Thursday, September 30, 2004
Tweet[IWS] OECD: DECENTRALISATION & POVERTY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: EXPLORING THE IMPACT [30 September 2004]
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
The following is a background paper presented at the Workshop on Decentralisation and Poverty Reduction: From Lessons Learned to Policy Action, 29 - 30 September 2004, Paris, France
http://www.oecd.org/document/13/0,2340,en_2649_33935_33683789_1_1_1_1,00.html
For additional documentation, see-
http://www.oecd.org/document/51/0,2340,en_2649_33935_33742259_1_1_1_1,00.html
and press release at
http://www.oecd.org/document/30/0,2340,en_2649_201185_33734110_1_1_1_1,00.html
OECD DEVELOPMENT CENTRE
Working Paper No. 236
DECENTRALISATION AND POVERTY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: EXPLORING THE IMPACT
by Johannes Jütting, Céline Kauffmann, Ida Mc Donnell, Holger Osterrieder, Nicolas Pinaud and Lucia Wegner
Research programme on: Social Institutions and Dialogue
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/19/33648213.pdf
[full-text, 59 pages]
[excerpt]
SUMMARY
Decentralisation has been advocated by donors and development agencies as an
important factor broadening citizen participation and improving local governance, thereby
promoting poverty reduction from the bottom up. On the basis of a comprehensive review of
19 country case studies documented in the literature, this paper questions this assumption.
The authors find that an unambiguous link between decentralisation and poverty
reduction cannot be established. In some of the poorest countries characterised by weak
institutions and political conflicts, decentralisation could actually make matters worse.
Interestingly, the poverty impact of decentralisation would appear to depend less on the physical
country setting, for example a countryÂs size or quality of infrastructure, than on the capacity and
willingness of policy makers to ensure a pro-poor devolution process. Two important policy
lessons emerge from this study. First, in an environment where the central state is not fulfilling
its basic functions, decentralisation could be counterproductive and therefore should not be a
donor priority. Secondly, in countries that are fulfilling their functions, decentralisation could be
a powerful tool for poverty reduction, improving representation of the poor and better targeting
of service delivery. To fully reap the potential benefits of decentralisation, donors intervention in
these countries should focus on providing technical support and improving the co-ordination of
their aid policies at both the local and national level.
_____________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.
Stuart Basefsky *
Director, IWS News Bureau *
Institute for Workplace Studies *
Cornell/ILR School *
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor *
New York, NY 10016 *
*
Telephone: (607) 255-2703 *
Fax: (607) 255-9641 *
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu *
****************************************
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies
School of Industrial & Labor Relations
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor
New York, NY 10016
________________________________________________________________________
The following is a background paper presented at the Workshop on Decentralisation and Poverty Reduction: From Lessons Learned to Policy Action, 29 - 30 September 2004, Paris, France
http://www.oecd.org/document/13/0,2340,en_2649_33935_33683789_1_1_1_1,00.html
For additional documentation, see-
http://www.oecd.org/document/51/0,2340,en_2649_33935_33742259_1_1_1_1,00.html
and press release at
http://www.oecd.org/document/30/0,2340,en_2649_201185_33734110_1_1_1_1,00.html
OECD DEVELOPMENT CENTRE
Working Paper No. 236
DECENTRALISATION AND POVERTY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: EXPLORING THE IMPACT
by Johannes Jütting, Céline Kauffmann, Ida Mc Donnell, Holger Osterrieder, Nicolas Pinaud and Lucia Wegner
Research programme on: Social Institutions and Dialogue
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/19/33648213.pdf
[full-text, 59 pages]
[excerpt]
SUMMARY
Decentralisation has been advocated by donors and development agencies as an
important factor broadening citizen participation and improving local governance, thereby
promoting poverty reduction from the bottom up. On the basis of a comprehensive review of
19 country case studies documented in the literature, this paper questions this assumption.
The authors find that an unambiguous link between decentralisation and poverty
reduction cannot be established. In some of the poorest countries characterised by weak
institutions and political conflicts, decentralisation could actually make matters worse.
Interestingly, the poverty impact of decentralisation would appear to depend less on the physical
country setting, for example a countryÂs size or quality of infrastructure, than on the capacity and
willingness of policy makers to ensure a pro-poor devolution process. Two important policy
lessons emerge from this study. First, in an environment where the central state is not fulfilling
its basic functions, decentralisation could be counterproductive and therefore should not be a
donor priority. Secondly, in countries that are fulfilling their functions, decentralisation could be
a powerful tool for poverty reduction, improving representation of the poor and better targeting
of service delivery. To fully reap the potential benefits of decentralisation, donors intervention in
these countries should focus on providing technical support and improving the co-ordination of
their aid policies at both the local and national level.
_____________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
# posted by SBasefsky : 9:17 AM
