1. Faculty of Management, Central Department of Public Administration, Tribhuwan University, Nepal.

*             Correspondence: aronluitel@gmail.com

Keywords: demography, expectation, performance, satisfaction, trust

1. INTRODUCTION

Citizens’ satisfaction with public services and institutions can be considered a direct outcome of a government’s policy and actions, and the results from satisfaction surveys can reveal a lot about how well governments are functioning, both in terms of citizens’ actual experiences but also their expectations [1]. Citizen’s satisfaction is an important indicator to measure the quality of service provided by an institution [2]. Vigoda defined satisfaction as variable that conveys detail information about public perspective toward various regional and national-scale public services. Citizen satisfaction with public service delivery can be defined as citizens’ perception of the quality of the goods and services that are provided by the government that includes such things as primary education and public health [3]. Article 56 of the Constitution of Nepal 2015 defines local government as rural municipalities, municipalities and district assemblies. Local government is responsible for a range of vital services for people and businesses in defined areas. Among them are well known functions such as social care, schools, housing and planning and waste collection, but also lesser-known ones such as licensing, business support, registrar services and pest [4]. Local governments are the unit of government that are closer to citizen with the responsibility of creating a sound environment to promote democratic values, norms, and public participation in decision making, and also accelerating social and economic development to enhance quality and prosperity of community life. In federal states, local government generally comprise the third tier of government [5]. For proportional development in all the parts of the country by appropriate distribution and mobilization of resources and reducing the economic, social, and religious discrimination, the country has transferred into federal system since 3^rd Ashwin 2072 B.S. Nepal has been divided into 7 provinces, 77 districts, 753 local bodies including 6 metropolitan city, 11 sub-metropolitan city, 276 municipalities, and 460 rural municipalities. A total of 6743 wards is formed under 753 local bodies (Mo FAGA). For the first time in political history, through new governance structure, local governments have received a high number of independent and concurrent powers that’s helps to foster a holistic development at local level. As per current constitutional provisions 22 administrative, fiscal, and political power are given to local governments. There are 15 shared powers between federal, provincial, and local governments (constitution of Nepal, schedule 8, & 9). The report of the Power Decentralization Commission in 2020 B.S, Decentralization Act 2039 B.S, ‘Build your own village’ programmed in 2051 B.S, the report on Decentralization and Local autonomy in 2053 B.S, Local Self-governance Act 2055 B.S, Decentralization Implementation plan 2055 B.S, Constitution of Nepal 2072, and local government operation Act 2074 are notable for their experimentation, experience, and attempts at local autonomy that contribute towards achieving goals through inclusive, responsive, and accountable local government. In order to function properly, it is important to change mindset of people, bureaucrats, and political leaders [6]. Out of 753 local bodies of Nepal, Biratnagar Metropolitan City (BMC) is one that is situated in Morang district of province no 1. The total area of Biratnagar is 77 sq km with total 19 wards bordering India in the south, buddi ganga Gau palinka in the north, Kesaliya river in the west, and Singhiya river in the east. As per the preliminary report of 2021 Nepal census, Biratnagar has an estimated city population of 244,750 living in 45,204 households. Biratnagar was declared a metropolitan city on 22 May 2017 (Mo FAGA). The history of decentralization and local government is not new in Nepal, systematic efforts for decentralized governance in Nepal began in 1960s with the establishment of separate districts, municipalities, and village level panchayat [5]. These panchayats were elected LGs and had the authority to formulate policy, undertake programs, and levy taxes. A bottom-up planning, co-ordination, and implementation system was set up by bringing all district offices of development related line ministries or departments under district panchayat’s umbrella. But the implementation couldn’t lift very much off the ground because there were no political incentives, or perhaps genuine political wish [7]. This institution, therefore, have more or less worked as extended or de-concentrated agents of central government, and were more loyal and accountable to center than to the people. During the thirty years of panchayat rule, several experiments were conducted to implement decentralization and local governance but due to lack of political will and commitment and the feudal nature of the system nothing could be materialized in empowering the people through local government [8]. After the restoration of democracy in 1990, a new constitution was promulgated which has envisioned decentralization and local government as a fundamental element of democracy. The constitution gave the directive principle to involve more and more citizens in the governance through decentralization for equitable distribution of benefits of democracy across the nation. Accordingly, different acts were made to function the local government. However, the nation lacked local government for almost two decades [9]. Constitution of Nepal 2072 and local government operation Act 2074 have envisioned explicitly the provision for creating a conducive environment for institutionalization of participatory development, involving socio-economically backward groups through responsible and accountable local bodies, development of local leadership and capacities to make the local bodies a vehicle for the self- local governance system. After the full tenure of local government, recently election for local government was completed and new government have been formed. In such situation, this study intended to measure the citizen’s satisfaction level on local government and to analyze the factors affecting the level of satisfaction.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study area (Biratnagar metropolitan) is situated in the southern part of Morang district. No other scholars have researched on the citizens’ satisfaction of Biratnagar metropolitan city. The researcher is an inhabitant of Biratnagar that is why it made easier for data collection so this city is selected as a study area. This research area was chosen purposively and viability of the respondents. The study design is the blueprint for the collection, measurement, and analysis of data. It is the overall strategy that integrate the different components of the study in a logical way that effectively address the research problem. This study was mainly based on micro study of citizens’ satisfaction on local government with special focus on Biratnagar Metropolitan City (BMC) ward 11. It has tried to analyze the relationship between level of citizens’ satisfaction and socio-economic status of the citizens as well as performance of BMC. The descriptive research design has been used to describe the citizens’ satisfaction on their local government. Further, the analytical research design has enabled to establish relationship between different independent and dependent variables used in this research.   The study was conducted to understand the level of satisfaction of citizen of Biratnagar Metropolitan City (BMC). So, the total population of study were all the residents of Biratnagar city ward number 11. The questionnaire was filled only for resident of BMC-11. Simple random sampling was used to collect data as per the availability of respondents. Since the population was large, we had included 200 citizens from ward number 11 of Biratnagar to collect data for this research. Variety of questions were made and asked directly to the respondents with different age groups and backgrounds. Also list of questionnaires was provided and asked to rate accordingly.  The rating was on the scale of 1 (being the lowest) and 10 (being the highest). Hence, the rating was based on respondent’s level of satisfaction on local government. Similarly, rating was based on the scale of 1=completely disagree; 2=Partly disagree; 3=partly agree; 4=completely agree. Also, the rating was on the scale of 1 (no expectation) and 4(high expectation). The study population encompasses adult residents of BMC ward number 11. The total sample size was 200 with equal representation of male and female. The sample population were random probability of these residents. The respondent from each household, an adult 18 years or older, was chosen at random to ensure a representative cross-section of the population. Efforts had been made to make the sample representative in terms of gender, age, education and income which is given in the following table.

