Country brief: Yemen · مرصد الإدارة

Summary

Reported access in Yemen stands at 59.0, above the regional average of 57.1, and reported experience at 42.2, below the regional average of 51.3; the resulting gap is +16.8 points, against a regional mean of +5.7. Access exceeds experience in 9 of the eleven domains. The mean absolute gap of 19.2 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 9 of the 11 domains. Large gaps (20 points or more) occur in family and social relationships (+48.4); health and care (+46.1); and service provision and assistance (+30.0) (access above experience). The gap is under 5 points in 1 of the ten public-service domains. Gap types: Access–Delivery Gap, Administrative-Interface 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 Yemen is markedly larger in service provision and assistance (+30.0 against −0.8); family and social relationships (+48.4 against +19.4); leisure and community participation (+16.2 against −6.7); health and care (+46.1 against +24.2); and civic participation and voice (+16.5 against +3.0).

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, Yemen shows 3 of the five gap types: Access–Delivery Gap, Administrative-Interface Gap and Organisational–Coordination Gap.

Access–Delivery Gap

Evidence: access exceeds experience by 20 points or more in health and care; and service provision and assistance.

Associated deficit: Implementation & Service-Delivery Deficit

Dimensions 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.

Administrative-Interface Gap

Evidence: large gaps occur in health and care; and service provision and assistance, domains of direct contact with public institutions that account for 100 per cent of the large gaps in Yemen.

Associated deficit: Administrative-Interface Deficit

Dimensions to examine

Administrative procedures: users may encounter complex, unclear or difficult procedures when dealing with public organisations.
Frontline bureaucracy: interactions with public officials may shape how rules and services are experienced in practice.
Discretion: frontline officials may interpret or apply rules differently across cases or settings.
Communication: information, explanations and interactions between organisations and users may be inadequate or inconsistent.
Responsiveness: public organisations may have limited capacity to respond to individual requests, problems or changing needs.
Complaint and feedback: mechanisms for reporting problems, seeking redress or influencing service improvement may be weak or difficult to use.

Organisational–Coordination Gap

Evidence: a mean absolute gap of 16.3 points across the public-service domains, above the regional median of 11.7.

Associated deficit: Administrative Capacity & Coordination Deficit

Dimensions 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 health and care; and service provision and assistance, 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.
Because large gaps concentrate in domains of direct contact with public institutions (health and care; and service provision and assistance), the administrative interface warrants examination: the clarity of procedures, communication with users, the consistency of frontline discretion, and the accessibility of complaint and redress mechanisms.
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 digital access and use; safety and policing; and work, income and finance; 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 = 252 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.