This article discusses the problems and prospects of provision of public services under decentralisation of the government. Traditionally, the provision of public services falls under the purview of a centralised planning process. But the system’s failure to adjust public services to heterogeneous local needs results in inadequate provisioning and improper maintenance of these services. Of late, decentralisation has been hailed as an alternative to take care of the service delivery problems. One of the major promises of decentralisation is that it brings popular participation and accountability to local governance, and therefore, makes local government more responsive to citizens’ desires and more effective in delivering services. The causal chain of decentralisation leading to greater citizen participation and voice and the resultant increase in accountability has been questioned both on theoretical and empirical grounds. A review of available empirical evidence also suggests that the success of decentralisation depends very much on the ‘type/form’ of the process itself. The real challenge is, therefore, to design an appropriate form of decentralisation that would help to realise the promised benefits of decentralisation.
AlsopR. J.KrishnaA.SjoblomD. (2000). Are gram panchyats inclusive? Report of a study conducted in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. Background paper No. 3 of the World Bank’s unpublished Overview of Rural Decentralisation in India, Vol. 3.
2.
BardhanP. (2002). Decentralisation of governance and development. Journal of Economic Perspective, 16(4): 185–205.
3.
BardhanP.MookherjeeD.TorradoM. P. (2010). Impact of political reservations in West Bengal local governments on anti-poverty targeting. Journal of Globalization and Development, 1(1).
4.
BardhanP.MookherjeeD. (2007). Decentralization in West Bengal: Origins, functioning and impact. In BardhanP.MookherjeeD. (Eds), Decentralization and local government in developing countries: A comparative perspective. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
5.
BeharA.KumarY. (2002). Decentralisation in Madhya Pradesh in India: From panchayati raj to gram swaraj (1995–2001). Working paper No. 170, Overseas Development Institute, London, September.
6.
BesleyT.PandeR.RaoV. (2007). Political economy of panchayats in South India. Economic and Political Weekly, 42(8).
7.
BirdR. (1994). Decentralizing infrastructure: For good or for ill?Policy Research Working Paper 1258, World Bank, Washington, DC.
8.
BirdR.RodriguezE. R. (1999). Decentralization and poverty alleviation: International experience and the case of Phillipines. Public Administration and Development, 19(3): 299–319.
9.
BlairH. (2000). Participation and accountability at the periphery: Democratic local government in six countries. World Development, 28(1): 21–39.
10.
BrinkerhoffD. W.AzfarO. (2006). Decentralization and community empowerment: Does community empowerment deepen democracy and improve service delivery?Paper presented to the US Agency for International Development, Office of Democracy and Governance, Washington DC, October.
11.
CrookR. C.SverrissonA. S. (1999). To what extent can decentralized forms of government enhance the development of pro-poor policies and improve poverty alleviation outcomes?Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.
12.
DevarajanS.ShahS. (2004). Making services work for India’s poor. Economic and Political Weekly, 28 February, 907–19.
13.
DevasN.AmisP.BeallG.GrantU.MitlinD.RakodiC.SatterthwaiteD. (2001). Urban governance and poverty: Lessons from a study of ten cities in the South: A policy briefing paper for donors, governments and practitioners. University of Birmingham.
14.
DillingerB. (1993). Decentralisation and its implications for municipal service delivery: Lessons from urban lending. Urban Development Division, World Bank Publications.
15.
GaventaJ. (1999). Citizen knowledge, citizen competence and democracy building. In ElkinS. L.SotanK. E. (Eds), Citizen competence and democratic institutions (pp. 49–67). University Park, PA: Penn State Press.
16.
GhatakM.GhatakM. (2002). Recent reforms in the panchayat system in West Bengal: Towards greater participatory governance?Economic and Political Weekly, 5January, 37(1): 45–58.
17.
Golooba-MutebiF. (1999). Decentralization, democracy and development administration in Uganda: Limits to popular participation. DPhil thesis, London School of Economics.
18.
GrantU. (2002). Local government decision-making: Citizen participation and local government accountability—A literature review. International Development Department, University of Birmingham, March.
19.
HirschmanA. O. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
JohnsonC. (2003). Decentralization in India: Poverty, politics and panchayati raj. Working paper No. 199, Overseas Development Institute, London, February.
21.
JohnsonC.DeshingkarPriyaStartDaniel (2005). Grounding the state: Devolution and development in India’s panchayats. Journal of Development Studies, 41(6): 937–70.
22.
JuttingJ.CorsiE.KauffmannC.McdonnellI.OsterriederH.PinaudN.WegnerL. (2005). What makes decentralization in developing countries pro-poor?European Journal of Development Research, 17(4): 626–48.
23.
KimA. (2008). Decentralisation and provision of public services: Framework and implementation. Policy Research Working Paper 4503, The World Bank Development Research Group, January.
24.
KlugmanJ. (1994). Decentralisation: A survey of literature from a human development perspective. United Nations Development Programme, Occasional Paper 13.
25.
ListerS.BetleyM. (1999). Approaches to decentralization in developing countries. Paper prepared as background reading for the MEFMI/DFID Workshop on Good Practices in Public Expenditure Management, Capetown, June.
26.
LitvackJ.AhmedJ.BirdR. (1998). Rethinking decentralization in developing countries. Sector Studies Series, World bank, Washington, DC.
27.
ManorJ. (2003). Local governance. Institute of development Studies, University of Sussex. Retrieved 12August2008, from www.gsdrc.org/docs/open/P040
28.
MathewG.MathewA. (2003). India: Decentralization and local governance—How clientelism and accountability work. In HadeniusA. (Ed.), Decentralization and democratic governance experiences from India, Bolivia and South Africa (pp. 13–61). Stockholm: Almqvist and Wicksell International.
29.
MookherjeeD. (2004). The crisis in government accountability: Governance reforms in the Indian economy. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
30.
MusgraveRichard M. (1959). The theory of public finance. New York: McGraw-Hill.
31.
OatesW. E. (1999). An essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of Economic Literature, XXXVII(September): 1120–49.
32.
PaulS.GoelP. R. (2010, 7September). Decentralisation in Bangladesh. New Delhi: NCAER.
33.
RobinsonM. (2003). Participation, local governance and decentralized service delivery. Paper prepared for a Workshop on New Approaches to Decentralized Service Delivery, held in Santiago, Chile, 16–20March.
34.
SharmaR. (2003). Kerala’s decentralization idea in practice. Economic and Political Weekly, 6September: 3832–51.
35.
SmokeP. (2001). Fiscal decentralization in developing countries: A review of current concepts and practice. Democracy, Governance and Human Rights Program Paper Number 2, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, February.
36.
TendlerJ. (1997): Good governance in the Tropics. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
37.
TieboutC. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(5): 416–24.
38.
World Bank (2003). Devolution in Pakistan—Preparing for service delivery improvements. Working paper prepared for the Forum on Intergovernmental Relations and Service Delivery in Pakistan, 27–29June.
