In the early 1990s, a host of unitary states in Southeast Asia began pursuing, at their own pace, the process of decentralizing their systems of governance. The form and function of these reforms were documented in the World Bank's report, East Asia Decentralizes: Making Local Government Work, published in 2005. The analysis in this discussion paper updates the findings and data from this foundational work and widens the lens to new countries embarking on similar reforms. The aim is to chart the overall trajectory of reforms, examine the political dynamics behind them, and help countries locate their place in the process. Each country is taking its own path, shaped by its history, size, and political system, though there are some similarities. In general, reforms are heavily and predictably influenced by political dynamics, managed from the central government, and driven by its priorities. They result in an unsynchronized and, at times, messy transfer of funds, functions, and functionaries to lower levels. Central governments continue to wield considerable influence over subnational governments through a combination of tight political controls, concurrent functional assignments, budgetary measures, and continued bureaucratic control. Nonetheless, with all their limitations, the countries of the region are finding ways to muddle through with the general trajectory toward more, not less, decentralization. In large part, this process is happening organically and incrementally without any big bang reforms and with the direct involvement of central governments. Variously, it is helping to nudge governments toward greater political pluralism, innovation, and improved service delivery within otherwise tightly controlled states. As decentralization deepens, so too does the importance of effective coordination.

The resurgence of the Left in Latin America over the past decade has been so notable that it has been called “the Pink Tide.” In recent years, regimes with leftist leaders have risen to power in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and Venezuela. What does this trend portend for the deepening of democracy in the region? Benjamin Goldfrank has been studying the development of participatory democracy in Latin America for many years, and this book represents the culmination of his empirical investigations in Brazil, Uruguay, and Venezuela. In order to understand why participatory democracy has succeeded better in some countries than in others, he examines the efforts in urban areas that have been undertaken in the cities of Porto Alegre, Montevideo, and Caracas. His findings suggest that success is related, most crucially, to how nationally centralized political authority is and how strongly institutionalized the opposition parties are in the local arenas.

This book draws on experiences in developing countries to bridge the gap between the conventional textbook treatment of fiscal decentralization and the actual practice of subnational government finance. The extensive literature about the theory and practice is surveyed and longstanding problems and new questions are addressed. It focuses on the key choices that must be made in decentralizing, on how economic and political factors shape the choices that countries make, and on how, by paying more attention to the need for a more comprehensive approach and the critical connections between different components of decentralization reform, everyone involved might get more for their money.

Nearly all countries worldwide are now experimenting with decentralization. Their motivation are diverse. Many countries are decentralizing because they believe this can help stimulate economic growth or reduce rural poverty, goals central government interventions have failed to achieve. Some countries see it as a way to strengthen civil society and deepen democracy. Some perceive it as a way to off-load expensive responsibilities onto lower level governments. Thus, decentralization is seen as a solution to many different kinds of problems. This report examines the origins and implications decentralization from a political economy perspective, with a focus on its promise and limitations. It explores why countries have often chosen not to decentralize, even when evidence suggests that doing so would be in the interests of the government. It seeks to explain why since the early 1980s many countries have undertaken some form of decentralization. This report also evaluates the evidence to understand where decentralization has considerable promise and where it does not. It identifies conditions needed for decentralization to succeed. It identifies the ways in which decentralization can promote rural development. And it names the goals which decentralization will probably not help achieve.

Since its adoption in 2015, the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development has shaped not only international development cooperation but also the design of national trajectories for social and economic development. In tandem with other global agendas adopted that year (such as the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and UN Habitat’s New Urban Agenda) it remains the global and regional blueprint for sustainable development despite the COVID-19 pandemic. The term "localizing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)" has been used to capture the importance of subnational governments for achieving national SDG agendas. However, there is little deeper analysis of the required nexus between fiscal, political, and legal arrangements for SNGs; their involvement in national policy arenas (which discuss and decide on national SDG strategies); and the need for locally disaggregated data systems on the one hand, and effective SDG localization strategies on the other hand. It is this aspect which the present publication explores in greater detail by using country examples and conceptual analyses. The text will be of interest to policymakers, scholars, students and practitioners in public policy and public administration, decentralization, and sustainable development, with a focus on the Asia and Pacific region. The Open Access version of this book, available at www.taylorfrancis.com, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative License (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 IGO).

Successful reforms need coherent approaches in which a range of stakeholders are willing to share responsibilities and resources in order to achieve the ultimate outcome of poverty reduction in developing countries. This book provides a framework to access intended outcomes generated by decentralization measures implemented in Asian and African countries. It is based on comparative analyses of different experiences of decentralization measures in six developing countries.

Is decentralisation good for development? This book explains when the answer is 'Yes' and when it is 'No'. It shows how decentralisation can be designed to drive development forward, and focuses on the institutional incentives that can strengthen democracy, boost economies, and improve public sector performance.

In recent decades laws passed by African governments to transfer power and resources to local and other subnational governments (SNGs) have been greeted by many in the policy community with enthusiasm. But how far has decentralization really gone in Africa? How well does it work? And what have been its consequences? The authors of Decentralization in Africa work within a common conceptual framework to examine the process in 10 countries contrasting clear increases in the legal authority of SNGs with the reality of limited successes in deepening democracy.