2009
DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-3739-8_1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Local Governance and Local Development in Latin America: Views from Above and Below

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There is ample debate in the specialised literature regarding the negative effects of decentralisation (i.e., Montecinos, 2005;Prud'Homme, 1995), as well as the factors which could explain the success of the "decentralising promise" (Finot, 2001) of greater economic efficiency, more effective services and policies which are also more appropriate for each territory, better accountability, among other elements where the assumption of "governmental proximity" would contribute to territorial development (Grindle, 2007). Lindert and Verkoren (2010), for instance, underline the big differences between urban centres which have been able to benefit from decentralisation for their territorial development (Bogotá, Monterrey, Montevideo, Buenos Aires, and Curitiba, among others), and peripheral and rural territories, emphasising the institutional and administrative capacities of municipalities as necessary conditions for seizing the benefits of decentralisation. This enables municipalities to better manage health services, education, urban services, social protection systems, investment projects, and an increasing number of services aimed at citizens, all this in a context of a higher demand for local democracy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is ample debate in the specialised literature regarding the negative effects of decentralisation (i.e., Montecinos, 2005;Prud'Homme, 1995), as well as the factors which could explain the success of the "decentralising promise" (Finot, 2001) of greater economic efficiency, more effective services and policies which are also more appropriate for each territory, better accountability, among other elements where the assumption of "governmental proximity" would contribute to territorial development (Grindle, 2007). Lindert and Verkoren (2010), for instance, underline the big differences between urban centres which have been able to benefit from decentralisation for their territorial development (Bogotá, Monterrey, Montevideo, Buenos Aires, and Curitiba, among others), and peripheral and rural territories, emphasising the institutional and administrative capacities of municipalities as necessary conditions for seizing the benefits of decentralisation. This enables municipalities to better manage health services, education, urban services, social protection systems, investment projects, and an increasing number of services aimed at citizens, all this in a context of a higher demand for local democracy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Implicitly, however, this raises the question as to how such local needs and preferences are to be identified (Osmani, 2000). The current decentralisation proponents insist on that ‘the only feasible way is to have an inclusive process of local governance through which each segment of the population can express and fight over their preferences’ (Lindert & Verkoren, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is held to be the key agent both with respect to local sustainability and to the eradication of poverty. The poverty reduction strategy papers of the most indebted countries, for example, generally include a strategic focus on local government, which is to become the main facilitator for the effective provision of social services and the creation of a productive environment’ (Lindert & Verkoren, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation