'The simplistic analysis presented in this report is unacceptable, blames only teachers and reflects poorly on those who continue to teach despite not having been paid in months.' So concluded a contribution to the final week of the e-discussion from Education International, the global union federation for teachers.

It was one of a pair of major interventions that took the form of excerpts from longer papers distributed around the seven weekly theme sections. The other such intervention came from Stephen Gasteyer and Rahul Vaswani, of the rural development analysts RCAP. (Only the acronym was provided.)

Both combined robustly expressed opinions with quite a wealth of detail. EI's contribution was particularly detailed about the experience of decentralisation in India, reporting a wide variety of results and describing some examples in which teachers were able to contribute to improving the design and delivery of services and some in which they were oppressed by local hierarchies.

It reported a mixed experience of parent teacher associations as well, noting that they are sometimes controlled by head teachers, meaning that rather than enhancing the power of the 'client' constituency they can be used to enhance and disguise the power of the 'provider' constituency.

'There are certainly reasons to talk about how to improve accountability,' EI commented. 'Two major ways of doing this are to strengthen local democracy and to help parents organise their own associations.'

Counterposing democracy to the market as means of accountability, EI is more sceptical about the role of parental choice of schools and vouchers, believing that, in conditions of supply scarcity, such measures would be divisive and inequitable.

EI noted: 'Education For All was made a reality in North America and Europe during the second part of the 19th century. There are some variations in how compulsory schooling was introduced, but nowhere was it made through the introduction of a market model.'

Without opposing the provision of education through NGOs rather than through state agencies, EI expressed concerns about the divisions that could result, pointing to the potential dangers associated with religious schools in particular, and concluding:

'The development of such NGO schools poses the risk of creating an education sector divided into three parallel systems, NGO schools for the poor, public schools for the middle class, and private schools with high fees for the rich.'

The EI comments also cited research suggesting that the relatively low pay and conditions enjoyed by teachers (in comparison to other professions, if not to many of their 'clients') is a major factor in teacher absenteeism.

The Gasteyer/Vaswani comments were focused entirely on Chapter 9 of the WDR, which deals with water, sanitation and electricity services. They argued that voice and compacts, as advocated in the report, were poor relations to 'services democracy', and stated:

'The working assumption is that the goal is to privatize delivery of public services. What is troublesome is that the chapter argues repeatedly that market based approaches improve accountability - often stating as fact interpretations of case studies and events. In our critique, we argue that the chapter has failed to adequately address some of the real concerns with treating basic services as commodities, and the very real problems with multinational private sector investment in this field.'

Submitted by: Brendan Martin -- June 10,2003
Country of Residence: United Kingdom
Country of Origin/Citizenship: Ireland
Institutional Affiliation: Public World
Occupation: E-discussion moderator
Language:

ActionAid welcomes the opportunity to comment on the draft of the 2004 WDR, ‘Making Services Work for Poor People’ – following an earlier consultation late last year on the draft outline. This brief note builds on an earlier submission made by ActionAid, and focuses on the WDR’s overall policy message, and its underlying assumptions, rather than the detail of sectoral issues in chapters 7, 8 and 9.

The draft report is an ambitious document, in terms of the reform agenda it sets out. It has pulled together a lot of current knowledge about reform efforts in basic services, and provides some useful conceptual tools.

Yet in our view, the WDR team has not gone nearly far enough in incorporating the concerns raised by ActionAid and by other civil society organisations in the first consultation round. Most of the changes are in the margins of the report, and have little bearing on the overall policy thrust – which continues to treat the widespread failure of basic services for poor people as primarily a crisis of accountability, which can best be remedied by a fundamental redefinition of the state’s role and the concomitant marketisation of service delivery.

We believe that this is a serious mistake, and that many of the proposed actions that follow from this argument are likely to harm the interests of poor people.

In particular, ActionAid would like to see a number of specific points addressed, and our comments on these are posted in each of the seven sections.

An overarching comment concerns the issue of accountability and its relationship with other challenges.

