Assessing citizenss satisfaction with the public administrative services at chuong my district hanoi city

ASSESSING CITIZENS’ SATISFACTION WITH THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AT CHUONG MY DISTRICT, HANOI CITY A DISSERTATION Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate Program of the College of Arts and Sciences Central Philippine University, Philippines In Collaboration with Thai Nguyen University, Vietnam In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF MANAGEMENT By NGUYEN VAN DUY March 2018 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS During the learning process, carrying out the research and completing the dissertation, the researcher has been given the precious guidance and support from his professors, relatives and friends With his deepest gratitude, he would like to send his regards to: The administrative board of Thai Nguyen University of Economics and Business Administration has created many favorable conditions to support him in the process of study and fulfilling the dissertation; Dr Reynaldo Nene Dusaran, his academic supervisor as well as his beloved teacher, has enthusiastically supported, guided, encouraged and created the convenient conditions for me during the process of learning and completing the dissertation; Dr Hoang Van Hao, his friend, is a respected person in his job as well as in his life He has encouraged, supported and consulted him much so that he can complete this dissertation; MA Dang Thi Nam, Vice Chief of Office and all the staff at the One-StopShop Part of the People’s Committee of Chuong My district have guided and created every favorable condition for him in the process of investigating and collecting data so that I can complete this dissertation; He would like to express my special thanks to the teachers in the dissertation evaluation committee who have given many valuable contributions to fulfill this dissertation; He would also like to send his regards to the citizens using the public administrative services at Chuong My District People’s Committee who have answered the questionnaires in order to provide him with the research data; His special thanks are also sent to his classmates in the PDM1 doctor class who have encouraged and helped him in his difficult times i Last but not least, he would like to express his gratitude to his parents, siblings and his beloved wife who are always by his side to help him with his study and this dissertation completion The Researcher ii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i LIST OF FIGURES iii LIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS v CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background and rationale of the study Objectives of the Study Hypotheses Theoretical Framework Conceptual Framework 17 Operational Definitions of variables 21 Significance of the Study 23 Scope and Limitations 24 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES 26 Related Literature 26 Related Studies 39 CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 46 Research Design 46 Population, Sample Size and Sampling Technique 48 Research Instruments 49 Data Gathering Procedure 53 Data Processing and Analysis 54 CHAPTER IV DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 56 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents 56 Information Related to Usage of Public Administrative Services 58 Respondents’ Perception of Quality of the Public Administrative Services and Emotional Value 61 Respondents’ Percieved Satisfaction with Public Administrative Services 68 Relationship between Quality of Public Administrative Services, Emotional Value and Citizens’ Satisfaction 69 Differences in Citizens’ Satisfaction by their Demographic Characteristics 77 Differences in Citizens’ Satisfaction by their knowledge, experience and sectors of public administrative services 80 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 84 Summary 84 Findings 84 Conclusions 85 Policy Recommendations 87 REFERENCES 97 APPENDIXES 107 ` LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE Figure 1 Conceptual Model of Service Quality by Parasuraman 10 Figure Performance Only Model (SERVPERF) (Martinez and Martinez, 2010) 14 Figure Four Dimensions of PERVAL by Jillian C Sweeneya and