ASi" kUCTURE FlOR DEVELOPMENT

transport ministries in Africa is often more sensitive such as roads, bridges, and water supply systems. A
to technical-as opposed to service-considera- review shows that projects are executed at one-half
tions. This leads to excessive rural road width and to two-thirds the cost incurred by centralized agencost
and hence to fewer roads. Moreover, without -ces. Since 1990, the municipal fund program has
sufficient local commitment to the infrastructure spread to- all but two Mexican states (Box 4.1). Bethat
is supplied, investments are not maintained cause local governments are better placed to deterand
thus deteriorate rapidly Soon after COte mineandrespondtolocalpreferences, decentralizad'Ivoire
spent $115 million constructing 13,000 tion can increase user satisfaction, too.
water supply points, a survey found that barely half The group of countries undertaking decentralizaof
the handpumps involved wvere functioning-an tion reforms is expanding and is not limited to inexperience
all too common in the rural water sector. dustrial countries or to large developing countries
In most situations, infrastructure provides public Csuch as Brazil and India). A study using comparagoods
of a localized nature. Decentralized responsi- ble data from twenty industrial and developing
bility, in which government authority is moved to countries found that decentralized expenditures acsubnational
levels of government, offers an oppor- counted for one-half of infrastructure spending in
tunity to improve the provision of such goods. Pro- industrial countries and one-quarter in developing
vision of local, and to some extent even national, countries. While local expenditure has always been
public goods can be more effective when participa- common in somne sectors, such as solid waste distion
provides -a voice for infrastructure users and posal by municipal authorities, the scope for decenstakeholders.
tralized control extends to other sectors, such as
roads and water, especially when responsibility for
Decentralization
various activities can be divided among nationaL regional
(provincial), and local authorities.
Mexican experience with a municipal fund program
reveals the potential for improving service delivery )DEcENTALZATIoN IN ROADS. Since roads in a city
by decentralizing govemment authority to indepen- or rural region chiefly benefit local residents, while
dent subnational govemments. Funds are made the benefits of primary highway networks are more
available to local governments for projects that are broadly spread, decentralization of responsibility for
-chosen, planned, and executed by local communi- local roads is quite naturaL Decentralization should
ties. Many of the- projects involve infrastructure,. indude implementation of maintenance and aLso fi-
Box 4.1- Mexico's'mwuicipios help themselves
Until 1990, Mexico's experience with rural infrastructure Execution is usually managed by community commitwas
typical of that in many other countries trying to pro- tees (Comftes de SalfMarkWf, which. hire and supervise
mote rural developmenL Projects managed by.state and local skdled workers and purchase materials. Communifedieral
agvenies were oft-en poorly, selected and de- ties must also contribute a minimumn of 20 percent of
signed and were implemented with hinadequate supervi- costs (usually in the form of unskilled labor and local
-Sion. Furthermore, there was no conunitinent Lo ongoing materials), which helps to- ensure that only projects Of
operations and mainteniance by the agencies, local juis xlcl priorityr are selected. Studies have found that mudictions
(mutnici pis), or conmuntuities. As a result, eqxpe- nicipal fund projecs often cost one-half to two-thirds as
tations often outstripped perfonnmncea
much as similar projects managed.by state or federal
Many -of Mexico's priority projects are relatively aecs.In Mexico this success mnay be explained in
simal and located in inaccessible places. Yet the munici- part by the presence of skilled workers in many comimu-
*pal fuind.program, introduced in 1990, demonstrated nities and a tmditionof volunteer community labor.
that a localfly managed grant fund can becoDme a success- Currently operating in all but two of Mexico's thiirtyful
alternative for managing rural investmnent in teduni- one states, the* programnhas financed approximately
* cally simple hinfrastructure scasmllwtrupy 7,00projects over the past four years at an avenige
systemns, rural roads and bridges, and school buildings. cost ofi511,000 each. Mexico's four poorest states have
The unicpalfund program requires commumity received 532.5 millon in municipalfnsa vrg
participation in project selection and execution. Every investment of 58prcapita,
year each mrunkcipio receives an allocation to finance prcj-. rntnzidpios
pedars 5 ua
ects selected with the participation of its communitiem
74