Assessing Regional Development Disparities in Wasit Governorate a Descriptive Analysis of Service Delivery and Resource Allocation

The spatial dimension plays a crucial role in the comprehensive development process across various sectors. The study and measurement of development serve as essential tools for highlighting spatial disparities between regions. Throughout the twentieth century, numerous researchers have emphasized the importance of identifying and revealing these disparities prior to the implementation of any national development policies or programs to prevent exacerbation of these issues. For instance, Tigran selected specific indicators such as average life expectancy, average income, and average real estate prices for the Republic of Armenia to analyze these spatial disparities [1]. Mac Mashiri noted that the establishment of mechanisms to measure the outcomes of spatial development is crucial in determining the key success factors in South Africa [2].

In Iraq, a regional development program was introduced to enhance the spatial dimension by formulating provincial development strategies aimed at improving living standards through the implementation of economic and social development programs and fostering an investment-friendly environment [3, 4]. Wasit Governorate was chosen as the study area for this research due to its diverse administrative units and significant variations in development levels, making it an ideal case for examining spatial development disparities. The current state of spatial development in Wasit Governorate is characterized by uneven resource distribution and developmental outcomes, necessitating a thorough analysis to understand the underlying factors contributing to these disparities.

This research focuses on assessing the developmental impact of the Regional Development Program on the administrative units of Wasit Governorate to identify the causes of its limited service development impact. The aim is to develop a mechanism that will guide future plans and policies in a more effective and equitable manner [5]. The study employs a descriptive analytical approach to examine and analyze the regional development projects in Wasit Governorate using planning indicators to measure the level of development.

In summary, the introduction highlights the significance of the spatial dimension in regional development, provides a rationale for selecting Wasit Governorate as the study area, and outlines the current state of spatial development in the region. This sets the stage for a detailed exploration of the disparities and the formulation of effective resource allocation mechanisms.

Development is the process through which society achieves comprehensive and integrated progress towards well-being in an efficient and effective manner. It relies on the optimal utilization of natural and human resources and is integral to national policies that aim to foster economic growth and social justice. This focus extends to human indicators that enhance the quality of urban life, promoting stability within cities [7]. Spatial disparity and inequality pose significant threats to economic and social activities [6], and the spatial organization of investments plays a crucial role in development efforts. The detection and analysis of developmental issues serve as critical indicators of spatial imbalances, guiding the establishment of new systems for future development [8].

Spatial development studies have gained importance as they seek to address the adverse effects of industrial concentration in specific areas, unlike others [9]. The primary challenge for development policies is to diminish spatial disparities and balance the development process [10]. This has sparked a new focus on enhancing planning processes within the field of spatial development, often leading to debates among economic and spatial development planners, as well as other experts [11].

Spatial development employs a scientific approach that examines three levels of spatial analysis: national, regional, and local. Regional development acts as a bridge between national objectives and local actions, representing the spatial dimension of national development and providing a framework for local development activities [12].

Iraq faces challenges due to structural discrepancies in its spatial economic framework, which have obstructed the implementation of development programs and their financial distributions, both spatially and sectorally [18]. To enhance the spatial distribution of investment allocations, these are aligned with the standards set forth in the provincial development plans and are consistent with the principles of administrative decentralization stipulated by the Constitution of the Republic of Iraq in 2005 [19]. Consequently, the responsibilities of sectoral ministries have evolved to include determining needs within the provinces and developing and executing plans and programs for infrastructure that significantly impact citizen welfare. Regional programs are designed to address economic, social, and environmental challenges [20], representing crucial administrative tools for delivering services across various sectors and achieving associated social and economic objectives [21, 22]. Initiated in 2006, this program allocates financial resources from the central government to the governorates based on population size and the relative significance of each governorate. These allocations are then distributed within the governorates to administrative units Figure 1.

27-1.png

Figure 1. Population distribution according to administrative units of Wasit Governorate for the year 2022 [23]

Investment allocations within the Regional Development Program are spatially distributed across administrative units in the form of projects targeting various service sectors. These sectors include networks and stations for sewage, municipal works, general infrastructure, health services, drinking water, as well as roads, electricity, and building projects. Despite over fifteen years of ongoing implementation, the developmental impact of the program remains unclear, prompting a reassessment of the executed plans. This review aims to analyze the reality of spatial development, highlight disparities [24] between administrative units, and propose a new mechanism for the spatial distribution of investment allocations to expedite the development process.

Development measures vary based on the objectives and characteristics of a given initiative, whether they are economic or social, qualitative or quantitative. There is no universally ideal method or indicator for measuring spatial development disparities. Owing to the variety of development measures and their significant conceptual and practical diversity [25], researchers are afforded the flexibility to select the methodology that best suits their study. The factor analysis scale developed by Berry is regarded as a critical standard for interpreting spatial relationships and identifying factors that contribute to regional strengths or weaknesses [26].