In many respects, the WDR is a victim of its own exaggeration. It is true that accountability is sorely lacking in service delivery systems in many poor countries, and that this is a major barrier to improving access, quality, equity and efficiency.

New ideas for how to foster stronger accountability in poor countries basic services should be welcomed, as one element in a broader strategy to improve these services.

Yet the WDR implies that a failure of accountability, stemming from the confusion between policy maker and provider roles, is either the sole barrier or else the principal barrier to improvement. Other constraints to making services work for poor people are barely touched upon in the report, or dismissed as unimportant, making for a curiously one-sided reform agenda.

Submitted by: Patrick Watt -- June 10,2003
Country of Residence: United Kingdom
Country of Origin/Citizenship: United Kingdom
Institutional Affiliation: ActionAid
Occupation: Policy adviser
Language:

'A analise simplista apresentada neste relatorio e inaceitavel, culpa apenas os professores e afeta aqueles que continuam a lecionar apenas da falta de pagamentos por meses a fio. Assim, a Education International (EI), o sindicato global das federacoes de professores, concluiu sua contribuicao para a utlima semana da discussao eletronica.

Foi uma das duas intervencoes que tomaram a forma de trechos de longos documentos, distribuidos ao longo dos temas semanais da discussao. A outra intervencao veio de Stephen Gasteyer e Rahul Waswani, da RCAP 'analistas de desenvolvimento rural.

Ambos combinaram opinioes expressadas de maneira solida com riqueza de detalhes. A contribuicao da EI foi particularmente detalhada sobre a experiencia de decentralizacao na India, relatando a variedade de resultados e descrevendo alguns exemplos em que professores puderam contribuir para o melhoramento da elaboracao e fornecimento dos servicos e outros exemplos em que eles foram oprimidos pelas hierarquias locais.

Tambem relatou-se a experiencia mista de associacoes de pais, observando que por vezes sao controladas pelos diretores de escola, ou seja, mais do que incrementar o poder de escolha do 'cliente' em questao, as associacoes podem ser usadas para aumentar e disfarcar o poder do 'provedor'.

'Certamente, ha razoes para discutir como aumentar a responsabilizacao' a EI comentou. 'As duas principais maneiras de se fazer isso sao: fortalecer a democracia local e ajudar os pais a organizar suas proprias associacoes.'

Ao contrapor a democracia ao Mercado como meio de responsabilizacao, a EI esta cetica sobre o papel das escolhas dos pais sobre a escola e vales, acreditando que, em condicoes de oferta escassa, tais medidas seriam divisiveis e injustas.

A EI notou que: 'Education For All tornou-se realidade na America do Norte e Europa durante a segunda parte do seculo 19. Ha variacoes a respeito de como a educacao compulsoria foi introduzida, mas em nenhum lugar isto ocorreu atraves da introducao de um modelo de mercado.'

Sem se opor a provisao de educacao atraves de ONGs em detrimento de agencies estaduais, a EI expressou suas preocupacoes sobre as divisoes que poderiam ser criadas em consequencia, indicando os perigos potenciais associados com escolas religiosas em particular, concluindo:

'O desenvolvimento de escolas atraves de ONG apresenta o risco de criar um setor de educacao dividido em tres sistemas paralelos: escolas de ONGs para os pobres, escolas publicas para a classe media e escolas privadas com altas mensalidades para os ricos.'

Os comentarios da EI tambem citam pesquisas sugerindo que o baixo pagamento e ma-condicao vivida pelos professores (em comparacao com outras profissoes, se nao em comparacao com os proprios 'clientes') e a principal forma da ausencia de professores.

Os comentarios de Gasteyer/Vaswani concentram-se inteiramente no Capitulo 9 do RDM, que lida com servicos de agua, saneamento e eletricidade.

'A presuncao do projeto e que o objetivo e a privatizacao dos servicos publicos. O que preocupa e que o capitulo afirma repetidamente que a abordagem de mercado melhora a responsabilizacao frequentemente afirmando como fato, as interpretacoes de estudos de casos e eventos. Na nossa critica, nos argumentamos que o capitulo fracassou em abordar algumas das reais preocupacoes ao tratar servicos basicos como mercadorias, e os reais problemas com o investimento do setor privado multinational neste campo.'