Table 01: Socio-demographic distribution of respondents compared with the Population of BMC.

	Socio-demographic features	Respondents	Population of
		(our sample)	BMC Census Data of Nepal 2011
			%
Gender	Male	100	51
	Female	100	49
Age	18 – 30 Years	64	NA
	31 – 45 Years	42
	46 – 60 years	58
	61 years & above	36
Education	Illiterate	18	18
	Primary	48	30
	Higher Secondary	72	42
	Graduation & above	62	10
	Low	38	NA
Income	Medium	138
	High	24

The data for the study are obtained from various sources including documents, archival records, questionnaire survey, etc. Secondary sources are also major sources of data for this study. For secondary data, this study mainly relied on review of previous studies on local government and satisfaction. To understand the local government in Nepal, various books, policy documents, research articles and reports of the Government of Nepal were reviewed. This study has used single chief methods of data collection – questionnaire survey method. The data collected through the use of different techniques have been organized, processed, and analyzed by using different statistical tools with the help of Microsoft Excel.  The dependent variable under examination here is satisfaction in Local Government with special focus in Biratnagar Metropolitan City. This study measures satisfaction directly using a scale approach. In the survey composed for the purposes here, individuals were asked: “Using the following scale, please rank how much satisfaction do you have in your municipal government (BMC) to do what is right”. On the scale, 1 indicated, “not at all satisfaction” and 10 indicates “great deal of satisfaction”.  Once the surveys were completed, respondents were broken into those who had high level of satisfaction (answered 8-10), those who had average satisfaction level (answered 4-7), and those who had low level of satisfaction (answered 1-3). Similarly, level of trust and expectation is measured on the scale low level of trust (1-2) and high level of trust (3-4). Cross tabulation has been used to show the relationship between different independent and dependent variables. Data are presented in percentage and mean. The hypotheses related to socio-economic background have been analyzed by comparing mean and further tested by using Chi-square test to find out whether the difference between mean values is statistically significant or not. Further, the correlation has been used to establish the relationship between performance variables and the dependent variables and related hypotheses used in this research.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

