Transcript Decentralisation and Poverty

Decentralisation and
Poverty: Exploring the
Impact
by
Lucia Wegner
Development Centre, OECD, Paris
OECD Workshop, 29-30 September 2004, Paris
1
Outline
1) Decentralisation and Poverty: A new topic
2) Our Approach
3) Main findings
4) Key determinants of pro-poor decentralisation
5) Policy implications?
2
1. Decentralisation and Poverty: A New
Topic



Decentralisation for quite some time an issue in the
development debate, but not in connotation with
poverty concerns
Recently, shift in the agenda: Decentralisation a tool
for poverty reduction? (MDG debate, PRSPs, …)
First insight: mixed evidence; “it depends…”; but on
what???
3
2. Our Approach
• Development of a simple framework that links
decentralisation to poverty
• Reporting evidence from the empirical literature
• Systematic analysis of these findings to identify
common patterns of pro-poor decentralisation
processes
4
Decentralisation and Poverty
DECENTRALISATION
POLITICAL CHANNEL
PARTICIPATION
ECONOMIC CHANNEL
STABILITY
VOICELESSNESS
EFFICIENCY
VULNERABILITY
TARGETING
LACK of ACCESS TO SERVICES
POVERTY
5
Key factors of influence
Decentralisation
Objectives
Background
Process
•Country setting
•Social Institutions
•Political Power
Structure
Impact
•Capacity
• Ability and willingness
•Transparent &
participative process
• Elite
capture/corruption
• Policy Coherence
Poverty
6
3. Main Results
Positive
Rather positive
Rather negative
Negative
 Bolivia
 China
 Brazil
 Guinea
 India(West
 Ghana
 Burkina Faso
 India(Andrah
Bengal)
 Mexico
 Egypt
 South Africa
 Ethiopia
 Philippines
 Nepal
Pradesh)
 India(Madhya
Pradesh)
 Paraguay
 Malawi
 Sri Lanka
 Mozambique
 Uganda
 Vietnam
Source: Jütting et al. (2004)
7
4. Expected and Unexpected Results:
Country Background
•Best performers have a higher GDP
Yet what about Ghana and West Bengal?
•Best performers have generally more freedom of
expression…
Yet what about China?
•Best performers have generally higher educational
levels
8
Country background (contin.)
Best performers have built decentralisation reforms on
existing social institutions (China)

Yet some local institutions discriminate against
some groups of the population? (e.g. women in
northern Indian states)
Yet what if decentralisation reinforces local
patron relationships? (Mexico)
client-
9
Process Design (I)

Ability and Willingness
• Political commitment: West Bengal versus Zambia
• Local Human Capacity: Philippines and Mexico
• Local Financial Capacity: Bolivia and China
10
Process Design (II)

Transparency and participative process
-information flow and role of civil society (Bolivia,
South Africa)


-participation
Policy coherence
-Decentralisation as part of a larger reform to reduce
poverty (India: West Bengal)
- donor’s co-ordination
11
5. Policy conclusions
•Decentralisation could be a powerful tool in countries
with:
• Process by design
• National coherent policies
• Capacity
• Challenges for donors?
1. Fine tuning policies; reinforcing the link between
decentralisation and poverty and investing in
participation
2. Focus on pre-conditions for decentralisation
12