COORDINATION AND COOPERATION PROBLEMS IN

PUBLIC OFFICES: An Empirical Study in Tanzania

Nicolaus Herman Shombe
Main Advisor: Prof. Tetsushi Sonobe

Ph.D. Presentation Defense

27th March, 2019

Referees: Prof. INTARAKUMNERD, Patarapong (Sub Advisor)

Assistant Prof. TAKAGI, Yusuke (Sub Advisor)
Prof. MUNRO, Alistair (Chairperson of the Doctoral Programs Committee)
Prof. KAJISA, Kei / Aoyama Gakuin University (External Referee)

1
Structure
Chapter 1: Introduction

• Background

• Motivation

Chapter 2: Literature Review

CHAPTER 3: Government Office meeting

CHAPTER 4: Government Office Filing

Chapter 5: Conclusion and policy implication

2
Introduction

3
4
 Fig 1: Focus Area
Review of the related literature and Research Gap
• Teachers and standardized test
(e.g., Duflo, Dupas, & Kremer, Public Sector Organizations
2015; Glewwe et al., 2010;
• Core government: Ministries , or
Reinikka & Svensson, 2011), branches of the government.
• Healthcare workers and number
Public Enterprises

of petients (e.g., Bloom, Carol, Agencies • Agencies: organizations that are

Seiler, & Van Reenen, 2015; clearly a part of the government and
Chaudhury et al., 2006), deliver public programs, goods, or
Core Services e.g Schools, hospitals
• Police officers on arrest and
Government

crime data (Banerjee et al., • Public enterprises: are agencies that

2012; Eterno & Silverman, deliver public programs, goods, or
2012). services, but operate independently
of Government e.g Utility &
*** Public projects (Rasul & Regulatory agencies
Rogger, 2018) 11

6
Fig 1: How a typical central government ministries work
1. Issue received

• Government work on documents and

at Registry

meetings
2. Preview Exit

• Coordination of activities and sharing

3. Permanent 17. Minister
18. Policy
Decision
of ideas is through meetings and
Secretary
document
11
16
12. Meeting
4. Deputy PS • The majority of officers complain that
10 15
meetings are ineffective and filing is
5. Department poor.
Director

9
• The leaders of ministries, such as
6. Assistant 14
Director permanent secretaries wanted to see
improvement in managing office
8
7. Frontline officers 13. Department/section
meetings and filing practices.
(Principal, senior meeting(s)
officers, Officer II,
Offiicer I)

Feedback of Action(s) Response and further

Instructions (forward) taken guidance/action(s)
7
Main Hypothesis
• Government offices situation is similar to coordination game

Key Question(s)
• Why workers and supervisor in the same office do not change their ways
to improve meetings and filing.
• What then accounts for the unproductive meetings and poor filing
practices perpetuated by these officers?

Correlates of coordination failure

• Communication,
• Leadership
• Incentives
• Number of players

8
9
10
 Data Collection and Methodology
• Ministries
1. Plenary Field Survey • Local government
• Other Stake holders

• Pretest at GRIPS
2. Develop • Pretest at MOF
Questionnaires • Training

3. 3. Actual field • Official application

survey • Official
endorsement

11
Official Endorsement

12
 Figure 2: Data Collection- Focus Area
Minister

Permanent Secretary

Deputy Permanent
Secretary

Director Policy Director Human Director Sector

and Planning Resource Specific

Assistant Assistant Assistant Assistant Assistant Assistant Assistant Assistant Assistant

Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director

Frontline Frontline Frontline Frontline Frontline Frontline Frontline Frontline Frontline

Workers Workers Workers Workers Workers Workers Workers Workers Workers

Number of sample: 252 respondents (189 workers & 63 supervisors) in 21 Ministries 13