To elucidate development disparities, the following indicators will be utilized:

1. Labor Force Aged 15 to 64 Years: Represents the active working population within the administrative unit.
2. Area of the Administrative Unit: Refers to the total geographical area covered by the administrative unit.
3. Deficit Gap in Heavy Sewerage and Rainwater Services: Calculated as the percentage of areas within the administrative unit not served by sewerage networks.
4. Deficit Gap in Municipal Services and Infrastructure: Measured by the percentage of streets within the administrative unit that are unpaved.
5. Educational Services Deficit Gap (School Buildings): The local planning standard requires the provision of one primary school per 2,500 residents and one secondary school per 10,000 residents, taking into account the spatial distribution of the population. The gap is calculated by subtracting the number of existing schools from the number required according to these standards.
6. Health Services Deficit Gap (Health Centers): Defined by the standard of providing one health center for every 10,000 residents. The gap is determined by subtracting the number of existing centers from the number required as per this standard.
7. Drinking Water Services Deficit Gap: The standard for drinking water services stipulates a provision of 350 liters per person per day. The gap is calculated by subtracting the actual amount of water supplied from the amount required according to this standard.
8. Area of Arable Agricultural Land: The percentage of arable agricultural land within the administrative unit relative to its total land area.
9. Relative Industrial Importance: Measured by the percentage of industrial establishments in the administrative unit compared to the total number in the entire province.

These indicators are categorized into social indicators (items 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) and economic indicators (items 1, 2, 8, and 9). The subsequent table, Table 1 displays the status of these development indicators at the administrative unit level within Wasit Governorate.

The table presented above indicates that the administrative units of Sayyid al-Shuhada and Old Wasit have not had their development indicators measured by the planning teams in the relevant sectoral departments due to their recent establishment. Consequently, these units will be excluded from the process of measuring development indicators to prevent the generation of unrealistic data for these units.

Furthermore, the organization of the nine development indicators is clearly divided into two categories:

1. Indicators with Positive Effects: These include the first, second, eighth, and ninth indicators. Administrative units achieving the highest rates in these indicators are ranked first, whereas those with the lowest rates are ranked last.

2. Indicators with Negative Effects: Comprising the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh indicators, the ranking logic is inverted compared to the positive indicators. Here, the administrative unit with the highest rate is placed last, establishing a reversed hierarchy for these specific indicators.

The hierarchical structure of development indicators across the administrative units of Wasit Governorate is detailed in Table 2.

Table 1. Development indicators in administrative units [23]

Table 2. Ranking of development indicators in administrative units

The table presented above demonstrates that the rankings of the indicators used in analyzing each administrative unit within the governorate are not consistent. For instance, the city of Kut is ranked first in the labor force indicator, fourth in municipal services, ninth in relative industrial importance, and third in both the area and sewage services indicators. Similarly, Aziziya is ranked first in the water services indicator and thirteenth in the education sector indicator. This pattern varies across other administrative units as well, illustrating the diverse states of spatial development within each unit. This approach allows for a nuanced measurement of development across the governorate's administrative landscape.

7.1 Development degree scale

This metric is based on the hierarchical classification of regions (administrative units) according to the degree of development measured and the indicators used in the analysis [27]. Refer to the previously mentioned Table 2, which divides the administrative units into three distinct development categories based on the hierarchy established by each indicator:

• Category A: Comprises administrative units ranked from first to sixth, designated as rank (1).
• Category B: Includes administrative units ranked from seventh to eleventh, designated as rank (2).
• Category C: Encompasses administrative units ranked from twelfth to seventeenth, designated as rank (3).

By applying this classification and assigning a specific score to each administrative unit based on their performance in each indicator, we construct Table 3. This table details the scoring and categorization process, allowing for a clear comparison of development levels across the administrative units. The rank will be denoted by the symbol (R) and the degree of that rank by the symbol (S).

To determine the ranking of administrative units based on their degree of development, we multiply the rank (R) assigned to each indicator by the score (S) it achieves for each administrative unit. This calculation results in a developmental ranking for the units, where the unit ranking first is the one with the lowest composite score, indicative of higher development status. This ranking is detailed in Table 4.

The table above clearly categorizes the administrative units into three distinct development groups based on the degree of development scale. The units Al-Aziziyah, Al-Ahrar, Kut, Sheikh Saad, Suwayra, and Numaniyah (ranks 1-6) fall within the first development category, indicating the highest level of development. The units Al-Muwafaqiya, Al-Dabouni, Al-Shahimiya, Badra, and Hay (ranks 7-11) are placed in the second development category. Meanwhile, the units Jassan, Wasit district, Zubaidiyah, Bashaer, Taj al-Din, and Zurbatiyah (ranks 12-17) are classified within the third development category, reflecting the lower tiers of development as per the applied scale.

