Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Decentralization’s effects on educational outcomes in Bolivia and Colombia

By Jean-Paul Faguet and Fabio Sanchez

Abstract

The effects of decentralization on public sector outputs is much debated but little agreed upon. This paper compares the remarkable case of Bolivia with the more complex case of Colombia to explore decentralization’s effects on public education outcomes. In Colombia, decentralization of education finance improved enrollment rates in public schools. In Bolivia, decentralization made government more responsive by re-directing public investment to areas of greatest need. In both countries, investment shifted from infrastructure to primary social services. In both, it was the behavior of smaller, poorer, more rural municipalities that drove these changes

Topics: JL Political institutions (America except United States)
Publisher: Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, London School of Economics and Political Science
Year: 2006
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.lse.ac.uk:2397
Provided by: LSE Research Online
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/2397/... (external link)
  • http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/ (external link)
  • http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/2397/ (external link)
  • Suggested articles

    Citations

    1. (1997). Achieving balance in decentralization: A case study of education decentralization in doi
    2. (2003). African enclosures: A default mode of development.” World Development, doi
    3. (2002). Autonomy, participation, and learning in Argentine schools: Findings and their implications for decentralization.” Working Paper No. doi
    4. (2003). Balancing rural poverty reduction and citizen participation: The contradictions of Uganda’s decentralization program.” doi
    5. (2003). Bridging the economic divide within countries: A scorecard on the performance of regional policies in reducing regional income disparities.” doi
    6. (2000). Capture and governance at local and national levels.” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, doi
    7. (2004). Changing to gray: Decentralization and the emergence of volatile socio-legal configurations in central Kalimantan, doi
    8. (2005). Community-based forest management within the context of institutional decentralization doi
    9. (2001). Creating social capital in Russia: The Novgorod model.” doi
    10. (2004). Decentralization and democracy in Latin America. Notre Dame, IN: doi
    11. (1998). Decentralization and rural development: A review of evidence.”
    12. (1983). Decentralization in developing countries: A review of recent experience.” World Bank Staff Working Paper No.581.
    13. (1988). Decentralization in the public sector: An empirical study of state and local government.” In
    14. (1990). Decentralization: The politics of interventionism.” doi
    15. (1985). Decentralization: The territorial dimension of the state. doi
    16. (1990). Decentralization: What It Is and Why We Should Care.” In
    17. (2004). Does decentralization increase responsiveness to local needs? Evidence from doi
    18. (1997). Econometric Analysis. Upper Saddle River: doi
    19. (2003). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth.” doi
    20. (2000). Fiscal decentralization and intergovernmental fiscal relations: A crosscountry analysis.” doi
    21. (2001). Fiscal decentralization in developing countries: A review of current concepts and practice.” doi
    22. (1995). Fiscal federalism and decentralization: A review of some efficiency and macroeconomic aspects.”
    23. (2002). From New Order to Regional Autonomy: Shifting Dynamics of “Illegal” Logging in Kalimantan, doi
    24. (1993). Historia de Bolivia. La Paz: Libreria-Editorial Juventud.
    25. (2002). Implementing environmental policies in developing countries through decentralization: The case of protected areas in Bahia, doi
    26. (1993). Informe sobre desarrollo humano
    27. (2001). Is devolution democratization?” doi
    28. (2004). Keeping up with the Jones’: Decentralization, policy imitation, and industrial development in doi
    29. (2003). Livelihoods and rural poverty reduction in doi
    30. (2002). Living in a walking world: Rural mobility and social equity issues in sub-Saharan doi
    31. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. doi
    32. (2002). Natural resources and decentralization in Nicaragua: Are local governments up to the job?” doi
    33. (1995). On the dangers of decentralization.” doi
    34. (2000). Participation and accountability at the periphery: Democratic local governance in six countries.” doi
    35. (2001). Population as a determinant of local outcomes under decentralization: doi
    36. (2004). Protecting the forest or the people? Environmental policies and livelihoods in the forest margins of southern doi
    37. (2004). Reassessing relations between the centre and the states: The challenge for the Brazilian administration.” doi
    38. (1984). Rebellion in the veins: Political struggle in Bolivia 1952-82. doi
    39. (2005). Right target, wrong mechanism? Agricultural modernization and poverty reduction in Uganda.” World Development, doi
    40. (1994). Secretaría Nacional de Participación Popular, Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y Medio Ambiente. doi
    41. (1995). Secretaría Nacional de Participación Popular.
    42. (2004). Tendencias del comportamiento electoral y descentralización en los municipios de Colombia, 1988-2000.” Crisis States Programme Working Paper No. 57, London School of Economics.
    43. (1997). The emergence of local capacity: doi
    44. (1990). The failure of the centralized state: Institutions and selfgovernance in Africa. doi
    45. (2004). The impact of decentralization on service delivery, corruption, fiscal management and growth in developing and emerging market economies: A synthesis of empirical evidence.”
    46. (1999). The political economy of democratic decentralization. doi
    47. (2000). The Political Economy of Municipal Public Spending in Colombia. Bogotá: CEDE-Universidad de Los Andes-Contraloría General de la República-Fundación Tinker.
    48. (2001). The quiet revolution: The rise of political participation and leading cities with decentralization doi
    49. (1999). To what extent can decentralized forms of government enhance the development of pro-poor policies and improve poverty-alleviation outcomes?”
    50. (2004). Who talks with whom? The role of repeated interactions in decentralized forest governance.” doi
    51. (1997). World Bank rural development officer. Interview,
    52. (1994). World development report: Infrastructure for development. doi

    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.