Submitted by: Ana Beatriz Urbano Andari -- June 10,2003
Country of Residence: Brazil
Country of Origin/Citizenship: United Kingdom
Institutional Affiliation: Public World
Occupation: Mediadora (lingua portuguesa)
Language:

"L'analyse simpliste faite dans ce rapport est inacceptable, elle condamne seulement les professeurs et décrit mal ceux qui continuent d'enseigner alors qu'ils n'ont pas été payés depuis des mois". Telle est la conclusion d'une contribution faite lors de la dernière semaine de la e-discussion par Education International, la fédération internationale de syndicats d'enseignants.

C'est une des deux interventions extraites de documents plus longs diffusés dans les différents thèmes de la discussion. L'autre intervention était celle de Stephen Gasteyer et Rahul Vaswani, des analystes en développement rural.

Les deux contributions ont été faites avec abondance de détails. La contribution d'Education International (EI) donne beaucoup de précisions sur la décentralisation en Inde: elle décrit des exemples d'amélioration de services publics réalisés grâce à la participation des enseignants ainsi que des situations dans lesquelles ils sont oppressés par les hiérarchies locales.

Dans un exemple d'expérience mêlant associations d'enseignants et de parents, EI indique que les enseignants supérieurs les contrôlent parfois si bien qu'au lieu d'améliorer le pouvoir des usagés c'est le pouvoir des fournisseurs de services qui est étendu.

EI commente: "il y a de bonnes raisons de discuter des moyens d'améliorer la transparence". "Les deux façons d'y arriver sont de renforcer la démocratie au niveau local et d'aider les parents à créer leurs propres associations.

Opposant le marché comme moyen de transparence à la démocratie, EI est plus sceptique sur le rôle du choix des écoles par les parents car en cas de manque d'offre, cela deviendrait inégalitaire.

EI remarque que: " l'éducation pour tous a été réalisée en Europe et en Amérique du Nord au cours de la deuxième moitie du 19eme siècle. L'introduction de l'obligation de la scolarité a varié selon les pays mais n'a jamais été réalisée par l'introduction d'un modèle basé sur le marché".

Sans opposer éducation dispensée à travers les ONG plutôt que par les agences gouvernementales, EI exprime ses préoccupations concernant les divisions qui pourraient en résulter et souligne les dangers potentiels des écoles religieuses.

EI conclue: " le développement de telles écoles-ONG risque de diviser le secteur de l'éducation en trois systèmes parallèles: les écoles ONG pour les pauvres, les écoles publiques pour les classes moyennes et les écoles privées avec des droits d'inscription élevés pour les riches".

EI cite aussi des recherches qui montrent que les salaires relativement bas des professeurs (en comparaison avec ceux d'autres professions et si ce n'est avec leurs "clients") et leurs conditions de travail sont des facteurs majeurs de l'absentéisme des professeurs.

Les commentaires de Gasteyer et Vaswani sont consacrés au chapitre 9 du WDR qui traite de l'eau, du système sanitaire et des services électriques.

"Le sous-entendu du projet est la privatisation des services publics. Ce qui est préoccupant est que le chapitre répète constamment qu'une approche basée sur le marché crée plus de transparence (souvent en se basant seulement sur des interprétations d'études de cas). Dans notre critique nous disons que ce chapitre ne parvient pas à résoudre les préoccupations liées aux services publics qui sont traités comme une marchandise ainsi que les problèmes d'investissements du secteur privé.

Submitted by: Marie -- June 09,2003
Country of Residence: United Kingdom
Country of Origin/Citizenship: France
Institutional Affiliation: Masters
Occupation: Moderatrice
Language:

?El simpl�ico anᬩsis presentado en este reporte es inaceptable, s󬯠�culpa a los profesores y refleja muy poco a aquellos que continuan ense񡮤�o a pesar de que no hayan sido pagados durante varios meses?. As?oncluy󠠅�ducaci󮠉�nternacional (EI) ? el sindicato global de profesores- en su contribuci󮠤�e la ?a semana de la discusi󮠥�lectr󮩣�a.

