Privatisation or loose coupling?Governance with empty pockets

in the education sector, DRC

Tom De Herdt & Kristof Titeca

International SeminarEducation and International Development

Amsterdam 29-30 September 2011

2

Contrasting data

• State budget to education: $150 (“82) => $10 (“08)- Number of teachers declined with 25%- Teachers’ salary declined with 50%

• Number of pupils increased (4%/year)- Literacy higher than average SSA- Pupil-teacher ratio of 39 ( < 44 SSA)

What kind of state is this (if not a failed state) ?

3

structure

• A loosely coupled state?

• Loose coupling upgraded in DRC

• Loose coupling, not privatisation

• Conclusions

4

Hallet/ventresca, Burawoy, inspired by Gouldner Tension between formal and enacted bureaucracy The idea of “practical norms” as reproduced in the interactions around actual practices. Loose coupling: Selective filtering of influence from one part to the next (horizontally & vertically)

“Inhabited institutions”

5

How did the schools react to the cuts in functioning costs, teachers

and salaries?• System of “frais de motivation”

- To pay for salary top-ups- And engage “non-mécanisés”

6

Number of teachers in public schools, their source of finance and monthly remuneration per province in DRC (2009)

Personnel budget Number of Teachers Average monthly

remuneration

frais de

motivation state

budget Total

(MEPSP)

on public payroll

(SECOPE)

% on public payroll

000 USD 000 USD Units Units % USD

Poverty Line Units

Kinshasa 11.590 11.079 15.806 14.013 88,7% 156 0,89 - 0,89 Bas-Congo 4.150 6.851 16.149 12.945 80,2% 63 0,62 - 1,20 Bandundu 5.021 14.454 47.739 29.409 61,6% 38 0,43 - 1,01 Equateur 4.839 8.937 37.218 17.405 46,8% 35 0,55 - 1,05 Orientale 8.053 8.792 36.354 16.472 45,3% 43 0,53 - 0,99 Nord-Kivu 10.069 5.294 24.733 10.140 41,0% 59 0,63 - 1,23 Sud-Kivu 7.301 8.214 21.059 9.147 43,4% 69 0,65 - 0,92 Maniema 2.159 2.821 9.132 6.069 66,5% 50 0,61 - 0,78 Kasaï-Oriental 3.583 6.195 24.428 11.390 46,6% 37 0,43 - 0,50 Kasaï-Occid 3.896 3.558 23.780 14.434 60,7% 30 0,37 - 0,36 Katanga 16.522 8.839 32.936 16.624 50,5% 72 0,98 - 1,74 RDC 85.261 87.778 290.734 158.048 54,4% 56 0,53 - 1,11

7

How did schools react to the cuts in functioning costs, teachers and

salaries?• System of “frais de motivation”

- To pay for salary top-ups- And engage “non-mécanisés”

• “face-to-face administration” to ‘follow-up’ registration files and solve salary conflicts

“coupling” of practices and regulatory framework, but coupling in a “loose” way

8

Loose Coupling upgraded in DRC

• “loosely coupled” regulatory framework to legalize school fees:- Constitution 2005: primary education is free- Ministerial Decree 2007: max school cost at 1020 FC- Ministerial Letter 2008: allowing provinces to define some other

cost categories (referring to Framework Law of 1986)- Provinces themselves yet define still other categories- Special arrangement with DfID: no SONAS payments- Churches refer to Convention of 1977 to ask for extra fees- Teachers refer to Mbudi agreement 2004 to raise salaries

9

Patterns of loose and tight coupling in the education

system as a whole• “loosely coupled” regulatory framework

• “système de ventilation” feeds a complex system of parallel budgets- 70 different fees to be paid per child- All fees have a destination somewhere in the education

system

10

. Redistribution of functioning costs paid by parents for conventionized schools (Province Equateur 2008-9, in FC)

Level State Actors Non-state Actors Total

District

District-level administration 4,5 District Coordination 110 Antenna of SECOPE (salary administration) 4,5 132,5 Antenna of SERNIE (pupil administration) 4,5 (59%) Antenna of PRS (pension administration) 4,5

Antenna of inspection service 4,5

Province

Provincial level administration 9,0 Provincial Coordination 40,5

Provincial level of SECOPE 7,0 Provincial level of SERNIE 4,5 79,0 Provincial level of PRS 4,5 (35%) Provincial level of inspection service 9,0 Governor 4,5

Nation “Fund for the promotion of national education” 4,5

National Coordination 4,5 13,5

Parents' association 4,5 (6%)

Totals 65,5 159,5 225,0

(29%) (71%) (100%)

11

Patterns of loose and tight coupling in the education

system as a whole• “loosely coupled” regulatory framework

• “système de ventilation” feeds a complex system of parallel budgets- 70 different fees to be paid per child- All fees have a destination somewhere in the education system

Recoupling of education budget to users of the system eases tax collection solves problems of security eliminates leakage of money minimizes problems associated with monetary instability

12

Loose coupling or privatisation?

• Privatisation-1: private schools=> legal reform to make schools public? (1) really private schools = 10%, major cities

(2) most public schools = religious networks

• Privatisation-2: privatisation of the state=> increasing salaries? (1) salary top-ups as a (local) collective strategy (2) also engagement of non-registered teachers

• Privatisation 3: private financing by parents=> abolish school costs? (1) has added to legal confusion

(2) has not been effective

13

Conclusion• The privatisation perspective is too easily supposing the

“private” is replacing the “public”, in response to the state fading away- In fact, the “public” has rather been transformed- “loose coupling” has enabled the schools to keep functioning

without public finance• Generating means from parents• Engaging ‘own’ personnel, paying salary complements• Reproduing the state administration itself

• Warning of confusing two objectives of “state reconstruction” and “poverty reduction”: aren’t we trying to rebuild the ship at sea?

14

Thank you