High satisfaction in government results from both evaluations based on performance, and from satisfaction “feelings” throughout society. The institutional approach bases more weight on the calculating evaluation judgements of government performance, while the cultural approach believes that satisfaction in government is an extension of satisfaction in individuals and engagement within society. Within the context of Biratnagar Metropolitan City, this study has designed two models to test citizens’ satisfaction in local government. These models use measures of the cultural theory (socio economic background of citizen) and institutional theory (performance evaluation) to test which of the two approaches best accounted for the differences in satisfaction within the BMC context. The dependent variable under examination here is satisfaction in Local Government with special focus in Biratnagar Metropolitan City. This study measures satisfaction directly using a scale approach. In the survey composed for the purposes here, individuals were asked: “Using the following scale, please rank how much confidence do you have in your municipal government (BMC) to do what is right”. On the scale, 1 indicated, “not at all satisfaction” and 10 indicates “great deal of satisfaction”.  Once the surveys were completed, respondents were broken into those who had high level of satisfaction (answered 1-3), those who had average satisfaction level (answered 4-7)   and those who had low level of satisfaction (answered 8-10). The following section illustrates the general scenario of citizens, satisfaction in BMC.

Table 02: Distribution of respondents by Level of satisfaction

Level of satisfaction	No. of respondents	Percentage
Low	130	55
Average	58	29
High	32	16
Total	200	100

 

Figure 01: Percent of citizen satisfaction on BMC

From the literature review, it has been clear that citizens’ level of satisfaction is influenced by different factors like socio-economic background of the people, performance of the institution in question etc. This research has considered demographic variables and performance of BMC as the factors affecting the citizens’ satisfaction level. The following section deals with these variables and associated hypotheses.

Table 03: Relation between socio-economic background and satisfaction level.

Socio-economic Background		High Level of satisfaction (%)	N	Chi-Square Test
				Value	Significance
Gender	Male	45	100	8.08	0.0044
	Female	65	100
Age	18 – 30 Years	16	64	54.154	1.765
	31 – 40 Years	20	42
	41-60 years	60	58
	61 years & above	75	36
Education	Illiterate	68	18	15.1525	0.0868
	Primary	70	48
	Secondary	52	72
	Graduation and above	36	62
Income	Low	57	38	28.2088	0.00028
	Medium	60	138
	High	30	24

The first identity variable under consideration to test the level of satisfaction in local government is gender of the respondents. The hypothesis is set as “male has lower level of satisfaction in local government than the female”. The assumption is that males in developing countries are comparatively more educated and more interested to the outer world than female. So, they have more expectations and hence low level of satisfaction”. Table highlights the level of satisfaction in local government in terms of gender. Out of 100 female 65 percent showed the high level of satisfaction in local government while the percentage of males having high level of satisfaction in local government is only 45 percent which is less than female. This figure clearly shows that females have more satisfaction than the males in BMC. To test whether this difference is statistically significant or not, Chi square test has been applied and it proved the difference significant at 0.0044 level of significance. So, the proposed hypothesis “male has lower level of satisfaction in local government than the female” has been accepted. Female respondents showed higher level of satisfaction than their male counterpart. It should be due to the fact that they are not aware of their rights as well as the functions of the local government in comparison to the males. So, they might have been satisfied with the services currently provided by their municipality. The other reason is less education than males and also in our Hindu culture, generally females do not make any negative comments about others.

 

Figure 02: Diagram showing level of satisfaction according to sex

Another identity variable under consideration to test the level of satisfaction in BMC is age of the respondents. The level of satisfaction might differ based on the age of the people because the needs, wants and expectations differ from younger people to old people. The hypothesis is set as “the higher the age of the people, higher the level of satisfaction in local government”. The assumption is that young age group has more interest towards the outer world and has knowledge about all the latest information around the world. So, they compare the institutions with the developed countries and make their expectation and hence have lower level of satisfaction. Similarly, the young generation is very much curious to do new changes and innovation in each field of activities, and enjoy to experiment with new things. By their nature they are always demanding more and new services from local government. But our local governments are limited to few services and they are not effective in delivering those services. So, there is gap between the expectations of the young people and the services provided by the local government leading to low level of satisfaction in it. But on the other hand, the more one gets older, s/he does not want to take any risk and prefers status quo. Old people are habituated with the existing system and are satisfied with the services provided by their local government whatever the services are.

 

Figure 03: Bar graph displaying satisfaction level according to age group.

The level of satisfaction might differ based on the level of education a respondent completed. The hypothesis is set as “the lower the level of education, higher is the level of satisfaction in local government. The rationale behind considering educational background of people in analyzing the level of satisfaction is that education matters in many ways in determining the level of satisfaction. People with little/no education may not know the functions, duties and services to be provided by BMC as well as they may not know their rights towards such institutions. Educational attainment up to secondary level provides only the basic and general knowledge about the governance and policy matters, but a person gets matured about such matters through the higher education. Because of their ignorance, uneducated/less educated people are satisfied with the services whatever they are. But on the other hand, more educated people may have knowledge about the responsibilities of the institution in question and they are aware of their rights. Further they can analyze the performance of such institution critically. Similarly, they may have knowledge about the better and/or more services provided by the similar institution inside and abroad. That leads to the higher level of expectations resulting low level of satisfaction.  Statistically there is no correlation between level of education and level of satisfaction in local government because the Chi-square test shows no significant difference between these two mean values of satisfaction i.e. Pearson Chi-square value 15.1525 and assumed significance 0.0868. So, level of education is indifferent in determining the level of satisfaction of people in their local government in case of BMC. The proposed hypothesis “The lower the level of education, the higher is the level of satisfaction” is not accepted.

 

Figure 04: Bar graph displaying satisfaction level according to level of education

The other variable under consideration to test the level of satisfaction is annual income of the respondents. The hypothesis is set as “higher the level of income, lower the level of satisfaction in local government”. The assumption is that rich people have greater expectations towards any institution under question than the poor people and want more services. Among 38 low-income people, 57 percent showed high level of satisfaction in BMC, while among the high-income people 30 percent showed high level of satisfaction in BMC, also 60 percent of middle-income people shows high level of satisfaction. Thus, these figures show that there is not great difference between the level of satisfaction of low-income people and middle-income people. Statistical test (chi-square test) shows significant difference between the level of satisfaction of these two income groups reflecting Pearson Chi-square value 28.2088 and assumed significance 0.00028. So, in overall, level of income of people have impact on level of satisfaction in BMC.

 

Figure 05: Bar graph displaying satisfaction level according to level of income

Most of the identity variables in the model do not have a significant impact in the level of satisfaction in their local government. Yet the variable indicating gender identity suggest that females are more inclined to satisfaction their municipal government. Also, low-income people are more satisfied on BMC than high income people. In general, however, we may conclude from this part of our analysis that the impact of identity variables on level of satisfaction in local government is limited. Although we do find some correlation, the overall impression is that most of them are not very strong [10]. It looks at individuals’ perception of the government decision-making process.  In other words, this study looks into whether citizens have been consulted by their municipal government while making decisions that affect their life or not. The hypothesis is set as “the more the participation in decision making process, the higher is the level of satisfaction in local government”. The assumption is that if people participate in decision making that directly affect their lifestyle, they can influence decision makers to incorporate their interests in the policies and programs to be undertaken by the government. So, there is consistency between the expectation of service seekers and performance of service providers resulting high level of satisfaction. The perception of consultation was measured in the scale of one to four where 1 indicated, “Strongly Disagree” and 4 “Completely agree”. Once the surveys were completed, respondents were broken into “Disagree” (answered 1 and 2) and “Agree” (answered 3 and 4).

Table 04: Citizens’ belief that BMC consults enough when Making Decisions.

	No. of respondents	Percentage
Disagree	98	70
Agree	42	30
Total	140	100

 

Figure 06: Pie chart displaying agreement level of citizens on participation

Further this level of participation is compared with citizens’ level of satisfaction to test whether citizens’ satisfaction is affected by their level of participation in decision making process in their municipal government. The relationship between level of participation and level of satisfaction is presented in the following table.

Table 05: Correlations between Participation & satisfaction

		Level of satisfaction				Correlation
		Low	High	N	Mean	Value	Significance level
Participation in Municipal Decisions	Disagree	85	15	100	1.55	0.9498	0.001
	Agree	30	70	100	1.95
Total		115	85	200	1.90

