Survey Tools for Assessing Service Delivery
Jan Dehn
Ritva Reinikka
Jakob Svensson
June 2002
_____________________
Contributions and comments of Magnus Lindel?w and Aminur Rahman are gratefully acknowledged.
Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Public spending, service delivery, and outcomes 2
3. Public sector agencies 2
4. Key Features of PETS and QSDS 5
A. Key features 5
B. Other survey-based tools 6
C. Uses and applications of PETS/QSDS 8
5. How to design and implement a PETS and QSDS 11
A. General 11
B. Fact-finding, consultations and purpose of the study 11
C. Concept Paper 12
D. Rapid data assessment13
E. Local consultant 13
F. Questionnaire design 13
G. Training and field-testing 16
H. Data entry and verification 16
I. Analysis and reporting 16
J. Ownership 16
K. Linking PETS/QSDS with other surveys 17
L. Panel data 17
6. Sampling strategy and data availability 18
A. Unit of Study 18
B. Data availability 18
C. Private for-profit and not-for-profit 19
D. Sample frame, sample size, and stratification 19
E. Sampling issues involved in linking PETS and QSDS 20
F. Non-sampling error and field-testing 20
7. Findings from PETS 21
21
A. General
B. Leakage (capture) of public funds 21
C. Incentives to staff (moral hazard) 26
8. Findings from a QSDS 28
Findings and emerging issues 30
Bibliography 33
1. Introduction
Central government budget allocations can be poor predictors of the actual quantity and quality of public services in poor countries with weak governance, a conclusion supported by the weak relationship between public spending and growth and social development indicators in cross-country analysis. There is also evidence that government funds are spent on the wrong goods (private rather than public) and the wrong people (better-off rather than the poor), fail to reach intended service providers, or are converted into actual services inefficiently. Additionally, households may choose not to take advantage of such services for various reasons.
The ability to diagnose and measure problems of service delivery within the public and private delivery systems is a pre-requisite to designing policy reforms and institutions to improve service delivery. This paper argues that micro-level tools are necessary to assess both the quality and quantity of services, and the complexities involved in transforming budgets into goods and services. Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS) and Quantitative Service Delivery Surveys (QSDS) have been developed in full recognition of the characteristics of public organizations, and with the specific objectives of identifying where service delivery problems arise, quantifying the relative importance, discovering how and why they arise, and devising means of resolving them. PETS and QSDS gather quantitative data on a sample survey basis, including inputs, outputs, and other characteristics, directly from the service-providing unit. PETS assess (often diagnostically) the issue of leakage of public funds or resources prior to reaching the intended beneficiary. QSDS take a service-facility-based approach to assessing incentives for facility level staff to produce high-quality services, and provide a measure for efficiency at the level of the frontline provider and information about determinants.
This paper is intended to guide those who wish to undertake the PETS/QSDS. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 outlines the motivation for developing PETS and QSDS, namely the persistent failure to observe close relationships between public sector spending and outcomes. Section 3 discusses general features of public service agencies that provide public services and some reasons why information on performance is not easy to obtain. Section 4 summarizes key features and potential uses of PETS and QSDS, including a comparison with other tools for public expenditure and service delivery analysis. In section 5, we highlight key lessons learned through implementing these surveys and provide details on how to design and implement PETS and QSDS. We discuss sampling strategies and data issues in section 6. Sections 7 and 8 present findings from a number PETS studies and the first QSDS in health care in Uganda.
2. Public spending, service delivery, and outcomes
Conventionally central government budget allocations are used as indicators of the supply of public services. It has become increasingly clear, however, that budget allocations can be poor predictors of the actual quantity and quality of public services, especially in countries with poor governance and weak institutions. A substantial body of cross-country empirical studies shows that the associations between public spending on the one hand and growth and social development outcomes on the other are ambiguous at best. For example, Kormendi and Mequire (1985) and Ram (1986) find that higher government expenditures are associated with higher growth, while Landau (1986), Barro (1991), Dowrick (1992), and Alesina (1997) find higher government expenditures to be associated with lower growth. Easterly and Rebelo (1993) find that overall public investment has a very low impact on growth, and Devarajan, Swaroop, and Zou (1996) observe that the standard candidates for productive expenditures have either a negative or an insignificant relationship with growth.
Sector specific studies have likewise failed to reveal a strong link between spending and outcomes. With respect to public spending and educational outcomes, the relationship between the level of resources spent on schooling and educational outcomes remains weak (Hanushek 1995). One part of the problem seems to be that government funds do not reach schools intact, as studies in Uganda (Reinikka and Svensson 2001) and Indonesia (James, King, and Suryadi 1995) have shown
Cross-country studies of the health outcomes have come to a fair consensus on two points. First, socioeconomic characteristics explain nearly all of the variation in the mortality rates across countries. These include gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, distribution of income, and level of female education (Filmer and Prichett 1999). Second, public expenditure on health care has had little impact on average health status. According to a review by Filmer, Hammer and Pritchett (2000), the share of public spending on health care is not a significant determinant of health outcomes, such as life expectancy and child mortality. In a recent paper also using cross-country data, Rajkumar and Swaroop (2002) show that the impact of public spending on human development outcomes depends on governance measured by level of corruption and quality of bureaucracy. When governance is better so is the effect of spending on education and health outcomes.
3. Public sector agencies
Two key questions in public policy today are (1) why does the level of public expenditure on average have such a limited effect on human development outcomes? and (2) what can be done to improve performance?
The literature provides at least four interrelated explanations. First, governments may be spending on the wrong goods or the wrong people. A large portion of public spending on health and education is devoted to private goods—ones where government spending is likely to crowd out private spending (Hammer, Nabi, and Cercone 1995). Many benefit incidence studies of health and education spending also show that benefits accrue largely to the rich and middle-class, while the share going to the poorest 20 percent (where it can make a difference) is always less than 20 percent (Castro-Leal and others 1999).
Second, even when governments spend on the right goods or the right people, the money fails to reach the frontline service provider. A PETS study in Uganda in the early 1990s showed that only 13 percent of nonwage recurrent expenditures for primary education actually reached the primary school (Reinikka and Svensson 2001). Furthermore, much of the variation in funding received across schools could be explained more by political economy than by efficiency and equity considerations. Similar findings have been obtained in Ghana and Tanzania (for a review see Reinikka and Svensson 2002a).
Third, incentives to deliver a high quality product or service are often missing. Even when the money reaches the primary school or health clinic, the service providers may be poorly paid and ineffectively monitored. Clients meanwhile, have limited information to enable them to hold service providers accountable.
Fourth, even if the services are effectively provided, households may not take advantage of them. For economic and other reasons, parents pull their children out of school or fail to take them to the clinic. This “demand-side” failure often interacts with the supply-side failures to generate a low-level of public services and outcomes among the poor.
All four explanations, and in particular the second and third point, highlight a key motivation for undertaking a QSDS/PETS, namely that improving public services must involve an explicit treatment of incentives within the public sector.1 The organizational structure of public sector agencies involves multiple tiers of management and frontline workers. Multiplicity is also a key aspect of public sector agencies in terms of the tasks they perform and stakeholder or constituencies they serve. Tasks and interests at each tier may conflict with each other from the viewpoint of limited resources and finite time, and various stakeholders may also have conflicting interests. The output of public service agencies is often difficult to measure and systematic information is rarely available about specific inputs and outputs of service delivery, particularly in developing countries.
1 Dixit (2000) reviews the characteristics of public organizations in light of incentives and organization theory. For further details, see also Bernheim and Whinston (1986), Dixit (1996, 1997), Holmstr?m and Milgrom (1988), Martimort (1992), and Stole (1991).
Public sector organizations share the following key features:
? A multi-tier organizational structure, with various tiers of government down to the frontline provider;
? Multiple stakeholders with different and often competing objectives and an underlying political economy through which the stakeholders exert pressure on
public sector agencies to achieve their respective goals;
? Multiplicity of tasks with various degrees of substitutability; and
? Vague measurability of outputs and tasks.
Dixit (2000) gives an example of public education to illustrate some of these features. Multi-tasking includes providing literacy and numeracy and other direct skills, supporting the emotional and physical growth of the children, providing vocational skills and preparing pupils for working life, providing skills in health and financial management, instilling citizenship, overcoming the disadvantages of home life, and ensuring children can grow up in a drug and violence-free environment. While they are not mutually contradictory, these goals must compete for limited resources of schools and teachers and are frequently considered interchangeable in the schools’ production process. Moreover, it is very difficult to measure the output of many of these tasks. The diverse body of stakeholders includes parents and children, teachers and their unions, taxpayers, potential employers of graduates, society as a whole, private schools, and various groups favoring or opposing specific components of the curriculum. These principals have diverse preferences and objectives. Parents want “good education” and day care for their children, teachers and unions want higher pay, taxpayers want low costs, employers want vocational skills, society wants good citizens, and private schools compete for pupils and some public funds. Again, many of these objectives are mutually conflicting, for instance taxpayers’ objective of low costs vis-à-vis teachers and unions’ goal who want higher pay. And yet teachers are often not interested in pay alone but in challenging work and career prospects.
These features not only complicate analysis of performance; they may also explain why so little detailed information exists on public sector performance. First, there is often inadequate information on outputs, possibly because management information systems tend to be unreliable in the absence of adequate incentives to maintain them on a regular basis. Lack of information weakens the agents’ (that is, public service agencies and/or their employees) incentive to make the required effort—a straightforward result of moral hazard—which in turn adversely affects both the quality and quantity of services. Lack of information can be further entrenched if government allocates expenditures away from areas of poor measurability and verifiability precisely because of poor measurability and verifiability rather than on the technical and economic merits of such expenditures per se.
Second, there is often inadequate information on agent actions. Agents can often resist effective monitoring in the presence of multiple tasks and multiple principals with substitutable objectives. Moreover, as some actions are more verifiable than others, it is not always optimal to provide implicit incentives to carry out specific tasks, since the agent will then tend to divert all effort from unverifiable to verifiable tasks. In education, for example, exam results would be disproportionately emphasized. Incentive schemes are most suitable when outcomes are clearly defined and unambiguous, and become weak when neither outcomes nor actions are observable, such as in a typical government ministry.
