Summary
Reported access in Tunisia stands at 64.9, above the regional average of 57.1, and reported experience at 67.6, above the regional average of 51.3; the resulting gap is −2.7 points, against a regional mean of +5.7. Access exceeds experience in 4 of the eleven domains. The mean absolute gap of 19.0 points is above the regional median of 12.9, indicating comparatively wide divergence between the two dimensions across domains.
Gap profile and summary
The profile reports the gap in each of the eleven domains; the summary reports access, experience, the gap and the gap types identified.
Access exceeds experience in 4 of the 11 domains. Large gaps (20 points or more) occur in housing (+26.2); work, income and finance (+26.0); and safety and policing (+23.6) (access above experience) and in leisure and community participation (−46.8); and digital access and use (−35.5) (experience above access). The gap is under 5 points in 2 of the ten public-service domains. Gap types: Access–Delivery Gap, Access–Reach Gap, Organisational–Coordination Gap.
Source: A-SCOPE MENA, Arab Access and Experience Dataset 2026 · non-probability samples; scores describe respondents.
Departures from the regional pattern
Relative to the regional mean gap in each domain, the gap in Tunisia is markedly larger in work, income and finance (+26.0 against +8.8); safety and policing (+23.6 against +10.8); housing (+26.2 against +13.5); and civic participation and voice (+13.7 against +3.0) and markedly smaller, or reversed, in leisure and community participation (−46.8 against −6.7); health and care (−1.6 against +24.2); family and social relationships (−5.7 against +19.4); digital access and use (−35.5 against −10.6); education and training (−13.4 against +1.1); and service provision and assistance (−15.0 against −0.8).
The state gap against the regional gap
For each domain, the circle marks the gap in the state and the diamond the regional mean gap; the grey segment is the difference. Domains are ordered by that difference.
Source: A-SCOPE MENA, Arab Access and Experience Dataset 2026 · non-probability samples; scores describe respondents.
Gap types and administrative deficits
At the selected thresholds, Tunisia shows 3 of the five gap types: Access–Delivery Gap, Access–Reach Gap and Organisational–Coordination Gap.
Access–Delivery Gap
Evidence: access exceeds experience by 20 points or more in housing; safety and policing; and work, income and finance.
Associated deficit: Implementation & Service-Delivery DeficitDimensions to examine
- Implementation: potential disconnect between formal policy commitments and what is actually delivered.
- Delivery processes: procedures, routines and channels through which services reach users may not function consistently.
- Frontline administration: street-level officials may face difficulties applying rules, exercising discretion or handling cases consistently.
- Responsiveness: organisations may be slower or less able to respond to users’ needs, requests and problems.
- Service quality: users may experience problems with reliability, timeliness, consistency or usability despite being able to access the service.
Access–Reach Gap
Evidence: experience exceeds access by 20 points or more in leisure and community participation; and digital access and use.
Associated deficit: Service-Design & Access DeficitDimensions to examine
- Service design: the way services are structured may make them difficult for intended users to reach.
- Eligibility: formal eligibility rules may restrict who can enter or benefit from services.
- Targeting: programmes may have difficulty identifying or reaching intended beneficiaries.
- Outreach and information: potential users may lack information about available services or how to obtain them.
- Administrative burden: learning, compliance, documentation and procedural requirements may create barriers to entry.
- Access channels: geographic, financial, digital or procedural arrangements may limit effective access.
Organisational–Coordination Gap
Evidence: a mean absolute gap of 20.3 points across the public-service domains, above the regional median of 11.7.
Associated deficit: Administrative Capacity & Coordination DeficitDimensions to examine
- Administrative capacity: public organisations may face constraints in staffing, expertise, resources, information or organisational systems.
- Organisational capability: organisations may have difficulty mobilising and combining available resources to deliver services consistently.
- Implementation consistency: delivery may vary across sectors, organisations or settings because implementation arrangements are uneven.
- Institutionalisation: administrative arrangements may not be sufficiently embedded, stable or durable.
- Organisational fragmentation: responsibilities may be dispersed across agencies without sufficiently integrated delivery arrangements.
- Coordination: organisations and sectors may have difficulty aligning responsibilities, information, resources and actions.
Implications for public administration and management
- In housing; safety and policing; and work, income and finance, where access exceeds experience by 20 points or more, the priority lies in the quality of delivery: the consistency of frontline practice, the responsiveness of organisations to users, and the reliability and timeliness of services that residents already reach.
- In leisure and community participation; and digital access and use, where experience exceeds access by 20 points or more, the priority lies in reach: the design of services, eligibility rules and targeting, outreach and information, and the administrative burden and access channels that condition entry.
- The breadth of divergence across domains points to uneven implementation across sectors; coordination between agencies, organisational capacity and the institutionalisation of delivery arrangements merit attention.
- Both access and experience fall below the regional averages in education and training; and service provision and assistance; in these domains the level of provision and its quality both warrant attention, independently of the gap.
- Repeated measurement of access and experience in the same domains would allow the effect of reforms on the gap to be assessed over time.
Data
n = 251 respondents. The sample is a non-probability sample; scores describe respondents rather than the national population. Access is measured mainly with yes/no items and experience with rating scales, so part of any gap reflects instrument design; comparisons of the same domain across states are the most defensible readings.