Out of 100 respondents who do not believe that BMC consults with citizens while making municipal decisions that directly affect their life only 15 percent showed high level of satisfaction in  their municipal government, but opposite to this figure the percentage of people who believe that  BMC consults enough with the citizens who have high level of satisfaction in the same is 70 percent  that is more than those who disagree with the same statement. Similarly, the mean value of satisfaction for participating people (1.95) is much greater than the mean value of non-participating people (1.55). This also shows that participating people have higher level of satisfaction than those who are non-participating. This figure clearly points out that level of participation positively affects their level of satisfaction in the local government. It is also justified by statistical analysis i.e. correlation value 0.9498 at 0.001 level of significance [11]. From the above analysis we can say that everyone tries to promote his/ her own interest or try to maximize own benefits. Participating people have high level of satisfaction in local government because they can influence the decision makers to incorporate their interests in the policies and programs to be taken by the municipality. By doing so they receive the services what they really expected from their municipality. Contrary to this, there may be gap between the services provided by the municipality and expectations of those citizens who have not participated in decision making. They may feel discriminated by their municipality and it may lead to frustration in them. Furthermore, due to the feeling of discrimination negative attitude is developed in them towards such discriminating institutions leading to low level of satisfaction. Another key component of performance theory is transparency of information related to spending of tax money. The hypothesis is set as “the more the local government is transparent in its financial matters, citizens have higher level of satisfaction in it”. The assumption is that if people feel that their local government is transparent enough in financial matters, and ensuring that their tax money is being used for the benefit of all people of the municipality. Finally, that leads to high level of satisfaction in local government [12]. The following table illustrates the situation of information release system in BMC. The following table illustrates the citizens’ perception of transparency in BMC. The perception of consultation was measured in the scale of one to four where 1 indicated, “Strongly Disagree” and 4 “Completely agree”. Once the surveys were completed, respondents were broken into “Disagree” (answered 1 and 2) and “Agree” (answered 3 and 4).

Table 06: Belief the BMC provides Enough Information Related to How it Spends Tax Money.

	No. of respondents	Percentage
Disagree	126	82
Agree	28	18
Total	154	100

 

Figure 07: Pie chart displaying agreement level of citizens on tax spending

Table 07: Correlation Between beliefs in Information Release & Level of satisfaction.

		Level of satisfaction				Correlation
		Low	High	N	Mean	Value	Significance level
BMC provide Enough Information on its tax spending	Disagree	82	18	100	1.66	0.963	0.001
	Agree	12	88	100	1.96
Total		100	100	200	1.31

Table demonstrates that among the respondents who don’t believe that BMC provide enough information to its citizens about how it spends its tax money only 18 percent showed high level of satisfaction and their mean value of satisfaction is 1.66 while 88 percent respondents who believe that BMC provides enough information on the same matter with mean value of satisfaction showing 1.96 which is much higher than the average mean (1.31). These figures clearly show that the more the local government is transparent in financial matters, the higher becomes the level of satisfaction. This hypothesis is satisfied by the correlation analysis indicating value 0.963 with significance level 0.01. This proves that transparency in financial matters is relevant for the overall interpretation of how institutional satisfaction evaluations vary [13]. The more trust on quality services delivered, the more is the level of satisfaction. This model is a straightforward attempt to examine whether the citizens’ level of trust with the quality services delivered by BMC influences their satisfaction in it. The underlying assumption is that if people trust and expectation with the services delivered by BMC, they may attribute such trust to public policies of BMC and thus be more inclined to satisfaction in it. In this study five services provided by BMC (i.e. garbage removal, construction and maintenance of roads/culverts/bridges, sewage and local sanitation, vital registration and design approval of house/ building construction) have been considered to measure citizens’ level of trust. The level of trust was measured in the scale of one to ten where 1 indicated, “very doubt” and 10 “very satisfied”. Once the surveys were completed, respondents were broken into those who had low level of doubt (answered 1 – 5) and those who had high level of satisfaction (answered 6 – 10). It is presented in the following table.

Table 08: Level of trust with the Services. Percentage and Mean value.

Services	Low Level of trust		Mean
	Number	Percentage
Vital Registration	123	62	4.76
Garbage Removal	155	76	3.18
Sewage & Local Sanitation	160	80	3.02
Construction & Maintenance of Roads `	175	86	2.81
Design Approval of House/ Building	163	82	3.31

 

Figure 08: Pie chart displaying level of doubt of citizens on services provided by BMC

Table 09: Level of satisfaction with the Services. Percentage and Mean value.

Services	Level of dissatisfaction		Mean
	Number	Percentage
Vital Registration	120	60	4.77
Garbage Removal	160	80	3.02
Sewage & Local Sanitation	155	76	3.18
Construction & Maintenance of Roads/Culverts/Bridges	163	82	3.31
Design Approval of House/ Building	175	86	2.81

 

Figure 09: Level of dissatisfaction of citizens on services provided by BMC.S

Most of the respondents do not trust with services like design approval of House/Building and Construction & Maintenance of Roads/Culverts/Bridges because there is high level of corruption. It is justified by the following table.

