What Makes Decentralisation in Developing Countries Pro-poor?

Abstract

Decentralisation has been advocated by donors and development agencies as an instrument to ensure broader participation of citizens as well as to improve local governance leading to poverty reduction from the bottom up. On the basis of a comprehensive review of nine case studies documented in the literature, this study questions this assumption. According to our findings, a clear link between decentralisation and a reduction in poverty cannot be established. Two important policy lessons emerge from this study. First, in an environment where the central state barely fulfils basic functions and is not interested in giving power and resources to local tiers of government, decentralisation should not be a priority for donors as it could be rather counter-productive. Second, in countries that fulfil basic prerequisites, decentralisation could be a powerful tool for poverty reduction.La décentralisation a été mise en avant par les partenaires au développement comme un instrument permettant d'assurer la participation des citoyens à la définition des politiques publiques ainsi que l'amélioration de la gouvernance locale, débouchant ainsi sur une approche participative de la réduction de la pauvreté. Sur la base d'une revue systématique de neuf études de cas de référence sur le sujet, cet article remet en cause cette hypothèse. Nous concluons en effet qu'il est impossible d'établir un lien clair entre décentralisation et réduction de la pauvreté. Dès lors, ce travail aboutit à deux recommandations importantes. Tout d'abord, dans un contexte où l'É tat central parvient à

Decentralization and the Limits to Poverty Reduction: Findings from Ghana

“…2 These three indicators in the earlier, more extended version of their research are similar though not identical to those outlined in the analytical framework for their later journal article (Jütting et al, 2005). 3 Crook is one exception, maintaining a more non-committal stance.…”

“…It is only in this current decade that decentralization research has specifically focused on linkages with poverty reduction, with a number of studies published since the turn of the century (Bossuyt & Gould, 2000;Crook & Sverrisson, 2001;Von Braun & Grote, 2002;Crook, 2003;Vedeld, 2003;Jütting et al, 2004Jütting et al, , 2005. The findings of these studies are generally negative, concluding that decentralization has not had a significant impact on poverty levels.…”

Show me the way: Inclination towards governance attributes in the artisanal fisheries of Sierra Leone

“…complex responsibility of aquatic resource governance without the required professional support staff. AsJütting et al (2005) have suggested, these conditions are characteristic of decentralisation by default as opposed to one by design. The genesis, content and implications of the LGA 2004 for the AF sub-sector (although outside the ambit of this paper) could throw light on the nature of such drawbacks.…”

Implementing pro-poor policies in a decentralized context: the case of the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Program in Tanzania

“…Hence, the setting of centrally designed pro-poor policies on health or water backed by sectoral funds is a typical example of policy incoherence in terms of decentralization, but these policies can still be successful and appropriate, even when the benefits that stem from bringing governments closer to the people are not fully exploited (Jütting et al 2005). The challenge is how these policies can coexist with local participation and autonomy (Francis and James 2003).…”