2010年-世界发展银行全球_Peru___The_Decentralization_Process_and_its_Links_with_Public_Expenditure_Efficiency_115页_1mb

Summary of the Report: The Decentralization Process and Its Links with Public Expenditure Efficiency in Peru

Core Content

This report examines the decentralization process in Peru, focusing on its institutional design, the assignment of responsibilities and revenues, and the efficiency of public expenditure. It highlights the challenges and unintended consequences of this process, particularly in relation to public spending patterns and regional disparities.

Main Goals and Principles

• Decentralization Goals: To improve public services, reduce regional disparities, and promote institutional efficiency.
• Key Principles:
  • Fiscal Neutrality: Ensuring that increases in sub-national spending are offset by reductions at the central level.
  • Gradualism: A phased approach to decentralization, starting with political and administrative decentralization before fiscal decentralization.
  • Institutional Capacity Building: Developing the ability of sub-national governments to manage their responsibilities effectively.

Main Viewpoints

• The decentralization process in Peru has been in its early stages and faces significant challenges.
• Political economy incentives, such as the fear of losing positions, have influenced the decentralization path, particularly in the context of the failed 2005 referendum on macro-regions.
• The canon (a share of natural resource revenues) has had unintended consequences, including increased regional and vertical disparities and inefficiencies in public expenditure.
• The National Decentralization Council (CND) and the National Council of Decentralization have been key institutional actors, but their elimination has created a vacuum for intergovernmental dialogue.
• The Integrated Public Financial System (SIAF) and the Results-Based Budgeting (RBB) have provided new data for analyzing public spending and its efficiency across different levels of government.

Key Information

1. Institutional Framework

• Decentralization Law (LBD): Passed in 2002, it outlines the legal basis for decentralization, including the creation of regional and local governments.
• Organic Laws: These define the structure and responsibilities of regional and municipal governments.
• Fiscal Decentralization Law: Designed to share national tax revenues with sub-national governments, but its implementation has been delayed due to the failure of referenda.

2. Levels of Government

• Regional Governments: Established in all departments in 2002, but the formation of macro-regions has been stalled.
• Local Governments: Municipalities have been assigned a range of responsibilities, but their capacity to manage these is limited.
• National Government: Maintains control over many fiscal and administrative functions, including the distribution of natural resource revenues.

3. Transfer of Functions

• A total of 11 major laws were enacted between 2002 and 2004 to guide the transfer of functions.
• Functions were to be transferred gradually based on the accreditation of regional and local governments.
• Despite these plans, the transfer of functions has occurred, but the fiscal decentralization remains pending.

4. Public Expenditure

• Decentralized vs. Deconcentrated Spending: Decentralized spending refers to sub-national governments having discretion over funds, while deconcentrated spending is managed by central government officials on behalf of sub-national entities.
• The SIAF provides data on public expenditure across all levels of government.
• Per Capita Expenditure: The report uses this metric to assess regional disparities, showing that richer regions receive more public spending.

5. The Canon

• A canon is a share of natural resource revenues distributed to sub-national governments.
• The canon has:
  • Exacerbated regional disparities.
  • Created vertical asymmetries, with local governments receiving a disproportionately higher share than regional ones.
  • Not improved public expenditure efficiency, as it encourages short-term investment and ignores long-term sustainability.

6. Efficiency of Public Expenditure

• The report introduces a novel analysis of public sector efficiency using Data Envelope Analysis (DEA) and Ordinary Least Squares (OLS).
• It finds that public spending efficiency varies across departments and that the canon has distorted the balance of responsibilities and resources.

Challenges Identified

Challenge #1: Institutional Design Overwhelmed by Messy Realities

• The legal framework for decentralization was comprehensive but not fully implemented due to institutional capacity constraints.
• The National Decentralization Council identified these constraints early on, but capacity building efforts have been limited.
• The "por potencial" accreditation modality allows for the transfer of functions without full capacity, leading to incomplete decentralization.

Challenge #2: Unintended Consequences of the Canon

• The canon has increased regional and vertical disparities.
• It has led to inefficient fiscal relations between levels of government.
• It has promoted short-term investment and electoral incentives to spend quickly, undermining long-term planning and sustainability.

Challenge #3: Increasing Public Spending Efficiency

• There is a need to improve the efficiency of public expenditure at all levels of government.
• The Results-Based Budgeting (RBB) and public expenditure data provide a basis for evaluating efficiency.
• The canon has made it difficult to assess the true impact of decentralization on public service delivery.

Key Recommendations

• The World Bank and other stakeholders should focus on creating spaces for inclusive dialogue between the central and sub-national governments.
• Reforms to the canon and other revenue-sharing mechanisms are necessary to address horizontal and vertical asymmetries.
• Capacity building and institutional development are essential for the effective implementation of decentralization.

Conclusion

The decentralization process in Peru has been complex and faces several challenges, including institutional capacity constraints, unintended consequences of the canon, and inefficiencies in public expenditure. While the process has made some progress, particularly in the transfer of functions, it has not yet achieved the goals of reducing regional disparities and improving public service delivery. A more coordinated and inclusive approach is needed to ensure that the decentralization process is both effective and equitable.