Abstract

The paper focuses on the various aspects especially as globally accepted fact is that social and key economic indicators are influenced by the government activities. Public Sector Performance and efficiency reflect government priorities. The paper evaluates the public sector performance of Pakistan by calculating the Public Sector Performance Index based on seven indicators and these seven indicators are further classified into two broad groups. Many international studies have carried out the performance evaluation of public sectors of industrialized countries missing the public sector performance of Pakistan with other countries. With the aim, Public Sector Performance of Pakistan was compared with countries of South Asia and some developed countries. The research analyzes the public sector performance indicators of countries to calculate the overall performance. The paper aims to compare public sector performance of Pakistan with South Asian Countries and members of Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which currently includes 34 Countries.

Key Words

Performance Indicator, Public Sector, Performance Evaluation, OECD, Pakistan

Public sector performance determines the outcome of activities in Public sector while public sector efficiency is calculated by comparing the finances used as public expenditure in achieving it (Frase

It is difficult to determine performance of a public organization due to difficulties in defining performance which may be the outcomes coming up on unintentional bases (Smith, 1995). This is a result of problems in defining a meaning of the concept of performance; means of obtaining performance and evaluation of performance. It also seemingly shows that the performance related indicators may be clearly shown as a set of aspects to be observed and analyzed (Brignall, 2000). They believe that measurement of public sector performance involves taking into account the difference between input, procedures and processes, and the final outcomes (Tanzi, 2000). 

Previous studies on efficiency of public sector show the comparison of the PSP factors was determined based on almost seven factors as shown in Figure 1 (Afonso et al 2005).

In March 2007, Fraser Institute carried out a study on comparing performance related to public sector at international level. The study determined the Public Sector Performance and Efficiency of twenty three industrial oriented countries. The performance related to Public Sector was determined on the seven indicators proposed by researchers. The study aimed at evaluating, on the same frame work as done by Fraser Institute, the Public Sector Performance of Pakistan as compared to South Asia and current 34 countries of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (March, 2007).

Public sector performance indicators may base on the goals and objectives of the organizations, relying on to some extent the relative demand of such indicators in the public sector performance measurement (Rainey, 1976). In this way, comparison of the indicators of one Govt. with other Govt. may be a tough job, as it’s based on the circumstances, ideologies, and relevancy related aspect, but important issue is to measure and assess in comparison with each other (Walle, 2009).  Similarly, comparing based on perceived performance and the actual performance is another issue which may need attention, generating an idea for the system of assessment in organizations (Leeuw, 2002). 

Another aspect is the dynamics of performance indicators – here the perspectives related to performance vary as individual perspective, group perspective, team and organizational perspective, but then comes the system perspective of organizational performance which may matters a lot (Fowler, 2000). Researchers and authors also worked a lot on performance management or organizations especially in public sector organizations, where the indicators or markers of performance are considered of great significance (De Bruijn, 2003).

The study calculates the Public Sector Performance Index based on seven indicators. These seven indicators are further classified into two broad groups.  The opportunity indicators consisting of administration, education related, health related and public infrastructure results. The “Musgravian” markers and factors include the income distribution, economic stability and Economic Performance. The average of all sub-indicators is the public sector performance indicator 

For measuring the performance related to Public Sector in Pakistan, the general form of the score function used is based on the researchers’ proposition and already conducted studies as of Afonso et al, where they proposed various indicators related to this (Schuknecht, 1997). 

f(x)= ?1 * X1 + ?2 * X2 + ?3 * X3 + ?4 * X4 + ?5 * X5 + ?6* X6 + ?7 * X7 ,

where: 

?i = the coefficient related to importance 

Xi = markers related to performance of public sector 

The value of importance related coefficient has been taken as 1 for all the indicators. Each marker contributes one seventh towards the resultant performance of public sector Index provided by the function. X1, X2, X3 and X4 are opportunity indicators as named by Afonso, Schuknecht and Tanzi, while X5, X6 and X7 are the Musgravian Indicators named after Harvard Professor Richard A. Musgrave (Fraser et al. 2007). 

