Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Global Decentralization Experiences and Lessons
Global Decentralization Experiences and Lessons
Successful Decentralization of
Health and Education Services
Jean-Paul Faguet
Anila Channa
London School of Economics
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Outline
Introduction: The state of knowledge about D
Decentralizations Effects on Health and Education
Ranking Empirical Rigour
Papers Weak and Strong
Summary of Results
Policy Implications
1. Introduction
Decentralization is one of the broadest movements
and most contentious policy issues in development.
80% - 100% of countries in the world
experimenting with decentralization (World Bank).
At the center of reform throughout Latin America,
Asia and Africa; also EU, UK & US.
Scope of authority and resources devolved: Local
governments spend 10 - 50% of total revenues
(Campbell, 2003)
State of Knowledge
Litvack et al. (1998): One can prove, or disprove,
almost any proposition about decentralization by
throwing together some set of cases or data (p.30).
Shah, Thompson and Zou (2004): D sometimes
improved, and other times worsened, service
delivery, corruption, macroeconomic stability, and
growth across a large range of countries.
Treisman (2007): To date there are almost no solidly
established, general empirical findings about the
consequences of decentralization (p.250).
Bizarre paradox: After 50 years of policy
experimentation and hundreds of studies we still
know very little about whether D is a good or bad
thing.
Rigour
Very Strong
Studies with strong research designs that clearly
identify causal effects and successfully address
endogeneity problems.
Randomized control trials.
Strong
Research that is able to construct a reasonable
comparison group and specifically addresses sources
of endogeneity:
Panel estimates in a fixed effects model while
controlling for more than one socio-economic
covariate, and more than one covariate from the
health/education production function.
Somewhat Strong
Attempts to construct a valid comparison group, but
limited success in dealing with endogeneity.
Cross-sectional work with matching
Panel estimations with random effects or between
effects.
Difference in differences lacking key identifying
assumptions of parallel trends.
Weaker IVs and fixed effects with limited covariates.
Weak
Findings based on
self-selected populations
no valid comparison group
omitted variable bias and other endogeneity
problems.
Most cross-sectional work, especially single
country cases.
Thank you