Targeting public goods to the poor in a segregated economy: An empirical analysis of central mandates in rural India
While local governments are increasingly being vested with control over funds for public goods, concern over the capture of decentralized funds by local elites has led decentralization to be combined with central mandates which require a certain proportion of funds to directly benefit the poor. If local capture is pervasive, however, central mandates may not be effective. Despite the popularity of this combination of decentralization and centralized control, there is little empirical evidence which separately identifies their effect on investment in public goods, and hence assesses the effectiveness of central mandates. This paper provides such evidence, using data collected by the authors for the North Indian state of Punjab, an economy where economic conditions facilitate such an analysis. We find that central mandates are effective, enhancing intra-village equality in expenditure on public goods. This finding informs the debate on the equity effects of centralized versus decentralized programs.
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.:
- Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1996.
"Electoral Competition and Special Interest Politics,"
Review of Economic Studies,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(2), pages 265-86, April.
- Gene Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1994. "Electoral Competition and Special Interest Politics," NBER Working Papers 4877, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Fershtman, C. & Murphy, K.M., 1993.
"Social Status, Education and Growth,"
8-93, Tel Aviv.
- Pranab Bardhan, 2002. "Decentralization of Governance and Development," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(4), pages 185-205, Fall.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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, 2006. "Pro-Poor Targeting and Accountability of Local Governments in West Bengal," Working Papers id:773, eSocialSciences.
- Araujo, M. Caridad & Ferreira, Francisco H.G. & Lanjouw, Peter & Ozler, Berk, 2006.
"Local inequality and project choice : theory and evidence from Ecuador,"
Policy Research Working Paper Series
3997, The World Bank.
- Araujo, M. Caridad & Ferreira, Francisco H.G. & Lanjouw, Peter & Özler, Berk, 2008. "Local inequality and project choice: Theory and evidence from Ecuador," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(5-6), pages 1022-1046, June.
- Dilip Mookherjee & Pranab K. Bardhan, 2000. "Capture and Governance at Local and National Levels," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(2), pages 135-139, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:pubeco:v:93:y:2009:i:7-8:p:917-930. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.