4. Key Features of PETS and QSDS2
A. Key features
Apart from information on central government budget allocations, information on actual public spending is seldom available in many developing countries. The PETS was designed to provide such information, on a sample survey basis, from different tiers of government, including frontline service facilities with the objective of identifying the location and extent of impediments in financial flows. Government resources, which are typically earmarked for particular uses in the budget (votes, line items), flow upon release, within a pre-defined legal, regulatory, and institutional framework, passing through the layers of the government and via the banking system down to service facilities, which are charged with the responsibility of exercising the actual spending. A PETS tracks the flow of resources through these institutional strata in order to determine how much of original resources reach each level, and how long resources take to get there (if they get there at all). It is therefore useful as a device for locating and quantifying (political and bureaucratic) capture, leakage of funds, and problems in the deployment of human and financial resources. It can in principle also be used to evaluate impediments to the reverse flow of information to account for actual expenditures.
The QSDS goes beyond tracking funds to examine efficacy of spending, as well as incentives, oversight, and the relationship between agents and principals. In the QSDS, the facility or frontline service provider is typically the main unit of observation in much the same way that the firm is the unit of observation in enterprise surveys and the household is the unit in household surveys.
The QSDS can be applied to government, private for-profit and private not-for-profit service providers. In each case, data are collected both through interviews of managers and staff and from the service provider’s records (say, both local government and
2 Examples can be found at https://www.doczj.com/doc/4e18253992.html,/programs/public_services/topic/tools/.
facility). In some cases, beneficiaries are also surveyed. Triangulating the data collection this way means that information serves as a means of cross-validating information obtained separately from each source. Thus the compilation of information gathered through this method typically requires much more effort than, say, a perception survey of users, making it costlier and more time consuming to implement than its qualitative alternatives. But in many cases the benefits of quantitative analysis by far offset its cost.
As the PETS and QSDS complement each other, a PETS may be conducted in conjunction with a QSDS. Their combination allows a detailed evaluation of wider institutional and resource-flow problems on frontline service delivery. The facility-level analysis can also be linked “upstream” to the public administration and political processes (through public official surveys) and “downstream” to households through (household surveys) to combine the supply of and demand for service.
B. Other survey-based tools
A number of tools exist to analyze provider behavior, including facility modules in household surveys, benefit incidence analysis, and empirical studies to estimate facility (in particular hospital) cost functions. PETS and QSDS are distinct from these other tools in the following key respects.
First, PETS/QSDS differ from other survey-based research tools by defining the service provider (and the incentives facing the provider) as the key unit of analysis (as opposed to, say, the firm or the household). It is not unusual from household surveys to include facility modules. Previously the Living Standard Measurement Study (LSMS) household surveys included health facility modules on an ad hoc basis (Alderman and Lavy 1996). A number of the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) carried out in over 50 developing countries have also included a service provider component. The Family Life Surveys implemented by RAND combined health provider surveys with those of households (for a review of health facility surveys see Lindel?w and Wagstaff 2001). The rationale for including a facility module in a household survey is to characterize the link between access to and quality of public services and key household welfare indicators. These modules collect quantitative data on medical procedures, equipment and staff availability, and supervision, as well as carry out various quality checks on staff (Frankenberg and Beegle 1998; Thomas, Lavy, and Strauss 1996; Alderman and Lavy 1996).
The perspective in these surveys, however, is that of the household rather than the service provider per se. As a consequence they pay little attention to the question of why quality and access are the way they are. This is reflected in the type of data collected, which is mainly on access indicators and the range of services offered. In other words, these surveys largely ignore provider behavior and the processes and complexities, as discussed above, through which public spending is transformed into services.
In addition, in most cases, facility information is collected as a part of community questionnaires, which rely on the knowledge of one or more informed individuals (Frankenberg 2000). Information supplied by informants is therefore not only heavily dependent on the perception of a few individuals but also not detailed enough to form a basis for analysis of service delivery, such as operational efficiency, utilization, and other performance indicators. To the extent that the information is based on perceptions, there may be additional problems due to the subjective nature of the data and its sensitivity to respondents’ expectations. Perceptions are often useful as a means of formulating testable hypotheses rather than as a means of testing them.
Second, PETS/QSDS do not use budgeted costs as a basis for analysis. In benefit incidence analysis household data on consumption of public goods are combined with information on budget allocations for public expenditures to determine a unit subsidy per person. Household usage of the service is then aggregated across key social groups to impute the pattern and distribution of service provision. By contrast, PETS/QSDS collect data on actual spending and services provided at the facility level.
Third, PETS/QSDS explicitly recognize the “umbilical” link between public service providers and the rest of the public sector. Providers of public services typically rely on the wider government structure for resources, guidance about what services to provide, and how to provide them. This dependence makes them sensitive to systemwide problems in transfer of resources and the institutional framework. Therefore, it is not possible completely to isolate a public facility from the rest of the system. This sets PETS/QSDS apart from the hospital cost function literature, which despite having a clear facility focus, is more or less analogous to the firm-survey based literature. In other words, the hospital cost function literature does not try to relate the problems of service delivery to upstream issues. In part, this reflects the fact that the literature has mainly looked at cost efficiency in hospitals in the United Kingdom and the United States, where “leakage” is perhaps less of an issue than efficiency.3 Perhaps more relevant, though, is the budding literature on cost efficiency and other performance indicators in clinics and primary health facilities in developing countries (Somanathan and others 2000, McPake and others 1999). This literature can and should have an important influence on the development of the best practice QSDS.
Finally, PETS/QSDS explicitly recognize that agents in the service delivery system may have strong incentives to misreport (or not report) key data. These incentives derive from the fact that information provided by, for example a school or a health facility, partly determine its entitlement of public support/funding. Also, in case resources (including staff time) are used for other purposes (for instance in case of shirking and corruption), the agent involved in the activity will most likely not report it truthfully.
3. For a review of this literature, see Wagstaff (1989); Wagstaff and Barnum (1992); Barnum and Kutzin (1993).
Moreover, certain types of information, such as official charges, may only partly capture what is intended to be measured (e.g., the users’ costs of the service). PETS/QSDS deal with these data issues in two ways: (i) by using a multi-angular data collection strategy; that is, a combination of information from different sources; and (ii) by careful consideration of which sources and respondents have incentives to misreport, and identification of data/sources that to a lesser extent are influenced by these incentives. C. Uses and applications of PETS/QSDS
Issues of particular interest to development practitioners include efficiency, quality of service, leakage of resources, political or administrative capture, moral hazard, such as shirking and ghost workers, asymmetric information, management, supervision, and distributional issues. Many countries formulate policies within a paradigm of large and ambitious public spending programs intended to address efficiency and equity concerns. Yet, the implementation capacity of governments has seldom been systematically incorporated into the analysis of public expenditure priorities. PETS and QSDS are eminently suited for such tasks.
Figure 1. Tools of analysis of public expenditure
QSDS and PETS
Apart from diagnosis, the PETS and particularly the QSDS can be used for generating data for research. While the large literature on incentives in the context of contract and information theory focuses mostly on firms, it offers a number of applications to the public sector as well (Dixit 2000). PETS and QSDS can provide new data to test hypotheses on provider behavior underlying service delivery outcomes. Research into the economic behavior of households and firms has already yielded important insights, often with substantial policy implications. This suggests that research into public institutions, which in some countries deliver as much of half of GDP and which are directly responsible for the implementation of government policy, promises an equally rich research agenda. Important empirical research questions that the PETS and the QSDS can help to answer:
? How to design “right” incentives within the public sector (characterized by multiple principals and multiple agents) and the private sector, compatible with
increased quantity and improved quality of basic services, particularly for poor
people?
? How to measure and overcome problems of moral hazard, such as shirking and ghost workers?
? How to strengthen voice mechanisms for service users and counter problems created by asymmetric information?
? What type of accountability and oversight arrangements between various tiers of government and between government and beneficiaries can help improve basic
service delivery?
Finally, information collected through PETS and QSDS allows empirical testing of various theoretical propositions pertaining to principal-agent relations within the public sector, bargaining and other resource allocation mechanisms, as well as asymmetric information and incentive problems and how they affect the quality and quantity of services delivered. Empirical research using PETS and QSDS data can be used not only to test various predictions from standard contract and incentive theories, but also to contribute to the development of new theories in this area for public sector agencies.
Looking beyond country-specific studies, the compilation of systematic multi-country service delivery databases will also facilitate cross-country comparisons. The World Bank’s Development Research Group is presently of setting up such a database of QSDS surveys. As more data become available in the coming years, it is expected that empirical research in this area will grow.
5. How to design and implement a PETS and QSDS
A. General
PETS and QSDS are now being applied by the operational staff within the World Bank and other donors, researchers, and developing country governments. The intuitive appeal of PETS and QSDS, however, can belie the complexity involved in planning and implementing these surveys.
First, the survey teams and stakeholders need to have a clear idea of why they are doing the study. When a new analytical tool is developed, there is a temptation to apply the tool, regardless of whether the situation on the ground warrants its application, and, indeed, without tailoring the instrument to the local conditions.
Second, the planning, design, implementation, and subsequent analysis of PETS/QSDS data are complex undertakings. A successful study requires a continuous and careful hands-on effort in accordance with clearly defined objectives. In particular, survey managers should not underestimate the importance and the difficulties involved in obtaining quantitative data from facility records. Unlike household surveys, PETS/QSDS cannot be based on recall data but require consultation of records.
Finally, there is a need to consult widely with the client government and other stakeholders about the objectives of the study. Lack of ownership may result in rejection of the findings. To ensure that the study meets its ultimate objective of informing policy reforms, it is essential that consensus building among stakeholders is nurtured prior to, during, and subsequent to execution.
In light of the lessons from past surveys, we outline the steps involved in successful design and implementation of PETS and QSDS. Many steps are common for both surveys, given that PETS typically includes a facility component and QSDS needs to relate public facilities to the government system. Typical steps involved in designing these surveys include the following:
B. Fact-finding, consultations and purpose of the study
In the initial phase, the survey team needs to consult extensively with a wide array of in-country stakeholders, including government agencies (ministry of finance, sector ministries, and local governments), donors, and civil society organizations. Such consultations are likely to reveal relevant hypotheses about major problems in service delivery and hence define the purpose and objectives of the study, as well as the sector(s) to be included in the study. Given that the survey requires considerable effort, it is advisable to limit the number of sectors to just one or two. Until now, the PETS and QSDS have mostly been carried out in the “transaction-intensive” health and education
sectors with clearly defined frontline service delivery points (clinics and schools), but there is no reason to limit the use of these tools.