Each indicator is composed of equally contributing sub indicators.  The details of sub indicators for each indicator are as follows

X1 = Administrative: Composed of 4 sub-indicators: 

(a) Corruption

(b) Red tape

(c) Quality of Judiciary

(d) Shadow Economy

X2 = Education: Consisting of 2 sub-indicators: 

(a) Secondary School Enrolment

(b) Education Achievement

X3 = Health: Consisting of 2 sub-indicators: 

(a) Infant Mortality

(b) Life Expectancy

X4 = Public Infrastructure: Having one sub-indicator - quality communication and transport infrastructure 

X5 =  Distribution: Which is calculated on Inequality of Income Distribution

X6 =  Stability: Gives equal weights to 2 sub-indicators: 

(a) Stability of GDP growth

(b) Inflation 

X7 = Economic performance: Determined on 3 sub-indicators

(a) GDP per capita (PPP)

(b) GDP growth

(c) Unemployment for the last 10 years 

Instrumentation

Figure 1

Total Public Sector Performance (PSP) Indicator

Source: Afonso, Schuknecht, and Tanzi, 2005

Population and Sample

For the purpose of research, the Public Sector Performance of Pakistan was compared with countries of South Asia and some developed countries. The South Asian Countries include Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka while the 23 OECD countries taken for comparison include Australia, Canada, Japan, United States of America and United Kingdom.

Data Collection Methods 

The data was collected from various sources. The detailed source of input data for each sub-indicator to calculate the respective indicator is as follows:

Administrative

This opportunity indicator is composed of 4 sub-indicators: 

1. Corruption: In order to quantify the indicator of corruption and gauge it, CPI, which is called Corruption Perception Index (CPI) 2014, is employed. This marker is also utilized by many other authentic researchers and organizations including Transparency International as the input.

2. Red Tape: To quantifying this sub-indicator, we have used the Ease of Doing Business index defined by World Bank. Ease of doing business ranks economies from 1 to 189, with first place being the best. A high ranking (a low numerical rank) means that the regulatory environment is conducive to business operation. The index averages the country's percentile rankings on 10 topics covered in the World Bank's Doing Business. The ranking on each topic is the simple average of the percentile rankings on its component indicators. In our research, higher value indicates better performance in that indicator. Therefore, the ease of doing business index provided by World Bank had to be reversed by subtracting the value out of 200. The more numerical value indicates the regulatory environment is more conducive to the starting and operation of a local firm. So Canada gained 184 points while Afghanistan received 17 points.  

3. Quality of Judiciary: This indicator has been calculated from the efficiency of legal framework for private business in settling disputes. The values have been taken from the Global Competitiveness Report 2104-15.

4. Shadow Economy: Shadow economy is the informal economy. Also called black market or underground economy, it is a market where transaction of goods or services is done illegally. The goods or services may or may not themselves be illegal to own, or to trade through other, legal channels. This sub- indicator shows the GDP percentage of underground economy and is based on the International reports. The values for shadow economies of the countries under study have been taken from World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No 5356 titled Shadow Economies All over the World from 1999 to 2007 (Montenegro, 2010).

Education

Education consists of 2 sub-indicators

1. Secondary School Enrolment: The values for this indicator have been taken from the Secondary School Enrollment rate provided in Global Competitiveness Report 2014-15. The data related to Afghanistan and Maldives was not available. The higher the value, the better the country in that indicator

2. Education Achievement: To asses this indicator, we have used the Quality of Education System indicates how well does the education system in a country meets the needs of a competitive economy. The values have been taken from the Global Competitiveness Report 2014-15. The data related to Afghanistan and Maldives was not available. The higher the value in the indicator, the better the performance of the country.

Health

Health comprises 2 sub-indicators: 

1. Infant Mortality: This indicator indicates the mortality of infant children (aged 0-12 months) per 1000 live births. The data for this indicator for the year 2013 has been taken from the Global Competitiveness Report 2014-15. Due to non-availability of data relating to Afghanistan and Maldives in this report, the data for these countries has been taken from CIA World Fact Book, which provides values for year 2014. In order to standardize with our model of higher value equals better performance, the mortality rate was subtracted from 1000 to determine the number of child surviving per 1000 live births.

2. Life Expectancy: The values for this indicator for the year 2013 have been taken from the Global Competitiveness Report 2014-15. Due to non-availability of data relating to Afghanistan and Maldives in this report, the data for these countries has been taken from CIA World Fact Book which provides values for year 2014.

