This review essay is the third of three about comparative urban social policy in poor nations. It is selective in scope and confined to policy in the realms of health, education, and housing. The paper aims to identify key literatures that might interest urbanists in general, and urban geographers, planners, and policy analysts in particular. The first essay outlined emerging issues in the social policy circles of poor countries (Scarpaci, 1993). A second paper that identified strategies and trends in the Third World metropolis followed . This final review aims to bring some closure to this series by identifying novel approaches to method and theory that appeared in the literature of the mid-1990s.
DECENTRALIZATION AND THE LOCAL STATE: RESOURCES FOR SOCIAL SERVICESThe municipalities of low-and middle-income countries of the developing realm have been drawn into the decentralization fervor of the 1990s. While centralized governments instigated important centripetal forces in uniting newly decolonized states in the 19th and 262 URBAN SOCIAL POLICY IN POOR COUNTRIES 263 20th centuries, contemporary urbanization brings new salience to municipal governments. Most Latin American, African, and Asian metropolitan areas depend on national expenditures and parliamentary approval to fill local coffers. Repeating the states' rights debate that raged in the United States in the 1980s, international and multilateral lending agencies encourage developing nations to both privatize and decentralize social programs. A conundrum results when metropolitan governments cannot legally raise revenues through taxation or by floating bonds without first securing approval from the national government (Scarpaci and Irarrázaval, 1994). One public-opinion poll in Chile found that 62% of those interviewed believed that municipal governments-the "close visible face" of the state apparatus-were the institutions best able to solve local problems. Unfortunately, municipal governments in Chile manage budgets only 10% the size of the national budget, creating tensions among layers of government (Irarrázaval, 1996). Latin American social unrest likely has less to do with matters of governability than reactions to governance systems. As Rodriguez and Winchester (1996) show, too much attention by Latin American municipal governments in attracting manufacturing employment (longterm goals) in the "globalization" frenzy may obfuscate the peoples' needs for health care, education, and housing (short-term policy goals). While the worst of the debt crisis in Latin America may be over, their governments are loath to "[tell] that to the poor in most cities of Latin America" (Gilbert, 1995, p. 323).