Data Collection Face-to-face Interview
A. Training B. Rehearsal

C. Workers interview C. Supervisors interview

14
 Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of government officers and offices by status and cohort
Combin Test of the equality
Old Young
ed Workers Supervisors
Cohort Cohort (2) – (3) (4) – (5)
sample
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean diff Mean diff
(Std.) (Std.) (Std.) (Std.) (Std.) [t-Value] [t-Value]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Age (years) 41.16 38.69 48.57 47.34 33.18 -9.88*** 14.16***
(8.51) (7.79) (5.94) (4.77) (4.13) [-9.21] [23.22]
Old cohort ( = 1 if >
0.56 0.43 0.95 -0.52***
40 years
and employed
(0.50) (0.50) (0.21) [-8.02]
before 2004)
Gender (1 =
0.41 0.43 0.35 0.34 0.51 0.08 -0.17**
female)
(0.49) (0.50) (0.48) (0.47) (0.50) [1.18] [-2.77]
Yrs of schooling 17.47 17.20 18.29 17.92 16.88 -1.09*** 1.04***
(1.27) (1.12) (1.33) (1.22) (1.08) [-6.36] [7.07]
Prior experience 5.78 4.06 10.94 8.86 1.80 -6.88*** 7.06***
(years) (6.78) (5.17) (8.31) (7.44) (2.44) [-7.75] [9.56]
Tenure in the
7.51 6.94 9.22 9.63 4.77 -2.29** 4.85***
current
office (years) (6.08) (5.74) (6.75) (6.98) (2.95) [-2.62] [6.84]
Tenure in the
3.49 3.19 4.40 3.96 2.89 -1.21** 1.07**
current
post (years) (2.78) (1.90) (4.39) (3.41) (1.45) [-3.03] [3.07]
Total years of
13.29 10.99 20.16 18.49 6.57 -9.16*** 11.91***
experience
(8.38) (7.51) (7.03) (7.38) (3.25) [-8.52] [15.78]
Monthly salary
1359 1003 2427 1579 1075 -1424*** 504***
(TZS 000)
(796.95) (462.70) (613.63) (887.53) (546.75) [-19.41] [5.24]
Office layout 0.56 0.70 0.16 0.63 0.75 0.54*** -0.11*
(=1 if open office) (0.50) (0.46) (0.37) (0.48) (0.44) [8.45] [-1.69]
Supervisors office 0.75 0.73 0.76 -0.02
location (1=near) (0.03) (0.03) (0.5) [-0.25]
Office size 6.00 6.00 6.00
(# of workers) (2.61) (2.61) (2.63)
Observations 252 189 63 142 110

15
 Empirical Specification
Y* is a single latent variable which is unobserved

𝒀𝒊∗ = 𝑿𝒊′ 𝜷 + 𝝁𝒊 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . 𝟏

X and β are variables and parameter Vector matrix of normally

matrices distributed error term

Y* is known only when it crosses the thresholds of the selection of workers feelings. In the case,
there is a latent continuous variable which is from 1 to 5 groups with 4 thresholds. These thresholds
are basically cut off points between the five categories and are denoted by ∝. this can be
expressed as follows in ordered probit model:
𝑌𝑖 = 𝑗 𝑖𝑓 ∝𝑗 −1 < 𝑌 ∗ ≤∝𝑗 such that:
𝑌 = 1 or perception 1 if 𝑌 ∗ ≤ 1.................................................... (2)
𝑌 = 2 or perception 2 if 𝑢1 < 𝑌 ∗ ≤ 𝑢1 ......................................... (3)
𝑌 = 3 or perception 3 if 𝑢2 < 𝑌 ∗ ≤ 𝑢2 ....................................... (4)
𝑌 = 4 or perception 4 if 𝑢3 < 𝑌 ∗ ≤ 𝑢3 .......................................... (5)
𝑌 = 5 or perception 5 if 𝑢4 ≤ 𝑌 ∗ ................................................. (6)
Structure
• Chapter 1: Introduction

• Chapter 2: Literature Review

CHAPTER 3: Government Office meeting

• CHAPTER 4: Government Office Filing

• Chapter 5: Conclusion and policy implication

17
 Table 2: Description of the office plenary meetings practices
Average Office Equality of
All Supervisors
Workers means
Mean Mean Mean Mean Diff
(Std. Dev) (Std. Dev) (Std. Dev) [t-value]
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Office has regular meetings 0.94 0.94 0.95 -0.02
(0.24) (0.24) (0.21) [-0.46]
Number of plenary meetings per week 1.68 1.38 2.59 -1.21***
(0.92) (0.60) (1.12) [-10.93]
Proportion of time to discuss office 0.78 0.76 0.84 -0.08**
issues per meeting (0.10) (0.09) (0.11) [-6.12]
Meetings normally start on time 0.27 0.24 0.35 -0.11
(0.44) (0.43) (0.48) [-1.64]
Leader communicate about 0.36 0.32 0.48 -0.16***
punctuality (0.37) (0.31) (0.50) [-2.99]
Workers punctuality 0.23 0.25 0.17 0.07*
(0.31) (0.28) (0.38) [1.65]
Leader’s punctuality 0.89 0.87 0.94 -0.06**
(0.20) (0.18) (0.25) [-2.18]
workers communicate about 0.80 0.78 0.86 -0.07*
punctuality (0.28) (0.25) (0.35) [-1.84]
Quorum needed to start meeting 0.81 0.82 0.79 0.03
(0.39) (0.39) (0.41) [0.47]
Observations 252 63 63

18
QN: “Onaverage about how many minutes
normally is the office plenary meetings start QN: How do you feel when others are
delayed?” late?
Panel A: Average lateness time
45%

40%
65%
35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
less than 10 min 10-20 min 20-40 min 40-60min More than 1hr Workers dislike when meetings start late. Main concern is why workers continue
be late?
All Supervisors Workers