3. Public Infrastructure: This aspect contains single sub-indicator that is quality communication and transport infrastructure. To check the standardized data, we tried to follow world economic forum, the Global Competitiveness Report 2014-15. The data related to Afghanistan and Maldives was not available.

4. Distribution: This is determined from the Gini coefficient, named after Corrado Gini an Italian statistician, demographer and sociologist, which measure the degree of inequality in the distribution of family income in a country. A value of 0 represents absolute equality, a value of 100 absolute inequalities. The data for GINI Index has been taken from CIA World Fact Book. In case of Afghanistan, the values have been taken from UNDP Human Development Report October 2013. In order to standardize with our model of higher value equals better performance, the Inequality control was determined by subtracting the GINI index from 100. The higher the values of Inequality control, better the performance. 

Stability

Stability indicator is based on equal weights of the following 2 sub-indicators

1. Stability of GDP Growth: This indicator determines the coefficient of variation in the growth of GDP. The data related to this indicator could not be determined. 

2. Inflation: This is the annual percentage change in the consumer price index. The data for year 2013 was taken from the Global Competitiveness Report 2014-15. The data for year 2013 related to Afghanistan and Maldives has been taken from CIA World Fact Book. In order to standardize with our model of higher value equals better performance, the Inflation Control was determined by the subtracting the inflation from 10. The higher the values of Inflation Control, better the performance.

Economic Performance

It relies on three factors 

1. GDP Per Capita (PPP): It is the total output of a country and is obtained by dividing the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) with the number of people in the country. An increase in GDP per capita indicates growth in productivity. The 2013 data of GDP in US Dollars was taken from Global Competitiveness Report 2014. Due to non-availability of data regarding Afghanistan and Maldives, their 2014 GDP in US Dollars was taken from CIA World Fact Book which is substantiated by the research field experts (CIA World Fact Book, 2014).  

2. GDP Growth: It is the annual percentage growth rate of GDP at market prices on constant local currency. The data for the year 2013 for GDP growth in annual percentage has been taken from the World Bank Report.  

3. Unemployment for the Last 10 Years: The International Labor Organization (ILO), defines it that unemployed people are the people who have no work but they are actively ready to work and showing their willingness. The yearly data in percentage for 2004-2014 has been taken from World Economic Outlook Database, October 2013. The average of the data was taken for last ten years from 2004-2014. For Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Maldives and Nepal, the data was not available in the abovementioned database, therefore, the yearly values of unemployment given at CIA World Fact Book were taken. To keep the data in line with the evaluation criteria of better performance with a higher value, the values of unemployment were subtracted from 100 to calculate the employment value which has been used for calculating the score. In this scenario, the reconsideration of fiscal role of govt. is also considered very important.

Analysis

After entering the values for the individual sub indicators, performance of countries was determined for the each indicator contributing towards calculation of Public Sector Performance (PSP) index.

Administrative

The data for the administrative indicator and its analysis is shown in Table 1 given on the next page. The graph (Figure 2) shows that Bhutan stands out administratively among the South Asian countries whereas Pakistan stands fifth after Bhutan, Sri Lanka, India and Nepal.

Education

The analysis of data for the Education sub-indicator analysis is shown in Table 2 given on the next page. Due to non-availability of data regarding Afghnaistan and Maldives, their scores could not be calculated. The graph (Figure 4) shows Sri Lanka leading in Education with a score of 1.79 while Pakistan stands lowest.

Performance comparison of Pakistan with 34 OECD countries in field of education (Figure 5) shows that Pakistan has the lowest score of 0.60 while Netherlands stands out with a score of 1.24.

Health

The graph (Figure 6) shows comparison of health indicator which comprises of life expectancy and infant mortality. The data is tabulated in table 3 given on the next page. In health, Pakistan stands second last with a score of 0.98 after Afghanistan with a score of 0.84. High infant mortality rate and low life expectancy are the major contributors for low performance. Sri lanka and Maldives take the top positions with a score of 1.07. 

When compared with 34 OECD countries (Figure 7), Pakistan is lowest with a score of 0.88 while Japan leading with as score of 1.02214 followed by Iceland.

Infrastructure

The graph (Figure 8) shows comparison of Infrastructure indicator which indicates the quality of communication and transport infrastructure of a country. The data analysis is tabulated in table 4 given on the next page. Data related to Afghanistan and Maldives was not available. With regards to infrastructure, Pakistan stands fourth with a score of 1.18 while the list in South Asia is topped by Sri Lanka with a score of 1.79.  