Table 10: Perception of corruption. Percentage. N= 200

Services	Perception of corruption
Administrative work	82
Development activities	86

 

Figure 10: Bar diagram showing citizens’ belief on corruption.

Further to show the relationship between level of satisfaction and level of trust correlation test has been applied for all five services which is presented in the following table.

Table 11: Correlation: Level of Satisfaction with Services & Level of trust in BMC.

Services	Level of  Satisfaction	Level of Trust		Total	Correlation
		Low	High	Number	Value	Significance Level
Vital Registration	Low	62	38	123	0.838	0.01
	High	40	60	77
Garbage Removal	Low	76	24	155	0.67	0.01
	High	20	80	45
Sewage & Local Sanitation	Low	80	20	160	0.67	0.01
	High	24	76	40
Construction & Maintenance of Roads	Low	86	14	175	0.985	0.01
	High	18	82	25
Design Approval of House/ Building	Low	82	18	163	0.96	0.01
	High	14	86	37

Table 12: Citizens’ Perception about the factors affecting service delivery in BMC. Percentage.

Factors affecting Effective Service Delivery	Level of Agreement
	Low	High	Mean
Approaching Bureaucratic Channels	65	35	2.75
Influencing Officials using Personal Connection	50	50	2.23
Bribing Officials/corruption	42	58	2.30
Time Receive Service	50	50	2.53
Established Rules, and Norms	35	65	2.76

 

Figure 11: Citizens’ Perception about the factors affecting service delivery in BMC

