public administration, as well as one of the main challenges to be addressed by new administrations.