Geoffrey N Soutar 17 Figure Conceptual Framework of the Study .20 Figure The Kano Model 33 Figure 2 The American Customer Satisfaction Index Model 35 Figure Sources of Information about the Public Administrative Services which Citizens Used 61 Figure Result of Confirmatory Factor Analysis 71 Figure Result of SEM at the Second Analysis 74 Figure 4 Model of Factors Affecting Citizens’ Satisfaction with Public Administrative Services 76 iii LIST OF TABLES TABLES PAGE Table List of Variables and Initial Items in the Survey Instrument 50 Table Results of Reliability Test of Scales .53 Table Distribution of Respondents as to Demographics Characteristics 57 Table Distribution of Respondents as to Information Related to the Use of Public Administrative Services 59 Table Descriptive Statistics of the Different Items in the Components of Public Administrative Services Quality and Emotional Value 64 Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for Different Items of Citizens’ Satisfaction 69 Table The Result of Standardized Regression Weights of CFA .72 Table The Results of Testing the Effect of Six Factors to Satisfaction 73 Table The Results of Testing the Effect of Four Factors to Satisfaction 75 Table The Result of Standardized Regression Weights of Final SEM .75 Table The Result of affects of independent variables .76 Table 10 Mean Citizens’ Satisfaction Score by Demographic Characteristics 78 Table 11 Mean Citizens’ Satisfaction Scores by Sectors, Experience and Knowledge of Public Administrative Services 81 iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Symbol Explanation AMOS the Analysis of Moment Structures ANOVA Analysis of Variance CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis CFI Comparative fit index GFI Goodness of fit index ISO International Organization for Standardization IT Information Technology KMO Kaiser - Meyer - Olkin measure NPM New Public Management OLS Ordinary Least Square OSS One - Stop - Shop PERVAL Perceived Value QFD Quality Function Deployment SEM Structural Equation Modeling Sig Significance RMSEA The root mean square error of approximation SIPAS Satisfaction index of public administrative service SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences TLI Tucker and Lewis index VFF The Vietnam Fatherland Front VAVN The Veterans Association of Vietnam v ABSTRACT ASSESSING CITIZENS’ SATISFACTION WITH THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AT CHUONG MY DISTRICT, HANOI CITY NGUYEN VAN DUY This study was conducted to evaluate the citizens' satisfaction with the public administrative services at People’s Committee of Chuong My district Data were gathered from 460 respondents who used the public administrative services at One-Shop-Stop (OSS) part of Chuong My district The survey instrument was tested for its reliability using the Cronbach’s Alpha Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to test how well the measured variables represent the number of constructs The instrument was translated to Vietnamese to allow easy understanding of the respondents and conducted in two month – February and March 2017 All the data collected were processed using SPSS AMOS version 22 Analysis made use of descriptive statistics and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), t-test and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to test the hypotheses of the study The study revealed that most if not the majority of the respondents were females, not more than 45 years old, university educated and working as employee, civil servant or freelancer The majority of the respondents at Chuong My district used public administrative services of Certification of house ownership and land use rights, once used public administrative services at OSS part of district and have little knowledge of the services The perceived satisfaction of the respondents of the public administrative services of Chuong My district is considered as “high” There are no significant differences in the satisfaction of respondents with the public administrative services by their demographic characteristics, experience and knowledge level of public administrative services as well as by sectors of public administrative services Only four components of public administrative services quality including Tangibility, Assurance, Empathy and Emotional Value were significant determinants of satisfaction Among the vi four factors, Assurance appeared to be the major determinant followed by Empathy while Tangibility and Emotional Value showed to be the least vii APPENDIX 3: Result of CFA 117 Standardized Regression Weights Estimate REL1 < - REL 0.625 REL2 < - REL 0.53 REL3 < - REL 0.676 REL4 < - REL 0.856 TAN2 < - TAN 0.71 TAN3 < - TAN 0.744 TAN4 < - TAN 0.882 TAN5 < - TAN 0.781 TAN1 < - TAN 0.73 RES1 < - RES 0.717 RES2 < - RES 0.757 RES3 < - RES 0.795 RES4 < - RES 0.756 ASS2 < - ASS 0.7 ASS3 < - ASS 0.741 ASS4 < - ASS 0.746 ASS5 < - ASS 0.856 ASS1 < - ASS 0.759 EMP1 < - EMP 0.75 EMP2 < - EMP 0.843 EMP3 < - EMP 0.787 EMP4 < - EMP 0.781 VAF2 < - VAF 0.869 VAF3 < - VAF 0.844 VAF4 < - VAF 0.736 VAF5 < - VAF 0.674 VAF1 < - VAF 0.771 SATIS1 < - SATS 0.858 SATIS2 < - SATS 0.895 SATIS3 < - SATS 0.919 118 APPENDIX 4: Results of SEM SATS SATS SATS SATS SATS SATS < < < < < < - REL TAN RES ASS EMP VAF Estimate S.E C.R p-value 0.115 0.105 0.06 0.504 0.321 0.072 0.085 0.054 0.145 0.178 0.102 0.027 1.35 1.933 0.416 2.829 3.147 2.641 0.177 0.053 0.678 0.005 0.002 0.008 119 Estimate S.E C.R P SATS < - TAN 0.111 0.052 2.129 0.033 SATS < - ASS 0.601 0.123 4.881 0.000 SATS < - EMP 0.358 0.102 3.489 0.000 SATS < - VAF 0.081 0.028 2.928 0.003 120 Estimate SATS < - TAN 0.097 SATS < - ASS 0.472 SATS < - EMP 0.338 SATS < - VAF 0.091 121 APPENDIX 5: Descriptive Statistics for independent and dependent variables Descriptive Statistics for REL N REL1 REL2 REL3 REL4 REL Valid N (listwise) Minimum Maximum 460 460 460 460 460 1 1 2.00 5 5 5.00 Mean 3.83 3.80 3.14 3.70 3.6185 Std Deviation 685 789 1.017 730 61908 460 Descriptive Statistics for TAN N TAN1 TAN2 TAN3 TAN4 TAN5 TAN Valid N (listwise) Descriptive Statistics Minimum Maximum 460 460 460 460 460 460 2 1 1.40 5 5 5.00 Mean 3.90 3.82 3.69 3.73 3.67 3.7591 Std Deviation 823 775 823 780 773 65365 460 Descriptive Statistics for RES N RES1 RES2 RES3 RES4 RES Valid N (listwise) 460 460 460 460 460 Descriptive Statistics Minimum Maximum 1 1 1.75 5 5 5.00 Mean 3.69 3.75 3.55 3.68 3.6685 Std Deviation 726 670 842 742 61405 460 122 Descriptive Statistics for ASS N ASS1 ASS2 ASS3 ASS4 ASS5 ASS Valid N (listwise) Descriptive Statistics Minimum Maximum 460 460 460 460 460 460 1 1 1.40 5 5 5.00 Mean 3.73 3.64 3.60 3.54 3.53 3.6078 Std Deviation 698 713 779 812 785 61678 460 Descriptive Statistics for EMP N EMP1 EMP2 EMP3 EMP4 EMP Valid N (listwise) Descriptive Statistics Minimum Maximum 460 460 460 460 460 1 2 1.75 5 5 5.00 Mean 3.63 3.50 3.51 3.54 3.5467 Std Deviation 796 774 703 708 63249 460 Descriptive Statistics for VAF N VAF1 VAF2 VAF3 VAF4 VAF5 VAF Valid N (listwise) Descriptive Statistics Minimum Maximum 460 460 460 460 460 460 2 2 5 5 5 Mean 3.59 3.58 3.61 3.61 3.60 3.5991 Std Deviation 73326 80286 71942 77764 70849 63218 460 Descriptive Statistics for SATS 123 N SATIS1 SATIS2 SATIS3 SATS Valid N (listwise) 460 460 460 460 Descriptive Statistics Minimum Maximum 2 2.00 5 5.00 Mean 3.61 3.58 3.59 3.5942 Std Deviation 743 786 704 68991 460 124 APPENDIX 6: Results of Tests Result of Independent Samples T-Test according to gender GEN SATS Male Female Group Statistics N Mean Std Deviation 258 3.5530 70327 202 3.6469 67051 Std Error Mean 04378 04718 Independent Samples Test Levene's t-test for Equality of Means Test for Equality of Variances F Sig t df Sig Mean Std 95% Confidence (2- Differ Error Interval of the tail ence Differen Difference ed) ce Lower Upper Equal variance 359 549 s SAT assumed S Equal variance s not assumed 1.45 14 458 0938 06474 -.22112 03333 1.45 440.6 14 79 0938 06436 -.22039 03260 125 Result of One-way ANOVA according to Age Descriptives SATS N Mean Under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and more Total Std Deviation Std Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Upper Bound Bound 3.4351 3.6526 3.4446 3.6611 3.6596 3.9456 3.3252 3.8111 Mini Maxi mum mum 152 164 76 44 3.5439 3.5528 3.8026 3.5682 67836 70197 62581 79916 05502 05481 07179 12048 2.00 2.00 2.67 2.