In overall, the findings of performance variables demonstrate that performance evaluations do explain significant variations in respondents’ level of satisfaction in their municipal government. There were three performance variables namely trust and expectation with the services delivered by BMC, citizens’ participation in municipal decision-making process and transparency in financial matters. Our findings suggest that all types of performance assessments are relevant. Thus, comparing the strength of the two sets of independent variables i.e. identity variables and performance variables; performance variables are more influential in determining the level of satisfaction in local government since all the performance variables showed positive correlation with level of satisfaction while only two identity variables were found significant in determining the satisfaction level [14]. The study assessed the relationship between the socio-economic, demographic background of the citizens and their level of satisfaction on local government (BMC) and to find out the factors that defines citizen’s satisfaction in the local government (BMC) and also to find out the relationship between the performance of local government (BMC) and the level of satisfaction. The primary data were collected through questionnaire and direct oral interview. The collected data were analyzed, tabulated and presented in pie chart and bar diagram. The main findings of analyzed data are as follows: – Out of 100 female 65 percent showed the high level of satisfaction in local government while the percentage of males having high level of satisfaction in local government is only 45 percent which is less than female. It is due to less educated female and due to the fact that they are not aware of their rights as well as the functions of the local government in comparison to the males [15]. Among the three age groups, highest number (75%) of old age people (61 years and  above) showed the high level of satisfaction in local government, while lowest percent (16%) of low  age group (between 18 – 35 years) have high level of satisfaction , and 20% middle age (between 31 –  40 years) people showed high level of satisfaction, and (60%) of age group (41-60) shows high level of satisfaction in their municipal government and there is no relation between the age of the respondents and their level of satisfaction in local  government. Out of respondent 68 percent with no level of education showed the high level of satisfaction in their municipal government while the percentage of respondents having high level of satisfaction among higher education group is 36. The plain comparison of the figure of satisfaction between these two educational groups shows that more educated people have low level of satisfaction than the less educated people. Chi-square test shows no significant difference between these two mean values of satisfaction i.e. Pearson Chi-square value 15.1525 and assumed significance 0.0868. So, level of education is indifferent in determining the level of satisfaction of people in their local government in case of BMC [16]. Among 38 low-income people, 57 percent showed high level of satisfaction in BMC, while among the high-income people 30 percent showed high level of satisfaction in BMC, also 60 percent of middle-income people shows high level of satisfaction. Thus, these figures show that there is not great difference between the level of satisfaction of low-income people and middle-income people. Statistical test (chi-square test) shows significant difference between the level of satisfaction of these two income groups reflecting Pearson Chi-square value 28.2088 and assumed significance 0.00028. So, in overall, level of income of people have impact on level of satisfaction in BMC [17].  Majority of respondents (70%) believe that they have not been consulted enough by their municipal government in making decisions that affect their life, while on the other hand; the number of people who agree with the same statement is 30% which is more than half those who disagree that they have been consulted by their municipal government in decision making. This figure shows that level of citizens’ participation is very low in BMC.  Out of 100 respondents who do not believe that BMC consults with citizens while making municipal decisions that directly affect their life only 15 percent showed high level of satisfaction in their municipal government, but opposite to this figure the percentage of people who believe that BMC consults enough with the citizens who have high level of satisfaction in the same is 70 percent that is more than those who disagree with the same statement. Similarly, the mean value of satisfaction for participating people (1.95) is much greater than the mean value of non-participating people (1.55). This also shows that participating people have higher level of satisfaction than those who are non-participating. This figure clearly points out that level of participation positively affects their level of satisfaction in the local government [18]. Vast majority of respondents (82%) do not feel the government provides them with enough information about spending of its tax money. This indicates that transparency in financial matters is very weak in BMC. Among the respondents who don’t believe that BMC provide enough information to its citizens about how it spends its tax money only 18 percent showed high level of satisfaction and their mean value of satisfaction is 1.66 while 88 percent respondents who believe that BMC provides enough information on the same matter with mean value of satisfaction showing 1.96 which is much higher than the average mean (1.31). These figures clearly show that the more the local government is transparent in financial matters, the higher becomes the level of satisfaction [19]. Most of the people (82%) have low trust with vital registration having mean value 4.76 which shows that BMC is not efficient enough in delivering this service. 76 percent respondents don’t have trust with Garbage Removal service with mean value of satisfaction 3.18. BMC’s performance is worst in the areas of Construction and Maintenance of Roads and Approval of Design of House since 86 percent and 82 percent people are showing low level of trust in these services Similarly Sewage and Local Sanitation is not much better than these services as only 20 percent people trust with this service. From this analysis, in most of the services, we can conclude that there is gap between the performance of BMC and citizens’ expectations towards BMC. In case of all the services, people having high level of trust and expectation with the services showed high level of satisfaction in BMC. Similarly, the result shows positive correlation between the levels of satisfaction with all the services. In other words, those who have less expectation with the services have the low level of satisfaction and opposite to this those who have high expectation with the services have high level of satisfaction in local government.  Among the five factors affecting effective/prompt service delivery, use of bureaucratic channel or local elites have only 35 percent of agreement with the mean of 2.75. Opposite to this, 58 percent respondents agree that they have to bribe the officials. Without bribing there works becomes late or no work is done. Bribing lies in between these two extremes attracting the agreement of 58% respondents with mean 2.30. A citizen underlined “Even to find out old documents we need to pay money to the personnel responsible to provide that document free of charge”.  This indicates the lack of rule of law in BMC. Though there are standard formal rules, procedures and norms to guide the functioning of BMC, but in practice other informal factors like use of personal connection and bureaucratic approach, bribe play the vital role [20]. On citizen satisfaction, disconfirmation is described as discrepancy or gap among expectations and perceived performance. Based on the outcome disconfirmation can be positive or negative. When the perceptions about the performance go beyond the expectation level it will lead to positive disconfirmation. In contrast, when performance cannot reach up to expectation level it gives rise to negative disconfirmation [21]. In overall, the findings of performance variables demonstrate that performance evaluations do explain significant variations in respondents’ level of satisfaction in their municipal government. There were three performance variables namely trust and expectation with the services delivered by BMC, citizens’ participation in municipal decision-making process and transparency in financial matters. Our findings suggest that all types of performance assessments are relevant. Thus, comparing the strength of the two sets of independent variables i.e. identity variables and performance variables; performance variables are more influential in determining the level of satisfaction in local government since all the performance variables showed positive correlation with level of satisfaction while only two identity variables were found significant in determining the satisfaction level [22].