19
Table 3: Estimated equations explaining delay in meeting start
Type of Regression OProbit OLS Ologic Office Department Ministry
(1) (2) (3) FE (4) FE (5) FE (6)
Dependent Variable Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay
No of workers 0.018 0.024 0.014 0.035 0.036 0.012
(0.47) (0.63) (0.19) (1.32) (1.33) (0.36)
Leader -0.717*** -0.582*** -1.226*** -0.462*** -0.461*** -0.427***
communication
(-5.7) (-6.34) (-5.63) (-3.16) (-3.16) (-2.8)
Leader punctuality -0.332** -0.293** -0.488** -0.343** -0.342** -0.292**
(-2.29) (-2.27) (-1.98) (-2.38) (-2.38) (-1.98)
Workers punctuality -0.430*** -0.414*** -0.631*** -0.455*** -0.457*** -0.421**
(-3.08) (-3.07) (-2.58) (-2.7) (-2.71) (-2.41)
Workers -0.910*** -0.882*** -1.471*** -0.956*** -0.955*** -0.816***
communication
(-4.51) (-4.13) (-4.2) (-5.39) (-5.39) (-4.48)
Incentive/sanction -0.406 -0.419 -0.609 -0.402* -0.419* -0.438*
(-1.54) (-1.54) (-1.36) (-1.77) (-1.85) (-1.92)
Office Layout -0.387*** -0.311** -0.613*** -0.350** -0.314** -0.266
(1=Open)
(-3.4) (-2.82) (-3.16) (-2.16) (-2.02) (-1.59)
Department Dummy
HR (2) -0.444** -0.433** -0.713** -0.463*** -0.487***
(-2.48) (-2.58) (-2.21) (-2.61) (-2.8)
SD (3) 0.035 0.027 0.096 0.076 0.076
(0.17) (0.14) (0.25) (0.44) (0.45)
Interview Control Yes Yes Yes
Position Control Yes Yes Yes
Number of Offices 63
No. of Departments 3
Number of Ministries 21
Observations 252 252 252 252 252 252

20
This leads to the:
“Meeting effectiveness”: Lateness leads to inefficient
meetings.
QN: “On average, about how much time do QN: “In your office, do officers tend to get sufficient
(you) and your office people spend in a information and instruction to perform their official
typical plenary meeting?” duties through routine office plenary meetings?”

Panel B:Average time workers spend in a plenary meetings

60%
Panel C: Information sufficiency
71% 60% 65%
50%
50%

40%
40%

30% 30%

20%
20%

10%

10%
0%
Always get Yes in many It depends on Most of the time I The opposite is
sufficient cases I get. case by case. don’t get. the case
0% information
Less than 30 min 30 – 45 min 45 min – 1hr 1hr – 2hr More than 2hr
All Supervisors Workers
All Supervisors Workers

22
Table 5 : Which correlate(s) of lateness on the meeting affect effectiveness?
Specification Oprobit Oprobit Office FE Oprobit Oprob
All All All Workers Supervisors
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
No of workers -0.043 -0.049* -0.03 -0.055** 0.044
(-1.39) (-1.79) (-1.57) (-1.98) (0.54)
Leader communication 0.378** 0.365* 0.211** 0.447* 0.109
(1.96) (1.72) (1.98) (1.92) (0.21)
Leader punctuality 0.114 0.044 0.011 0.161 -0.719
(0.45) (0.16) (0.07) (0.49) (-0.99)
Incentive 0.024 -0.063 -0.036 0.033 -0.026
(0.16 (-0.42) (-0.36) (0.15) (-0.06)
Worker punctuality 0.157 0.228 0.139 0.129 1.103***
(0.82 (1.17) (1.17) (0.51) (2.64)
Workers communication 0.154 0.176 0.123 0.36 -0.587
(0.63) (0.81) (1.00) (1.49) (-1.5)
No of meetings/week 0.232*** 0.139** 0.062 0.284
(2.6) (2.37) (0.48) (1.55)
Meeting duration -0.017 -0.014 0.041 -0.187
(-0.19) (-0.25) (0.48) (-0.72)
Agenda distributed 0.255*** 0.163*** 0.275** 0.241
(2.77) (3.24) 2.13) 1.4)
Free expression 0.211* 0.174** 0.212 0.624
(1.8) (2.35) (1.43) (1.48)
Opinion consideration 0.274** 0.167*** 0.329** 0.317
(2.28) (2.84) (2.15) (1.37)
Department Dummy
HR (2) 0.567*** 0.368** 0.224* 0.304 0.455
(3.41 (2.19) (1.82) (1.3) (1.19)
SSD (3) 0.275 0.112 0.063 0.09 0.145
(1.3) (0.51) (0.53) (0.4 (0.29)
23
Observations 252 252 252 189 63
Summary
• Hypotheses are mostly supported that:
• These findings suggest that, delays in meeting starting time in the
government offices in Tanzania are associated with office
communication practices, leadership, workers punctuality
behavior, and working environment, such as office layout.

• Correlates of coordination failure especially supervisors

communication matters for the effectiveness of the meeting

24
Structure

• Chapter 1: Introduction

• Chapter 2: Literature Review

• CHAPTER 3: Government Office meeting

• CHAPTER 4: Government Office Filing

• Chapter 5: Conclusion and policy implication

25
“Performance of any government largely depend on the
extent to which information and records are organized,
stored and managed trough out documents life cycle ”.