After identifying the sector(s), the next step is to identify key issues and problems involved in service delivery in the chosen sector. Again, broad-based consultations are useful to
? reach agreement on the purpose and objectives of the study;
? choose the sector(s) for the study;
? identify key service delivery issues and problems (research questions) in the chosen sector;
? determine the structure of government’s resource flow, rule for resource allocation to frontline facilities, and the accountability system;
? obtain a good understanding of the institutional setting of government, private for-profit and private not-for-profit providers;
? check data availability at various tiers of government and at the facility level;
? assess available local capacity to carry out the survey and to engage in data analysis and research; and
? choose the appropriate survey tool.
For instance, if the perceived problem is one of funds being captured en route to the service facility, or that facilities are not performing, given their resource receipts, or indeed a combination of both, the study can take the form of a PETS, a QSDS, or a combination of the two. In many cases a multi-purpose design is appropriate, because the performance of the facility is directly affected by the discretion, incentives, and behavior of officials at various tiers of government.
Consider the following example. Suppose the government initiates a policy change, which involves a large increase in education spending, possibly combined with decentralization and other institutional reforms. Suppose also that there are doubts about the capacity of local governments to handle the increased spending. Government may therefore decide to monitor the effectiveness of the policy change by using a longitudinal survey, combining both PETS and QSDS. A PETS would assess the actual resource flows from the central government via local governments to the frontline facility, while a QSDS would examine the efficiency with which the funds are transformed into services, and assess the supply of services.
C. Concept Paper
Once the consensus among stakeholders has been reached on the sector, issues, and survey tool, the survey team needs to prepare a concept paper. The concept paper
typically contains sectoral information on key issues to be investigated and how to investigate them. The concept paper records the stakeholders’ agreements on the modalities of the study.4
D. Rapid data assessment
A rapid data assessment may be required to determine the availability of records at various layers of the government (as well as the private sector), particularly at the facility level. In the past, some studies have failed due to unanticipated lack of records in local governments and facilities; for example, the first health facility survey in Uganda in 1996 (see section 7 for details). Be sure to verify the availability of records early on, even if it means a delay and some extra up-front costs. The fact-finding and consultations at the concept design stage often take place in the capital city so the facilities in its vicinity can be easily visited to check on records, with the proviso that they may not be representative of facilities in remote locations. Therefore it is crucial that the data assessment is not restricted to one location. For a rapid data assessment, it is advisable to design a simple questionnaire.
E. Local consultant
It is likely to be more cost-effective as well as beneficial for local capacity building to use local consultants to conduct the PETS/QSDS. In-country consultants are likely to have a comparative advantage over their international counterparts regarding knowledge of local conditions. The consultant should be selected in close consultation with the survey team to ensure adequate survey skills (an issue in many low-income countries). The technical nature of the survey work implies that enumerators need to have sufficient research and statistical training. Where such institutions have insufficient capacity, the team managing the survey must supervise the training of the enumerator closely.
F. Questionnaire design
The instrument design should ensure that recorded data collected at one level in the system can be cross-checked against the same information from other sources.
PETS/QSDS typically consist of questionnaires for interviewing facility managers as well as separate data sheets to collect quantitative data from facility records, and from local, regional, and national governmental institutions in recognition of the importance of the rest of the public sector for facility performance. The combination of questionnaires and datasheets is usually flexible enough to evaluate most of the problems under study. A beneficiary survey can also be added.
4 Examples can be found on the web https://www.doczj.com/doc/4e18253992.html,/programs/public_services/topic/tools/
A crucial component of PETS/QSDS is the explicit recognition that respondents may have strong incentives to misreport (or not report at all) certain information. To this end, it is important to carefully consider which sources and respondents have incentives
to misreport, and what data/sources that to a lesser extent are influenced by these incentives. The data collection strategy should be devised accordingly. As a general guideline, information should be collected as close as possible to the original source. This implies that data is typically collected from records kept by facility for its own needs (for example, patient numbers can be recorded using daily patient records kept by the medical staff for medical use, drug use can be derived by studying stock cards, and funding to schools can be recorded from check receipts). It is also important to keep in mind that some information (for instance on corruption) is almost impossible to collect directly (especially from those benefiting from it). Instead, different sources of information have
to be combined with a model of the agents’ behavior to indirectly derive the information that is wanted.5
To be comparable a core set of questions must remain unchanged across waves of surveys, across sectors, and across countries. Six core elements for all facility questionnaires have been identified:
? Describe the facility. Record the size, ownership, years of operation, hours of operation, catchment population, competition from other service providers, access to infrastructure, utilities and other services, and information on the range of
services provided. Information about income levels and other features of the
population living in the vicinity of the facility may also be useful (as controls for
subsequent econometric analysis).
? Inputs. Because service providers typically have a large number of inputs it may not be feasible to collect data on all of them. Some inputs are typically more
important than others. For example, labor and drugs account for 80–90 percent of
costs in a typical primary health care facility. For schools, the relevant costs are
teachers’ salaries and textbooks. In addition, there may be important capital
investments. The key point in the measurement of inputs is that they be valued in
monetary terms. This in turn requires that units be recorded carefully and
consistently and price information (for example, wages and allowances for labor)
be assembled for each key input.
? Outputs. Examples of measurable outputs include numbers of in- and out-patients treated (health care), and enrollment rates, numbers of pupils completing final
5 Or one can observe the provider over a long period of time on the assumption that agent behavior
will revert to normal due to economic necessity. Unfortunately, this is an expensive and demanding approach, which therefore limits its use. The study by McPake and others (1999),which adopted this approach, was only able to sample 20 health care facilities.
exams (schools). Outputs may be multi-dimensional. In schools, for example, the objective is often not simply to teach children to read and write, but also to provide them with vocational skills, citizenship training, and the means for overcoming
disadvantages from poor homes. Unlike inputs, outputs rarely convert to monetary values (public services are often free or considerably subsidized). Efficiency
studies frequently use hybrid input-output measures such as cost per patient.
? Quality. Quality is multidimensional, and an effort should be made to capture this multidimensonality by collecting information on different aspects of quality.
Examples of this include observed practice, staff behavior and composition, and
availability of crucial inputs. Quality could also be captured by collecting
information from the users.6
? Financing. Service provision may be sensitive to the source and continuity of financing. For example, a service provider, whose financing is intermittent will be less able to deliver services consistently than an otherwise identical provider with more reliable financing, ceteris paribus. Dependence on a single source of finance may also be risky and could weaken the bargaining position of the facility relative to facilities with multiple sources of finance. Information should therefore be
collected on sources of finance (government, donor, user charges), amounts, and
type (in-kind versus financial support).
? Institutional mechanisms and accountability. Public facilities do not face the same competitive pressures as private facilities. Instead, they are subject to supervision and monitoring by central, regional, or local government institutions, civil society, political leaders, and the press. In other words, they are often multiple-principal
organizations. In addition, principal-agent relations between management and
employees that affect performance. To understand the constraints under which
public facilities operate, the information collected should recognize the multiple-
principal nature of the provider. In practice, this means collecting information on supervision visits, management structures, reporting and record-keeping practices, or parent or patient involvement, and audits. Since graft may be particularly
6. Donabedian (1980) distinguishes between structural, process, and outcome quality. Structural quality relates to physical inputs and personnel as well as organizational arrangements. Process quality pertains to the functions carried out at the facility, where the emphasis is on the extent of staff compliance with “best practice” procedures. Finally, quality of outcome refers to standard measures of outcomes, such as pain and suffering and patient satisfaction in the case of health care. The problem of the “trilogy” approach lies in the tenuous links between different dimensions of quality. For example, quality of structural inputs by no means assures good care. Similarly, the link between process and outcome is not clear; it is likely to vary by process, and may not be visible for a long time. Favorable outcomes are often affected by factors not under direct control of the health worker. This then raises the question of how to weight different dimensions of health care quality.
relevant in the case of public sector performance, the survey instrument design
needs to capture the sensitive nature of issues such as leakage of resources or
moral hazard (shirking, ghost workers).
Variations to this basic template might include the addition of different modules to test specific hypotheses as has been done extensively in LSMS household surveys.
G. Training, field-testing, and implementation
Once the survey instruments (questionnaires and data sheets) are drafted according to the specific needs of the study, the next step is to train the enumerators and their supervisors. After the completion of the training, survey instruments should be field-tested and then finalized for implementing the actual survey. Supervision of enumerators is critical during implementation. It is also good practice to prepare a detailed implementation manual for the survey personnel.
H. Data entry and verification
Cost frequently limits the survey teams’ ability to monitor the data collection process continuously. It is more cost effective to do spot checks and make field visits during data collection to discover problems of implementation in time to make the necessary adjustments. An alternative is to undertake an ex post check on data entry. In either case, the team will need to scrutinize the completed questionnaires and the data files, and, where necessary, request return visits to facilities and/or to various levels of the government. The output from this stage is the complete data set.
I. Analysis and reporting
Depending on the capacity of the survey consultant, the analysis is typically done either by the survey management team or by the consultant in conjunction with the team. The final report and analysis should be widely disseminated to encourage debate and discussion to facilitate the alleviation of the problems highlighted in the survey and for necessary policy reforms to ensure better service delivery. The success of reforms and problem alleviation, however, to a great extent depends on the ownership issue, as discussed below.
J. Ownership
Ownership is crucial not only for successful implementation of the survey itself but also for its impact. Public sector reform is often a difficult political issue requiring a process that involves both government and civil society. A necessary first step is therefore to ensure that the ownership of the PETS/QSDS rest within government and/or civil society of the country.
One way to overcome the ownership-capacity tradeoff is to implement the survey as a collaborative effort between government, local research institutions and/or statistical office, and donors. A key feature such collaboration is that local institutions become heavily involved in the survey design, its implementation, and analyzing the results. Experience shows that this can be a highly successful strategy. In Uganda, for example, while the first PETS in 1996 was initiated by the World Bank, the subsequent surveys in education and health were undertaken at the initiative of government and implemented by a local consultant (Government of Uganda 2000, 2001, 2002).
K. Linking PETS/QSDS with other surveys
Linking the PETS/QSDS with the household surveys (to include the demand for services) or public official surveys (to include political economy and administration issues), would obviously allow a much more comprehensive analysis of service delivery, and will be implemented in the future. The supply of services must ultimately be valued in terms of the outcomes, that is, the benefits they confer upon their intended beneficiaries. For households this means household welfare, while for firms, which consume publicly provided services such as security and those provided by utilities, a relevant outcome variable may be profits or dividends. The effect on outcomes is not just a function of the smoothness of resource flows through the government hierarchy and their conversion to services at facility level; a final critical link is that between the service provided and household and firm outcomes. That is future work it is desirable to link the PETS/QSDS with a household survey (or a firm survey) in order to determine impact of services on welfare and profits as well which aspects of quality matter to consumers and which services are in demand.
