School decentralization: Helping the good get better, but leaving the poor behind
The decentralization of public services is a major feature of institutional innovation. The main argument in support of decentralization is that it brings decisions closer to the people, thereby alleviating information asymmetries and improving accountability. However, decentralization can also degrade service provision in poor communities that lack the ability to voice and defend their preferences. In this paper, we analyze the average and distributional effects of school decentralization on educational quality in Argentina. We find that decentralization had an overall positive impact on student test scores. The decentralization gains, however, did not reach the poor. Thus, although "bringing decisions closer to the people" may help the good get better, the already disadvantaged may not receive these benefits.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Hanushek, Eric A, 1986. "The Economics of Schooling: Production and Efficiency in Public Schools," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 24(3), pages 1141-77, September.
- Timothy Besley & Maitreesh Ghatak, 2003.
"Incentives, Choice, and Accountability in the Provision of Public Services,"
Oxford Review of Economic Policy,
Oxford University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 235-249, Summer.
- Timothy Besley & Maitreesh Ghatak, 2003. "Incentives, choice and accountability in the provision of Public Services," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 36001, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
- Tim Besley & Maitreesh Ghatak, 2003. "Incentives, choice and accountability in the provision of public services," IFS Working Papers W03/08, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
- Bardhan, Pranab & Mookherjee, Dilip, 2005. "Decentralizing antipoverty program delivery in developing countries," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(4), pages 675-704, April.
- Ben Lockwood, 2002.
"Distributive Politics and the Costs of Centralization,"
Review of Economic Studies,
Oxford University Press, vol. 69(2), pages 313-337.
- Lockwood, Ben, 1998. "Distributive Politics and the Costs of Centralization," CEPR Discussion Papers 2046, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Eskeland, Gunnar S. & Filmer, Deon, 2002. "Autonomy, participation, and learning in Argentine schools - findings andtheir implications for decentralization," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2766, The World Bank.
- Miguel Urquiola, 2005. "Does School Choice Lead to Sorting? Evidence from Tiebout Variation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1310-1326, September.
- Sebastian Galiani & Ernesto Schargrodsky, 2002.
"Evaluating the Impact of School Decentralization on Educational Quality,"
ECONOMIA JOURNAL OF THE LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION,
ECONOMIA JOURNAL OF THE LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION, vol. 0(Spring 20), pages 275-314, January.
- Sebastian Galiani & Ernesto Schargrodsky, 2001. "Evaluating the Impact of School Decentralization on Education Quality," Working Papers 41, Universidad de San Andres, Departamento de Economia, revised Dec 2001.
- Pranab Bardhan & Dilip Mookherjee, 2006.
"Pro-Poor Targeting and Accountability of Local Governments in West Bengal,"
- Bardhan, Pranab & Mookherjee, Dilip, 2006. "Pro-poor targeting and accountability of local governments in West Bengal," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 303-327, April.
- Pranab Bardhan & Dilip Mookherjee, 2003. "Pro-Poor Targeting and Accountability of Local Governments in West Bengal," Boston University - Department of Economics - The Institute for Economic Development Working Papers Series dp-138, Boston University - Department of Economics.
- Faguet, Jean-Paul, 2004. "Does decentralization increase government responsiveness to local needs?: Evidence from Bolivia," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(3-4), pages 867-893, March.
- Jimenez, Emmanuel & Sawada, Yasuyuki, 1999. "Do Community-Managed Schools Work? An Evaluation of El Salvador's EDUCO Program," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 13(3), pages 415-41, September.
- Behrman, Jere R. & King, Elizabeth M., 2001. "Household schooling behaviors and decentralization," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 321-341, August.
- Pranab Bardhan & Dilip Mookherjee, 2006. "Decentralisation and Accountability in Infrastructure Delivery in Developing Countries," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 116(508), pages 101-127, 01.
- Jones, Mark P. & Sanguinetti, Pablo & Tommasi, Mariano, 2000. "Politics, institutions, and fiscal performance in a federal system: an analysis of the Argentine provinces," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 305-333, April.
- Pranab Bardhan & Dilip Mookherjee, 2006. "Decentralization, Corruption and Government Accountability," Chapters, in: International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption, chapter 6 Edward Elgar Publishing.
- James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra E. Todd, 1997. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 64(4), pages 605-654.
- Ritva Reinikka & Jakob Svensson, 2004. "Local Capture: Evidence from a Central Government Transfer Program in Uganda," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 119(2), pages 679-705.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:pubeco:v:92:y:2008:i:10-11:p:2106-2120. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.