Social Accountability Mechanism and Customer Satisfaction: Findings from the Study of Padang Jawa Road Transport Department, Selangor, Malaysia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISM AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION: FINDINGS FROM THE STUDY OF PADANG JAWA ROAD TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SELANGOR, MALAYSIA MARNI BT HJ GHAZALI Malaya of FACULTY OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR 2018 University SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISM AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION: FINDINGS FROM THE STUDY OF PADANG JAWA ROAD TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SELANGOR, MALAYSIA MARNI BT HJ GHAZALI THESIS SUBMITTED IN FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF MalayaPHILOSOPHY of FACULTY OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR 2018 University CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study Good governance has long been a topic of discussion in Malaysia as in many other countries. In fact, it became a world-wide phenomenon in many aspects of life either for public sector, private sector, society, non-profit organisation and international institutions. Generally, the aim of good governance is to increase development effectiveness, improved governance and also to enhance citizen empowerment (Malena et al., 2004; Siddiquee et al., 2010). In recent times, interest in good governance practices within Asian countries and in any other countries has also increased. Apparently, this is due to the financial crisis and because of poor governance practices (Mardiasmo, Diaswati, Barnes, Paul, Sakurai and Yuka,Malaya 2008). Besides that, good governance is ofa universal idea relevant into almost every aspect of organizational management in achieving good government. Hence, good governance has become the yardstick where the success of the nation-states is being measured (The Daily Star, November 17, 2005). Most importantly, developing countries need good governance practices immensely to accelerate the overall performance of the state in a more satisfactory level (Ara and Khan, 2006). In relation to the concept of good governance, there are several main principles of Universitygood governance such as participation, rule of law, integrity, responsiveness, transparency, equity and inclusiveness, efficiency and effectiveness, consensus orientation and accountability. However, the current study would focus on one of the main principles or pillars of good governance known as accountability. 3 According to Maslinawati, Intan and Arun (2013), accountability acts as the key requirement for successful good governance and feedback system in any organization either for public and private sector organizations. In fact, the accountability of the public officials could be seen as the cornerstone of achieving good governance and democracy practices (Maslinawati et al., 2013). Thus, public officials are the one who are responsible, answerable in their actions and must be responsive to the people needs and expectations (Maslinawati et al., 2013). Furthermore, previous study by Batley, McCourt and Mcloughlin (2012) as cited in Brinkerhoff and Wetterberg (2015) stated that in developing countries research on the politics and governance of service delivery has highlighted the importance of accountability as one of the main driver for effective service delivery, good governance and citizen empowerment. Nevertheless, a study carriedMalaya out by Lufunyo (2013) found that the questions regarding accountability to citizens by public servants are still elusive. In fact, the supply side is not really anticipatedof the relevance and importance of the demand side. This statement based on the study’s findings which indicated that only 30% agree about the level of accountability of public employees to citizens (Lufunyo, 2013). Besides that, the gaps in accountability, an inequality in policy planning and lack of coordination between public agencies leads to poor service delivery. In fact, in the Malaysian public sector organizations, number of issues arose are always related to accountability,University integrity and ethical behavior (Iyer, 2011) as cited in Maizatul et al., (2016). Thus, apparently such study findings indicates that there is still lack of accountability of the public officials towards the citizens. 4 Therefore, based on the abovementioned issues it is important to note that public service organizations really need people participation or engagement either directly or indirectly in order to monitor and evaluate government performance (i.e: public service delivery), to demand and enhance the level of accountability of public officials and transparency of government towards the citizens and also exposing government failure and misdeeds. Thus, social accountability mechanisms are potentially known as a powerful tools against public sector corruption and the most important to improve government as a whole (World Bank, 2005). In order to further explain about social accountability practices, it is important to understand a concrete definition of social accountability. According to Malena et al., (2004) social accountability can be defined as “an approach towards building accountability that relies on civic engagement, i.e., in which ordinary citizens or civil society organizations who participate directly or indirectly in exacting accountability” (Malena et al.,Malaya 2004). Here, the term social accountabilityof is used to refer to a particular approach or set of mechanisms (beyond voting) that citizens, communities, civil society organizations (CSOs) and independent media can use to hold public officials and servants accountable. For example, citizen monitoring and evaluation of public service delivery by using specific social accountability mechanisms such as public hearing, citizen report cards, client charter, community scorecards and social audit (Malena et al., 2004). Whereas, Sirker (2006); Lawson and Rakner (2005) mentioned that in the contextUniversity of social accountability “ordinary citizens are given platform to identify the needs and priorities, monitor the implementation of development programs, and evaluate the final products and finally sanction action of the public officers” as cited in Mmari et al., (2014). 5 As highlighted by Malena et al., (2004) improved governance is also caused by social accountability mechanism. Hence, the role of social accountability is huge since it has the capacity to increase democracy. In fact, social accountability mechanisms give the rights to citizens to voice out against governmental injustices, seek access to information, express their needs and concerns and demand accountability from those in power (Malena et al., 2004). For this reason a constructive engagement is developed between state and citizens (Malena et al., 2004). Besides that, social accountability known as a process of building relationship between citizens and government institutions through citizen participation and civic engagement (PRIA, 2013) as cited in Mollah (2015). Also, Mollah (2015) stated that this is an option of creating opportunities and spaces for the citizens to participate in government Malayaactivities in ensuring accountability of public officials. With that, social accountability depends on the ability of citizens to hold the public institutions accountable andof enhance the effectiveness of their programs through a broad range of actions or social accountability mechanisms. Among others include citizen charter, citizen report cards, public hearing, access to information, citizen juries, consensus conferences and others (Mollah, 2015). While, according to Gullo et al., (2017), social accountability approaches aim to help service users voice their needs and concerns and hold service providers accountable for the provision of quality services. University Referring to World Development Report (2004), the key to make service work for the public is by strengthening the relationship of accountability between the main actors that involved policy makers, service providers and citizens. Not only that, the 6 successful of service delivery requires good relationship in which citizens can have a strong voice in policy making with politicians and bureaucrats, clients or customers can monitor the service performance of the service providers and policy makers can provide the incentives for providers to serve the public (WDR, 2004). All these can be executed with enhancing citizen information and voice, introducing incentives for downward accountability, creating mechanism for participatory monitoring and evaluating such as social accountability tools (i.e: public hearing, citizen report cards, client charter, community scorecards and social audit). With that, social accountability practices can make an important contribution to more informed policy designed that eventually could leads to improving public service delivery towards achieving maximum level of customer satisfaction (Malena et al., 2004). In addition, in line with social accountabilityMalaya practices, citizens and service users can also affect social services by influencing the decision making of the policy makers through voice and influence the behaviorof of service providers through client power. Here, client power refers to the direct influence that citizens can have on service providers (Gracitua-Mario, Norton and Georgieva, 2009). In other words, citizens can use influence through participation in service delivery such as public hearing mechanism. They also need access to information about services such as client charter, the capacities and the opportunities to use the information and eventually transform it into action (Gracitua-Mario et al., 2009). In fact, expanding the opportunities in using informationUniversity