26
Table 6: Descriptive statistics of the government office document filing
Combined Average Supervisors Equality of
Office Workers means
Mean Diff
Mean Mean Mean (2)-(3)
(std. Dev) (Std. Dev) (Std. Dev) [t-value]
(1) (2) (3) (4)
If filing is problem 0.90 0.87 0.97 -0.10**
(0.30) (0.33) (0.18) [-2.16]
Filing guidelines 0.83 0.83 0.84 -0.02
(0.38) (0.38) (0.37) [-0.29]
If observed compliance to
the filing guideline 0.20 0.23 0.13 0.10*
(0.40) (0.42) (0.33) [1.72]
Leaders filing 0.48 0.48 0.49 -0.01
(0.25) (0.25) (0.25) [-0.15]
Leader’s communication 0.63 0.44 0.69 -0.25***
(0.48) (0.50) (0.46) [3.62]
Workers filing 0.66 0.79 0.27 0.52***
(0.46) (0.41) (0.45) [8.65]
Workers communication 0.53 0.55 0.51 0.04
(0.50) (0.50) (0.50) [0.58]
Incentives/sanction 0.45 0.47 0.40 0.07***
(0.30) (0.25) (0.41) [3.16]
Office layout(=1 if open
0.56 0.70 0.16 0.54***
office)
(0.50) (0.46) (0.37) [8.45]
Office size 6.00 6.00 6.00
(2.61 (2.61) (2.63)
Observation 252 63 63
27
 QN: “On average, how much time do you normally spend
searching in the file and a get page(s) with the information
QN: “On average, about how many minutes does it normally takes you need at the right moment when you need it?”
you to find a general (subject) file that you want to work on?”
Panel B: Av. time spent in searching for proper
page
70%
Panel A: Av time spent in searching office files
45%
60%
40%
47% 50%
35% 27%
40%
30%
30%
25%

20% 20%

15% 10%

10%
0%
It take at most 10 It takes between It takes about 20 – It takes at least 30 It takes more than
5% minutes 10 - 20 min. 30 minutes. min – 1 hour 1 hour and
sometimes pages
cannot be found in
0% the file.
Less than 20 20 – 30 min 30 – 45 min 45 – 60 min. More than1
min hour. All Supervisors Workers
All Supervisors Workers

28
 QN: “Describe situation more vividly when you open the file you expect to find a page, how
often you cannot find a proper page in the file or you find misplaced pages?”

Panel C: Incidences of missing documents

35%
70%
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Never experienced such Approximately 10% of time About 20% of time 30% of time More than 50% of time.
situation

