Pro-poor targeting and accountability of local governments in West Bengal

By P. Bardhan, Dilip Mookherjee. 2006

334 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/17992f3b6adee1a75b7f941779030afa031df381

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Political Science and International Relations

Citations in the corpus

Decentralization and access to social services in Colombia (2009, positive): “Bardhan and Mookherjee (2006) test for elite capture in”
Who is Vouching for the Input Voucher? Decentralized Targeting and Elite Capture in Tanzania (2011, positive): “Several factors have been advanced to explain the likelihood of elite capture in different contexts, including political factors such as the local power structure (Bardhan and Mookherjee, 2006) and levels of awareness (Bardhan and Mookherjee, 2000), economic factors such as income level and poverty ”
Decentralization, Corruption And Government Accountability: An Overview (2005, background): “As Qian and Weingast, (1997), Bardhan (2002) and Bardhan and Mookherjee (2005, 2006) argue, the new `second generation’ literature on federalism focuses on the accountability and incentives of government officials, in contrast to the traditional literature on fiscal federalism which stressed the…”
Distributive Politics Around the World (2013, methodology): “An extension of the Grossman & Helman framework particularly pertinent to our purposes is found in a set of interrelated papers by Bardhan & Mookherjee (2000, 2005, 2006a).”
Clientelism in Indian Villages (2015, background): “Other work of theirs, Bardhan and Mookherjee (2000, 2005, 2006), analyses whether a move toward decentralized governance in India has been effective in delivering government services and poverty alleviation schemes to the poor.”
School decentralization: Helping the good get better, but leaving the poor behind (2008, background): “…the effect of decentralization on service provision efficiency covers collective decision making (Lockwood 2002, Besley and Coate 2003), corruption (Bardhan and Mookherjee 2005, 2006a, and 2006b), accountability (Besley and Ghatak 2003, Reinikka and Svensson 2004), and competition (Urquiola 2005).”