49439
Core Course:
Global Reform and Privatization of Public Enterprises
Ray C. Rist WBI Evaluation Unit World Bank Fumika Ouchi
Advisor Evaluation Analyst
(202) 458-5625 (202) 473-5085
Number 27 January 1999
Petkoski, Djordjija
The Governance, Regulation and Finance Division of WBI (WBIGF) conducted a core course
on Global Reform and Privatization of Public Enterprises in Washington, D.C., from
November 1-13, 1998. This course was the second offering by WBIGF, following the pilot
course held in Washington, D.C. in June, 1998. The objectives of the course were to provide
both government policy-makers and business leaders with the latest discussions, tools and
best practices of the formulation and implementation of public enterprise reform and
privatization. The course was delivered through a combination of lectures, case study
presentations, a video conference, and group discussions and exercises. A total of 51
participants, including 11 women, attended this course from 30 countries.
The WBI Evaluation Unit (WBIES) conducted a Level I (participants' reaction) evaluation
using a participants' feedback questionnaire. The questionnaire was developed by the course
organizer based on the questionnaire used earlier in the pilot course. Because some
participants attended the course only partially, the course organizer administered the
questionnaire twice during the two-week course, at the end of each week. In the
questionnaire, respondents were asked to rate their views about course content and delivery.
They were also asked to rate their level of knowledge about the course topics covered during
each week, before and after the week. The course measured for the first time respondents'
perceived knowledge gains from attending the course. A 5-point Likert type scale that ranged
from 1=minimum to 5=maximum was used for each question. At the end of the first week,
the questionnaire was completed by 35 respondents out of 39 participants (89.7%) who
attended the first week of the course. They consisted of 5 respondents from OECD countries
(14.3%) and 30 from non-OECD countries (85.7%). In the second week, 25 respondents out
of 45 participants who attended the second week (55.6%) completed the questionnaire,
consisting of 9 respondents from OECD (36%) and 16 from non-OCED countries (64%).
Following is a summary of the evaluation findings.
Course Design and Delivery
l The overall usefulness of the course measured at the end of the second week of the
course was 4.40 on a 5-point scale. A mean score exceeding 4.0 on this indicator
was given by both OECD respondents (mean=4.44) and non-OECD respondents
(mean=4.38).
l The course had expected participants to benefit from attending the course in 3
specific areas. Participants were expected to be able to 1) review their current
strategies with a broader perspective, 2) improve their understanding of the necessary
steps to take for further professional development, and 3) acquire new knowledge of
privatization and enterprise reform. Respondents' views of their achievement in these
areas were fairly consistent during the two-week course. At the end of the first week,
the ratings on the 3 aspects were 4.31, 4.11 and 4.03, respectively. The second week
had slightly higher but the similar results to the first week, 4.32, 4.29 and 4.08,
respectively.
l The course used 4 different methods of instruction to deliver the course's messages.
They were lectures, case studies, a video conference, and a panel discussion.
Lectures and case studies were used throughout the two-week course duration.
Respondents' ratings of the usefulness of lectures were 4.23 on the first week and
4.12 on the second week. Case studies received 4.18 on the first week and 4.32 on
the second week. A video conference with a university professor on the first week
received 4.44 out of 5.0, the highest score given by respondents among all 4
methods. A panel discussion on the first week received 4.11.
l While the number of participants increased from 39 on the first week to 45 on the
second week, the response rate to the questionnaire dropped from 85.7% to 55.6%.
The organizer is advised to encourage all participants to fill out the questionnaire in
order to increase the reliability of the response data.
Self-Reported Knowledge
l Respondents' self-assessment of their knowledge levels indicated a positive gain
across all course topics. Of 13 specific issues discussed during the first week, the
percentage gain among respondents from OECD countries was more than 100% on 5
issues: New Zealand Country Experiences; Bolivia Experiences; Ingredients for
Successful Reform Programs; Privatization and Corruption; and Labor Issues. The
OECD respondents' knowledge of these 5 topics was at 2.0 or below before the
course. Their post-course ratings rose to the 3.80-4.25 level. Non-OECD respondents'
ratings also more than doubled on the 2 country cases of New Zealand and Bolivia,
from the 1.87-1.77 level to the 4.0-4.10 level.
l The second week had another 13 presentations on different topics. Both OECD and
non-OCED respondents reported that their knowledge of one particular issue, Contract
Design for Regulation, increased as much as 80%, from the low 2.0 to the high 3.0
level. OECD respondents had a gain of more than 60% in Privatizing Social Services
and Use of Proceeds from Sale as well. OECD respondents appeared to have been
highly familiar with issues related to Valuation before the course (mean=4.0). Their
gain on this topic was a minimum (9.4%). Among non-OECD respondents, Regulatory
Institutions and Corporate Governance had a pre/post gain of 71% and 63%,
respectively.
l The course attempted to measure changes in respondents' pre/post knowledge levels
for the first time in this course offering. The results obtained were, however, based on
respondents' self-perceptions of their knowledge gains from the course, and therefore,
did not reflect the degree to which they actually learned. The course organizer is
encouraged to use a method that can measure levels of participants' actual learning in
future courses.
Comments from Respondents
l Written comments collected at the end of the two-week course showed both positive
feedback and suggestions for future courses from respondents. When asked about
the most useful aspect of the course, the two most common responses were the
presentations of country cases and examples (N=10), and the opportunity to
interchange and network with other participants (N=10).
lRespondents' suggestions for future courses were made on both course content and
organization. These suggestions can be grouped into 4 areas. First, 9 respondents
commented on case study presentations, requesting more examples from developing
countries, as well as more chances for direct and active participation in the case
presentations by, for example, allowing participants not only to listen but to analyze
each case, and encouraging them to share in class their similar experiences in home
countries. Second, several respondents requested more in-depth treatment of key
issues such as valuation and contract design (N=6). Third, respondents asked for the
course organizer's further effort in facilitating participants' learning by, for example,
ensuring the appropriate balance between the amount of presentations and the time
available, distributing reading materials in advance, and better structuring case study
groups (N=6). Fourth, five respondents felt that a regional course should be organized
as a follow-up to this course.