4. CONCLUSION

Citizen satisfaction with public services is the yardstick of government performance. Ensuring citizen satisfaction through improved public service has become the ultimate goal today. Citizen satisfaction with public service, in general, is associated with service performance. Citizens are more satisfied when public service performance meets or overtake their expectations. Although public service institutions pledge to satisfy citizens via improved service performance, yet many citizens complain that public services do not fully meet their expectations. Meeting the citizen expectation for satisfaction is a big challenge, because citizen satisfaction is influenced by several factors. Factors such as compliance, responsiveness, service on time, receive service own self and hassle-free service have a positive impact on citizen satisfaction, while, paid/asked bribes and service attempts have a negative impact. Therefore, intense care on these factors should be given to ensure higher citizen satisfaction with public service. The local government should remain at the forefront of the entire planning process and ensure the local beneficiaries while setting the vision, mission, goals, and objectives in a sequential order. Local development planning process in Nepal involves designing the overall process, steps and procedures as guided and direction of policy documents. According the policy provision under federal system eight key steps must crossed while developing the periodic local development planning. Every local government should consider the spirit of local development to follow the concept of result-based planning mechanism because it always focuses more on the results in terms of input, process, outcome and impact of the plan. The result-based planning gives importance to strategy as to how it could be realized by looking at different alternatives and develops policies and programs to realize the goals and targets in reality. Result framework should be used to check the consistency in the input, process, output, outcome and impact. Therefore, each local development planning should follow the principles of result-based or performance-based planning including transparency, accountability, efficacy, efficient, participation and proactive management. Finally, the policies should be introduced and implemented in succession for the successes and should be expanded gradually in other regions immediately based on the success on local experiences.

REFERENCES

1. Acharya, K.K. (2014), Relevance of Community Governance for Basic Service Delivery in Nepal: An Empirical Study, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New England, Armadale, Australia.
2. Acharya, K.K. (2018), “The capacity of local governments in Nepal: from government to governance and governability?”, Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 186-197.
3. Acharya, K.K. and Scott, J. (2020), “Cultivating local capacity to restructure Nepali governance”, in Deb, S.N., Subhalakshmi, G. and Chakraborti, K. (Eds.), Upholding Justice: Social, Psychological and Legal Perspectives, Routledge, India, pp. 171-190.
4. Bhatta, G. (1990), “Does citizen participation in local government decision-making contribute to strengthening local planning and accountability systems? an empirical assessment of stakeholders’ perceptions in Nepal”, International Public Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 67-97.
5. Bhattarai, Ghanashyam (2008). History of Local Administration of Nepal, New Delhi: Adroit Publication.
6. Blind, P. K., 2006. “Building Trust in Government in the twenty-first century: Review of  Literature and Emerging Issues” UNDESA [Internet]
7. Byrne, (1981) Conflict, Security & Development Volume 16, 2016 – Issue 6: Elections and the state: critical perspectives on democracy promotion in Afghanistan.
8. Byrne, Tony (1981). Local Government in Britain, Britain: Penguin Books.
9. Constituent Assembly (2010). Report on Concept Paper and Preliminary Draft, Committee of State Restructuring and Division of State Power, Kathmandu: Constituent Assembly, GoN
10. Dhungana, R.K. and Acharya, K.K. (2021), “Local government’s tax practices from a cooperative federalism perspective”, Nepal Public Policy Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 157-178.
11. Frederick (1970). “Democracy” Encyclopedia Britannica. 7 (Expo ’70 hardcover ed.) London: William Benton: 215–23.
12. Ghimire B., (2020), ”The Prospect of Accountability in Local Governance in Nepal”.
13. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal (1999). Local Self Governance Act, Kathmandu: Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs of His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, Law Book Management Board.
14. James, Oliver. 2009. Evaluating the Expectations Disconfirmation and Expectations Anchoring Approaches to Citizen Satisfaction with Local Public Services. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.
15. Kim, S., 2007.”Democratic Governance, Government Performance, and Trust in Government:  China and South Korea “ Prepared for Presentation at the Public Management Research.
16. Lama, Sangram Singh (2009). Decentralized Local Governance: Rhetoric and Practice in Nepal Since 1950s, Kathmandu: A Dissertation of Doctor of Philosophy (Phd) in Sociology
17. Local government infrastructure and service delivery: A case study of Decentralized financing  and Development program, 6 November 2003, A paper submitted to a “Workshop on Local  Government Pro-poor Service Delivery”
18. Morgeson, James (2014)Citizen Satisfaction: Political Voice and Cognitive Biases. Doctoral Dissertation, Forlaget Politica.
19. Oliver, R. L. (2010). Satisfaction: A  behavioral  perspective  on  the  M.E. Sharpe.
20. Parasuraman (1985) Service Charters: Reshaping Trust in Government—The Case of Spain. Public Administration Review.
21. Roch & Poister, (2006). Modeling Public Satisfaction with School Quality: A Test of the American Customer Satisfaction Index Model. Doctoral Dissertation, Georgia State University
22. Almihat, M., Carlos, M. J. S., Caoleng, E. T., & Estrada, P. A. D. (2022). Keys for Improving Citizens’ Satisfaction with Public Services of Local Government. African Journal of Advanced Pure and Applied Sciences (AJAPAS), 73-80.