Decentralizing antipoverty program delivery in developing countries

By P. Bardhan, Dilip Mookherjee. 2005

414 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/89b68e762c8569fca42debb94b019d217a83eb8d

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

Decentralized governance and environmental change: Local institutional moderation of deforestation in Bolivia (2007, background): “…structure under President Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management 1 See Bardhan (2002), Bardhan and Mookherjee (2005a), and Bardhan and Mookherjee (2005b) for a comprehensive summary of this debate.”
Decentralisation and Accountability in Infrastructure Delivery in Developing Countries (2006, neutral): “We examine the trade-off under three different financing arrangements: 6 The case of welfare services is somewhat different and is addressed in a separate paper (Bardhan and Mookherjee 2000b).”
Who is Vouching for the Input Voucher? Decentralized Targeting and Elite Capture in Tanzania (2011, neutral): “…X is a set of village level political, economic, social and program design factors explored in the literature as affecting targeting performance (Bardhan and Mookherjee, 2000; 2005; 2006; Galasso and Ravallion, 2005; Chavis, 2010; Park and Wang; 2010), TC is a constant and Tv is the error…”
The Impact of Intergovernmental Transfers on Education Outcomes and Poverty Reduction (2013, background): “For micro studies: see Chin (2005) and Banerjee et al. (2002) for evidence on India.”
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.”
Equity, efficiency and inequality traps: A research agenda (2007, background): “23 See Baland and Platteau [11, 12] on inequality and management of the commons, and Bardhan and Mookherjee [14, 15] on the general question of capture and decentralization.”
Does Elite Capture Matter? Local Elites and Targeted Welfare Programs in Indonesia (2019, background): “However, while elite capture exists, the welfare losses it creates appear small: since formal elites and their relatives are only 9 percent richer than non-elites, are at most about 8 percentage points more likely to receive benefits than non-elites, and represent at most”
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).”
Local Inequality and Project Choice: Theory and Evidence from Ecuador (2006, methodology): “This framework provides a simple alternative to the probabilistic voting model used, e.g., by Bardhan and Mookherjee (2005) , which is better suited to modeling the election of a local government than to the selection of project types.”
The disadvantaged incumbents: estimating incumbency effects in Indian state legislatures (2005, background): “Bardhan and Mookherjee (2000, 2005, 2006) further argue that the poorer sections of the society get captured by the local elites who want the policies disproportionately biased towards their preferences.”