16/10/23, 17:12 A false promise?

Decentralization in education systems across the globe - ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research

Volume 104, 2020, 101669

A false promise? Decentralization in education systems

across the globe
Kalyan Kumar Kameshwara a , Andres Sandoval-Hernandez a , Robin Shields b , Kanika Rai Dhanda c

Show more

Share Cite

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101669
Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper seeks to empirically evaluate the association of decentralization of education systems and student
achievement. It employs PISA (2015) data to perform multilevel analysis for each and every participating country.
Decentralization effects are estimated on the imputed scores of mathematics after controlling for various studentlevel
and school-level covariates. Findings reveal an important pattern across the analyzed countries. The random intercepts
models suggest that decentralization has no significant effect on student achievement. The results of this paper
challenge the primary notions of advocating for decentralization in education systems for improving student
outcomes. Based on the empirical evidence from a multitude of countries, this paper argues that decentralization could
be more of a false promise and an ineffective prescription.

Introduction

There have been significant developments in the realm of education over the past several decades. Education reforms
were carried out in most developing countries. The efforts of government and international organizations were focused
on building infrastructure such as classrooms & staff rooms, ICT, sanitation etc., increasing the enrolment rates of
students, improving attendance and reducing dropout rates especially among girls, increasing teacher salaries, training
teachers, making curriculum changes, developing various pedagogical tools etc. There have been a series of initiatives
undertaken to set up and strengthen these systems. At the structural level, initiatives such as capacity building,
regulation or deregulation, privatization, voucher systems & bursaries, and incentive schemes were carried out to make
the education system productive and sustainable.

With systems in place, the policy focus has shifted in recent decades towards structural elements or systemic factors
which affect the functioning of the system in achieving better and equitable outcomes. This shift marks the importance
of building a robust body of knowledge and updating it on what systemic factors might be significant and work in
improving the education system; what factors might hinder the performance in terms of outcomes; and factors which
might be irrelevant or insignificant to outcomes. It would thus be imperative to evaluate the effects of such systemic
factors in cross-cultural and cross-national contexts. Such studies would inform policy on what matters and what
doesn’t work in varying contexts.

One such crucial factor often associated with neoliberal reforms and which has been aggressively pursued but
passively debated is decentralization. Decentralization of management relations has been hailed as a cardinal reform

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0883035520317754 1/6
16/10/23, 17:12 A false promise? Decentralization in education systems across the globe - ScienceDirect

for effective governance in the contemporary era (Bardhan, 2002; Faguet, 2014). It has also been advocated by various
international bodies such as the World Bank, WTO, the IMF as well as other UN agencies and thus, considered by
national governments as a possible shift for better policy making and implementation (Rondinelli, 1981) (Rondinelli et
al., 1983) .

It has been argued that decentralization improves delivery of basic services including education by reducing
absenteeism, improving monitoring, increasing energy and motivation levels of local actors. It is proffered that this
would enable finding solutions to local problems through innovative ideas (UNDP, 2003). In the area of school
improvement, advocates of decentralization in school reforms also base their arguments in its favor on account of
increased autonomy and participation of various local actors in the decision-making processes, thereby providing them
greater voice and responsibility (Gamage, 2005).

There have been numerous studies and theorizations on the nature of influence of decentralization reforms in the
education sector. They have tried to evaluate or formulate the role of decentralization in shaping various proximate
outcomes such as teacher motivational levels, teacher attendance and workload, student enrolment rates, agency of
various stakeholders and also effective administration of the schools and education systems in national and
subnational contexts. Evidence from various studies conducted in recent decades on the effects of decentralization
does not demonstrate a clear pattern. The effects are found to be ambiguous and context specific.

Literature suggests that decentralization has a positive effect for stakeholder accountability (Wallis & Oates, 1988),
responsiveness and transparency of the system, mitigating information asymmetries, civic engagement and addressing
context specific needs of participants (Alderman, 2002; Manor, 1999). The negative aspects of decentralization are
formulated and empirically found to include institutionalization of pre-existing social divisions and local prejudices
(Treisman, 2007), heightening structural incoherence, affecting financial sustainability (Montero & Samuels, 2004),
encouraging nepotism and preference of the interests of local elite (Bardhan & Mookherjee, 2006), giving space for
corruption (Reinikka & Svensson, 2001) etc. Thus, possibly leading to undesirable outcomes (Treisman, 2007).

International organizations (UNDP, 2003; (World Bank, 2003) and some national governments suggested that
experiments are underway, and the full potential of decentralization reforms is yet to be assessed. One of the
arguments made regarding various studies and experiments in favor of decentralization is that it takes time for it to be
realized. With many necessary preconditions laid and systems in place over the period of last decade, decentralization
remains to be tested for its effects (United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization UNESCO, 2003).

There has also been a remarkable shift in the policy focus globally from improving inputs and investments in education
systems to enhancing outcomes (Hopmann, 2008)(UN General Assembly, 2015). Schooling is no longer understood to
be synonymous with learning (Pritchett, 2013). Increase in inputs in terms of resources poured into the education
systems are not definitively associated with raise in outcomes. Therefore, with a focus on learning outcomes as the
main determinant of school performance globally (Hanushek and Woessmann, 2008), and the reforms possibly
reaching their point of actualization; this would act as a perfect time juncture to examine the role and significance of
decentralization in shaping students learning.

The objective of this paper is to identify the significance of decentralization and estimate its effects on student
achievement levels. This study is different from previous studies in many ways. It tests the significance of
decentralization and estimates its effects in the wider contexts of 65 countries by employing the latest1 international
large scale-assessment, Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA 2015) data. The study acknowledges
the limitations and criticisms of PISA on matters such as spreading isomorphic ideologies, lack of total transparency in
methods, calculations of measurement error, need for broadening the assessment focus, among others (Johansson,
2020; Rinne, 2020; Wright, 2020;). This paper uses PISA data to test isomorphic claims which shaped the policy across
various education systems in the world. PISA also allows for an effective comparative analysis and as the data is
obtained from representative sample of schools and students in each of the participating countries, the results can be
generalized at the country level.

Decentralization is conceptualized and empirically constructed differently by different studies which work with the
same datasets. PISA (OECD, 2017b) conceptualizes autonomy as a ratio of responsibility of tasks distributed among
school actors versus non-school actors and other studies such as Hanushek, Link, and Woessmann (2013) construct

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0883035520317754 2/6
16/10/23, 17:12 A false promise? Decentralization in education systems across the globe - ScienceDirect

autonomy as a dichotomous variable with 1 denoting autonomy and 0 referring to a non-autonomous school. This
paper uses decentralization over autonomy as it views decentralization as a continuous process with possible dynamic
changes; whereas autonomy can be understood as an outcome of decentralization. This understanding forms a part of
constructing the decentralization scale. Hence it is constructed as a continuous variable denoting various possible
levels or degrees of decentralization. The latent variable construction is more sophisticated, robust and reliable.

Section snippets

Literature review

Different systematic reviews of the theoretical and empirical underpinnings of decentralization assert that broad and
unambiguous inferences cannot be drawn about the relationship between decentralization and its outcomes, including
its influence on student learning (Bardhan & Mookherjee, 2000; Faguet & Sanchez, 2008; Faguet, 2014).
Decentralization reforms might work in supporting environments with sufficient institutional arrangements (Ostrom
et al., 1993) and if they ensure systemic…

PISA: design & sampling

This study uses data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA 2015). PISA is an international
large-scale assessment conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) every
three years. It assesses 15-year-old students enrolled in school in each of the participating countries on various
competencies of mathematics, science, reading, financial literacy and collaborative problem solving (OECD, 2017a). In
2015, approximately half a million students …

Findings & analysis

The mean of decentralization scores of all schools in each country is calculated to depict the average decentralization
levels in every country. This is helpful in visualizing the trend across the participating countries in PISA 2015. As the
sample is designed to be representative at the national level, the average levels can be safely ascribed to the country.
The chart below maps decentralization/centralization levels in education for 65 countries. It covers 33 OECD countries
and 32 non-OECD - …

Conclusion

International large-scale assessment surveys such as PISA can act as an important tool in understanding and
empirically analysing patterns in education systems across the world. This study employs PISA (2015) data to make
inferences about the significance and effects of decentralization on student achievement in 65 countries. As the sample
of students and schools are representative of the country and the inferences made at each country level can be said to
be robust, unbiased and generalizable.

Scope for further research

The results of the study fail to establish any significant association between decentralisation in school management
and student achievement levels in most of the contexts. However, it remains to be empirically examined if
decentralisation processes have led to any intermediate outcomes, desirable or undesirable, (such as teacher
motivation, workload or stress levels) that may be linked to student achievement.

This research also calls for in-depth qualitative research to investigate the…

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0883035520317754 3/6
16/10/23, 17:12 A false promise? Decentralization in education systems across the globe - ScienceDirect

Kalyan Kumar K is pursuing his PhD in Advanced Quantitative Methods in Social Sciences at the University of Bath. His
doctoral study focuses on investigating the role of systemic factors on student achievement using international large-
scale assessments and is funded by the ESRC-SWDTP. His current research interests broadly fall in the domain of social
statistics, educational inequality and philosophy.…

Recommended articles

References (63)

H. Alderman
Do local officials know something we don’t? Decentralization of targeted transfers in Albania
Journal of Public Economics (2002)

Cuéllar-Marchelli
Decentralization and privatization of education in El-Salvador: Assessing the experience
International Journal of Educational Development (2003)

J.P. Faguet
Decentralization and governance
World Development (2014)

J.P. Faguet et al.

Decentralization’s effects on educational outcomes in Bolivia and Colombia
World Development (2008)

T. Falch et al.
Public sector decentralization and school performance: International evidence
Economics Letters (2012)

S. Galiani et al.
School decentralization: Helping the good get better, but leaving the poor behind
Journal of Public Economics (2008)

E.A. Hanushek et al.

Does school autonomy make sense everywhere? Panel estimates from PISA
Journal of Development Economics (2013)

J. Leer
After the Big Bang: Estimating the effects of decentralization on educational outcomes in Indonesia
through a difference-in-differences analysis
International Journal of Educational Development (2016)

C.E. Lucia et al.

The role of local public authorities in decentralizing Romanian public education system
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences (2010)

T.R. Parry
Achieving balance in decentralization: A case study of education decentralization in Chile
World Development (1997)

View more references

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0883035520317754 4/6
16/10/23, 17:12 A false promise? Decentralization in education systems across the globe - ScienceDirect

Cited by (6)

How context shapes the relationship between school autonomy and test-scores. An explanatory analysis
using PISA 2015
2023, International Journal of Educational Development

Show abstract

The relationship between cultural capital and the students’ perception of feedback across 75 countries:
Evidence from PISA 2018
2021, International Journal of Educational Research

Show abstract

Factors predicting mathematics achievement in PISA: a systematic review

2023, Large-Scale Assessments in Education

Educational Assessment and Inclusive Education: Paradoxes, Perspectives and Potentialities

2023, Educational Assessment and Inclusive Education: Paradoxes, Perspectives and Potentialities

GOVERNANCE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DISPARITIES IN KENYA

2023, Regional and Sectoral Economic Studies

Fiscal Decentralization Improves Social Outcomes When Countries Have Good Governance
2022, SSRN

Kalyan Kumar K is pursuing his PhD in Advanced Quantitative Methods in Social Sciences at the University of Bath. His doctoral
study focuses on investigating the role of systemic factors on student achievement using international large-scale assessments
and is funded by the ESRC-SWDTP. His current research interests broadly fall in the domain of social statistics, educational
inequality and philosophy.

Andres Sandoval-Hernandez is a Reader in education research at University of Bath. He has previously worked as Head of the
Research and Analysis Unit at the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) in Germany. His
current research focuses on comparative analyses of educational systems using large-scale assessment data with a focus on
educational inequalities.

Robin Shields works as a Professor at School of Education, University of Bristol. His research and teaching interests focus on the
globalization of education. He is particularly interested in applying new forms of quantitative data collection and analysis (e.g.
social media datasets, social network analysis) to study global trends and processes in education.

Kanika Rai Dhanda is a doctoral student at Northwestern University. She holds a Master’s in Education from Harvard University
and has previously worked at Safra Center for ethics at Harvard University.

View full text

© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0883035520317754 5/6
16/10/23, 17:12 A false promise? Decentralization in education systems across the globe - ScienceDirect
All content on this site: Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V., its licensors, and contributors. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. For all open
access content, the Creative Commons licensing terms apply.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0883035520317754 6/6