IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nos/vgmu00/2016i2p131-164.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors of Public Assessment of Civil Servants Performance in Providing Civil Services

Author

Abstract

The subject of the research is public assessment of civil servants performance in providing public services in the Federal Migration Service of the Russian Federation (FMS). The aim of the research is to determine the main factors that influenced the level of public satisfaction with public services. The research is based on the hypothesis that perception of the quality of public l services depends not only on their content and administrative provision, but also on the factors, which characterize civil servants performance as well as specific features of the territorial bodies of the Federal Migration Service of the Russian Federation. The following factors are considered: satisfaction with the waiting time in queues, satisfaction with politeness and competence of civil servants, the number of employees of the territorial bodies of FMS, the income level of citizens in regions, the level of migration in regions and some other factors. To determine the significance of these factors the factor analysis method is used. The data are received from the federal information system "Vash kontrol" and the Federal Statistics Service of the Russian Federation as they were in 2014. As a result of the factor analysis the most and the least satisfied recipients of public services are classified on the regional basis. The study highlights a great influence of the migration factor - the higher the level of migration in the region, the lower the citizens satisfaction with public services. The results of the study can serve as a basis for further research on the best regional practices of public services provision. Furthermore, they can help identify the regions in need of a more careful monitoring of public services provision.

Suggested Citation

  • Darya Reshetnikova, 2016. "Factors of Public Assessment of Civil Servants Performance in Providing Civil Services," Public administration issues, Higher School of Economics, issue 2, pages 131-164.
    • Handle: RePEc:nos:vgmu00:2016:i:2:p:131-164
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://vgmu.hse.ru/data/2016/06/28/1115851156/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D1%88%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%202-2016.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gaines, Brian J. & Kuklinski, James H. & Quirk, Paul J., 2007. "The Logic of the Survey Experiment Reexamined," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20, January.
    2. Joseph Drew & Brian Dollery, 2016. "Does Size Still Matter? An Empirical Analysis of the Effectiveness of Victorian Local Authorities," Local Government Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 15-28, January.
    3. Rhys Andrews & Steven Van de Walle, 2013. "New Public Management and Citizens' Perceptions of Local Service Efficiency, Responsiveness, Equity and Effectiveness," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(5), pages 762-783, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carolyn‐Dung Thi Thanh Tran & Brian Dollery, 2021. "All in the Mind: Citizen Satisfaction and Financial Performance in the Victorian Local Government System," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 31(1), pages 51-64, March.
    2. Hicken, Allen & Leider, Stephen & Ravanilla, Nico & Yang, Dean, 2018. "Temptation in vote-selling: Evidence from a field experiment in the Philippines," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 1-14.
    3. Alessandro, Martin & Cardinale Lagomarsino, Bruno & Scartascini, Carlos & Streb, Jorge & Torrealday, Jerónimo, 2021. "Transparency and Trust in Government. Evidence from a Survey Experiment," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    4. Marius Constantin PROFIROIU & Septimiu Rares SZABO, 2016. "Outsourcing vs decentralisation: A comparative analysis in Central and Eastern Europe," Eco-Economics Review, Ecological University of Bucharest, Economics Faculty and Ecology and Environmental Protection Faculty, vol. 2(2), pages 3-26, December.
    5. Cameron Roles & Sukanya Ananth & Michael O’Donnell, 2022. "Reinforcing managerial prerogative in the Australian Public Service during the COVID-19 pandemic," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 33(1), pages 18-36, March.
    6. Isabel Narbón-Perpiñá & Maria Teresa Balaguer-Coll & Diego Prior & Emili Tortosa-Ausina, 2021. "Searching for the optimal territorial structure: the case of Spanish provincial councils," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(4), pages 645-664, April.
    7. Briguglio, Marie & Delaney, Liam & Wood, Alex, 2018. "Partisanship, priming and participation in public-good schemes," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 136-150.
    8. Peng, Yuan & Bai, Xuemei, 2023. "What EV users say about policy efficacy: Evidence from Shanghai," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 16-26.
    9. Day‐Yang Liu & Hsin‐Hsin Yao & Wen‐Min Lu & Cheng‐Hsien Lin, 2020. "Impulse response function analysis of the impacts of land value‐added tax policy on government performance," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(6), pages 1020-1032, September.
    10. Kuehnhanss, Colin R. & Heyndels, Bruno, 2018. "All’s fair in taxation: A framing experiment with local politicians," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 26-40.
    11. Roman Chytilek & Miroslav Mareš & Jakub Drmola & Lenka Hrbková & Petra Mlejnková & Zuzana Špačková & Michal Tóth, 2022. "An experimental study of countermeasures against threats: real-world effects meet treatment effects," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(6), pages 4825-4840, December.
    12. Manville, Michael & Levine, Adam Seth, 2018. "What motivates public support for public transit?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 567-580.
    13. Yue Wang & Honggen Zhu & Noshaba Aziz & Yu Liu, 2023. "Does Social Capital Improve the Effectiveness of Public Service? An Insight from Rural-to-Urban Migrants in China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 165(2), pages 431-452, January.
    14. Kuntal Goswami & Rolf Gerritsen, 2021. "Policy Life Cycle Analysis of Three Australian State-level Public Policies: Exploring the Political Dimension of Sustainable Development," Journal of Development Policy and Practice, , vol. 6(1), pages 9-35, January.
    15. Lih-Ren Liu & Yuh-Ming Lee, 2016. "Remedial Measures for Erroneous Environmental Policies: Assessing Infrastructure Projects of Waste-to-Energy Incineration in Taiwan with a Case Study of the Taitung Incinerator," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-13, December.
    16. Angino, Siria & Secola, Stefania, 2022. "Instinctive versus reflective trust in the European Central Bank," Working Paper Series 2660, European Central Bank.
    17. Cooper, Christine & Lapsley, Irvine, 2021. "Hillsborough: The fight for accountability," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    18. Ilyana Kuziemko & Michael I. Norton & Emmanuel Saez & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2015. "How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1478-1508, April.
    19. Aiqin Wang & Xuyang Chen & Xu Wang & Jia Wei & Liying Song, 2022. "Determinants of Satisfaction with Solid Waste Management Services: A Central–Local Comparison in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-22, April.
    20. Drew, Joseph & Dollery, Brian Edward & Blackwell, Boyd Dirk, 2018. "A square deal? Mining costs, mining royalties and local government in New South Wales, Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 113-122.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nos:vgmu00:2016:i:2:p:131-164. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Irina A. Zvereva (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://vgmu.hse.ru/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.