Este fue uno de los extractos de los documentos m᳠largos que fueron distribuidos entre los temas de las siete semanas. El otro fue realizado por Stephen Gasteyer y Raul Vaswani, analistas del desarrollo rural de RCAP (s󬯠�la sigla fue dada).

Ambas contribuciones fueron realizadas con gran detalle. La contribuci󮠤�e EI fue particularmente detallada sobre la experiencia de descentralizaci󮠥�n la India. Se report󠵮�a gran variedad de resultados y se describieron ejemplos en los cuales los profesores fueron capaces de contribuir a la mejora del dise񯠹� entrega de servicios y otros en los cuales 鳴os fueron oprimidos por las jerarqu?.

Tambi鮠se report󠵮�a experiencia mixta de asociaciones de padres de familia, se񡬡�ndo que 鳴as a veces son controladas por los rectores, y por lo tanto, en vez de aumentar el poder de los ?clientes?, las asociaciones pueden ser usadas para aumentar y disimular el poder de los ?proveedores?.

?Ciertamente hay razones para hablar sobre como mejorar la responsabilidad? coment󠅉�. ?Las dos mejores v? para hacer esto es fortaleciendo la democracia local y ayudando a los padres a organizar sus propias organizaciones?.

Contraponiendo la democracia al mercado como medio de lograr responsabilidad, EI es má³ escé°´ico en cuanto al papel de las opciones de colegios para los padres de familia y los vauchers, creyendo que en condiciones de una escaza oferta, estas medidas será® no-equitativas.

EI se񡬳�: ? Educaci󮠰�ara Todos fue hecho realidad para Norte Am鲩ca y Europa durante la segunda mitad del siglo XIX. Hay algunas variaciones de como la educaci󮠯�bligatoria fue introducida, pero en nig?so fue hecha a trav鳠de un modelo de mercado?.

Sin oponerse a la provisi󮠤�e educaci󮠰�or parte de ONGs en vez de agencias estatales, EI expres󠵮�a cierta preocupaci󮠡�cerca de las divisiones que pueden resultar, apuntando a los peligros potenciales asociados particularmente a los colegios religiosos, y concluy󠤩�ciendo:

? El desarrollo de tales colegios por ONGs posee el riesgo de crear un sector de educaci󮠤�ividido en tres sistemas paralelos, colegios por NGOs para los pobres, colegios p?os para la clase media, y colegios privados con altas tarifas para los ricos?.

Los comentarios de EI tambien citan investigaciones que sugieren que el bajo salario y las pobres condiciones en que se encuentran los profesores (comparando con otra profesiones, en vez de muchos de sus ?clientes?) es el principal factor del absentismo de los profesores.

Los comentarios de Gasteyer y Vaswani fueron enfocados completamente en el cap�lo 9 del WDR, el cual trata sobre los servicios de agua, saniamiento y electricidad. Ellos alegaron que las voces y los convenios, como lo recomienda el reporte, son pobres relaciones para ?servir la democracia? y afirmaron que:

?El supuesto operativo es que la meta es privatizar la entrega de los servicios p?os. Lo que es dif?l es que en el cap�lo se argumenta repetidamente que las aproximaciones basadas en el mercado mejoran la responsabilidad ?muchas veces dando por hecho interpretaciones de casos de estudio y eventos. En nustra cr�ca argumentamos que el cap�lo ha fallado en presentar algunos de las preocupaciones reales cuando se tratan a los servicios bᳩcos como bienes, y los grandes problemas reales con la invesi󮠰�rivada de las multinacionales en este campo?.

Submitted by: Adriana Garc? -- June 09,2003
Country of Residence: United Kingdom
Country of Origin/Citizenship: Colombia
Institutional Affiliation: Public World
Occupation: Moderadora
Language: