A distinction that is oftentimes made in assessing allowances is between remunerative and duty enhancing allowances whereby duty enhancing allowances are thought to improve productivity and service delivery, while remunerative allowances have a less clear association with quality service delivery. In this interpretation, duty enhancing allowances comprise expenses for training, while remunerative are expenses for housing.

In practice the distinction is less clear cut as much depends on the purpose and ‘context’ of the allowance. A housing allowance provided to a civil servant who agrees to stay in a remote area is productive and enhances the quality of service delivery if without such an allowance public servants will not work in isolated areas. Yet the housing allowance as it was provided in 2008/9 (Tshs 19.5 billion in 2008/9 – enough to pay 4,400 teachers) only accrues to higher level officers in PGSS/PTSS/PHTS/PUTS scales 17-21 and is clearly remunerative, Or to provide another illustration, training allowance can enhance productivity if the training provides new skills that are used in the job. Yet, when skills are not put to practice because training is given to someone who is bound to retire or switch jobs, or because there are no incentives to put the new skills to work, then training allowances become remunerative.

 Indicative of many allowances being remunerative rather than duty enhancing is the observation that while the majority (approximately 70 percent) of civil servants work as teachers and nurses in front line service delivery activities, the bulk of allowances (70 percent) accrues to the 30 percent of civil servants working at Central Government. In other words, the average civil servant working in one of the Ministries of Central Government receives more than five times as much in allowances as the civil servant delivering services at community level.