All Supervisors Workers

29
Table 7: Estimated equations explaining office files tracing time
Type of Regression Oprobit OLS Ologit Office FE Department FE Ministry FE
(1) (2) (3) (5) (6) (7)
Age -0.011 -0.004 -0.018 -0.006 -0.006 -0.006
(-0.6) (-0.22) (-0.55) (-0.26) (-0.26) (-0.27)
female -0.30* -0.31 -0.53** -0.22 -0.22 -0.26
(-1.91) (-1.7) (-1.98) (-1.13) (-1.14) (-1.44)
Years of schooling 0.063 0.058 0.12 0.046 0.044 0.02
(0.82) (0.66) (0.95) (0.55) (0.53) (0.26)
Tenure in the current
office -0.006 -0.002 -0.006 -0.004 -0.004 0.007
(-0.31) (-0.07) (-0.18) (-0.22) (-0.22) (0.37)
Years of experience 0.002 -0.004 0.005 -0.002 0 -0.015
(0.08) (-0.12) (0.11) (-0.07 (-0.02 (-0.68)
Number of workers 0.06** 0.08* 0.11** 0.08** 0.08** 0.10**
(2.21) (2.04) (2.11) (2.22) (2.21) (2.23)
Workers file -0.53*** -0.64** -0.91*** -0.79*** -0.79*** -0.90***
(-2.68) (-2.75) (-2.6) (-3.94) (-3.98) (-4.63)
Leader demonstrate filing -0.49*** -0.59*** -0.84*** -0.45** -0.45** -0.46**
(-3.11) (-2.96) (-3.21) (-2.25) (-2.26) (-2.38)
Workers communication -0.48*** -0.57*** -0.80*** -0.65*** -0.65*** -0.55***
(-4.06) (-3.27) (-3.52) (-4.97) (-4.98) (-4.3)
leaders communication -0.66*** -0.79** -1.032** -1.08*** -1.08*** -0.98***
(-2.66) (-2.58) (-2.2) (-3.03) (-3.03) (-2.87)
incentives -0.16 -0.34 -0.23 -0.25 0.26 0.40
(-0.6) (-1.07) (-0.55) (0.81) (0.83) (1.33)
Filing guideline -0.24 -0.26 -0.36 -0.26 -0.27 -0.35
(-0.96) (-0.81) (-0.76) (-0.98) (-1.00) (-1.34)
Office Layout (1=Open) -0.12 -0.13 -0.18 -0.49** -0.48** -0.38*
(-0.57) (-0.48) (-0.48) (-2.21) (-2.19) (-1.72)
Department Dummy
HR (2) -0.19 -0.21 -0.21 -0.25 -0.19
(-0.96) (-0.89) (-0.89) (-1.01) (-0.87)
SD (3) 0.245 0.317 0.317 0.225 0.264
(1.39) (1.51) (1.51) (0.95) (1.22)
Interview Control Yes Yes Yes
Workers status Dummy Yes Yes Yes
Observations 252 252 252 252 252 252
30
 Table 8: Estimated equations explaining time to find proper page
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Type of Regression Oprobit OLS Ologit Office Department Ministry
FE FE FE
Age -0.032 -0.026 -0.052 -0.026 -0.026 -0.203
(-1.25) (-1.11) (-1.11) (-1.53) (-1.53) (-1.44)
female -0.355** -0.332** -0.611** -0.332** -0.329** -0.043**
(-2.4) (-2.46) (-2.27) (-2.26) (-2.23) (-2.52)
Years of schooling -0.024 -0.021 -0.052 -0.021 -0.017 -0.04
(-0.32) (-0.4) (-0.43) (-0.33) (-0.26) (-0.67)
Tenure in the current office -0.001 -0.006 -0.004 -0.006 -0.006 -0.006
(-0.08) (-0.38) (-0.13) (-0.37) (-0.38) (-0.44)
Years of experience 0.014 0.013 0.025 0.013 0.014 0.030*
(0.68) (0.7) (0.67) (0.73) (0.76) (1.67)
Number of workers 0.115** 0.114* 0.172** 0.114*** 0.115*** 0.089***
(2.36) (1.99) (1.99) (3.98) (4.03) (2.64)
Workers file -0.679*** -0.555*** -1.198*** -0.555*** -0.546*** -0.460***
(-3.1) (-3.25) (-2.98) (-3.65) (-3.59) (-3.04)
Workers communication -0.547*** -0.489*** -0.925*** -0.489*** -0.504*** -0.361***
(-3.41) (-3.42) (-3.1) (-4.89) (-5.09) (-3.62)
leaders communication -0.201 -0.363 -0.378 -0.363 -0.37 -0.292
(-0.82) (-1.39) (-0.82) (-1.33) (-1.36) (-1.1)
Leader demonstrate filing -0.127 -0.07 -0.202 -0.07 -0.07 0.046
(-0.62) (-0.4) (-0.54) (-0.46) (-0.46) (0.31)
incentives -0.424* -0.476* -0.747* -0.476** -0.492** -0.409*
(-1.93) (-1.83) (-1.75) (-1.99) (-2.06) (-1.75)
Filing guideline -0.546** -0.541** -0.979** -0.541*** -0.532*** -0.365*
(-2.25) (-2.32) (-2.33) (-2.65) (-2.61) (-1.82)
Office Layout (1=Open) -0.292 -0.242 -0.59 -0.242 -0.26 -0.232
(-1.17) (-0.93) (-1.29) (-1.44) (-1.56) (-1.35)
Department Dummy
HR (2) 0.3 0.176 0.604 0.176 0.045
(1.32) (0.97) (1.45) (0.94) (0.26)
SD (3) 0.209 0.145 0.443 0.145 0.109
(1.01) (0.7) (1.13) (0.81) (0.65)
Observations 252 252 252 252 252 252 31
Table 9: Estimated equations explaining missing documents
Type of Regression (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Oprobit OLS Ologit OfficeFE DepartmentFE MinistryFE
Age -0.043*** -0.002 -0.013 -0.003 0.002 -0.007
(-2.7) (-0.11) (-0.43) (-0.18) (0.11) (-0.37)
female -0.127 -0.136 -0.185 -0.13 -0.118 -0.114
(-0.61) (-0.67) (-0.5) (-0.91) (-0.83) (-0.8)
Years of schooling -0.039 -0.039 -0.064 -0.031 -0.026 -0.044
(-0.75) (-0.85) (-0.79) (-0.51) (-0.42) (-0.74)
Tenure in the current
office -0.027* -0.024* -0.045* -0.025* -0.025* -0.027*
(-1.91) (-1.82) (-1.82) (-1.68) (-1.71) (-1.84)
Years of experience 0.009 0.008 0.015 0.009 0.008 0.007
(0.6) (0.53) (0.57) (0.65) (0.58) (0.52)
Number of workers 0.053** 0.048* 0.092** 0.050* 0.050* 0.048
(2.15) (1.91) (2.25) (1.82) (1.82) (1.43)
Workers file -0.663*** -0.633*** -1.104*** -0.615*** -0.624*** -0.582***
(-3.24) (-3.72) (-3) (-4.19) (-4.26) (-3.83)
Workers communication -0.381*** -0.390*** -0.657*** -0.416*** -0.414*** -0.308***
(-3.39) (-3.74) (-3.26) (-4.37) (-4.34) (-3.05)
leaders communication -0.508** -0.493** -0.865** -0.506* -0.540** -0.491*
(-2.25) (-2.2) (-2.23) (-1.93) (-2.07) (-1.85)
Leader demonstrate filing -0.042 -0.066 -0.158 -0.066 -0.047 -0.025
(-0.31) (-0.52) (-0.63) (-0.45) (-0.32) (-0.17)
incentives -0.153 -0.213 -0.279 -0.241 -0.238 -0.124
(-0.62) (-0.98) (-0.66) (-1.04) (-1.03) (-0.53)
Filing guideline -0.490** -0.489** -0.897** -0.473** -0.450** -0.451**
(-2.12) (-2.33) (-2.2) (-2.41) (-2.31) (-2.27)
Office Layout
(1=Open) -0.486*** -0.497*** -0.834*** -0.530*** -0.578*** -0.623***
(-3.6) (-3.76) (-3.5) (-3.27) (-3.7) (-3.72)
Department Dummy
HR (2) 0.304 0.269 0.547 0.244 0.175
(1.44) (1.4) (1.49) (1.36) (1.01)
SD (3) -0.028 -0.035 0.019 -0.03 -0.068
(-0.16) (-0.22) (0.06) (-0.17) (-0.4)
Observations 252 252 252 252 252 252
32
Summary
• While filings may be similar to the Prisoners’ Dilemma, most of the
correlates of coordination failure seems to associate with filing
situation