L. Panel data
For a careful policy evaluation, it may be useful to design the survey instruments in such a way that the data have a panel dimension. Unless the policy change affects a subset of facilities, it is generally not possible to evaluate its effectiveness using only cross-section data, because it does not uniquely distinguish the effects of the policy changes from those of other contemporary universal shocks.
The time dimension of the rounds of surveys depends on the speed with which policy changes translate into outcomes, that is, the time it takes for the policy change to be reflected in actual changes in spending, the speed with which the spending changes affect actual service delivery, and the time it takes the change in service delivery to produce changes in outcomes. Several years of data may be needed, either by returning to the facility each year, or, in the case of ex post policy evaluations, by collecting data on several time periods at once during the same visit. Thus, five years of data was collected from schools in Uganda, while the Tanzanian school survey collected three years of data (Ablo and Reinikka 1998, and Government of Tanzania 1999).
6. Sampling strategy and data availability
In this section we discuss sampling strategy, including the choice of the unit of study, ownership categories, sample size, and non-sampling error.
A. Unit of Study
Most sectors deliver services to the public from different service delivery points. In the education sector, for example, state-funded services are provided from primary schools, secondary schools, universities, various other types of technical colleges, and even from work, social, and community places, such as hospitals, churches, mosques, and community group meetings. Similarly, the legal system delivers justice (or order) via courts, prisons, and police stations. For a QSDS, hence an important question is what should be the units of study?
The unit of study is based on three considerations. Is it an important vehicle for delivery of the service in question? Is the unit of study sufficiently numerous to allow statistical analysis? Are the units relatively homogenous?
A reasonably homogeneous sample becomes important for analyzing cost efficiency, as unit cost substantially varies across different types of facilities (for instance, consider the case of a large hospital vis-à-vis an aide post). Of these three criteria, it is almost the most difficult one to ensure. Official classification systems, say for health facilities, may be completely out of date, or alternatively more indicative of the desired future status of facilities than their actual current characteristics. For example, in Mozambique and Uganda where new health facility are being sorted into a new classification system, a modest size facility can be listed as a major regional health centers on the grounds that the intention is to gradually upgrade it to that standard. Meanwhile other facilities in the same register correspond reasonably well with the new classification ranking system. In such circumstances—where official classification systems may thus be a poor guide for homogenous sampling—it may be necessary to supplement the official classification systems with information collected during the actual survey on the functional aspects of service delivery to enable a second-round ex post reclassification.
B. Data availability
The risks relating to data availability arise from two sources. First, there may be notable differences in financial and management arrangements across regions within a country. In particular, the relationships between facilities and other segments of the public sector in budget execution may not be uniform. Second, although records may appear to be kept in good order for some providers, this is not necessarily the case for others whose control systems may be weaker and/or the necessary data may be unavailable. Data risks should not be underestimated. Survey instruments have to be
传承文化、服务社会 ——艺术设计系产学研结合模式的探索与社会实践情况总结 高等学校为地方经济建设服务的理念起源于美国。早在19 世纪初，美国一些著名的教育人士就提出，用大学的人才优势解决当地的实际问题，大学要为当地的经济建设服务，之后这一理念便被广泛传播。高等学校为地方服务是现代大学三大功能的其中之一，是在教学与科研之外又一职能的拓展，也是地方院校在寻求自身特色融入当地社会的必然选择。 湘南学院地处湖南南部郴州，远离省会中心城市。与国内众多地方本科院校一样，面临着教育经费不足，信息相对闭塞，对外学术交流受限等不利因素，这些均制约了学校的发展。另一方面，湘南学院是郴州地区唯一一所本科院校，其在区域位置、政府扶持力度、民众信任度等方面都具有较强的优势。面向地方社会经济发展需求，培养高素质应用型人才是我们的办学宗旨的首选。在新形势下，积极推进学校的教学和科研融入地方经济建设，扩大社会影响，赢得当地政府的支持，是我院深化改革的前提条件。作为地方高校可以充分发挥学科、人才和科研优势，面向地方，开展应用研究，促进产、学、研结合和科研成果转换。 在学院党委和行政的正确领导下，特别是在最近学院召开的科研工作大会上，学院党委和行政更加明确了科研工作服务当地社会、走产学研相结合的道路，并对学院的教学、科研工作做出了新的战略部署，以更加开放的姿态引导各项工作，艺术设计系全体师生深受鼓舞。 在过去的近十年里，艺术设计系依据自身专业特色，在紧密结合地方社会经济发展，开展科学研究和技术创新，为地方的社会经济建设服务方面，积累了丰富的经验并取得了良好的社会效益，极大地促进了办学水平的提升和教学质量的提高，同时也促进了科研工作的繁荣。在新的大好形势下，为了不断完善学科建设，深入探索产学研结合的模式，我们认为有必要对近十年来的产学研工作进行一次全面总结，向学院领导进行一次全面的工作汇报，一方面总结自身工作的成果进一步鼓舞全系师生士气；另一方面，总结工作中的不足，以待今后积极改进。以期得到学院对我们所做的工作的肯定和对我们以后工作的支持。 近十年来，我系在产学研结合，为地方经济建设服务方面做了以下几方面的