Table 4. Public Infrastructure
S No	Country	Quality Communication and Transport Infrastructure
		Global Competitiveness Report 2014
		Year	Index	Score
Pakistan with respect to South Asia
1	Afghanistan	2013	0.00	0.00
2	Bangladesh	2013	2.80	1.00
3	Bhutan	2013	4.60	1.65
4	India	2013	3.70	1.33
5	Maldives	2013	0.00	0.00
6	Nepal	2013	2.90	1.04
7	Pakistan	2013	3.30	1.18
8	Sri Lanka	2013	5.00	1.79
	Total		22.3	8.00
	Average		2.79	1.00
Pakistan with respect to OECD Countries
1	Pakistan	2013	3.30	0.62
2	Australia	2013	5.10	0.95
3	Austria	2013	6.20	1.16
4	Belgium	2013	5.80	1.08
5	Canada	2013	5.60	1.05
6	Chile	2013	4.70	0.88
7	Czech Republic	2013	5.00	0.93
8	Denmark	2013	5.80	1.08
9	Estonia	2013	5.20	0.97
10	Finland	2013	6.40	1.20
11	France	2013	6.10	1.14
12	Germany	2013	6.00	1.12
13	Greece	2013	4.60	0.86
14	Hungary	2013	5.00	0.93
15	Iceland	2013	6.20	1.16
16	Ireland	2013	5.10	0.95
17	Israel	2013	4.40	0.82
18	Italy	2013	4.60	0.86
19	Japan	2013	6.20	1.16
20	South Korea	2013	5.50	1.03
21	Luxembourg	2013	5.90	1.10
22	Mexico	2013	4.20	0.78
Table Continued on Next Page
Table Continued from Previous Page
23	Netherlands	2013	6.30	1.18
24	New Zealand	2013	5.10	0.95
25	Norway	2013	5.30	0.99
26	Poland	2013	4.00	0.75
27	Portugal	2013	6.00	1.12
28	Slovakia	2013	4.20	0.78
29	Slovenia	2013	5.10	0.95
30	Spain	2013	5.90	1.10
31	Sweden	2013	5.70	1.07
32	Switzerland	2013	6.60	1.23
33	Turkey	2013	5.10	0.95
34	United Kingdom	2013	5.30	0.99
35	United States	2013	5.80	1.08
	Total		187.30	35.00
	Average		5.35	1.00

 

When compared with 34 OECD countries (Figure 9), Pakistan is lowest with a score of 0.62 while Switzerland leads with as score of 1.23.

Distribution

The graph (Figure 10) shows comparison of distribution of wealth determined by the Gini index. The data analysis is tabulated in table 5. In South Asia, Pakistan has a score of 1.09 after Afghanistan which leads with a score of 1.12.Sri Lank is the lowest with a score of 0.79.  

 

Table 5. Distribution
S No	Country		Inequality of Income Distribution GINI Index
			CIA World factbook and UNDP Report
			Year	0-100	Inequality Control	Score
Pakistan with respect to South Asia
1	Afghanistan	2013		27.8	72.2	1.12
2	Bangladesh	2010		32.1	67.9	1.05
3	Bhutan	2012		38.7	61.3	0.95
4	India	2004		36.8	63.2	0.98
5	Maldives	2004		37.4	62.6	0.97
6	Nepal	2010		32.8	67.2	1.04
7	Pakistan	2011		29.6	70.4	1.09
8	Sri Lanka	2010		49	51	0.79
	Total			284.2	515.8	8
	Average			35.53	64.48	1.00
Pakistan with respect to OECD Countries
1	Pakistan	2011		29.60	70.40	1.03
Table Continued on Next Page
Table Continued from Previous Page
2	Australia	2008		30.30	69.70	1.02
3	Austria			26.30	73.70	1.08
4	Belgium			25.90	74.10	1.08
5	Canada			32.10	67.90	0.99
6	Chile			52.10	47.90	0.70
7	Czech Republic			24.90	75.10	1.10
8	Denmark			24.80	75.20	1.10
9	Estonia			31.30	68.70	1.00
10	Finland			26.80	73.20	1.07
11	France			30.90	69.10	1.01
12	Germany			27.00	73.00	1.07
13	Greece			34.40	65.60	0.96
14	Hungary			24.70	75.30	1.10
15	Iceland			28.00	72.00	1.05
16	Ireland			33.90	66.10	0.97
17	Israel			37.60	62.40	0.91
18	Italy			31.90	68.10	1.00
19	Japan			37.60	62.40	0.91
20	South Korea			31.10	68.90	1.01
21	Luxembourg			30.40	69.60	1.02
22	Mexico			48.30	51.70	0.76
23	Netherlands			25.10	74.90	1.10
24	New Zealand			36.20	63.80	0.93
25	Norway			25.00	75.00	1.10
26	Poland			34.10	65.90	0.96
27	Portugal			34.20	65.80	0.96
28	Slovakia			26.00	74.00	1.08
29	Slovenia			23.70	76.30	1.12
30	Spain			34.00	66.00	0.97
31	Sweden			23.00	77.00	1.13
32	Switzerland			28.70	71.30	1.04
33	Turkey			40.20	59.80	0.87
34	United Kingdom			32.30	67.70	0.99
35	United States			45.00	55.00	0.80
	Total			1107.40	2392.60	35.00
	Average			31.64	68.36	1.00

