In practice, most education systems have both centralized and decentralized elements. Planners involved in a decentralizing reform must identify which components of the system are more appropriately managed at the central level and which at the local level. This book is intended to inform education policymakers, planners, and practitioners about international experience in the legal aspects of decentralizing basic education. It also provides a basic understanding of how laws and regulations can be used for education reform. For purposes of the discussion, decentralization is used to describe efforts to transfer decision making power in basic education from the administrative center of a country to authorities closer to users. The term is also used in a more technical sense to describe one of the many forms this type of reform can take, and in this sense it is contrasted with deconcentration and devolution as educational reforms. The first section examines the general legal aspects of decentralization, and the second looks more closely at decentralization laws and regulations. The third section is, in effect, a checklist of items that should be included in decentralization laws, and the fourth section provides a road map to help the planner prepare and implement the laws required for reform. Although an effort has been made to keep the discussion general enough for use in many countries, the analysis is based on the legal systems of the Western world or those that they inspired. (Contains 35 references.) (SLD)
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.
Does decentralization enhance service delivery and poverty reduction? The expert contributors to this book address this fundamental question faced by policymakers and scholars in developing and advanced countries. The book illustrates that it is equally important for international agencies as well as bilateral donors to provide advice and assistance on decentralization that effectively supports poverty reduction. The volume builds on insights from the recent, political economy developments in the intergovernmental literature reviewed in the Handbook of Fiscal Federalism, and presents new empirical evidence on the effects of decentralization in different parts of the world. Policy-oriented papers evaluating the effectiveness of decentralized service delivery are presented. The role of institutions and the importance of sequencing of policies in ensuring effective outcomes are also considered. The volume presents some insightful empirical studies of the decentralization process from Latin America, Eastern Europe, and Africa. With a detailed empirical analysis of effective outcomes of public policies implemented at the sub-national level, and a focus on method, this book will be of great interest to academics specializing in public sector economics and public finance, and to national and international policymakers.
A Brookings Institution Press and Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation publication The trend toward greater decentralization of governance activities, now accepted as commonplace in the West, has become a worldwide movement. This international development—largely a product of globalization and democratization—is clearly one of the key factors reshaping economic, political, and social conditions throughout the world. Rather than the top-down, centralized decisionmaking that characterized communist economies and Third World dictatorships in the twentieth century, today's world demands flexibility, adaptability, and the autonomy to bring those qualities to bear. In this thought-provoking book, the first in a new series on Innovations in Governance, experts in government and public management trace the evolution and performance of decentralization concepts, from the transfer of authority within government to the sharing of power, authority, and responsibilities among broader governance institutions. This movement is not limited to national government—it also affects subnational governments, NGOs, private corporations, and even civil associations. The contributors assess the emerging concepts of decentralization (e.g., devolution, empowerment, capacity building, and democratic governance). They detail the factors driving the movement, including political changes such as the fall of the Iron Curtain and the ascendance of democracy; economic factors such as globalization and outsourcing; and technological advances (e.g. increased information technology and electronic commerce). Their analysis covers many different contexts and regions. For example, William Ascher of Claremont McKenna College chronicles how decentralization concepts are playing out in natural resources policy, while Kadmeil Wekwete (United Nations) outlines the specific challenges to decentralizing governance in sub-Saharan Africa. In each case, contributors explore the objectives of a decentralizing strategy as well as the benefits and difficulties that will likely result.
Is sewer-based wastewater treatment really the optimal technical solution in urban water management? This paradigm is increasingly being questioned. Growing water scarcity and the insight that water will be an important limiting factor for the quality of urban life are main drivers for new approaches in wastewater management. Source Separation and Decentralization for Wastewater Management sets up a comprehensive view of the resources involved in urban water management. It explores the potential of source separation and decentralization to provide viable alternatives to sewer-based urban water management. During the 1990s, several research groups started working on source-separating technologies for wastewater treatment. Source separation was not new, but had only been propagated as a cheap and environmentally friendly technology for the poor. The novelty was the discussion whether source separation could be a sustainable alternative to existing end-of-pipe systems, even in urban areas and industrialized countries. Since then, sustainable resource management and many different source-separating technologies have been investigated. The theoretical framework and also possible technologies have now developed to a more mature state. At the same time, many interesting technologies to process combined or concentrated wastewaters have evolved, which are equally suited for the treatment of source-separated domestic wastewater. The book presents a comprehensive view of the state of the art of source separation and decentralization. It discusses the technical possibilities and practical experience with source separation in different countries around the world. The area is in rapid development, but many of the fundamental insights presented in this book will stay valid. Source Separation and Decentralization for Wastewater Management is intended for all professionals and researchers interested in wastewater management, whether or not they are familiar with source separation. Editors: Tove A. Larsen, Kai M. Udert and Judit Lienert, Eawag - Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Switzerland. Contributors: Yuval Alfiya, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering; Prof. Dr. M. Bruce Beck, University of Georgia, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources; Dr. Christian Binz, Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Innovation Research in Utility Sectors (Cirus); Prof. em. Dr. Markus Boller, Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Department of Urban Water Management (SWW); Prof. Dr. Eran Friedler, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering; Zenah Bradford-Hartke, The University of New South Wales, School of Chemical Engineering and UNESCO Centre for Membrane Science and Technology; Dr. Shelley Brown-Malker, Very Small Particle Company Ltd; Bert Bundervoet, Ghent University, Laboratory Microbial Ecology and Technology (LabMET); Prof. Dr. David Butler, University of Exeter, Centre for Water Systems; Dr. Christopher A. Buzie, Hamburg University of Technology, Institute of Wastewater Management and Water Protection; Dr. Dana Cordell, University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF); Dr. Vasileios Diamantis, Democritus University of Thrace, Department of Environmental Engineering; Prof. Dr. Jan Willem Erisman, Louis Bolk Institute; VU University Amsterdam, Department of Earth Sciences; Barbara Evans, University of Leeds, School of Civil Engineering; Prof. Dr. Malin Falkenmark, Stockholm International Water Institute; Dr. Ted Gardner, Central Queensland University, Institute for Resource Industries and Sustainability; Dr. Heiko Gebauer, Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Innovation Research in Utility Sectors (Cirus); Prof. em. Dr. Willi Gujer, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich (ETHZ), Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering (BAUG); Prof. Dr. Bruce Jefferson, Cranfield University, Cranfield Water Science Institute; Prof. Dr. Paul Jeffrey, Cranfield University, Cranfield Water Science Institute; Sarina Jenni, Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Process Engineering Department (Eng); Prof. Dr. Håkan Jönsson, SLU - Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Energy and Technology; Prof. Dr. Ïsik Kabdasli, Ïstanbul Technical University, Civil Engineering Faculty; Prof. Dr. Jörg Keller, The University of Queensland, Advanced Water Management Centre (AWMC); Prof. Dr. Klaus Kömmerer, Leuphana Universität Lüneburg, Institute of Sustainable and Environmental Chemistry; Dr. Katarzyna Kujawa-Roeleveld, Wageningen University, Agrotechnology and Food Sciences Group; Dr. Tove A. Larsen, Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Department of Urban Water Management (SWW); Michele Laureni, Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Process Engineering Department (Eng); Prof. Dr. Gregory Leslie, The University of New South Wales, School of Chemical Engineering and UNESCO Centre for Membrane Science and Technology; Dr. Harold Leverenz, University of California at Davis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering; Dr. Judit Lienert, Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Department of Environmental Social Sciences (ESS); Prof. Dr. Jürg Londong, Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Department of Urban Water Management and Sanitation; Dr. Christoph Lüthi, Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries (Sandec); Prof. Dr. Max Maurer, Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Department of Urban Water Management (SWW); Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich (ETHZ), Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering; Prof. em. Dr. Gustaf Olsson, Lund University, Department of Measurement Technology and Industrial Electrical Engineering (MIE); Prof. Dr. Ralf Otterpohl, Hamburg University of Technology, Institute of Wastewater Management and Water Protection; Dr. Bert Palsma, STOWA, Dutch Foundation for Applied Water Research; Dr. Arne R. Panesar, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH; Prof. Dr. Bruce E. Rittmann, Arizona State University, Swette Center for Environmental Biotechnology; Prof. Dr. Hansruedi Siegrist, Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Process Engineering Department (Eng); Dr. Ashok Sharma, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia, Land and Water Division; Prof. Dr. Thor Axel Stenström, Stockholm Environment Institute, Bioresources Group; Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Department of Mathematical Science and Technology; Dr. Eckhard Störmer, Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Innovation Research in Utility Sectors (Cirus); Bjartur Swart, STOWA, Dutch Foundation for Applied Water Research; MWH North Europe; Prof. em. Dr. George Tchobanoglous, University of California at Davis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering; Elizabeth Tilley, Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Department of Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries (Sandec); Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich (ETHZ), Centre for Development and Cooperation (NADEL); Prof. Dr. Bernhard Truffer, Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology; Innovation Research in Utility Sectors (Cirus); Prof. Dr. Olcay Tünay, Ïstanbul Technical University, Civil Engineering Faculty; Dr. Kai M. Udert, Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Process Engineering Department (Eng); Prof. em. Dr. Willy Verstraete, Ghent University, Laboratory Microbial Ecology and Technology (LabMET); Prof. Dr. Björn Vinnerås, SLU - Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Energy and Technology; Prof. Dr. Urs von Gunten, Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Department of Water Resources and Drinking Water (W+T); Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL),School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental Engineering (ENAC); Prof. em. Dr. Peter A. Wilderer, Technische Universität München, Institute for Advanced Study; Prof. Dr. Jun Xia, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Center for Water Resources Research and Key Laboratory of Water Cycle and Related Surface Processes; Prof. Dr. Grietje Zeeman, Wageningen University, Agrotechnology and Food Sciences Group
Greater fiscal decentralization is consistently associated with lower mortality rates. And its positive effects on infant mortality are greater in institutional environments that promote political rights.
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.
Liberation Technology brings together cutting-edge scholarship from scholars and practitioners at the forefront of this burgeoning field of study. An introductory section defines the debate with a foundational piece on liberation technology and is then followed by essays discussing the popular dichotomy of liberation'' versus "control" with regard to the Internet and the sociopolitical dimensions of such controls. Additional chapters delve into the cases of individual countries: China, Egypt, Iran, and Tunisia.