我为党员干部做典范 我党的宗旨是全心全意为人民服务。这是由党的性质决定的。党在任何时候都把群众利益放在第一位，同群众同甘共苦，保持最密切的联系，坚持权为民所用、情为民所系、利为民所谋，不允许任何党员干部脱离群众，凌驾于群众之上。 我为党员干部做典范，从哪里做起呢？我认为从以下几个方面做起： 一要坚定理想信念。理想信念是思想和行动的“总开关”，理想信念的滑坡是致命的滑坡，信念的动摇是最危险的动摇，所以党员干部要坚定理想信念,模范执行党的路线、方针、政策,在政治上、思想上、行动上与党中央保持高度一致。 二要提高道德品质。一个国家，如果没有国民素质的提高和道德的力量，绝不可能成为一个真正强大的国家，一个受人尊敬的国家。所以党员干部要做一个高尚的人、纯粹的人、有道德的人，有益于人民的人。 三要学习持之以恒。当今世界，学习力已经成为经济社会发展快慢的决定因素。如果不加强读书学习，思想就会僵化，能力就会退化，所以党员干部就必须爱读书、读好书、善读书，真正把读书学习当成一种生活态度、一种工作责任、一种精神追求。 四要立足本职岗位。党员干部的先锋模范作用发挥的怎
么样。经常地、大量地反映在本职工作上，所以党员干部的模范作用就是要立足本职工作，埋头苦干，奋发进取，努力创造一流的工作业绩，为人民群众做出表率。 五要做好平常小事。党员干部要发挥先锋模范作用，就要善于做小事，想群众之所想，急群众之所急，从群众看得见、摸得着的平凡小事做起，在平凡中孕育伟大，以涓涓细流汇成江海。 六要带头遵纪守法。没有规矩，不成方圆。在市场经济条件下，党员干部带头遵纪守法尤为必要，尤为紧迫。必须严格遵守党的纪律和国家的各项法律、法规,坚持依法执业,不谋私利,奉公守法,坚决同各种违法违纪行为做斗争。 七要甘于默默奉献。党员干部要继承和发扬无私奉献精神，吃得亏，受得苦，老老实实做人，干干净净做事，不做无原则之事，不恋身外之财物，在困难和挫折面前，不言苦、不言累、不言悔;在物质利益和各种好处面前，不捞、不争、不抢。 八要挺身关键时刻。在紧急关头、非常时期、特殊情况下，比如重大突发事件、自然灾害等发生后，党员干部要能够挺身而出，想群众之所想，急群众之所急，为群众分解分忧，和群众同甘共苦。 我为党员干部做典范，如何做呢？作为一名政府部门的党员干部，我必须从个人思想、工作、生活中做起。 在思想上要与时俱进。一是进一步坚定理想信念。坚定
共产党员要自觉实践全心全意为人民服务的宗旨 五十周年国庆大典的恢宏场面，大家还记忆犹新吧。当江主席乘着检阅车检阅三军将士的时候，那从钢铁的洪流中喊出的“为人民服务”的声音响彻寰宇。为什么我们大家每次阅兵，都要说“为人民服务”？根本的原因在于全心全意为人民服务是我们党、我们军队的唯一宗旨。从1921年到现在，我们党已走过78年的光辉历程。这78年，我们党正是靠着全心全意为人民服务的宗旨，经过了28年的艰苦卓绝的革命战争，推翻了“三座大山”，建立了新中国；又经过了50年的艰难探索，使国家从极贫极弱走向繁荣富强，取得了令人瞩目的成就。可以说，我们党的历史，就是一部全心全意为人民服务的历史。每一个党员任何时候，都要加强党性锻炼，提高自身素养，自觉地实践全心全意为人民服务的宗旨。 一、自觉实践全心全意为人民服务的宗旨是时代的要求。 《焦裕禄》电影大家可能都看了。电影一开始，就是一个充满凝重、悲壮气氛的场面，成千上万的群众为焦裕禄送葬，无数招魂的灵幡在一片哭泣声中飘动，那是人民对“心里只有人民唯独没有自己”的焦裕禄永生的盼望，那是人民对全心全意为人民服务的“好书记”无尽的思念，那是人民对一心为公的好干部的呼唤！可是现在，我们有的少数党员干部信奉“有权就有利”的处世哲学，不择手段地占取国家和人民的利益，说什么：理想理想，有“利”就想，前途前途，有“钱”就途，把“为人民服务”看成是“为人民币服务”等等，更为可气可恨的是少数党员把全心全意为人民服务的宗旨完全抛到九霄云外，把等价交换原则带入党内，抵御不了名利的诱惑，就象那飞蛾扑火一样，明知前面是火炕，也要往里跳，从而走向人民的对立面，跌入了腐化堕落的深渊。原湖北省在香港的“窗口”企业宜丰公司总经理金鉴培，从1997年上半年至1998年8月，利用职务之便，先后55次贪污、挪用公款共计人民币1.9亿多元，在短短不到两年的时间内，金鉴培忘记了自己的党员领导干部身份，肆意豪赌，生活靡烂，最终受到了法律的严惩。听了这个案件，不知在座的党员心里是什么滋味？！同志们,2亿元啊!2亿元可以帮助多少下岗职工度过生活难关、可以解决多少户的住房难问题、可以盖多少所希望小学，可以让多少失学儿童重新回到自己心爱的课堂,而这些钱却让金鉴培一个人挥霍一空!一个受党教育多年的党员、干部本应当好人民的公仆，为一方百姓谋福利，然而他最后却蜕变成为吸取人民血汗的害虫!我认为对于这样的人，枪毙他算是便宜他了，应该给他来一个五马分尸才解以头之恨！大家知道，我们党为了进一步解放和发展生产力，尽快把经济建设搞上去，把实现中华民族的伟大复兴全面推向21世纪，党的十四大确定，在我国建立和发展社会主义市场经济体制，这是人民根本利益在新时期的要求和体现。当前，改革进入攻坚阶段，新情况、新问题大量涌现，深层次矛盾也日益暴露，国际环境日趋复杂化，我们党及党的每一个同志，都面临着前所未有的考验，这就要求我们每一个共产党员要自觉地实践宗旨，全心全意地为人民谋取更大的利益，迎接时代的挑战。 二、自觉实践全心全意为人民服务的宗旨是党性的体现。 什么是共产党员的党性？对此，刘少奇同志曾做过精辟的论述：“共产党员的党性，就是无产者阶级性最高而集中的表现，就是无产者本质的最高表现，就是无产阶级利益最高而集中的表现。”随着时间的推移和历史的前进，党性也有其时代的特点。建国以前，共产党员的党性主要表现为全心全意为人民的解放事业，不怕流血牺牲，去推翻“三座大山”的反动统治，为夺取国家政权而斗争。建国以后，共产党员的党性主要表现在巩固党的执政地位和坚
强化服务职能促进地方经济发展 随着我国经济的不断发展，社会物质和文化财富的不断积累，人们讲环保、求质量，特别是对人身健康、财产安全方面的产品质量、工程质量、服务质量的要求和期望愈来愈高。而且政府行政管理体制改革的也随着经济的发展不断推进，政府的行政基础、管理范围、行政方式和管理手段都在发生着深刻的变化，各级政府都着力于提升自身服务社会、推进经济发展的能力，小政府大服务已是必然的发展趋势。因此，XX部门作为政府的职能部门，只有有效融入地方政府的中心工作才能有所作为。 一、正确把握服务、履职、发展之间的关系，适应地方经济发展和服务企业的需要 如何在地方经济发展的大潮中扮演好XX部门的角色，成为经济发展的助推器，近几年的实践告诉我们：只有强化、优化和深化服务，XX部门才能有作为、有发展。只有真正把服务地方经济作为我们一切工作的出发点和落脚点，做到想政府之所想、急企业之所急、干群众之所需，才能得到社会的赞誉、企业的拥护、政府的支持，我们的事业才有立足点。作为一个地区的区域经济，都有各自地方经济的特点，都存在各自发展的背景和长期历史形成的原因，我县原国有企业华日集团曾经是我国十大摩托车生产企业之一，有良好的生产设备和熟练的技术工人，具有生产电动车的优质
条件。2002年，引入青岛澳柯玛集团对华日集团下属企业——蒙德摩托车公司实施重组，将电动车作为新上重要项目。当年便生产销售电动车6.8万辆，挤身同行业前列。该项重组的成功，既有效地盘活了存量资产，又实现了新兴产业的快速形成，经过几年来的不懈努力，我县已形成以澳柯玛（XX）新能源电动车公司、绿源（山东）电动车有限公司、格仑特电动科技有限公司等整车企业为龙头，新大洋机电科技公司等配套企业为龙身的电动车产业集群。集群内核心企业5户，从业人员近万人，电动车年生产能力达到200万辆。产品有电动自行车（三轮车）、电动轿车、电动高尔夫球车、电动旅游观光车、电动货运车等五大系列50多个花色品种，畅销国内20多个省市，并出口到美国、日本、泰国、菲律宾等十几个国家和地区。我局在服务地方经济建设中，抓住XX电动车产业集群优势，围绕地方经济的支柱产业和特色产业，充份发挥XX部门的标准、质量、计量等职能优势，以争创山东省优质产品生产基地为契机，加快XX相关机构建设，完善建立统一的质量检测平台，促进地方经济产业结构调整和产品的上档升级，提高地方整体产品质量和市场的竞争力。在争创活动中，局领导通过多方协调，在省、市局和县委、县政府的大力支持下，成功通过了“创建山东省优质电动车生产基地”验收，并且“山东省电动车检测中心”于今年5月予以立项并正在筹建中，开创了一种“政府搭台、XX唱戏、企业受益”的新模式，推进了全县电动车产品的上档升级，加快了电动 2
一、应用企业简况 华耐家居集团是国内领先的家居服务及建材营销集团，旗下全资子公司蚁安居，着眼于家居建材领域，立足集团优势资源，借助10多年家居建材物流服务优势，率先整合一线家居品牌，及线下专业物流配送、安装、维修团队，打造干、仓、配、装一体化供应链，提供专业技师、送装一体、全程维护的一站式家装家居服务。 蚁安居既能够为卫浴、瓷砖、吊顶、灯具、壁纸、地板、木门、家具等9大品类家居品牌及互联网家装企业等B端客户提供从产品出厂开始的干线、仓储、配送、安装、维修等一体化解决方案；也能够为C端客户消费者提供专业技师、送装一体、全程维护的一站式家装家居服务。 目前蚁安居已在全国拥有46个分部，业务覆盖各省市区县，拥有长达20年的供应链服务经验和业内专业人士组成的核心管理团队，是家居建材行业专业的第三方服务平台。 二、关于锐特信息 锐特信息技术有限公司（SinoServices）是业内知名的供应链一体化混合云解决方案服务商，借助云计算、大数据及人工智能等信息技术，为各行业的企业打造一体化、精细化、集约化、移动化的供应链混合云解决方案，包括CHAINWORK物流供应链一体化解决方案（OMS，WMS，TMS，BMS，Cloud）、CHAINLINK供应链协同平台、CHAINPARK物流园管理平台、CHAINFIN供应链金融服务平台，以及56n供应链智慧协同云平台,为客户提供量身定造的混合云解决方案，被权威的国际性IT管理专业杂志CIO Advisor评选为的“亚太十大物流科技方案供应商”。
