IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v11y2021i1p2158244021994505.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decentralization and the Limits to Service Delivery: Evidence From Northern Pakistan

Author

Listed:
  • Sajjad Ali Khan

Abstract

While the relationship between decentralization and service delivery is underpinned by a set of normative theoretical assumptions, yet not only does the empirical evidence concerning this so-called relationship to date remains inconclusive at best but our understanding of the causes of ineffectiveness of decentralization initiatives with respect to service delivery is also striking. This article attempts to contribute to the debates concerning the relationship between decentralization and service delivery through an analysis of decentralization measures undertaken by the Government of Pakistan during the early 21st Century with the announced aims of improving the efficiency and responsiveness of government as well as the delivery of public services. Notwithstanding a decade of decentralized service delivery, wellbeing outcomes across districts in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province demonstrated remarkable discrepancy such that while some districts witnessed considerable amelioration in their respective composite indices, others experienced a marked deterioration, thus calling into question the normative assumptions that undergird the relationship between decentralization and service delivery. This article seeks to explain this outcome through a comparative case study of two localities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province viz districts “Swabi†and “Lower Dir,†both of which had witnessed marked deterioration and amelioration in wellbeing outcomes, respectively, in the ex-post of implementation of the Devolution Plan. Data for the study were collected through in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. The results demonstrate that political dynamics such as the nature of relationship between district governments and the provincial government, extent of political polarization prevalent within or among different levels of the local government system, and the role of bureaucracy turn out to be important factors that ostensibly account for the deterioration of wellbeing outcomes in Swabi district over the course of a decade of implementation of the local government system. The findings suggest that political factors have overshadowed technical considerations in terms of explaining the discrepant outcomes of decentralized service delivery across the two localities.

