How Does Decentralisation Affect the Delivery of Economic Development?
- Submitted by: jhjack4
- Views: 772
- Category: Politics: Economics
- Date Submitted: 03/14/2011 12:46 PM
- Pages: 2
- Report this Essay
How does decentralisation affect the delivery of economic development?
* Read the Sundar paper. Glance over the other papers. Ramos paper slightly unrelated but very good for the paper as a whole.
* how to define decentralisation –
* sundar definition/world bank – transfer of decision making ability and responsibility for those decisions. E.g. committee set up which decides how best to manage the forest. And some penalty if not properly managed. Risk transfer. Political – transfer of decision making.
* Financial decentralisation – selling off of SOEs.
* Ukraine blair – selling SOEs – if owned majorly by large Multi-national corporation, effect the same, power retained one major.
* Define economic development –
* GDP growth
* Cf Human development – perhaps expand definition of economic development
* The improvement in the ability of all people to meet their economic needs – thus links with health, education, inequality.
* Readings:
* Sundar – looks at the management of forests in one particular region in India. Degradation – local communities given decision making power over forest. Incentive to look after the forest – ‘their forest’, increased political participation, good in own right but can also be more efficient than if central. Reduces free rider effect, and lack of localised information. Good in a perfect scenario but in reality power went to the local elite which exploited the forests for their own gains – not good environmentally or for the users of the forest. Policy didn’t work because not enough focus on synergies between local people and gov. Sundar introduced interesting concept of social capital, stimulates economic development. It integrates different groups of the community. Networks intangible but element of trust but also enforcing, if don’t fulfil something family will turn their back. Prisoner dilemma issues. Putman and critique by Ben Fine. For and against social capital....
* Read the Sundar paper. Glance over the other papers. Ramos paper slightly unrelated but very good for the paper as a whole.
* how to define decentralisation –
* sundar definition/world bank – transfer of decision making ability and responsibility for those decisions. E.g. committee set up which decides how best to manage the forest. And some penalty if not properly managed. Risk transfer. Political – transfer of decision making.
* Financial decentralisation – selling off of SOEs.
* Ukraine blair – selling SOEs – if owned majorly by large Multi-national corporation, effect the same, power retained one major.
* Define economic development –
* GDP growth
* Cf Human development – perhaps expand definition of economic development
* The improvement in the ability of all people to meet their economic needs – thus links with health, education, inequality.
* Readings:
* Sundar – looks at the management of forests in one particular region in India. Degradation – local communities given decision making power over forest. Incentive to look after the forest – ‘their forest’, increased political participation, good in own right but can also be more efficient than if central. Reduces free rider effect, and lack of localised information. Good in a perfect scenario but in reality power went to the local elite which exploited the forests for their own gains – not good environmentally or for the users of the forest. Policy didn’t work because not enough focus on synergies between local people and gov. Sundar introduced interesting concept of social capital, stimulates economic development. It integrates different groups of the community. Networks intangible but element of trust but also enforcing, if don’t fulfil something family will turn their back. Prisoner dilemma issues. Putman and critique by Ben Fine. For and against social capital....