September 1996 Generally, local maintenance of roads is more efficient than centrally controlled maintenance. For road construction, contracting procedures and competitive bidding are more important than issues of decentralization. Central governments should regulate safety and other network externalities. Humplick and Moini-Araghi empirically investigate how decentralization affects the efficiency of road provision from the viewpoint of the local goods provider and the road user. The theoretical model: a double-cost hidden level of effort. For accurate estimates, they found it important to include both user and provider concerns in determining the optimal level of decentralization. Using four different model specifications and three data sets, they find that 100-percent decentralization of maintenance functions (where there is no central regulation on quality standards) produces the most efficiency gains, as quality roads are provided at lower unit costs. There is little justification for central government to be involved in road maintenance. In fact, as Germany's example shows, uniform standards combined with decentralized maintenance remove the incentive to reduce costs and erode most of the efficiency gains from local maintenance. Maintenance is by definition a local activity and should reflect user preferences. Central governments should regulate safety and other network externalities by having a stake in the financing of road administration and in such functions as planning, policy setting, and regulation of safety and other network externalities. Central governments should finance no more than 10 percent of administrative costs. As for construction, it depends on the country. It may be better to ensure that contracting procedures in a country are efficient before suggesting the decentralized provision of roads. It is easier for local governments than for central governments to incorporate user preferences in their spending decisions. Similarly, determining where to make investments, deciding how to procure works, and monitoring the quality of construction and maintenance is often done more efficiently locally - except when local capacity to carry out road works is limited. The results point to the benefits of decentralized provision of roads, but many countries contract out maintenance and provision. In that case, it may not matter whether local competitive bidding is carried out by a central or local agency. This paper - a product of the Environment, Infrastructure, and Agriculture Division, Policy Research Department - is part of a larger study in the Agriculture and Natural Resources Department to develop a strategy for rural development. The study is funded jointly by the Norwegian and Swiss Special Studies Trust Funds and by the Bank's Research Support Budget, under research project Decentralization, Fiscal Systems, and Rural Development (RPO 679-68).

Generally, local maintena ...

In the past few decades, the field of transportation has changed dramatically. Deregulation and greater reliance on markets and the private sector has helped to reconfigure the transport industries, while the rise of intermodal goods and global commerce has produced efficiencies of operation and a greater interdependence among transport modes. In a

March 1998 Applying an index for the quality of governance reveals a surprisingly strong positive correlation between fiscal decentralization and quality of governance. Debates about the appropriate role, policies, and institutions of the state are often hampered by the lack of a definition for good government. To provide a quantifiable measure of good government, Huther and Shah develop an index for the quality of governance for a sample of 80 countries. They apply the index to the debate on the appropriate level of fiscal decentralization. In measuring the quality of governance, the authors develop indices for the government's ability to: * Ensure political transparency and a voice for all citizens (the citizen participation index measures political freedom and political stability). * Provide effective public services efficiently (the government orientation index measures judicial and bureaucratic efficiency and the absence of corruption). * Promote the health and well-being of its citizens (the social development index measures human development and equitable distribution of income). * Create a favorable climate for stable economic growth (the economic management index measures outward orientation, independence of the central bank, and an inverted debt-to-GDP ratio). In relating the index of governance quality to degree of fiscal decentralization for the 80 countries, Huther and Shah are not surprised to find a positive relationship between fiscal decentralization and quality of governance. But the strength of the correlation is surprising. This paper-a product of Country Evaluation and Regional Relations Division, Operations Evaluation Department-is part of a larger effort in the department to examine the role of the authorizing environment in public sector performance.

Annotation This report examines the impact of decentralization and its effect on the efficiency of public services, on equity, and on macroeconomic stability.