GOLD Report I - UCLG

87V. ConclusionIn considering the impact of decentralizationand democratic local governance on servicedelivery, citizen voice, accountability andpoverty reduction, it is important to bear inmind that, while some countries in the Asia-Pacific region have undergone significantdecentralization of government functions(notably Indonesia, Philippines and somestates in India, as well as some sectors inChina, and to a lesser extent, Korea, Thailandand Vietnam), in other countries therehave been more modest reforms to the existingsystem of local government (Australia,Japan – but significant on local financesystem – and New Zealand). Decentralizationand local governance alsoshow widely differing degrees of local democraticcontrol and accountability across theregion. As such, it is difficult to make generalizationsabout such a wide range of experience,especially where decentralization is acomparatively recent phenomenon in comparisonto other parts of the world. Nevertheless,two broad conclusions can be madeabout the impact of decentralization andlocal democratic reform in the region.First, in terms of the impact of democraticdecentralization on service delivery, thereis a degree of support from within theregion (e.g. Indonesia, Korea, Philippinesand some Indian states) for the positiveview that service performance improveswhen elections are introduced for localdecision-makers, who are then obliged tobecome more responsive and accountableto local citizens. Decentralization should inprinciple open up political space for citizenparticipation and voice, and so create thepotential for greater accountability of decisionmakers. In India, Indonesia, Pakistanand the Philippines, decentralization has indeedgreatly increased the number of electedpositions, thereby increasing the scope fordemocratic accountability. But traditions ofpatron-client relationships between localelites and citizens, which are strong inmany countries in the region, can seriouslyundermine local democratic accountability.Decentralization can open the door for‘money politics,’ as is the case in Indonesia,where it is often money rather thanaccountability that counts (Hofman andKaiser 2006). In China and Vietnam, localdemocratic choice of community leaders isbeginning to be implemented at the villagelevel, and citizens are increasingly willingto challenge and demand accountabilityfrom local officials. In Malaysia, wherethere is no direct line of accountabilitybecause local government councilors areappointed not elected, nevertheless strikinginnovations in terms of greater publicaccess to information are under way thatare intended to enhance local accountability.In many countries, particularly in thePhilippines and some Indian states, localcivil society organizations are increasinglyready to use that information to demandaccountability. Meanwhile, in countrieswith well-established local administrativesystems, such as Australia, Japan andNew Zealand, much effort over the pasttwo decades has gone into improving themanagement and efficiency of local servicedelivery, including the adoption of performancemanagement and facilitation ofcitizen access to information through e-governance initiatives. These should havehad a positive impact on local service deliveryoutcomes.Second, the available data is insufficient todraw any firm conclusions yet with regardto the impact of decentralization on povertyreduction. In principle, in combination withan effective and equitable resource distributionsystem, decentralization shouldspread the benefits of growth around morewidely and so help to reduce poverty. Onthe other hand, without such an equitablesystem for resource distribution decentralizationcan lead to an increase in interregionalinequality. This is typified by Chinawhere economic reform generally, includingeconomic decentralization, has greatlyincreased living standards and substantiallyreduced the numbers living in absolutepoverty but at the same time has substantiallyincreased inter-personal and inter-Decentralizationand localgovernance alsoshow widelydiffering degreesof local democraticcontrol andaccountabilityacross the region