Suggested Citation

  • Sajjad Ali Khan, 2021. "Decentralization and the Limits to Service Delivery: Evidence From Northern Pakistan," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440219, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:11:y:2021:i:1:p:2158244021994505
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244021994505
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244021994505
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244021994505?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pranab Bardhan & Dilip Mookherjee, 2000. "Corruption and Decentralization of Infrastructure Delivery in Developing Countries," Boston University - Institute for Economic Development 104, Boston University, Institute for Economic Development.
    2. 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.
    3. Bardhan, Pranab & Mookherjee, Dilip, 1998. "Expenditure Decentralization and the Delivery of Public Services in Developing Countries," Center for International and Development Economics Research (CIDER) Working Papers 233623, University of California-Berkeley, Department of Economics.
    4. Daniel Kaufmann & Gil Mehrez & Tugrul Gurgur, 2019. "Voice or public sector management? An empirical investigation of determinants of public sector performance based on a survey of public officials," Journal of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 321-348, January.
    5. Anwar Shah & Theresa Thompson & Heng-fu Zou, 2004. "Decentralising the public sector: The Impact of Decentralisation on Service Delivery, Corruption, Fiscal Management and Growth in Developing and Emerging Market Economies: A Synthesis of Empirical Evi," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 2(1), pages 10-14, October.
    6. Pranab Bardhan, 2002. "Decentralization of Governance and Development," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(4), pages 185-205, Fall.
    7. World Bank, 2004. "Devolution in Pakistan : An Assessment and Recommendations for Action," World Bank Publications - Reports 14373, The World Bank Group.
    8. repec:ces:ifodic:v:2:y:2004:i:1:p:14567690 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Anwar Shah & Theresa Thompson & Heng-fu Zou, 2004. "Decentralising the public sector: The Impact of Decentralisation on Service Delivery, Corruption, Fiscal Management and Growth in Developing and Emerging Market Economies: A Synthesis of Empirical Evi," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 2(01), pages 10-14, October.
    10. Faguet, Jean-Paul, 2014. "Decentralization and Governance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 2-13.
    11. Sajjad Ali Khan, 2013. "Decentralization and Poverty Reduction: A Theoretical Framework for Exploring the Linkages," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 145-172, August.
    12. Shah, Anwar & Thompson, Theresa, 2004. "Implementing decentralized local governance: a treacherous road with potholes, detours, and road closures," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3353, The World Bank.
    13. Moussé Sow & Mr. Ivohasina F Razafimahefa, 2015. "Fiscal Decentralization and the Efficiency of Public Service Delivery," IMF Working Papers 2015/059, International Monetary Fund.
    14. Zahid Hasnain, 2010. "Devolution, Accountability, and Service Delivery in Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 49(2), pages 129-152.
    15. Fahim Nawaz & Kalsoom Inam & Shagufta Shaheen, 2017. "Local Governments and the Provision of Health and Education within Khyber Pakhtunkhwa: An assessment," Global Social Sciences Review, Humanity Only, vol. 2(1), pages 91-104, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sopaheluwakan, William R.I. & Fatem, Sepus M. & Kutanegara, Pande M. & Maryudi, Ahmad, 2023. "Two-decade decentralization and recognition of customary forest rights: Cases from special autonomy policy in West Papua, Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    2. Muhammad Shahid & Khalil Ahmad & Rukhsana Kalim, 2022. "Different dimensions of decentralization and rural–urban poverty in Pakistan," Poverty & Public Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(2), pages 166-183, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. María Orduz, 2022. "Effect of educational spending on academic performance under different institutional arrangements," Documentos CEDE 20224, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    2. Ricardo Dahis & Christiane Szerman, 2023. "Decentralizing Development: Evidence from Government Splits," Monash Economics Working Papers 2023-18, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    3. Jorge Martinez-Vazquez & Santiago Lago-Peñas & Agnese Sacchi, 2017. "The Impact Of Fiscal Decentralization: A Survey," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1095-1129, September.
    4. Faguet, Jean-Paul & Sánchez, Fabio, 2008. "Decentralization's Effects on Educational Outcomes in Bolivia and Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 1294-1316, July.
    5. Changwony, Frederick Kibon & Paterson, Audrey S., 2019. "Accounting practice, fiscal decentralization and corruption," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(5).
    6. Faguet, Jean-Paul, 2021. "Understanding decentralization: theory, evidence and method, with a focus on least-developed countries," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 108214, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Zarychta, Alan, 2020. "Making social services work better for the poor: Evidence from a natural experiment with health sector decentralization in Honduras," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    8. Yanez-Pagans, Monica & Machicado-Salas, Gustavo, 2014. "Bureaucratic Delay, Local-Level Monitoring, and Delivery of Small Infrastructure Projects: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Bolivia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 394-407.
    9. Kahsay, Goytom Abraha & Medhin, Haileselassie, 2020. "Leader turnover and forest management outcomes: Micro-level evidence from Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    10. Victoria Gunnarsson & Peter F. Orazem & Mario A. Sánchez & Aimee Verdisco, 2009. "Does Local School Control Raise Student Outcomes? Evidence on the Roles of School Autonomy and Parental Participation," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(1), pages 25-52, October.
    11. Anisah Alfada, 2019. "Does Fiscal Decentralization Encourage Corruption in Local Governments? Evidence from Indonesia," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-14, July.
    12. Marius Constantin PROFIROIU & Septimiu Rares SZABO, 2016. "Outsourcing vs decentralisation: A comparative analysis in Central and Eastern Europe," Eco-Economics Review, Ecological University of Bucharest, Economics Faculty and Ecology and Environmental Protection Faculty, vol. 2(2), pages 3-26, December.
    13. van der Kamp, Denise & Lorentzen, Peter & Mattingly, Daniel, 2017. "Racing to the Bottom or to the Top? Decentralization, Revenue Pressures, and Governance Reform in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 164-176.
    14. Elizabeth M. King & Claudio E. Montenegro & Peter F. Orazem, 2012. "Economic Freedom, Human Rights, and the Returns to Human Capital: An Evaluation of the Schultz Hypothesis," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(1), pages 39-72.
    15. Ali, Amin Masud & Savoia, Antonio, 2023. "Decentralisation or patronage: What determines government's allocation of development spending in a unitary country? Evidence from Bangladesh," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    16. Kis-Katos, Krisztina & Sjahrir, Bambang Suharnoko, 2017. "The impact of fiscal and political decentralization on local public investment in Indonesia," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 344-365.
    17. Kalirajan, Kaliappa & Otsuka, Keijiro, 2012. "Fiscal Decentralization and Development Outcomes in India: An Exploratory Analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1511-1521.
    18. Benjamin A. Olken, 2007. "Monitoring Corruption: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115(2), pages 200-249.
    19. Timothy Besley & Rohini Pande & Vijayendra Rao, 2012. "Just Rewards? Local Politics and Public Resource Allocation in South India," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 26(2), pages 191-216.
    20. Fisman, Raymond & Gatti, Roberta, 2002. "Decentralization and corruption: evidence across countries," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(3), pages 325-345, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:11:y:2021:i:1:p:2158244021994505. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.