lessons from global experience for successful decentralization of health and education services...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization ofHealth and Education Services
Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa
London School of Economics
Outline1. Introduction: The state of knowledge about D2. Decentralization’s Effects on Health and Education3. Ranking Empirical Rigour4. Papers Weak and Strong5. Summary of Results6. Policy Implications
![Page 2: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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)
![Page 3: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
What is Decentralisation? (Rondinelli, et. al., 1984)
Deconcentration gives limited discretion to field agents.
Delegation transfers responsibilities to organizations outside the regular bureaucratic structure.
Devolution transfers power and resources to subnational units substantially outside CG control.
Privatization transfers functions and assets to the private sector.
![Page 4: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
These are not different forms of the same thing.
Fundamentally different institutional arrangements establish different internal incentivesprompt very different behaviors.
This is a conceptual challenge in studying decentralization.
![Page 5: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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.
![Page 6: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Education and Health – Examples
• Positive effects on education provision:Galiani, Gertler and Schargrodsky (2008), Eskeland and
Filmer (2002), Parry (1997), Barankay and Lockwood (2007).
• Positive effects on education and health:Habibi et al. (2007).
• Negative effects on health services:Akin, Hutchinson and Strumpf (2005).
• Negative effects on education, health, etc:Crook and Sverrisson (1999), Smith (1985), and Solnick
(1996).
![Page 7: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
In summary, a large set of positive results re: education and health services are counterbalanced by a fewer but still compelling negative results.
Hard to conclude whether reform improves or degrades education and health.
Education and Health
![Page 8: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Theoretical arguments for…Decentralization can… Arguments for
i. improve information re: local wants and needs
ii. increase citizen voice and participation
iii. improve government accountability responsiveness
iv. deepen democracy
v. strengthen individual liberties
vi. improve economic performance
vii. increase policy stability
viii. reduce bureaucracy
ix. decrease public spending
x. decrease political tensions and the risk of civil war
“Closer to the people”
![Page 9: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Theoretical arguments against
Arguments against i. decrease efficiency in public goods production
ii. decrease the quality of policy-making
iii. increase graft and corruption
iv. facilitate elite capture of government
v. increase fiscal deficits and hence macroeconomic instability.
![Page 10: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Theory provides a strong rationale
Bring government “closer to the people” better public goods, more effective government
• Smaller scale facilitates information, participation and accountability Deepens democracy and lowers costs
• Local homogeneity vs. national heterogeneity
• Counteract centrifugal forces that cause political tensions/violence [Spain, UK]
![Page 11: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Why don’t we know more?
• Conceptual confusionWhat is D?Where is it implemented?
• Non-rigorous empirical basisQual: Small-N and large-XQuant: Cross country studies make for
bad comparisons – too much RHS uncontrolled variation.
• Wrong question: “Is D good or bad?”
![Page 12: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Contribution of this review
Conceptual confusion?Decentralization = Devolution
Non-rigorous empirics?Classify evidence by X: theme and Y: quality or rigor of the evidence Clear patterns emerge.
Themes
(1) Allocative efficiency (preference-matching)
(2) Technical efficiency
(3) Equity
![Page 13: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Very Strong
Studies with strong research designs that clearly identify causal effects and successfully address endogeneity problems.
Randomized control trials.
Rigour
![Page 14: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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.
Quasi-experimental designs such as DID and IV.
![Page 15: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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.
![Page 16: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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.
![Page 17: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Table 2: Rigor in the EvidenceScale
Generally Positive
Generally Insignificant or Negative Findings
Generally Positive Findings
Generally Insignificant or
Hea
lth - ▪ Hasnain (2008)
▪ Schwartz et al (2002)- ▪ Treisman (2002)
Ed
uca
tio
n
- ▪ Hasnain (2008)▪ Freinkman and Plekhanov (2009)
▪ Di Gropello (2002)▪ Jimenez and Paqueo (1996)
▪ Lockheed and Zhao (1993)▪ Treisman (2002)
SB
M - - ▪ Eskeland and Filmer (2007)
Hea
lth
▪ Arze del Granado et al (2005)
▪ Akin et al (2005) ▪ Asfaw et al (2007)▪ Robalino et al (2001)▪ Habibi et al (2003)
▪ Inchauste (2009)▪ Khaleghian (2003)
Ed
uca
tio
n ▪ Arze del Granado et al (2005)
- ▪ Aslam and Yilmaz (2011)▪ Freinkman and Plekhanov (2009)
▪ Inchauste (2009)
SB
M
- - ▪ Paes de Barros and Mendonca (1998)▪ King and Ozler (2000)▪ Khattri et al (2010)▪ Parker (2005)▪ Di Gropello and Marshall (2005)
▪ Gunnarsson et al (2009)▪ Jimenez and Sawada (1999)▪ Sawada and Ragataz (2005)
Allocative efficiency Technical efficiency
Weak
Somewhat Strong
![Page 18: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Table 2: Rigor in the EvidenceScale
Hea
lth - ▪ Faguet (2004)
▪ Skoufias et al (2011)▪ Uchimura and Jutting (2009)
Ed
uca
tio
n
▪ Faguet (2004)▪ Skoufias et al (2011)
- ▪ Galiani et al (2008)▪ Faguet and Sanchez (2008)
SB
M - - ▪ Skoufias and Shapiro (2006)▪ Gertler et al (2011)▪ Hanushek et al (2011)
Hea
lth
- - - -
Ed
uca
tio
n
- - - -
SB
M
- - ▪ Duflo et al (2007) ▪ Glewwe and Maiga (2011)
Strong
Very Strong
Allocative efficiency Technical efficiency
![Page 19: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Rigorous evidence on technical efficiency is favorable.
Decentralization improves technical efficiency in education, health and SBM. Stronger methodologies show stronger effects.
Decentralization can enhance service delivery outcomes, from student test scores to infant mortality rates.•More studies examine final outcomes, not policy outputs. Outcomes more likely influenced by exogenous factors.•Only a few studies explain the channel through which service delivery improves Limits policy implications for other decentralizers.
![Page 20: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Evidence on allocative efficiency in health is negative. Driven by externalities in health sector.
Local governments may match local preferences more efficiently while ignoring spillovers This reduces overall welfare.
But this is surmountable with conditional transfers, or with decentralizations that retain central control in areas with large externalities.
Evidence on allocative efficiency in education is positive, but few in number.
![Page 21: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Decentralization Equity is contingent
Elite capture is evident but by no means dominant.
Conventional wisdom that
Decentralization EfficiencyCentralization Equity
is misleading, at least w.r.t. public goods delivery.
Important to understand existing hierarchical social structures, and then design D reforms around them to promote participation, accountability, and strong equalization transfers.
![Page 22: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Political accountability and capacity building dominate as preconditions
Evidence supports strong political accountability and capacity building as enablers to successful decentralized service delivery.
![Page 23: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Policy Implications (i)
1. Good decentralization should improve technical efficiency in education and health.
Better quality and quantity or services Better outcomes (e.g. literacy, infant mortality).
2. Good decentralization will increase allocative efficiency in education. In health too, if D includes conditional transfers and retained central authority in areas with large externalities.
![Page 24: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Policy Implications (ii)3. Decentralization Efficiency and
Centralization Equity misleading w.r.t. public goods delivery.
Understand local hierarchical social structures, then design D reforms with participation and strong equalization transfers schemes.
4. Political accountability and capacity building dominate as preconditions. Decentralize down to lowest levels suited to particular services, s.t. accountability can obtain. Then build capacity there actively and passively.
![Page 25: Lessons from Global Experience for Successful Decentralization of Health and Education Services Jean-Paul Faguet Anila Channa London School of Economics](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022033106/56649dbc5503460f94aaece2/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Thank you