This Campbell systematic review assesses the effectiveness of community monitoring interventions in reducing corruption. The review summarises findings from 15 studies, of which seven are from Asia, six from Africa and two from Latin America. Community monitoring interventions can reduce corruption. They also improve use of health services, but no significant effect is found on school enrolments or dropouts. There is no improvement in health service waiting times, but there is an improvement in weight for age, though not child mortality. There are beneficial effects on education outcomes as measured by test scores. Community monitoring interventions appear to be more effective in improving outcomes when they promote direct contact between citizens and providers or politicians, and when they include tools for citizens to monitor the performance of providers and politicians. In all cases, findings are based on a small number of studies. There is heterogeneity in the findings with respect to health and education. Hence it is difficult to provide any strong, overall conclusions about intervention effectiveness. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY COMMUNITY MONITORING INTERVENTIONS CAN REDUCE CORRUPTION AND MAY IMPROVE SERVICESCommunity monitoring interventions (CMIs) can reduce corruption. In some cases, but not all, there are positive effects on health and education outcomes. Further research is needed to understand contexts and designs for effective interventions. WHAT DID THE REVIEW STUDY?Corruption and inefficient allocation of resources in service delivery are widespread in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Community monitoring interventions (CMIs) are intended to address this problem. The community is given the opportunity to participate in monitoring service delivery: observing and assessing providers' performance to provide feedback to providers and politicians.This review assesses the evidence on the effects of community monitoring interventions on corruption and access and quality of service delivery outcomes. The review also considers the mechanism through which CMIs effect a change in corruption and service delivery outcomes, and possible moderating factors such as geographic region, income level or length of exposure to interventions. WHAT STUDIES ARE INCLUDED?To assess the effect on corruption included studies had to have either an experimental or a quasi‐experimental design. Qualitative studies were included to assess mechanisms and moderators.The review assesses 15 studies of 23 different programmes' intervention effects. The studies were conducted in Africa (6), Asia (7) and Latin America (2). Most studies focused on programmes in the education sector (9), followed by health (3), infrastructure (2) and employment promotion (1). WHAT ARE THE MAIN RESULTS OF THIS REVIEW?Community monitoring interventions can reduce corruption. They also improve use of health services, but no significant effect is found on school enrolments or dropouts. There is no improvement in health service waiting times, but there is an improve...

No abstract

The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) is an international grant-making NGO promoting evidence-informed development policies and programmes. We are the global leader in funding, producing and synthesising high-quality evidence of what works, for whom, why and at what cost. We believe that better and policyrelevant evidence will help make development more effective and improve people's lives.3ie systematic reviews 3ie systematic reviews appraise and synthesise the available high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of social and economic development interventions in low-and middle-income countries. These reviews follow scientifically recognised review methods, and are peer-reviewed and quality assured according to internationally accepted standards. 3ie is providing leadership in demonstrating rigorous and innovative review methodologies, such as using theory-based approaches suited to inform policy and programming in the dynamic contexts and challenges of low-and middle-income countries. About this reviewCommunity monitoring interventions to curb corruption and increase access and quality of service delivery in low-and middle-income countries, was submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of grant SR4.1034 issued under Systematic Review Window 4. This review is available on the 3ie website. 3ie is publishing this report as received from the authors; it has been formatted to 3ie style. This review has also been published in the Campbell Collaboration Library and is available here.All content is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not represent the opinions of 3ie, its donors or its board of commissioners. Any errors are also the sole responsibility of the authors. Comments or queries should be directed to the corresponding author, Ezequiel Molina, molina@worldbank.org Funding for this systematic review was provided by 3ie's donors, which include UK aid, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Hewlett Foundation and 16 other 3ie members that provide institutional support. What did the review study?Corruption and inefficient allocation of resources in service delivery are widespread in low-and middle-income countries. Community monitoring interventions (CMIs) are intended to address this problem. The community is given the opportunity to participate in monitoring service delivery: observing and assessing providers' performance to provide feedback to providers and politicians.This review assesses the evidence on the effects of community monitoring interventions on corruption and access and quality of service delivery outcomes. The review also considers the mechanism through which CMIs effect a change in corruption and service delivery outcomes, and possible moderating factors such as geographic region, income level or length of exposure to interventions. What studies are included?To assess the effect on corruption included studies had to have either an experimental or a quasi-experimental design. Qualitative studies were included to assess mechanisms and moderators.The review as...

RESUMENEste artículo aporta evidencia sobre el empleo público en América Latina durante el periodo 1992-2012, explotando una base de datos estandarizados de las encuestas de hogares de todos los países de la región. Estas encuestas constituyen una buena herramienta por su representatividad nacional, su frecuencia y su amplia cobertura sobre cuestiones de empleo y salarios, tanto en el sector público como en el privado, formal e informal. El trabajo documenta y analiza los cambios en los niveles de empleo y salarios de los empleados públicos latinoamericanos vis-à-vis el resto de los trabajadores. ABSTRACTThis paper provides evidence about the public employment in Latin America during the period 1992-2012, exploiting a standardized database of household surveys from all the countries of the region. These surveys constitute a useful tool because of their national representativeness, their frequency, and their wide coverage about employment and wage issues, both in the public sector as in the private, formal and

Resumen 1Este trabajo analiza el rendimiento académico de los estudiantes mediante la estimación de fronteras de eficiencia, método que permite distinguir el efecto de características del alumno y su entorno (edad, sexo, condición laboral, entre otros) del impacto de factores exógenos (características de la universidad, etc.). Entre los principales resultados, se encuentra que los alumnos que trabajan en tareas vinculadas a la carrera se ubican más cerca de la frontera de rendimientos, mientras que quienes trabajan en tareas no relacionadas se alejan de ella por factores ajenos a su comportamiento (por ejemplo, institucionales). Para los estudiantes que no trabajan, los resultados varían. AbstractThis paper analyses students' academic performance by estimating efficiency frontiers, a method that allows to distinguish the effect of characteristics of the student and his background (age, gender, employment status, among others) from the impact of exogenous factors (university characteristics, etc.). Among the main results, it is found that students who work in jobs related to their career lie closer to the performance frontier, whereas for those employed in other kinds of jobs, departures from the frontier are explained by factors beyond their behavior (e.g. institutional). For students who don't work, results are variable.