7.2 Development rank scale

The development rank scale is a metric used to assess spatial development among administrative units and represents the second proposed measure for evaluating development rankings. This scale is calculated by summing the products obtained from multiplying the frequency of each rank by its assigned point value across all indicators used in the analysis. This approach follows a tripartite rank classification as outlined in Table 2, where the first rank is valued at five points, the second rank at three points, and the third rank at one point. The formula for this calculation is R = P1n1 + P2n2 + P3*n3 [27], where 'R' represents the development rank score.

• P1 indicates the repetition of the first rank symbol, applicable to ranks one through six.
• P2 covers the repetition of the second rank symbol, spanning ranks seven to eleven.
• P3 pertains to the repetition of the third rank symbol, including ranks twelve to seventeen.

Table 3. The scores of development indicators according to administrative units

Table 4. Ranking of administrative units according to the degree of development scale

'n' represents the points associated with each rank level.

• Kut: R = 5×5 + 3×3 + 1×1 = 35
• Suwayra: R = 6×5 + 1×3 + 2×1 = 35
• Numaniyah: R = 5×5 + 2×3 + 2×1 = 33
• Aziziyah: R = 8×5 + 0×3 + 1×1 = 41
• Al-Hai: R = 5×5 + 0×3 + 4×1 = 29
• Zubaidiyah: R = 2×5 + 3×3 + 4×1 = 23

By applying these calculations and comparing the results, the development ranks of the administrative units are derived and displayed in Table 5. It is observed that despite variations within the ranking sequences, the administrative units retain their respective development scores, as illustrated in the accompanying Figure 2.

Table 5. Ranking of administrative units according to the development rank scale

As indicated in the data presented above, the administrative units of Wasit Governorate have consistently maintained their respective classifications within the three predefined development categories, as established by the previous two standards. This consistency is further illustrated in Figure 2. However, it is evident that there are significant variations in development levels among these units. These discrepancies underscore the necessity for implementing new and more effective mechanisms to address these differences. The primary objective of establishing the investment budget is to facilitate comprehensive development across various dimensions by strategically allocating financial resources among the governorates. This strategic distribution aims to mitigate development disparities and promote balanced regional growth.

27-2.png

Figure 2. Administrative units of Wasit Governorate according to the three development categories

The findings of this study reveal significant spatial development disparities within Wasit Governorate, aligning with and diverging from existing research in various ways. This section compares the study’s results with previous local and international research, discussing consistencies, discrepancies, and exploring the possible reasons for these differences.

Comparison with Local Research:

• Urban Structure Analysis of Al-Kut City: Similar to the findings of the current study, previous research on Al-Kut highlighted significant disparities in urban development and resource distribution. Both studies indicate that despite efforts to implement regional development programs, the impact remains uneven [3].
• Evaluation of Development Plans in Wasit Province: Consistent with this study’s results, previous evaluations have shown persistent development gaps across different administrative units in Wasit Province [4].

Comparison with International Research:

• Tigran's Research in Armenia: The use of indicators such as average life expectancy, income, and real estate prices in Armenia shows similar spatial development disparities as observed in Wasit. These findings suggest that certain indicators are universally applicable in assessing regional development disparities [1].
• Mac Mashiri’s Work in South Africa: The need for mechanisms to measure spatial development outcomes and identify key success factors, as emphasized by Mashiri, is evident in the current study’s findings as well. Both studies underscore the importance of robust measurement frameworks to address developmental disparities [2].

Consistencies:

• Shared Developmental Challenges: The study’s results align with international findings in identifying common developmental challenges, such as unequal resource distribution and service delivery gaps. This consistency highlights the pervasive nature of spatial development issues across different contexts.
• Effectiveness of Development Indicators: The use of specific development indicators in both local and international research demonstrates their effectiveness in highlighting spatial disparities. These indicators provide a reliable basis for assessing and comparing regional development levels.

Discrepancies:

• Contextual Differences: The study’s findings show unique challenges in Wasit Governorate that may not be as pronounced in other regions. For instance, local political and economic conditions significantly influence development outcomes, which may not be directly comparable to the situations in Armenia or South Africa.
• Differences in Development Strategies: The strategies employed in Wasit may differ from those used in other regions, leading to variations in development effectiveness. For example, centralized versus decentralized approaches to resource allocation can result in different developmental impacts.

Exploring the Reasons for Discrepancies:

• Structural Factors: Government policies and infrastructural disparities play a crucial role in shaping development outcomes. Variations in policy implementation and infrastructure quality can lead to significant differences in development across regions.
• Economic and Social Factors: Economic disparities and social conditions, such as population density and cultural factors, can influence the effectiveness of development programs. These factors must be considered when comparing development outcomes across different regions.