三、实施背景 2016年，蚁安居将以一站式综合服务为切入点，以线上物流及服务平台+线下物流运营管理为核心，全力打造成为互联网时代家居行业最具竞争力的O2O物流服务平台，致力于成为中国家居供应链服务标杆，并利用最新的互联网技术，实现服务全过程的可视化，流程全节点可控，以确保客户服务的满意度。 锐特信息技术有限公司（SinoServices）是业界领先的物流供应链信息化服务商，蚁安居选择与锐特信息合作，上线锐特信息量身定制开发的家居供应链一体化服务系统，让商品的“信息流动”变得可视可控，满足了家居行业多种业态发展、复杂的消费场景对于智慧物流服务的需求。 四、企业信息化现状及存在的问题 在整体供应链建设中，针对蚁安居当前信息化现状如服务工单系统、仓储系统、运输系统、结算系统进行调研和研究后，其信息化总体状况主要体现在以下几个方面： 1、无法实现整个订单的生命周期全程可视化。 2、信息系统之间对接不够紧密，导致操作繁琐，信息无法形成闭环。 3、系统信息分散，不齐全，对数据分析影响较大。 4、无法满足送装一体业务。 五、供应链一体化服务平台 锐特信息协助研发的家居行业智慧供应链一体化解决方案，是蚁安居家居服务生态平台的综合调度引擎，将移动互联技术与传统物流IT技术相结合，通过APP，结合订单管理系统（OMS）、仓储管理系统（WMS）、运输管理系统（TMS）、结算管理系统（BMS）和分销管理系统（DMS）等，打造了智慧的
建党96周年主题征文：为人民服务是党 员干部的最核心职责 作为一个党员干部，能否做到全心全意为人民服务，关乎其是否能称之为一名合格的人民公仆。纵观历史长河，唯有全心全意为人民服务的人才能被人民铭记于心。同样，一个国家的党员干部能否践行好这一核心职责，直接影响到这个国家的稳定和繁荣。 中国共产党的历史就是一部全心全意为人民服务的历史。无论怎么历史环境下，坚持全心全意为人民服务都是党取得人民支持的关键途径。这也是我们党的一笔巨大精神财富。在新世纪里，作为共产党的一员，更需一如既往地坚持和实践全心全意为人民服务的宗旨。我们党员干部应认识到，这是党的立党之本，执政之基，“党在任何时候都把为人民服务和群众利益放在第一位。”身为党员干部做任何事情的出发点不是“为己”而是“为人”，不思“利己”而思“利人”，而人就是指的百姓，就是人民群众。为人民服务不是一句空话，更不能空谈。在不同的历史时期，为人民服务有不同的内涵和要求。新民主主义革命时期，要求党员干部为人民服务，就是领导广大人民群众推翻“三座大山”的压迫和剥削，建立新中国。社会主义现代化建设时期，为人民服务则表现为坚持社会主义初级阶段的基本路线不动摇，从根
本上消灭贫穷，实现共同富裕，满足人民不断增长的物质、文化生活需要。面对不同的时期和不同的任务，我们结合实际，从全党和全国人民利益出发，最大限度实现党的宗旨，更好地为人民服务。作为党员无论身处什么岗位，从事什么职业，都应时刻坚持党的基本路线，将为人民服务作为自己的行动指南。从而为发展生产力和推动社会主义进步贡献自己的一切力量。 党员干部要想真正做到“立党为公，执政为民”就要时刻把自己当成人民公仆，把群众当成衣食父母，尽心竭力为群众工作，永远记住“群众事，无小事”。无论群众发生什么事情，或需要干部怎样的帮助，都应该在第一时间站在国家和人民的角度去思考，帮助群众解决困难。党员干部要增强群众观念、群众意识，不断提高自己的思想境界，把为人民服务作为自己一切出发点和落脚点，从而真正做到低调务实，少说多干，积极服务；真正做到一心为公，一心为民，不辱使命，不负重任。 在当下社会，面对人民对物质文化水平的需求不断提高的情况，党员干部更应该用自己的行动尽量满足群众的需要，让群众生活更加幸福和无忧。这样的党员干部，才是具有群众观点，具有高尚道德境界的党员干部。当前人们的思想观念和价值取向更加多元、多样，这样也就更需要党员干部能够站在社会发展的最前沿，从群众的角度出发，全心全意地
大力发展服务经济加快转变发展方式共 3 大题，总分 100 分，60 分及格（请于 20 分钟内完成） 一、单选题（共 8 小题，每题 7 分） 1、下列不属于服务业基本特征的一项是？ A、有形性 B、易逝性 C、异质性 D、不可分割性 2、我国文化产业占GDP的比重是多少？ A、1/4 B、1/5 C、1/40 D、1/50 3、中国的人均GDP是日本的多少倍？ A、10倍 B、1倍 C、1/5倍 D、1/10倍 4、下列不属于服务业分类的是？ A、生产性服务 B、销售性服务 C、消费性服务 D、公共服务
5、拥有世界上最长、最快捷的地铁交通系统的是哪个城市？ A、华盛顿 B、纽约 C、柏林 D、上海 6、“生产性服务业是资本的中间人，更是知识的中间人”这句话是否正确？ A、A：正确 B、B：错误 7、美国四大职业体育组织中的首富是？ A、WEE B、NBL C、NBA D、WNBA 8、不属于服务经济健康快速发展的方向的是？ A、社会化市场化 B、信息化知识化 C、离岸化全球化 D、制度化 二、多选题（共 3 小题，每题 8 分） 1、2008年世界经济贸易体系的头三位是哪个国家？ A、美国
B、英国 C、德国 D、中国 2、以下哪个是服务经济里的服务内容？ A、消费者售后服务 B、生产性服务 C、消费性服务 D、公共服务 3、以下哪个是纽约10大最佳博物馆？ A、爱利丝岛移民博物馆 B、纽约历史学会 C、世界历史博物馆 D、大都会艺术博物馆 三、判断题（共 4 小题，每题 5 分） 1、中国的贸易是一个高污染、低工资的世界加工厂吗？ 对 错 2、中国石油是第三大进口国，第一大消费国吗？ 对 错 3、世界经济结构向“服务型经济” 转型吗？ 对 错 4、庞大的失业大军成为资本主义的崛起人吗？
在服务地方经济社会发展中 检察机关如何发挥职能作用 当前，我国进入改革发展的关键时期。这既是经济社会发展的重要战略机遇期，也是社会矛盾的多发凸显期。这就要求检察工作不断适应变化的形势，在当地经济社会建设中发挥作用。检察工作必须自觉将自己融入当地的经济社会发展战略目标中，找准服务的切入点。要充分发挥检察职能作用，努力营造优质的区域法治环境，提升地方经济社会发展的保障实力，提升招商引资环境的软实力。笔者认为，检察机关在服务地方经济社会科学发展中的作用不是去办企业，不是去实施项目，不是去招商引资，而应该是依照法律的规定，通过履行法律监督职能来实现。办案是法律监督的主要形式。在服务经济建设和社会发展中，要一如既往地坚持检察工作方针和检察院工作思路，按照“多办案、办好案”的要求，切实抓好办案工作，在法律规定的范围内，对经济建设和社会发展尤其是对各市场经济主体提供平等、优质、高效的法律保护，创造市场主体发展的良好环境。 经济建设和社会发展需要良好的发展环境。良好发展环境的形成和维系，离不开检察机关维护司法公正和社会正义职能作用的有效发挥。在服务经济建设和社会发展中，一方面要进一步端正执法思想，确立运用检察职能为经济建设服务的观念，并使这一观念成为自觉行动；另一方面，要紧扣经济社会发展主题，制定和落实服务的措施和办法，保障和维护经济建设和社会发展的良好发展态势。当前，检察机关要努力在创建和谐稳定的社会环境、公平竞争的市场环境、透明高效的政务环境上提供好服务。 一、服务创建和谐稳定的社会环境
检察工作保障和促进社会主义和谐社会建设，必须在继续强调打击敌人、惩治犯罪、保护人民、服务建设的同时，全面发挥维护国家安全、化解矛盾纠纷、打击预防犯罪、管理社会秩序、维护公平正义、服务改革发展的职能。保持社会和谐稳定是全部工作的重要目标，是经济发展的前提和基础。 当前，检察工作面临着新的形势和新的挑战：一是我国经济社会发展呈现出一系列全新的阶段性特征，各种矛盾更加错综复杂，刑事发案居高不下。检察机关打击犯罪、化解矛盾，维护战略机遇期国家安全和社会和谐稳定的任务十分繁重；二是我国正处于体制深刻转换、结构深刻调整和社会深刻变革的时期，体制、机制和制度还不完善，诱发腐败的因素依然存在，智能化、隐蔽化程度和犯罪分子的反侦查能力在提高，检察机关查办职务犯罪的任务十分繁重；三是随着我国民主法制建设的深入发展，人民群众参与政治社会生活的意识、依法维护自身权益的意识、追求社会公平正义的意识不断增强，各种社会矛盾更多地以诉讼形式不断进入司法领域，检察机关加强诉讼监督，保证司法公正性的任务越来越艰巨；四是统筹兼顾解决各类社会矛盾，满足各方利益诉求的难度越来越大。 作为维护社会稳定的重要力量之一的检察机关，要进一步增强稳定是第一责任的意识，树立主动维护稳定的观念，加强调研分析，结合我市实际，与公安机关、人民法院密切配合，以常态打击与专项斗争相结合，坚决打击危害国家安全犯罪和严重暴力犯罪、黑恶势力犯罪以及“两抢一盗”犯罪，保持对严重刑事犯罪的高压态势；坚持宽严相济的刑事政策，依法执行从轻、减轻、不起诉、缓刑、社区矫正等规定，依法制裁民事经济活动中的欺诈行为，促进和睦的社会、社庭与人际关系；认真处理涉法上访问题，切实解决有理的上访问题，
供应链一体化时代的物流管理 【摘要】当今物流管理在这经济全球化和一体化的背景下，其发展与经济和市场环境是密不可分的。随着企业经营环境的不断变化，市场的竞争日益加剧，不断的将产业链推向集约化、高效化的发展方向，物流管理也必将朝着供应链一体化的方向发展。 【关键词】供应链一体化；物流管理当今是一个科技和经济飞速发展的时代，物流管理显得尤为重要。供应链管理已成为物流管理的重要研究内容，通过对国内外物流管理现状的分析，我国物流管理与发达国家还存在着一定的差距，只有积极推进供应链一体化的管理模式，才能保证行业的前进和发展。本文通过对供应链一体化背景下物流管理的研究分析，论述了供应链一体化对物流管理所产生的深刻影响以及如何在供应链一体化时代中构建一个完整的物流体系。 一、供应链一体化和物流管理的概念 经济发展中不能离开的是物流，物流会随着商业、资金、信息等的流动而产生变化，这对企业来说是生产的发展。物流并不是简单的商品流通，而是包含了如资金的流通、知识信息的流通等多方面的内容。从原料的购进到最后成品的完成以及运输再到客户端，物流都显得非常的重要。现代的企业已经迈入到基于供应链管理的物流时代。物流成了企业与市场交流的必要保障。在这个经济和科技飞速发展的时代，要想保证企业大量的产品运输到消费者手中，就必须依托于物流以及供应链一体化。广义的来说，物流管理是供应链管理的一个重要组成部分。供应链的含义较物流来说更为宽广。而目前随着企业规模的不断壮大，供应链逐步走进了物流中并成为了物流的一个重要组成部分。供应链就是指从企业的上、下游环节直到消费者手中的产品供应链条，它是贯穿着产品整个生产环节的纽带。供应链一体化的产业形态是强调核心企业与相关企业通过信息、技术、资源等优化配置共同实现产业链条的共赢。由此可见物流在供应链中是一个非常重要的环节，是实现产品价值的关键。因此一体化的供应链对物流产生的影响是非常重要的。 二、供应链一体化对物流管理的影响和作用 1.供应链一体化加快了物流管理的速度。供应链的形成往往需要依托于网络技术的支持，其成员之间通过网络技术来相互交换信息，因此要想对市场的需求做出更准确更敏捷的反应，这就要求物流过程中尽量减少成本的浪费以及资源的闲置，这样才能解决降低生产制造成本这一问题，从而达到灵敏、精细的物流管理标准，提高了整个物流管理的效率，这是供应链一体化给物流管理带来的最为明显的影响。 2.供应链一体化使得物流管理体系更加顺畅。整个物流过程中各个环节都没任何明显的对接环节是供应链一体化协调运行的前提和基础。在供应链一体化系统中，任何物流过程的阻碍都会影响整个产业链条的正常运行，从而导致上下游企业之间的物资采购受阻，销售终端断货等情况，给企业带来重大的经济损失。因此只有保证顺畅的物流管理，才是提高供应链一体化实施的前提。 3.供应链一体化需要提高物流的服务质量。通过上文所述，说明了供应链一体化是指整个产业链条，从原材料供应到客户端的使用，都是供应链一体化的重要节点。因此，供应链一体化的终端不再是单纯意义上的客户终端，而是整个产业链条的多个单位或者个人。这就对物流管理的服务对象发生了根本的改变，从
