Decentralisation and Poverty-Alleviation in Developing Countries : A Comparative Analysis or, is West Bengal Unique?

By R. Crook, A. Sverrisson. 2001

314 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/aa49c0a9847650b0a025f9f134f9039c7d678a7c

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Decentralization of forest administration in Indonesia: implications for forest sustainability, economic development and community livelihoods (2006, background): “Indeed, the empirical literature on decentralization suggests that a supportive and well-functioning central government is often a critical element in determining whether decentralization initiatives lead to successful outcomes (Conyers 2000, cited in Ribot 2002; Crook and Sverrisson 2001).”
Decentralization and efficiency of local government (2010, background): “On the other hand, opponents of decentralization, such as Crook and Sverrisson (2001) and Smith (1985), argue that power should remain in the hands of central governments, since local authorities’ lack of human, financial and technical resources would prevent them from providing appropriate public…”
Decentralisation and poverty reduction in Africa: the politics of local–central relations (2003, methodology): “…decentralisation is associated with a programme of radical agrarian reform, which over a period of more than 20 years has produced significant benefits for the poor in terms of participation, growth of agricultural production and human development (Webster, 2000; Crook and Sverrisson, 2001).”
Increasing the contribution of small-scale fisheries to poverty alleviation and food security (2007, background): “Experience suggests, however, that reducing the capacities of the governmental agencies as part of decentralization reforms is a recipe for disaster (Ribot, 2003; Crook and Sverrisson, 2001; Manor 1999).”
Decentralisation and forest management in Latin America: towards a working model (2003, background): “The efficiency and equity benefits derive from the democratic processes that encourage representative and accountable local authorities to serve the needs of their constituents (Smoke, 1990; Crook and Sverrisson, 2001; Ribot, 2002).”
Introduction: Institutional Choice and Recognition in the Formation and Consolidation of Local Democracy (2008, background): “, while elected local governments often marginalise the poor, women, indigenous peoples and lower castes (Crook & Manor 1998; Crook & Sverrisson 2001; Agrawal & Gupta 2005).”
Right Target, Wrong Mechanism? Agricultural Modernization and Poverty Reduction in Uganda (2005, unknown): “(Crook and Sverrisson, 2001: 48).”
Does Decentralisation Improve Equity and Efficiency in Public Service Delivery Provision (2007, background): “It is widely accepted that political commitment on the part of federal or state governments is a sine qua non of effective democratic decentralisation, and especially forms of decentralisation that are specifically geared to the interests of the poor (Crook and Sverrisson 2001; Blair 2000).”
On the ‘economic dividend’ of devolution (2005, background): “…Left Front party or implicitly – the incentive for subnational govern-involved village councils in the construction and implements to exercise due discretion in spending decisionsmentation of pro-poor initiatives for the first time is compromised, since they can be confident of not(C and S , 2000).”