تمرکز زدایی مالی و نتایج توسعه در هند : تجزیه و تحلیل اکتشافی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|3143||2012||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 7250 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : World Development, Volume 40, Issue 8, August 2012, Pages 1511–1521
This paper attempts to quantify the impact of fiscal decentralization in India on its social infrastructure and on rural development. Overall, the results in this paper indicate that Government of India within a federal framework has been fostering development equitably across its states, particularly through health and education expenditures aimed at improving human capital development. In this context, the importance of the two tier centre-states decentralization should be noted. However, the third tier of local governance, particularly the state-rural local bodies decentralization has been dismal and has not achieved significant results across states, which warrant the attention of the central and state governments.
One of the central questions in Development Economics is why some countries have remained poor for a long period of time, though the general policy approaches to combat poverty are well understood. A corollary to the above question is why the similar package of policies differs in efficacy across countries. Similarly, an identical set of policies differs in effectiveness across provinces or states within a country.1 Drawing on the Post-Washington Consensus, it may be argued that the inability to achieve similar results from policy packages across states is due to the constraints posed by country-specific organizational or institutional factors. One of the major institutional factors directly involved in the delivery of public services and in implementing development policies is the degree of decentralization. Therefore, a key to enhancing the efficacy of policies lies in a better understanding of the extent and process through which various forms of decentralization contribute to development (Appendix I). What do we understand by decentralization? Decentralization can best be understood as a political process in the sense of the devolution of resources, tasks and decision-making power to democratically elected lower-level authorities, which are largely or wholly independent of central government (World Bank, 2000a). It is rational to argue that decentralization facilitates time-specific and location-specific knowledge to implement policies that influence people’s welfare. Decentralization in political, fiscal, and economic systems affects development outcomes in a number of ways. First, decentralized provision of social and physical infrastructures should correspond with the diverse demand conditions in different regions and match their resource endowments better than central provision. Even with regard to the provision of quasi-public goods, identification of target groups of beneficiaries is easier and implementation of policies more effective when undertaken by decentralized governmental units (Ostrom, Schroeder, & Wynne, 1993). Thus, even when there is some controversy over the redistributive role of sub-national governments, their desirability in implementing poverty alleviation policies is generally agreed upon (Brown and Oates, 1987, Ladd and Doolittle, 1982 and Pauly, 1973).
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The economic and Constitutional reforms of the 1990s have given more space to the markets in the allocation of resources as compared to the state relative to the pre-reform days. What implication does this have to the spatial equity in development? The state continues to be responsible for the supply of public goods including basic human capital and infrastructural development services across the country. Analyses presented in this study suggest that the mechanisms by which state governments provide for resources for such services do not continuously lead to higher inter-state disparity. If this pattern is a result of equitable sharing of central resources by the states or the effective functioning of decentralization, this element of state behavior is important in keeping the inter-state disparities from widening. Further, the results also point out that the expenditures on basic services such as health and education are pro-spatially equitable than the economic services. Overall, the results in this paper indicate that Government of India within a federal framework has mechanisms that foster development equitably across its states, particularly through health and education expenditures aimed at improving human capital development. In this context the importance of decentralization should be noted. However, the slowly rising disparities in economic services across states, which has implications for increasing disparity in some social sectors such as infant mortality, warrant the attention of the central and state governments. Further, as decentralization could contribute more to rural development, the structural aspect of decentralization needs to be re-examined. Therefore, drawing on Hayami (2001), it is conjectured that such tendencies arise mainly due to lack of appropriate and efficient institutions at the state governments levels in India, which indicates the need for further institutional reforms. For example, many states have not taken effectively the recommendations of their state finance commissions, whose responsibility is to recommend the extent and type of fiscal decentralization to the third tier level of decentralization, due to various factors including lack of confidence in the data and analytical procedures followed by SFC. This emphasizes the need for institutional reforms at state level. Also, the MP Local Area Development Funds and MLA Local Area Development Funds allotted by the center and state governments, which are often used to dilute the powers of rural local bodies such as Panchayats need to be restructured to make them complementary to resources given to local bodies. In this context, it is worth noting the following statement that appears in the Planning Commission’s 11th Five Year Plan: “Much higher levels of human development can be achieved even with the given structure of the economy, if only the delivery system is improved” (Planning Commission, 2008, p. 2).