---------------------------------------------------------------最新资料推荐------------------------------------------------------ 党员为人民服务心得 党员为人民服务心得经过这次的党课学习，共产党员的先进性，首先体现在思想上，就是全心全意为人民服务的思想，这是党章的要求，是每一个党员必须具备的，每个党员的岗位不同，但意义相同。 下面是管理资源吧小编为大家收集整理的党员为人民服务心得，欢迎大家阅读。 党员为人民服务心得 1 学习了党课第四节的人民服务精神，深有感触，也深受感染。 全心全意为人民服务是我党的宗旨，是党的活动的根本出发点和落脚点，是区别了其他政党的最根本的标志，也是每位共产党员应尽的义务和根本的人生价值观。 坚持全心全意为人民服务的宗旨，既是坚持党的工人阶级先锋队性质的客观需要，也是党性原则的突出体现。 每位共产党员都必须通过勤奋学习和实践锻炼，牢固树立起全心全意为人民服务的人生观和价值观，不断提高全心全意为人民服务的自觉性。 中国共产党正是一直坚持这项原则才取得了广大人民群众的支持，从而取得一次次的胜利。 从解放前的张思德，从解放初的雷锋同志，到后来的孔繁森、焦裕禄。 1 / 8
中共历史上一批批优秀的共产党员至始至终、坚定不移的全心全意为人民服务，才取得了如此多伟大的成就。 说到底，全心全意为人民服务就是一种奉献精神。 在百度百科上奉献精神是如此定义的： 奉献精神是一种爱,是对自己事业的不求回报的爱和全身心的付出。 对个人而言，就是要在这份爱的召唤之下,把本职工作当成一项事业来热爱和完成,从点点滴滴中寻找乐趣;努力做好每一件事、认真善待每一个人。 坚持为人民服务的宗旨，是保持党的先进性的必然选择，因为中国共产党是中国人民的党，所以为人民服务也是每个党员应尽的职责。 既然是服务，就应该付出，既然是奉献，就难免会有牺牲个人利益或者生命的时候。 作为一个入党积极分子，我觉得深刻理解为人民服务的党的宗旨最重要的是要有实际的行动，要有无私奉献的决心，要有务实的精神。 新时期下为人民服务更应该做到讲实话，重常识，干实事。 作为一个入党积极分子，如何才能做到为人民服务呢?我觉得有以下几个方面。 第一、进一步加强自己爱国爱家的精神，爱亲人爱朋友爱人民。 第二、要有社会责任感，要有天下兴亡，我的责任的思想，要强化自己的奉献精神。
两路口服务经济发展五年规划 一、工作回顾 五年来，两路口地区服务经济发展工作在街道党工委、办事处的正确领导下，认真贯彻落实科学发展观，紧紧围绕落实“314”总体布署和实现内陆香港的城市理想，锐意进取、顽强拼搏较好完成“十一五”规划的各项工作任务。两路口地区现有企事业单位2000余家，服务业、商贸业企业占比较大，地区生产总值突破50亿元，居全区第一，年增长达16.5%,实际利用内资5亿元，街道现有规模以上商贸业企业34家，重点服务业企业20家、服务业非企业6家，微型企业300余家，限额下商业抽样报表单位7家，工业样本单位2家。现有商务楼宇8栋，其中空置面积3万平方米，纳税过亿元的楼宇3栋。 二、两路口地区概况 两路口街道位于渝中区中部，是轻轨3号线和地铁1号线换乘中心，皇冠大扶梯连接轻轨地铁换乘中心和重庆火车站（未来的重庆高铁总站），交通出行十分方便，是渝中区的交通枢纽。两路口街道幅员面积2.05平方公里，辖有7个社区，17712户居民，常住人口52785人。辖区内有设施良好、分布的企事业单位众多，有市建委、市体育局、市园林局、市教科院等市级机关单位，有市电力公司、市三人民医院、市急救中心、市儿童医院等大型企事业单位
。辖区内旅游休闲资源丰富，有市体育运动中心、枇杷山公园、鹅岭公园、市文化宫、少年宫、宋庆龄故居等场馆，有知名的五星级希尔顿酒店，天友大酒店、重百大酒店、锦江之星酒店、88号酒店等场所，周边停车位充足，是企业从事商务接待、商务活动的理想之地。 三、五年工作思路 1、打造都市核心文化产业动漫城。以国家大力发展文化产业为契机，借助两路口地区文化底蕴，在文化宫一带推广动漫文化打造动漫城，引进动漫图书、报刊、动漫影视制作等，带动与动漫形象有关的服装、玩具等衍生产品和生产和经营为主的配套生产企业，促使这些企业在动漫城内实现上下游无缝对接，就近解决大批劳动力就业，促进周边的服务业发展，为繁荣两路口地区经济发展作出贡献。 2、找准版块定位积极招商引资。按照两路口文化休闲商务配套的版块定位，改造之后的文化宫和体育场，突显出两路口的文化体育休闲资源优势，积极引进体育竞技表演、体育技术培训，大型品牌餐饮休闲娱乐企业等文体相关配套产业，将现有的大田湾体育用品市场升级为高端体育用品市场，有针对性的按照版块功能招商引资，不断改善地区的投资环境，使引进企业“进得来、留得住、有发展”，搞好引进企业的跟踪服务。
供应链纵向一体化与横向一体化 供应链是围绕核心企业，通过对信息流，物流，资金流的控制，从采购原材料开始，制成中间产品以及最终产品，最后由销售网络把产品送到消费者手中的将供应商，制造商，分销商，零售商，直到最终用户连成一个整体的功能网链结构。它不仅是一条连接供应商到用户的物流链、信息链、资金链，而且是一条增值链，物料在供应链上因加工、包装、运输等过程而增加其价值，给相关企业带来收益。 所谓纵向一体化是指企业向其投入品产业或以其产品作为投入品的 产业的扩张。企业出于对制造资源的占有要求和生产过程直接的需 要 ,传统上常采用的策略是 ,或扩大自身规模或参股到供应商企业 ,与为其提供原材料、半成品或零部件的企业是一种所有关系，这就是人们所说的纵向一体化管理模式 ,它把“原材料—制造—分销—销售”各环节构成一个纵向销售链 ,对其实施全过程控制 ,以增加各个业务活动阶段的利润。上个世纪80年代，企业一般都是采用纵向一体化的经营模式 而横向一体化是指企业通过供应商和客户建立一种战略合作伙伴关系，从而获得过去只有在纵向一体化下才能取得的紧密协调的供应链关系优势，使自身能够着力培养核心竞争力。因为横向一体化的企业与供应商和客户实际上是一种虚拟集成的关系，所以又被称作虚拟一体化或虚拟集成，它具有集中化和专业化的优势。“横向一体化”主
张将企业的核心竞争力集中于自己擅长的业务上 ,但同时也强调与 外界企业的合作 ,形成一条从供应商到制造商再到分销商贯穿所有 企业的“供应链”,这与传统的销售链是不同的 ,它已跨越了企业界限 ,从建立合作制造或战略伙伴关系的新思维出发 ,从产品生命线 的“源”头开始 ,到产品消费市场的“汇”,从全局和整体的角度考虑产品的竞争力 ,使供应链从一种运作性的竞争工具上升为一种管 理性的方法体系 ,这就是“供应链管理。企业增长在战略上可分为一体化扩张和多样化扩张。一体化扩张又可分为横向一体化（水平一体化）和纵向一体化（垂直一体化）。横向一体化指企业现有生产活动的扩展并由此导致现有产品市场份额的扩大。该类增长可以从三个方向进行：①扩大原有产品的生产和销售；②向与原产品有关的功能或技术方向扩展；③与上述两个方向有关的向国际市场扩展或向新的客户类别扩展。国际化经营是横向一体化的一种形式。横向一体化，源起市场营销和战略管理，又称“水平一体化”或“水平整合”，是指企业收购或兼并同类产品生产企业以扩大经营规模的成长战略。其实质则是：提高系统的“结构级别”。纵向一体化是企业在两个可能的方向上扩展现有经营业务的一种发展战略，它包括前向一体化和后向一体化。前向一体化战略是企业自行对本公司产品做进一步深加工，或者资源进行综合利用，或公司建立自己的销售组织来销售本公司的产品或服务。如钢铁企业自己轧制各种型材，并将型材制成各种不同的最终产品既属于前向一体化。后向一体化则是企业自
党员干部努力当好人民公仆 习总书记说，人民对美好生活的向往，就是我们的奋斗目标。 为人民服务，做人民公仆，这是一代又一代中国共产党人秉承的光荣传统，是提高党的执政能力、保持党的先进性的首要问题。 我们党全部事业的出发点和归宿，就是让人民群众生活得更加美好。 实现这个目标，关键在于各级干部特别是领导干部要切实当好人民公仆，全心全意为人民服务。 领导就是服务。 领导干部的权力、责任和义务，归结为一句话，领导就是要全心全意为人民服务，做广大人民群众公仆，全心全意为人民服务。 各级党员领导干部，要时刻牢记党的宗旨，增强公仆意识，关键是树立人民至上的信念，忠诚于党、国家和人民的事业。 党章明确规定：党的干部是党的事业的骨干，是人民的公仆。 公仆意识，是共产党人立党为公、执政为民的本质体现。 人民公仆我们党作为执政党，是国家和人民利益的忠实代表，领导干部无论职位高低，都应强化公仆意识，这是我们党的性质的必然要求，也是我们事业勃兴的根本保证。 先天下之忧而忧，后天下之乐而乐，作为一名党员干部，要坚守共产党人的政治本色，牢固树立正确的正确权力观、政绩观、群众观，要有高度的社会责任感和使命感，以对党、国家和人民极端负责任的
态度，正确行使人民赋予的权力，自觉做到权为民所用、情为民所系、利为民所谋。 人民公仆作为一名党员干部，要切实抓好作风建设，以良好的党风带动政风民风，真正赢得群众的信任、爱戴和拥护。 要下大决心改进作风，切实解决群众反映强烈的问题，始终同人民群众保持血肉联系，把群众的忧乐冷暖时刻挂在心上，立足基层，面向群众，深入群众，关心群众疾苦，倾听群众呼声，积极帮民排忧解难，努力为群众做好事、办实事、解难事，切实把为民服务的好事办实、实事办好。 作为一名党员干部，要以身作则，率先垂范，身体力行，亲力亲为，从党员领导干部自身做起，要求别人做到的自己先做到，要求别人不做的自己坚决不做，做到刚正不阿，公道正派，清正廉洁，为民办事，努力当好人民的公仆，全心全意为人民服务，心甘情愿地为党、国家和人民贡献自己的力量！忧民之忧者，民亦忧其忧；乐民之乐者，民亦乐其乐。 群众利益无小事，作为一名党员干部，一定要努力当好人民公仆，时刻牢记党的宗旨，增强公仆意识，牢固树立远大的理想信念、正确的世界观、人生观和价值观，切实改进党员干部工作作风，从为民服务的小事做起，全心全意为人民服务。 作为一名党员干部，要时刻把广大人民群众的忧乐冷暖挂在心上，心里装着群众，想着群众，深入群众，面向群众，关心群众疾苦，倾