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 24 3.5833 58359 11913 3.3369 3.8298 2.00 4.67 460 3.5942 68991 03217 3.5310 3.6574 2.00 5.00 Test of Homogeneity of Variances SATS Levene df1 df2 Sig Statistic 1.765 455 135 ANOVA SATS Between Groups Within Groups Total Sum of Squares 4.000 214.473 218.473 df Mean Square 1.000 455 471 F 2.121 Sig .177 459 126 Result of One-way ANOVA according to Education Descriptives SATS N Mean High school and under Intermediate education & College University & PostGraduate Total Std Deviati on Std Error 95% Confidence Mini Maxi Interval for Mean mum mum Lower Upper Bound Bound 132 3.5253 68191 05935 3.4078 3.6427 2.00 5.00 142 3.6573 71232 05978 3.5391 3.7755 2.00 5.00 186 3.5950 67712 04965 3.4970 3.6929 2.00 5.00 460 3.5942 68991 03217 3.5310 3.6574 2.00 5.00 Test of Homogeneity of Variances SATS Levene df1 df2 Sig Statistic 298 457 742 ANOVA SATS Between Groups Within Groups Total Sum of Squares 1.193 217.281 218.473 df 457 Mean Square 596 475 F 1.254 Sig .286 459 127 Result of One-way ANOVA according to Occupation Descriptives SATS Civil Servant, Official Business, Employee in enterprises Freelance Pensioner Others Total N Mean Std Deviati on Std Error 95% Confidence Mini Maxi Interval for Mean mum mum Lower Upper Bound Bound 98 3.6259 79123 07993 3.4672 3.7845 2.00 5.00 148 3.5045 63945 05256 3.4006 3.6084 2.00 5.00 124 28 62 460 3.6398 3.7857 3.5806 3.5942 65930 62337 71399 68991 05921 11781 09068 03217 3.5226 3.5440 3.3993 3.5310 3.7570 4.0274 3.7620 3.6574 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Test of Homogeneity of Variances SATS Levene df1 df2 Sig Statistic 2.597 455 136 ANOVA SATS Between Groups Within Groups Total Sum of Squares 2.585 215.889 218.473 df 455 459 Mean Square 646 474 F 1.362 Sig .246 128 Result of One-way ANOVA according to Sectors of public administrative services Descriptives SATS N Construction and 24 urban issues Justice 78 Economic issues 62 Labor, invalids 24 and society Certification of house ownership 220 and land use rights Others 52 Total 460 Mean Std Deviati on Std Error 95% Confidence Mini Maxi Interval for Mean mum mum Lower Upper Bound Bound 3.7500 73721 15048 3.4387 4.0613 3.00 5.00 3.5769 3.6935 68729 78996 07782 10033 3.4220 3.4929 3.7319 2.00 5.00 3.8942 2.00 5.00 3.7500 57525 11742 3.5071 3.9929 3.00 5.00 3.5576 67440 04547 3.4680 3.6472 2.00 5.00 3.5128 3.5942 65500 68991 09083 03217 3.3305 3.5310 3.6952 2.00 5.00 3.6574 2.00 5.00 Test of Homogeneity of Variances SATS Levene df1 df2 Sig Statistic 1.416 454 217 ANOVA SATS Between Groups Within Groups Total Sum of Squares 2.085 216.389 218.473 df 454 459 Mean Square 417 477 F 875 Sig .498 129 Result of Independent-Samples T-Test according to Experience of public administrative services EVER SAT No S Yes Group Statistics N Mean Std Deviation 196 3.6156 68911 264 3.5783 69138 Std Error Mean 04922 04255 Independent Samples Test Levene's t-test for Equality of Means Test for Equality of Variance s F Sig t df Sig Mean Std 95% (2- Differ Error Confidence tailed) ence Differ Interval of the ence Difference Lower Upper Equal 08 77 57 0373 0651 variances 458 566 0905 16529 assumed SATS Equal variances 57 0373 0650 421.020 566 0905 16526 not assumed 130 Result of One-way ANOVA according to Knowledge level Descriptives SATS None Little Muc h Total N Mean Std Deviation Std Error 48 280 3.6528 3.5786 77477 62931 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Upper Bound Bound 11183 3.4278 3.8777 03761 3.5045 3.6526 Mini Maxi mum mum 132 3.6061 77909 06781 3.4719 3.7402 2.00 5.00 460 3.5942 68991 03217 3.5310 3.6574 2.00 5.00 2.33 5.00 2.00 5.00 Test of Homogeneity of Variances SATS Levene df1 df2 Sig Statistic 7.362 457 201 ANOVA SATS Between Groups Within Groups Total Sum of df Squares 252 218.222 457 218.473 459 Mean Square 126 478 F 264 Sig .768 131 ... Thus, the topic ? ?Assessing Citizens’ Satisfaction with the Public Administrative Services at Chuong My District, Hanoi City? ?? as a dissertation to assess the quality of the public administrative services. .. with the public administrative services at Chuong My district; H3 There are no significant differences in the satisfaction of the citizens with public administrative services at Chuong My district. .. evaluate the citizens' satisfaction with the public administrative services at People’s Committee of Chuong My district Data were gathered from 460 respondents who used the public administrative services