 

As regards to comparison with 34 OECD countries (Figure 11), Pakistan ranks fifteenth with a score of 1.03 while United States, Mexico and Chile being the lowest three with a score of 0.8, 0.76 and 0.70 respectively. Sweden leads with a score of 1.13.

Stability

In terms of stability, Pakistan achieves a score of 1.12 and stands third in South Asia with Maldives having least inflation rate being the top scorer with a score of 2.59. The graph (Figure 12) shows comparison of stability indicator. The data analysis is tabulated in table 6 given on the next page. 

Table 6. Stability

S No Country Stability of GDP Growth Inflation  Average Score

Global Competitiveness Report 2014 and CIA World fact Book

Year Score Year % Inflation Control Score

Pakistan with respect to South Asia

1 Afghanistan 2013 7.60 2.40 1.04  

2 Bangladesh 2013 7.50 2.50 1.08  

3 Bhutan 2013 8.70 1.30 0.56  

4 India 2013 9.50 0.50 0.22  

5 Maldives 2013 4.00 6.00 2.59  

6 Nepal 2013 9.90 0.10 0.04  

7 Pakistan 2013 7.40 2.60 1.12  

8 Sri Lanka 2013 6.90 3.10 1.34  

  Total 0 61.5 18.5 8.00  

  Average 0.00 7.69 2.31 1.00  

Pakistan with respect to OECD Countries

1 Pakistan 2013 7.40 2.60 0.32  

2 Australia 2013 2.50 7.50 0.92  

3 Austria 2013 2.10 7.90 0.97  

4 Belgium 2013 1.20 8.80 1.08  

5 Canada 2013 1.00 9.00 1.10  

6 Chile 2013 1.80 8.20 1.01  

7 Czech Republic 2013 1.40 8.60 1.06  

8 Denmark 2013 0.80 9.20 1.13  

9 Estonia 2013 3.50 6.50 0.80  

10 Finland 2013 2.20 7.80 0.96  

11 France 2013 1.00 9.00 1.10  

12 Germany 2013 1.60 8.40 1.03  

13 Greece 2013 -0.90 10.90 1.34  

14 Hungary 2013 1.70 8.30 1.02  

15 Iceland 2013 3.90 6.10 0.75  

16 Ireland 2013 0.50 9.50 1.17  

17 Israel 2013 1.50 8.50 1.04  

18 Italy 2013 1.30 8.70 1.07  

19 Japan 2013 0.40 9.60 1.18  

20 South Korea 2013 1.30 8.70 1.07  

Table Continued on Nexts Page

Table Continued from Previous Page

21 Luxembourg 2013 1.70 8.30 1.02  

22 Mexico 2013 3.80 6.20 0.76  

23 Netherlands 2013 2.60 7.40 0.91  

24 New Zealand 2013 1.10 8.90 1.09  

25 Norway 2013 2.10 7.90 0.97  

26 Poland 2013 0.90 9.10 1.12  

27 Portugal 2013 0.40 9.60 1.18  

28 Slovakia 2013 1.50 8.50 1.04  

29 Slovenia 2013 1.60 8.40 1.03  

30 Spain 2013 1.50 8.50 1.04  

31 Sweden 2013 0.00 10.00 1.23  

32 Switzerland 2013 -0.20 10.20 1.25  

33 Turkey 2013 7.50 2.50 0.31  

34 United Kingdom 2013 2.60 7.40 0.91  

35 United States 2013 1.50 8.50 1.04  

  Total 0.00 64.80 285.20 35.00  

  Average 0.00 1.85 8.15 1.00  

Pakistan stands lowest with a score of 0.32 followed by Turkey with a score of 0.31 when compared with 34 OECD countries (Figure 13). Greece having a negative inflation rate along with Switzerland tops the position with a score of 1.34 followed by Switzerland with a score of 1.25.

Economic Performance

Pakistan stands fifth in Economic performance in South Asia with a score of 0.84. Maldives is at the top with a score of 1.97 due to highest GDP in South Asia despite having highest unemployment rate in South Asia. Sri Lanka although second with a score of 1.25 has the highest growth rate and second highest GDP in South Asia. The graph (Figure 14) shows comparison of Economic Performance indicator. The data analysis is tabulated in table 7 given on next page. 

Out of 34 OECD countries, Luxembourg tops the charts with a score of 1.9. Pakistan stands fourth with a score of 1.73. Greece has the lowest score of -0.54. The graph (Figure 15) shows comparison of Economic Performance indicator of 34 OECD countries. 