• Workers communication and actions generally matter for office filing.

• Incentive is more effective where monitoring is easy

• Presence of guidelines seems to improve impact of leadership.

• Open office layout also seem to reduce filing problems.

33
Outline

• Chapter 1: Introduction

• Chapter 2: Literature Review

• CHAPTER 3: Government Office meeting

• CHAPTER 4: Government Office Filing

• Conclusion
34
 Conclusions
• Most studies on public sector capability focus on public service providers.
• Thus studies on policy making are missing and policy to improve public
sectors tend to be abstract.

• The commonality of meetings and paper filing across ministries provided

unique features to conduct detailed study in policymaking organizations
where performance is difficult to observe and measure.

• A resemblance between unproductive office practices and coordination

failure does not guarantee that those findings about coordination
obtained in the game theory and experiment literature hold true for the
low productivity offices.

35
 Policy Implication
• Existing policies for the public sector capability particularly in central
government are based on the abstract view about the nature and
sources of inefficiencies.

• Government offices vary between and within countries and sectors.

Likewise, sources of inefficiencies varies. Thus, blanket policies do
not work.

• In this study, communication and leadership in all levels of

government offices seem to play an important role in improving
coordination and addressing social dilemma in the workplaces.

36
 Summary
Effective public sector matters but is incapable many developing countries.

Several studies have been conducted

Key Research Gap
Limited empirical evidence on what officer are doing in central government offices in developing
countries, partly from lack of micro data and partly because services provided by ministries are much
more difficult to observe and hence measure.
Main Objective
To empirically investigate the inefficiencies arising from the way in which managers and workers interact
everyday in offices in government ministries in Tanzania.
Methodology
Personal interviews focusing on: (i) Office meetings and, (ii) Filing of official documents.
Main Findings and Contribution
Using primary data I collected, to extend the knowledge of government capability in LDCs:
(i) Provide interpretation of the nature and sources of inefficiencies,
(ii) Two mechanisms by which government operates.
(iii) Advanced study can be conducted in a more meaningful way.

37
 Thank you very much!

phd14407@grips.ac.jp
Coordination
Games

Email: phd14407@grips.ac.jp

38
Appendix 1: Simple hypothesis about meeting and filing

39
 ROBUSTNESS - EXTENSIONS
Different models
• Front line workers only
• Supervisors only
• Average frontline workers
• Average office
• Individual correlates
Other Robustness Tests
• Department fixed effect, Ministry fixed effect

