Desktop version

Home arrow Management arrow Improving Access and Quality of Public Services in Latin America: To Govern and To Serve

Descriptive Statistics

Table 4.3 sets out descriptive statistics for the variables included in the analysis. As mentioned above, the district sample is mostly urban, although it includes districts with as little as 3 percent of urban population. Poverty incidence numbers are consistent with this feature of our sample as it approximates the poverty rate for urban areas. Note, however,

Variable

Obs

Mean

Std. dev.

Min

Max

Control variables

Urban population (%)

199

0.86

0.20

0.03

1.00

Poverty incidence

200

0.27

0.17

0.01

0.92

Human development index

200

0.64

0.04

0.48

0.76

Gini coefficient

200

0.30

0.03

0.21

0.40

Municipalities with investment planning office (%)

200

0.74

0.44

0.00

1.00

Change in investment budget execution

200

4,811,709

14,500,000

-3,208,174

195,000,000

Budget percentage financed by mining royalties

200

0.31

0.27

0.00

0.98

Water investment budget coming from the PB

200

461,519.9

1,765,267

0.00

17,800,000

Water investment budget coming from other sources

200

3,114,438

7,678,772

0.00

83,200,000

Municipality is registered on the SNIP

200

0.48

0.50

0.00

1.00

Provincial capital district = 1

200

0.33

0.47

0.00

1.00

Mayor immediately re-elected

198

0.24

0.43

0.00

1.00

% of the votes for winner over the total in the last election process

196

0.28

0.09

0.13

0.60

% of voting women

198

0.49

0.03

0.42

0.57

Average quarterly price

187

1.42

0.62

0.04

3.02

% of unbilled water

199

0.43

0.17

-0.44

0.93

Arrears (number of months)

195

2.18

3.37

0.37

45.05

Number of districts attended by the local water supplier (WS) Outcome variables

200

21.17

17.10

1.00

48.00

Water coverage (attended population over total urban population)

185

0.77

0.21

0.00

1.00

Water continuity (hours a day) PB variables

188

15.52

7.32

0.00

24.00

PB intensity, lax definition

200

0.27

0.35

0.00

2.49

PB intensity, strict definition

200

0.13

0.20

0.00

1.85

Projects of the municipality prioritized by PB (%), lax definition

200

0.02

0.03

0.00

0.19

Projects of the municipality prioritized by PB (%), strict definition

200

0.01

0.02

0.00

0.17

Number of participating organizations

189

84.99

91.06

1.00

670.00

People participating on the PB (% over the total district population) (x thousand)

189

4.14

5.6

0.004

36.78

Source: All data sets. Authors’ elaboration that there is substantial variability in poverty incidence, from 0.01 to 92 percent. Outcome measures also show significant variability. Note that the maximum value of our PB intensity measure is greater than 1. We have only three municipalities for which this is the case. Two of these have to do with our lax matching, which may end up grouping more projects than those originally prioritized by PB. Also, it may be that some non-infrastructure investments, such as training, are added to the cost of projects.

Looking into the PB participatory process, some characteristics of the participants are shown in Table 4.4. We find no significant differences between districts with high and low PB intensity as regards gender or education. Men’s participation is greater in both types of districts. Participation of individuals with no more than primary education is also similar. One potentially important difference, though, is that in high PB-intensity districts there is greater participation by grassroots organizations and somewhat less participation by government representatives. This is an important finding because it suggests that people’s pressure to get investment for their projects could be an important and effective mechanism to make PB work.

Table 4.4 Characteristics of participants in PB processes

Low PB intensity

(%)

High PB intensity (%)

Total

(%)

Gender

Female

30

31

30

Male

69

67

68

Educational level

No education

4

5

4

Primary education

6

4

5

Secondary education

50

54

52

Post-secondary education

41

38

39

Organizations represented

Grassroots social organizations

48

54

51

Workers unions

1

1

1

Civil associations

36

34

35

Government representatives

13

10

12

Employers’ associations

3

2

2

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >

Related topics