Table 7. Economic Performance
S	Country	GDP Per Capita (PPP)			GDP Growth			Unemployment for last 10 Years				Average Score
		Global Competitiveness Report 2014			World Bank			World Economic Outlook Oct, 2013 and CIA World Factbook
		Year	US Dollars	Score	Year	%	Score	Year	Un- employement	Employment	Score
Pakistan with respect to South Asia
1	Afghanistan	2014	2000	0.65	2013	1.9	0.42	2008	35	65	0.77	0.61
2	Bangladesh	2013	904	0.29	2013	6	1.33	2014	5	95	1.12	0.92
3	Bhutan	2013	2665	0.87	2013	2	0.44	Av 2004-14	3.25	96.75	1.14	0.82
4	India	2013	1505	0.49	2013	6.9	1.53	2014	8.6	91.4	1.08	1.03
5	Maldives	2014	12400	4.03	2013	3.7	0.82	2012	11	89	1.05	1.97
6	Nepal	2013	693	0.23	2013	3.8	0.84	2008	46	54	0.64	0.57
7	Pakistan	2013	1308	0.42	2013	4.4	0.98	Av 2004-14	6.29	93.71	1.10	0.84
8	Sri Lanka	2013	3162	1.03	2013	7.3	1.62	Av 2004-14	5.62	94.38	1.11	1.25
	Total		24637	8		36	8		120.76	679.24	8.00	8.00
	Average		3079.63	1.00		4.50	1.00		15.10	84.91	1.00	1.00
Pakistan with respect to OECD Countries
1	Pakistan	2013	1308	0.03	2013	4.4	4.13	Av 2004-14	6.29	93.71	1.01	1.73
2	Australia	2013	64863	1.65	2013	2.5	2.35	Av 2004-14	5.15	94.85	1.03	1.67
3	Austria	2013	48957	1.24	2013	0.2	0.19	Av 2004-14	4.59	95.41	1.03	0.82
4	Belgium	2013	45384	1.15	2013	0.3	0.28	Av 2004-14	7.97	92.03	1.00	0.81
5	Canada	2013	51990	1.32	2013	2	1.88	Av 2004-14	7.06	92.94	1.01	1.40
6	Chile	2013	15776	0.40	2013	4.1	3.85	Av 2004-14	7.92	92.08	1.00	1.75
7	Czech Republic	2013	18858	0.48	2013	-0.7	-0.66	Av 2004-14	6.88	93.12	1.01	0.28
8	Denmark	2013	59191	1.50	2013	-0.5	-0.47	Av 2004-14	5.85	94.15	1.02	0.68
9	Estonia	2013	19032	0.48	2013	1.6	1.50	Av 2004-14	9.29	90.71	0.98	0.99
10	Finland	2013	47129	1.20	2013	-1.2	-1.13	Av 2004-14	7.84	92.16	1.00	0.36
11	France	2013	43000	1.09	2013	0.3	0.28	Av 2004-14	9.56	90.44	0.98	0.78
12	Germany	2013	44999	1.14	2013	0.1	0.09	Av 2004-14	7.78	92.22	1.00	0.75
13	Greece	2013	21857	0.56	2013	-3.3	-3.10	Av 2004-14	14.73	85.27	0.92	-0.54
