Institutional arrangements to make public spending responsive to the poor—(where) have they worked? Review of the evidence on four major intervention types

Vista sencilla de ítem
dc.creatorMogues, Tewodaj
dc.creatorErman, Alvina
dc.date2016-04-06
dc.date2024-06-21T09:23:27Z
dc.date2024-06-21T09:23:27Z
dc.date.accessioned2026-06-27T15:29:44Z
dc.descriptionThere has been some recognition in the development community that building technical capacity of public service providers and increasing resources is not enough to bring about development outcomes. Researchers and practitioners are increasingly appreciating that accounting for the stated needs of communities supports the process of pro-poor public resource allocation. We examine four institutional arrangements that explicitly endeavor to make public spending responsive to the needs of the poor by moving decision-making procedures closer to the population—participatory budgeting, community-driven development (CDD) programs, decentralization, and delegated targeting of transfers. Using the existing literature, we compare experiences across the four arrangements and countries. Regarding responsiveness to needs of the poor, evidence is cautiously optimistic for participatory budgeting, CDD, and decentralization. As for delegating the targeting of transfers to subnational authorities and communities, evidence suggests that the effect may be regressive. However, there are important mediating effects of public spending responsiveness under the various institutional arrangements. Local elite capture is a key factor dampening pro-poor spending where either exogenous circumstances such as prevailing inequality, or inadequate program design, enable capture to materialize. Politics is an important determinant of the success of these arrangements.
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.identifierhttps://hdl.handle.net/10568/147884
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/123456789/106123
dc.languageen
dc.publisherInternational Food Policy Research Institute
dc.relationhttps://hdl.handle.net/10568/150395
dc.relationhttps://hdl.handle.net/10568/150109
dc.relationhttps://hdl.handle.net/10568/150071
dc.relationhttps://doi.org/10.1111/saje.12076
dc.relationhttps://cn.ifpri.org/archives/4614
dc.rightsOpen Access
dc.sourceMogues, Tewodaj and Erman, Alvina. 2016. Institutional arrangements to make public spending responsive to the poor—(where) have they worked? Review of the evidence on four major intervention types. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1519. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). https://hdl.handle.net/10568/147884
dc.subjectcommunity development
dc.subjectrural communities
dc.subjectpoverty alleviation
dc.subjecthousehold expenditure
dc.subjecthouseholds
dc.subjectdecentralization
dc.subjectbudgets
dc.subjectpoverty
dc.subjectpublic expenditure
dc.titleInstitutional arrangements to make public spending responsive to the poor—(where) have they worked? Review of the evidence on four major intervention types
dc.typeWorking Paper

Archivos

Colecciones

Instituto Internacional de Investigación sobre Políticas Alimentarias (IFPRI)