如何理解“为人民服务，伟大而平凡，高尚而普通，它并非高不可攀，远不可及，而是可以通过不同层次、不同形式表现出来的？” 提到为人民服务，很多人可能会说：“那是党员、干部的事，与我们五年普通百姓无关。”果真如此吗？ 为人民服务体现着社会主义道德建设的先进性要求和广泛性要求的统一。在社会主义初级阶段，对于不同利益群体和不同觉悟程度的人们，为人民服务的要求不可能完全一样，毫不利己、专门利人、无私奉献是为人民服务；顾全大局、先公后私、爱岗敬业、办事公道是为人民服务；同志间、同事间、同学间相互关心、相互爱护、相互帮助是为人民服务；热心公益、助人为乐，见义勇为、扶贫帮困、扶残助残也是为人民服务；遵纪守法、诚实劳动、合法经营，同样也是为人民服务。我们正在进行的建设中国特色社会主义的事业，就是为人民服务的事业；为人民服务的精神，就存在于社会生活和人际关系之中。那种认为为人民服务的思想道德在新的历史时期已经“过时”了的想法是没有根据的；那种认为为人民服务只适用于党员干部而不能推广到全体人民中去的看法是一种误解。当然，对于共产党员和领导干部应该有更高的要求，必须牢记全心全意为人民服务的宗旨，做到始终代表最广大人民的根本利益。 现阶段，实践为人民服务是可能的。全心全意为人民服务。这是为人民服务高层次的要求，表现为一心为公、大公无私、毫不利己、专门利人等，这是对共产党员和先进分子的要求。在这方面，我党老一辈革命领袖为我们做出了榜样。敬爱的周恩来总理在任共和国总理的26年中，始终把自己摆在人民公仆的位置，为人民殚精竭虑，忘我工作。特别是在“文化大革命”那种极其困难的情况下，他日理万机，废寝忘食，每天工作长达十七八个小时，有时甚至超过二十小时。所以人们说，周总理是累死的。1976年1月8日，周总理逝世后，人们以最隆重的方式悼念他，十里长街，数十万人垂泪为总理送行，诉不尽对总理的悼念之情。周总理已经和人民永远融为了一体，他把党的宗旨化为自己的灵魂。我们党的领袖是这样，广大党员干部也是如此。在六七十年代，我国曾涌现出雷锋、焦裕禄式的先进代表，现在又有新一代人民公仆的典范孔繁森。孔繁森家在山东，家中有年近九旬的老母、三个未成年的孩子和动过大手术的妻子，家里确实离不开他，但组织上决定他支援西藏，他二话没说，十年间二度进藏，在“世界屋脊的屋脊”、全国海拔最高的西藏阿里地区忘我工作，艰苦奉献。为了寻找阿里地区发展优势，他几乎跑遍了全区所有的乡。他关心群众疾苦，不顾自己身患重病，为群众送医送药送温暖。他不能照顾自己的妻子儿女，却收养了二个藏族孤儿。他说：“我要以自己的实际行动证明，共产党是真正为人民服务的。” 爱岗敬业，这是为人民服务的普遍性要求。还表现为，在与人相处中，要尽量做到替别人着想，力求有利于他人，有利于社会，使自己行为能够给他人和社会带来有益的结果，在人民需要的岗位上兢兢业业地工作，立足本职，实现自己的最大人生价值。李国安是一名团长，他在自己的岗位上做出了突出的贡献，实现了人生价值。干一行，爱一行，勤勤恳恳地做好本职工作，同样是为人民服务，如普通工人徐虎、李素丽就是其中的代表；就连半个世纪前，毛泽东同志在《为人
高校环境艺术设计实践教学为地方经济服务的创新模式探索据《关于全面提高高等职业教育教学质量的若干意见》（教高[2006]16号）等教育部的相关文件精神和我院环境艺术设计专业建设内涵要求，开展服务地方经济以及校企合作，是我校环境艺术设计专业快速发展，提高综合办学实力的重要措施；是提高并加强环境艺术设计师资队伍建设，培养高素质专业人才的关键途径。为该项工作能够进一步得到推动，提高人才质量的培养和技术应用能力，校企合作能够向深层次的发展，提高环境艺术设计专业的办学水平，为服务地方社会经济发展作出更大的贡献，制定以下校企合作工作方案。 一、高校环境艺术设计服务地方经济发展的指导思想 贯彻高等教育“要全面贯彻党的教育方针，以服务为宗旨，就业为导向，走产学结合发展道路，为社会主义现代化建设培养千百万高素质技能型专门人才”的基本教育方针；坚持本专业以服务河南地方经济建设为宗旨，培养掌握专业知识及专业技能，面向设计企业，具有“精专业、能操作、懂管理”和良好的职业道德的专业定位要求，为推进我院人才培养模式发生根本性的改变，进一步加快加强校企的专业合作，密切与设计企业的联系，加强高校专业教育与社会实践生产相结合；找准高校设计专业与设计企业的共同点和利益点，建立与企业起长期稳定的组织联系制度，实现合作共赢、互惠互利的发展目标，努力为河南当地经济服务。 地方经济的发展是上至中央下至基层各级领导人共同关注的重大问题,多元化的因素影响着地方经济的发展。世界各国的高等教育在很大程度上推动了各国不同地域地方经济的快速发展。因此,高校加强与地方经济的联系是一项非常必要又是长期的重要教育战略和措施.对于河南来说,既是一个农业大省又是一个经济还比较落后的省,除郑州市以外各地级市县经济发展比较缓慢,所以更加有必要发挥出高校对经济的推动作用。高校教育应特别注意与河南的特色产业相结合，所以秉承着这个核心原则，并致力于为河南经济服务的工作。 在经济全球化的经济进程中，各国的地方经济的崛起是一个必然的过程。在经济的全球一体化浪潮中，中国加入WTO后，为推动着地方经济的发展高校教育也正以其前所未有的发挥作用。 首先，高等教育的发展是推动地方经济发展的动力源。科技创新和人力资源是知识经济的两大支柱，技术创新和人力资源都与高等教育密切相关。科技的创
如 何 践 行 全 心 全 意 为 人 民 服 务 的 宗 旨 王群 文法学院 社会工作一班 20123839
如何践行全心全意为人民服务的宗旨代表人民利益、全心全意为人民服务的宗旨像一条红线，贯穿于我们党的全部实践之中。历史的经验告诉我们这样一条真理：中国共产党之所以能够久经考验而不衰，就是因为它代表了人民的利益，紧紧地和人民站在一起，得到了人民的拥护。这种和群众的广泛联系，是其他任何政党所不具备的。在任何时候任何情况下，共产党员都必须立党为公，执政为民，自觉实现好维护好发展好最广大人民的根本利益。作为一名入党积极分子，应该时刻牢记全心全意为人民服务的重要性，深刻理解全心全意为人民的真正含义，只有明白其中的道理，感受党的伟大，我们才会自觉地树立中国共产党员的人生价值观，全心全意为人民服务。 要想用自己的实际行动去践行这一宗旨，要学习优秀共产党员全心全意为人民服务的精神。在长期奋斗历程中，党员队伍中涌现出一大批立党为公，执政为民的先进典型。如身居高位、权为民用、利为民谋、一身正气、两袖清风的郑培民；以执法为民、服务群众、惩恶扬善，被誉为人民好警察的任长霞；以“人民的利益高于天”为座右铭，把群众的呼声当作第一信号、群众的需要当作第一选择，群众的满意当作第一标准的党的好干部、人民的贴心入牛玉儒等。他们的事迹在全国人民中引起热烈反响，人民群众对他们是有口皆碑。这就昭示我们：群众在干部心中的分量有多重，干部在群众心中的分量就有多重。广大党员干部一定要着力解决好权力观问题，真正做到立党为公、执政为民。这些优秀党员是我们学习的楷模，是每个入党积极分子看齐的对象。我们应当学习他们执着的人生追求，树立全心全意为人民服务的人生观，把为人民服务化为自己内在的本质要求。我们应当学习他们的无私奉献精神，把自己同党、国家和人民融为一体，把建设中国特色社会主义事业不断推向前进，贡献自己的才智和力量。我们应当学习他们的人民公仆意识，对人民满怀博大而赤诚的爱心。真正做到先人民之忧而忧，后人民之乐而乐。我们还要学习他们廉洁自律的崇高品德，以艰苦朴素为荣，以贪图享乐为耻，鄙视庸俗作风，自觉抵制拜金主义、享乐主义、极端个人主义和腐朽的生活方式，防微杜渐，拒腐防变，保持共产党人的纯洁本色，堂堂正正做人，勤勤恳恳工作，清清白白生活。
浅谈发挥统计职能服务经济发展 20XX年，东宝区统计局在区委、区政府的正确领导下，在省、市统计局的正确指导下，紧紧围绕“抓队伍、强保障、精管理、提质量、优服务”的工作思路，深入推进统计基础工作规范化建设，统计工作迈入了科学化、规范化、高效化的发展轨道，统计服务政府决策、服务经济社会发展的水平不断提高。 一、全力围绕经济社会发展，服务水平不断提升 二、加强部门联动，数据质量得到进一步提高 一是及时沟通汇报，整体联动。将确保数据质量作为统计部门第一要务，根据省局5月20日数据质量核查情况通报视频会议精神，结合我区工作实际，向乡镇、街道下发了《关于贯彻落实全省统计视频会议精神认真抓好我区统计数据质量的通知》，及时组织召开乡镇、街道、经济部门主要负责人会议，重申统计机构、统计人员绝不能干预企业上报数据的原则，要求用真实可信的数据做监测分析，为党委政府提供建议和决策参考。二是建立数据质量监控机制。定期召开乡镇、街道月度考核会议，通报数据质量监控情况，要求各乡镇（街道）做到即报即审即改。紧紧围绕数据质量第一的意识，不断转变统计观念，坚定信心，迎难而上，真抓实干，努力突破瓶颈制约，有序地推进东宝统计工作的科学发展。三是组织召开各项重点支撑指标督办会议。今年下半年，常区长组织召开几次重点支撑指标督办会议，就各个指标的增长幅度对我区GDP的影响进行测算，要求各部门重视部
门数据质量，与统计部门做好数据衔接工作，提高部门数据与统计数据的匹配度，圆满完成我区GDP全年目标任务。 三、全力服务“四上”单位申报，圆满完成市定目标 2013年，东宝区统计局全力服务规上企业、限上企业培育工作，早安排早布置，采取印发申报指导手册、组织专门培训、召开专题督办会议，联合部门上门督办、专业人员集中会审、邀请市领导帮忙会审等方式加大对“四上”企业申报的服务力度。全区全年申报“四上”单位170多家，通过95家，其中工业18家，净增16家、房地产9家、建筑业6家、限上商贸法人单位56家，净增47家，个体户60家，净增43家、重点服务业9家。圆满完成了市政府给区政府下达的规上企业净增16家，限上商贸单位净增35家任务。 四、发挥统计职能，服务县域经济发展 每月定期召开县域经济形势研判会，要求各县域经济责任单位对照年度目标对每月经济情况和全年形势进行预测和分析，确保各项数据的逻辑性和严密性，并对各项考核指标逐一分析，找准差距、原因、研究制定赶补措施，算好时间帐和任务帐。同时加强对乡镇、街办统计数据上报工作的督办检查，全面提高统计数据质量，确保东宝在全省县域经济考核第一方阵的位置不动摇。 五、争取领导重视，做好第三次经济普查工作 认真按照上级统一部署，精心组织，周密部署，从组织、宣传、人员、经费等方面着手，采取多种形式积极做好第三次全国经济普查工作。成立了以常务副区长常北方同志为组长，各成员单位负责人为