Controls
• Status control
• Interviews control

40
Table 4 Correlations of office meeting lateness by Different Departments
PPD HRD SSD
Dependent Variable Delay Delay Delay
Individual Age 0.021 0.003 -0.029
(0.75) (0.07) (-0.88)
Female 0.122 0.099 0.403
(0.29) (0.28) (1.44)
Years of Schooling 0.183 -0.123 -0.041
(1.55) (-0.94) (-0.4)
Tenure in current office -0.015 0.075** -0.017
(-0.55) (1.99) (-0.64)
Total Years of Experience -0.036 -0.054* 0.028
(-1.33) (-1.87) (1.26)
No of workers 0.042 0.038 0.019
(0.57) (0.47) (0.41)
Leader’s communicate -1.148*** -0.740** -0.723**
(-2.78) (-2.00) (-2.4)
Incentive/sanctions 0.394 -0.62 -0.35
(0.92) (-1.1) (-0.75)
Leader ‘s punctuality -0.602** -0.419 -0.17
(-2.41) (-1.71) (-0.61)
Workers punctuality -0.920*** -0.39 -0.088
(-2.9) (-1.02) (-0.23)
Workers communication -0.318 -1.301*** -1.047**
(-0.81) (-3.04) (-2.55)
Office Layout (1=open) -0.468 -0.241 -0.143
(-1.47) (-0.73) (-0.72)
Interview control Yes Yes Yes
Position control Yes Yes Yes
Observations 84 84 84
41
Table 3(b): Estimated equations delay in meeting start – different measures
Regression Method Oprobit Oprobit Oprobit Oprobit Oprobit Office FE
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Individual Workers Supervisor workers average average
Workers Only Only Average Office Office Office
Dep. Variable Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay
Individual Age -0.009 0.01 -0.022 0.004 0.008 0.01
(-0.52) (0.53) (-0.74) (0.36) (0.4) (0.71)
Female 0.175 0.06 0.652 0.202 0.418 0.25
(0.18) (0.38) (1.62) (1.08) (1.15) (1.46)
Years of Schooling -0.024 -0.083 0.148 0.133 0.239 0.12
(-0.47) (-1.11) (1.26) (0.79) (0.78) (0.73)
Tenure in current
office 0.006 -0.002 0.04 0.006 0.043 0.00
(0.42) (-0.11) (1.54) (0.13) (0.51) (0.04)
Total Yrs of
Experience -0.008 0.01 -0.059** -0.004 -0.001 -0.01
(-0.73) (0.67) (-2.53) (-0.17) (-0.03) (-0.47)
No of workers 0.018 0.023 0.017 0.043 0.09 0.05
(0.47) (0.57) (0.24) (1.02) (1.16) (1.41)
Leader
communication -0.717*** -0.57*** -0.488 -0.62* -1.71** -0.597*
(-5.7) (-2.82) (-1.13) (-1.78) (-2.02) (-1.78)
Leader’s punctuality -0.332** -0.57*** -0.122 -0.75*** -1.81*** -0.884***
(-2.29) (-4.51) (-0.31) (-3.02) (-3.05) (-2.88)
Incentive/sanction -0.406 -0.464* -0.46 -0.194 -1.559** -0.58
(-1.54) (-1.7) (-0.71) (-0.33) (-2.23) (-0.87)
Workers punctuality -0.430*** -0.292* -1.610*** -0.766** -1.889** -0.907**
(-3.08) (-1.84) (-2.92) (-2.26) (-2.44) (-2.43)
Workers
communication -0.910*** -1.06*** -0.476 -1.56*** -3.65*** -1.759***
(-4.51) (-5.11) (-1.06) (-4.65) (-4.98) (-4.50)
Office Layout
(1=Open) -0.387*** -0.336** -0.917** -0.212 -0.311 -0.380*
(-3.4) (-2.52) (-2.05) (-1.15) (-0.91) (-1.05)
Observations 252 189 63 63 63 63

42
Table 4 (b): Estimated Equations explaining files tracing time using different measures
Type of Regression Oprobit Oprobit Oprobit Oprobit Oprobit
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Independent variables Workers Supervisors Average Coworkers Average
Only Only workers office
Number of workers 0.08* 0.01 0.07 0.10* 0.16***
(1.87) (0.11) (1) (1.69) (2.64)
Workers file -0.50*** -1.63*** -1.40*** -1.22*** -1.31**
(-2.68) (-2.85) (-2.91) (-3.75) (-1.99)
Workers communication -0.45*** -0.89*** -0.76*** -0.67*** -0.54*
(-3.13) (-3.84) (-3.06) (-2.92) (-1.69)
leaders communication -1.21*** -0.11 -0.81* -1.69*** -2.67***
(-2.97) (-0.26) (-1.8) (-2.76) (-2.58)
Leader demonstrate filing -0.43** -1.17*** -1.25*** -0.27 -0.16
(-2.37) (-2.84) (-2.92) (-1.08) (-0.31)
incentives -0.11 -0.23 -0.60 -0.19 -0.83
(-0.25) (-0.47) (-1.61) (-0.25) (-0.68)
Filing guideline -0.17 -0.47 -0.45 -0.06 -0.36
(-0.55) (-1.15) (-1.24) (-0.12) (-0.37)
Office Layout (1=Open) -0.09 -0.87 -1.03* -0.27 -0.32
(-0.32) (-1.32) (-1.73) (-1.19) (-0.69)
Department Dummy
HR (2) -0.46 -1.36** -0.63 -0.66* -1.04**
(-1.59) (-2.08) (-1.24) (-1.66) (-2.2)
SD (3) 0.121 1.671** 1.148** -0.382 0.192
(0.53) (2.58) (2) (2.58) (0.65)
Observations 189 63 63 189 63

Notes: All columns include workers age profile, education, working experience, robust errors

