Abstract:

Value for money has increasingly become a contentious and very prominent subject in the development agenda both within developed and developing Economies. Donor groups and community consider value for money when allocating budgets and other resources to developing countries. The study examined value for money in the provision of services in the public sector of Uganda. The general objective of the study was to evaluate value for money in the provision of services. The study was guided by three specific objectives which were; to examine effectiveness in the provision of services in the public sector of Uganda; to assess efficiency in the provision of services in the public sector of Uganda and to evaluate economy in the provision of services in the public sector of Uganda. Self-administered questionnaires were used to collect primary data from the respondents while secondary data were collected through literature reviews and analyzed using descriptive statistics.

The study findings show that economy as one of the pillars of value for money was the least consideration and therefore, not practiced in the public sector of Uganda. Meanwhile, efficiency was the most practiced element of value for money and followed very closely with effectiveness.

The conclusion is that there is no value for money from the provision of service in the public sector of Uganda. The study recommends that MDAs and Local governments should operationalize the concept of value for money and make it well understood across the three spheres of government; review alternatives including considering making inter-ministerial and departmental use of skilled resources which are in short supply to delivery on required projects; and above all, ensure that the anticipated benefits from the services outweighs the costs of acquiring the services.

Keywords: Value for Money, Economy, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Procurement of services, Public Sector, Uganda.

References:

[1].     Adjo, Amakudzi (2008) A review of VfM for comparing PPPs to traditional procurements.

[2].     African Parliamentary Index, (2012). Summary country report parliament of Uganda.

[3].     Ali Ramezani Ghotbabadi, Setareh Feiz, Dr. Rohaizat Baharun (2015). Service Quality Measurements: A Review. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences February 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2 ISSN: 2222-6990.

[4].     Client Earth (2012). Procuring best value for money. Identifying opportunities for sustainable public procurement. Why eliminating the ‘lowest price’ approach to awarding public contracts would serve both sustainability objectives and efficient public spending.

[5].     Communication Com (2011). 896 Final. Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Public Procurement.

[6].     Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 16, 297-334

[7].     Field, A. (2009) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 3rd Edition, Sage Publications Ltd., London. Kalubanga Matthew, Kakwezi Patrick (2013). Value for Money Auditing and Audit Evidence from a Procurement Perspective -A Conceptual Paper. International Journal of Advances in Management and Economics. ISSN: 2278-3369.

[8].     George L. Harris (1998). Five steps to effective procurement. 83rd Annual International Conference Proceedings – 1998. George L. Harris, President, Harris Consulting, Inc., Lexington, MA 01824, 781-674-0041

[9].     Mugenda OM, Mugenda AG (2003). Research Methods. Quantitative and qualitative approaches. African Centre for Technology Studies Nairobi.

[10].  Mugenda OM, Mugenda AG (2009). Sampling procedures and research design in Kenya, University of Nairobi.

[11].  Micheni C. (2011). The effects of Portfolio Management strategies on financial performance of investment companies in Nairobi.

[12].  Nicola Dimitri (2012). Best Value for Money in Procurement. Working Paper No. 2012/02. Maastricht School of Management

[13].  Nunnally, C.J (1978). Psychometric Theory, New York, McGraw-Hill

[14].  OECD (2008), Public-Private Partnerships: In Pursuit of Risk Sharing and Value for Money, OECD Publishing, Paris.

[15].  Office of the Auditor General (2015). Annual Report of the Auditor General for The Audit Year Ended December 2015. Volume 5 Value for Money Audit.

[16].  Office of the auditor general (2016). Annual Performance report of the auditor general for the period ending 31st December 2016. Performance report.

[17].  Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia (2014). Receiving Value for Money from Procured Professional and Advisory Services.

[18].  Philippe Burger and Ian Hawkesworth, (2011). How to Attain Value for Money: Comparing PPP and Traditional Infrastructure Public Procurement. OECD Journal on Budgeting. Volume 2011/1.

[19].  Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act (2003). Statutory Instruments 2014 No. 20. The Acts of Parliament (Reprint of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, 2003), Order, 2014.

[20].  Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (2010). Final Report Baseline Survey on the Public Procurement System in Uganda.

[21].  Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (2016). The 3rd Public Procurement Integrity Survey Final Report.

[22].  Tang (2008). Value for money audit and improvements in project planning

[23].  Uma, Sekaran, (2000). Research Methods for Business: A Skill-building Approach. Third Ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., p. 288.

[24].  World Bank (2012). With efficient Procurement, Government can deliver more with less.

[25].  Yamane, Taro (1973). Statistics: an introductory analysis. New York: Harper & Row.