14	Hungary	2013	13405	0.34	2013	1.5	1.41	Av 2004-14	9.32	90.68	0.98	0.91
15	Iceland	2013	45356	1.15	2013	3.5	3.28	Av 2004-14	4.37	95.63	1.04	1.82
16	Ireland	2013	45621	1.16	2013	0.2	0.19	Av 2004-14	9.7	90.3	0.98	0.77
17	Israel	2013	37035	0.94	2013	3.2	3.00	Av 2004-14	8.78	91.22	0.99	1.64
18	Italy	2013	34715	0.88	2013	-1.9	-1.78	Av 2004-14	8.69	91.31	0.99	0.03
19	Japan	2013	38491	0.98	2013	1.6	1.50	Av 2004-14	4.42	95.58	1.04	1.17
20	South Korea	2013	24329	0.62	2013	3	2.82	Av 2004-14	3.43	96.57	1.05	1.49
21	Luxembourg	2013	110424	2.81	2013	2	1.88	Av 2004-14	5.17	94.83	1.03	1.90
22	Mexico	2013	10630	0.27	2013	1.1	1.03	Av 2004-14	4.46	95.54	1.03	0.78
23	Netherlands	2013	47634	1.21	2013	-0.7	-0.66	Av 2004-14	4.9	95.1	1.03	0.53
24	New Zealand	2013	40481	1.03	2013	2.5	2.35	Av 2004-14	5.17	94.83	1.03	1.47
25	Norway	2013	100318	2.55	2013	0.6	0.56	Av 2004-14	3.41	96.59	1.05	1.39
26	Poland	2013	13394	0.34	2013	1.7	1.60	Av 2004-14	11.52	88.48	0.96	0.96
27	Portugal	2013	20728	0.53	2013	-1.4	-1.31	Av 2004-14	11.03	88.97	0.96	0.06
28	Slovakia	2013	17706	0.45	2013	1.4	1.31	Av 2004-14	13.82	86.18	0.93	0.90
29	Slovenia	2013	22756	0.58	2013	-1	-0.94	Av 2004-14	7.23	92.77	1.00	0.21
30	Spain	2013	29150	0.74	2013	-1.2	-1.13	Av 2004-14	16.95	83.05	0.90	0.17
31	Sweden	2013	57909	1.47	2013	1.5	1.41	Av 2004-14	7.52	92.48	1.00	1.29
32	Switzerland	2013	81324	2.07	2013	1.9	1.78	Av 2004-14	3.25	96.75	1.05	1.63
33	Turkey	2013	10815	0.27	2013	4.1	3.85	Av 2004-14	10.55	89.45	0.97	1.70
34	United Kingdom	2013	39567	1.01	2013	1.7	1.60	Av 2004-14	6.6	93.4	1.01	1.20
35	United States	2013	53101	1.35	2013	2.2	2.06	Av 2004-14	6.96	93.04	1.01	1.47
	Total		1377233.00	35.00		37.30	35.00		268.16	3231.84	35.00	35.00
	Average		39349.5	1.00		1.07	1.00		7.66	92.34	1.00	1.00

 

Public Sector Performance (PSP) Index

 

After combining the score of the individual indicators, the Public Scetor Performance (PSP) Index and ranking of the countries is calculated as tabulated in Table 8.

 