43
Table 4(d): Estimates of correlates of Miss filing – Different Specifications
Type of Regression Oprobit Oprobit Oprobit Oprobit Oprobit Oprobit
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Explanatory Variable Individual Workers Supervisors Average Coworkers Average
data Only workers office
Age -0.043*** -0.074*** -0.058** -0.037** 0.019 -0.02
(-2.7) (-3.1) (-2.28) (-2.32) (0.82) (-0.31)
female -0.118 -0.146 0.147 -0.138 0.224 0.352
(-0.57) (-0.64) (0.42) (-0.56) (0.69) (0.57)
Years of schooling -0.005 -0.06 0.199 -0.08 0.041 0.266
(-0.08) (-0.86) (1.18) (-0.4) (0.26) (1.05)
Tenure in the current office -0.031** -0.029* -0.097*** 0.018 -0.072** 0.035
(-2.18) (-1.87) (-3.09) (0.67) (-2.57) (0.55)
Years of experience 0.040* 0.077*** 0.03 0.03 -0.087*** -0.045
(1.9) (2.82) (0.89) (0.76) (-2.95) (-0.68)
Number of workers 0.060** 0.049 0.002 0.037 0.072* 0.127**
(2.45) (1.46) (0.02) (1.3) (1.96) (2.44)
Workers file -0.658*** -0.757*** -0.890** -0.900*** -0.268 -1.865*
(-3.45) (-3.6) (-2.15) (-2.62) (-1.00) (-1.91)
Workers communication -0.421*** -0.337** -0.732** -0.562*** -0.348* -1.213***
(-3.73) (-2.52) (-2.18) (-2.58) (-1.93) (-3.76)
leaders communication -0.544** -0.086 -0.092 -1.042 -0.988* -2.646**
(-2.21) (-0.2) (-0.19) (-1.37) (-1.83) (-2.42)
Leader demonstrate filing -0.002 0.063 -0.791** -0.178 -0.269 -0.633
(-0.02) (0.32) (-2.29) (-0.52) (-1.14) (-0.99)
incentives -0.171 0.14 -0.34 -0.293 -1.005* -1.265*
(-0.65) (0.39) (-0.64) (-0.44) (-1.8) (-1.68)
Filing guideline -0.391* -0.435 -0.568 -0.585 0.091 -0.835
(-1.78) (-1.64) (-1.3) (-1.14) (0.3) (-0.95)
Office Layout (1=Open) -0.582*** -0.608*** 0.571 -0.458*** -0.291 -0.322
(-4.45) (-3.07) (1.01) (-3.19) (-1.15) (-0.91)
Department Dummy
HR (2) 0.235 0.477* 0.211 0.650** 0.535* 0.649
(1.2) (1.78) (0.64) (2.01) (1.71) (1.06)
SD (3) -0.087 0.028 -0.405 -0.072 -0.263 -0.233
(-0.48) (0.1) (-1.11) (-0.27) (-0.92) (-0.53)
Observations 252 189 63 63 189 63
44
Table 4 (e): Estimates of correlates of Time to find proper page - Different Specifications

Type of Regression Oprobit Oprobit Oprobit Oprobit Oprobit Oprobit

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Independent variables Individual Workers Supervisors Average Coworkers Average
data Only Only workers office
Age -0.032 -0.027 -0.045 -0.015 -0.023* 0.03
(-1.25) (-1.03) (-1.16 (-1.22 (-1.85 (0.4
female -0.355** -0.550*** -0.038 -0.365** -0.279* -0.701
(-2.4) (-3.36) (-0.09) (-2.18) (-1.89) (-0.91)
Years of schooling -0.024 0.072 0.146 0.319* 0.250** 0.239
(-0.32) (0.66) (1.16) (1.68) (2.56) (0.57)
Tenure in the current office -0.001 0.011 -0.015 0.071* 0.046* 0.152*
(-0.08) (.57) (-0.43) (1.74) (1.72) (1.89)
Years of experience 0.014 -0.004 -0.001 -0.111*** -0.084*** -0.180*
(0.68) (-0.15) (-0.03) (-3.03) (-3.13) (-1.75
Number of workers 0.115** 0.132*** 0.071 0.159*** 0.149*** 0.117*
(2.36) (2.61) (0.91) (4.26) (2.99) (1.77
Workers file -0.679*** -0.628** -1.164*** -0.452 -0.111 -0.208
(-3.1) (-2.13) (-3.1) (-1.62) (-0.33) (-0.28)
Workers communication -0.547*** -0.611*** -0.326 -0.774** -0.382 -1.444***
(-3.41) (-3.05) (-1.07) (-2.54) (-1.48) (-3.09)
leaders communication -0.201 0.182 -0.593 -1.147* -0.735 -2.624**
(-0.82) (0.31) (-1.48) (-1.81) (-1.28) (-2.31)
Leader demonstrate filing -0.127 -0.35 -0.450* -0.836** -0.567* -2.077**
(-0.62) (-1.3) (-1.75) (-2.19) (-1.79) (-2.32)
incentives -0.424* -0.59 -0.128 -1.286 -0.162 -0.432
(-1.93) (-1.41) (-0.3) (-1.47 (-0.26) (-0.36)
Filing guideline -0.546** -0.004 -1.236** 0.455 0.148 -1.761
(-2.25) (-0.02) (-2.1) (1.13) (0.55) (-1.23)
Office Layout (1=Open) -0.292 -0.247 -0.441 -0.102 -0.336 -0.145
(-1.17) (-0.84) (-0.87) (-0.37) (-1.17) (-0.42)
Department Dummy HR (2) 0.3 0.472* -0.271 0.513 0.277 0.999
(1.32) (1.73) (-0.59) (1.6) (1.05) (1.26)
SD (3) 0.209 0.387 -0.412 0.195 0.198 0.728
(1.01) (1.58) (-1.04) (0.77) (0.85) (1.24)
Observations 252 189 63 63 189 63

45