Health sector decentralisation in Tanzania: How do institutional capacities influence use of decision space?

This study reviews the experience of decentralization in four developing countries: Ghana, Uganda, Zambia and the Philippines. It uses two analytical frameworks to describe and compare the types and degrees of decentralization in each country. The first framework specifies three types of decentralization: deconcentration, delegation and devolution. The second framework uses a principal agent approach and innovative maps of 'decision space' to define the range of choice for different functions that is transferred from the centre to the periphery of the system. The analysis finds a variety of different types and degrees of decentralization, with the Philippines demonstrating the widest range of choice over many functions that were devolved to local government units. The least choice was transferred through delegation to an autonomous health service in Ghana. Uganda and Zambia display variations between these extremes. There was insufficient evidence of the impact of decentralization to assess how these differences in 'decision space' influenced the performance of each health system. The authors suggest that this is a major area for future research. Show more

Decentralization has long been advocated as a desirable process for improving health systems. Nevertheless, we still lack a sufficient analytical framework for systematically studying how decentralization can achieve this objective. We do not have adequate means of analyzing the three key elements of decentralization: (1) the amount of choice that is transferred from central institutions to institutions at the periphery of health systems, (2) what choices local officials make with their increased discretion and (3) what effect these choices have on the performance of the health system. This article proposes a framework of analysis that can be used to design and evaluate the decentralization of health systems. It starts from the assumption that decentralization is not an end in itself but rather should be designed and evaluated for its ability to achieve broader objectives of health reform: equity, efficiency, quality and financial soundness. Using a "principal agent" approach as the basic framework, but incorporating insights from public administration, local public choice and social capital approaches, the article presents a decision space approach which defines decentralization in terms of the set of functions and degrees of choice that formally are transferred to local officials. The approach also evaluates the incentives that central government can offer to local decision-makers to encourage them to achieve health objectives. It evaluates the local government characteristics that also influence decision-making and implementation at the local level. Then it determines whether local officials innovate by making choices that are different from those directed by central authorities. Finally, it evaluates whether the local choices have improved the performance of the local health system in achieving the broader health objectives. Examples from Colombia are used to illustrate the approach. The framework will be used to analyze the experience of decentralization in a series of empirical studies in Latin America. The results of these studies should suggest policy recommendations for adjusting decision space and incentives so that localities make decisions that achieve the objectives of health reform. Show more

Health sector decentralization has been widely adopted to improve delivery of health services. While many argue that institutional capacities and mechanisms of accountability required to transform decentralized decision-making into improvements in local health systems are lacking, few empirical studies exist which measure or relate together these concepts. Based on research instruments administered to a sample of 91 health sector decision-makers in 17 districts of Pakistan, this study analyzes relationships between three dimensions of decentralization: decentralized authority (referred to as "decision space"), institutional capacities, and accountability to local officials. Composite quantitative indicators of these three dimensions were constructed within four broad health functions (strategic and operational planning, budgeting, human resources management, and service organization/delivery) and on an overall/cross-function basis. Three main findings emerged. First, district-level respondents report varying degrees of each dimension despite being under a single decentralization regime and facing similar rules across provinces. Second, within dimensions of decentralization-particularly decision space and capacities-synergies exist between levels reported by respondents in one function and those reported in other functions (statistically significant coefficients of correlation ranging from ρ=0.22 to ρ=0.43). Third, synergies exist across dimensions of decentralization, particularly in terms of an overall indicator of institutional capacities (significantly correlated with both overall decision space (ρ=0.39) and accountability (ρ=0.23)). This study demonstrates that decentralization is a varied experience-with some district-level officials making greater use of decision space than others and that those who do so also tend to have more capacity to make decisions and are held more accountable to elected local officials for such choices. These findings suggest that Pakistan's decentralization policy should focus on synergies among dimensions of decentralization to encouraging more use of de jure decision space, work toward more uniform institutional capacity, and encourage greater accountability to local elected officials. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show more