Table 8. Public Sector Performance (PSP) Indicators

S. No.	Country	Opportunity Indicators				Musgravian Indicators			PSP Index	Rank
		Administrative	Education	Health	Public Infrastructure	Distribution	Stability	Economic Performance
Pakistan with Respect to South Asian Countries
1	Sri Lanka	1.34	1.79	1.07	1.79	0.79	1.34	1.25	1.34	1
2	Bhutan	1.47	1.43	1.01	1.65	0.95	0.56	0.82	1.13	2
3	Maldives	0.81	0.00	1.07	0.00	0.97	2.59	1.97	1.06	3
4	Pakistan	1.08	0.96	0.98	1.18	1.09	1.12	0.84	1.04	4
5	India	1.20	1.41	0.99	1.33	0.98	0.22	1.03	1.02	5
6	Bangladesh	0.84	1.11	1.03	1.00	1.05	1.08	0.92	1.00	6
7	Nepal	1.11	1.29	1.01	1.04	1.04	0.04	0.57	0.87	7
8	Afghanistan	0.16	0.00	0.84	0.00	1.12	1.04	0.61	0.54	8
	Total	1.34	8.00	8.00	8.00	8.00	8.00	8.00	0.54
	Average	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.07
Pakistan with Respect to OECD Countries
1	Switzerland	1.19	1.16	1.02	1.23	1.04	1.25	1.63	1.22	1
2	Luxembourg	1.10	1.02	1.01	1.10	1.02	1.02	1.90	1.17	2
3	Iceland	1.11	1.09	1.02	1.16	1.05	0.75	1.82	1.14	3
4	Australia	1.12	1.21	1.01	0.95	1.02	0.92	1.67	1.13	4
5	Sweden	1.16	1.01	1.01	1.07	1.13	1.23	1.29	1.13	5
6	New Zealand	1.24	1.19	1.01	0.95	0.93	1.09	1.47	1.13	6
7	Canada	1.15	1.10	1.01	1.05	0.99	1.10	1.40	1.11	7
8	Norway	1.18	1.12	1.01	0.99	1.10	0.97	1.39	1.11	8
9	Japan	1.11	1.00	1.02	1.16	0.91	1.18	1.17	1.08	9
10	United States	1.12	0.99	0.99	1.08	0.80	1.04	1.47	1.07	10
11	South Korea	0.92	0.89	1.01	1.03	1.01	1.07	1.49	1.06	11
12	Denmark	1.17	1.16	1.00	1.08	1.10	1.13	0.68	1.05	12
13	Israel	0.94	0.92	1.01	0.82	0.91	1.04	1.64	1.04	13
Table Continued on Next Page
Table Continued from Previous Page
14	United Kingdom	1.17	0.99	1.01	0.99	0.99	0.91	1.20	1.04	14
15	Germany	1.14	1.09	1.01	1.12	1.07	1.03	0.75	1.03	15
16	Chile	1.01	0.86	1.00	0.88	0.70	1.01	1.75	1.03	16
17	Belgium	1.00	1.13	1.00	1.08	1.08	1.08	0.81	1.03	17
18	Ireland	1.09	1.20	1.01	0.95	0.97	1.17	0.77	1.02	18
19	Austria	1.09	0.99	1.01	1.16	1.08	0.97	0.82	1.02	19
20	France	1.01	1.04	1.02	1.14	1.01	1.10	0.78	1.02	20
21	Netherlands	1.15	1.24	1.01	1.18	1.10	0.91	0.53	1.02	21
22	Finland	1.21	1.20	1.01	1.20	1.07	0.96	0.36	1.00	22
23	Estonia	0.99	1.03	0.98	0.97	1.00	0.80	0.99	0.97	23
24	Hungary	0.84	0.87	0.97	0.93	1.10	1.02	0.91	0.95	24
25	Poland	0.87	0.89	0.98	0.75	0.96	1.12	0.96	0.93	25
26	Turkey	0.81	0.81	0.97	0.95	0.87	0.31	1.70	0.92	26
27	Slovakia	0.82	0.78	0.98	0.78	1.08	1.04	0.90	0.91	27
28	Portugal	0.91	1.04	1.00	1.12	0.96	1.18	0.06	0.90	28
29	Spain	0.90	1.03	1.02	1.10	0.97	1.04	0.17	0.89	29
30	Czech Republic	0.86	0.88	0.99	0.93	1.10	1.06	0.28	0.87	30
31	Slovenia	0.81	0.95	1.00	0.95	1.12	1.03	0.21	0.87	31
32	Pakistan	0.60	0.57	0.88	0.62	1.03	0.32	1.73	0.82	32
33	Italy	0.71	0.92	1.02	0.86	1.00	1.07	0.03	0.80	33
34	Mexico	0.77	0.74	0.98	0.78	0.76	0.76	0.78	0.80	34
35	Greece	0.74	0.87	1.01	0.86	0.96	1.34	-0.54	0.75	35
Total		35.0	35.0	35.0	35.0	35.0	35.0	35.0	35.0
Average		1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1