2006年-世界发展银行全球_Decentralizing_Infrastructure_Services___Lessons_from_the_East_Asia_Experience_4页_281kb

报告摘要

Decentralizing Infrastructure Services: Lessons from the East Asia Experience

Core Content

This document analyzes the experiences of China, Indonesia, and the Philippines in decentralizing infrastructure services since the 1990s. It explores the theoretical and practical implications of decentralization, focusing on regional coordination and accountability mechanisms as critical factors for success.

Decentralization refers to the transfer of responsibilities from the central government to subnational agencies, which are expected to deliver services more efficiently and effectively. While decentralization can improve allocative efficiency (tailoring services to local needs) and productive efficiency (lower costs), its benefits are not guaranteed without proper coordination and accountability structures.

Main Views

1. Decentralization Approaches

China maintains a highly centralized system for setting investment priorities, but subnational governments have full autonomy in executing projects, operating facilities, and planning urban development.
Indonesia and the Philippines have adopted a "Big Bang" approach, transferring almost all infrastructure responsibilities to subnational governments in a short period.
In both Indonesia and the Philippines, middle-tier governments (provinces in Indonesia, provinces in the Philippines) have been weakened, leading to a "missing middle" in the governance structure.

2. Regional Coordination Challenges

Economies of scale and spillover benefits require regional coordination, which is often lacking in the Philippines and Indonesia.
In the Philippines, the lack of coordination has resulted in inefficient secondary road maintenance, with only 21% of provincial roads paved in 2000.
In Indonesia, the multiplicity of transport licenses across different levels of government has created regulatory fragmentation and trade distortions.
China has made progress in regional coordination through initiatives like the Pan-PRD Regional Cooperation and Development Area, which aims to manage shared infrastructure projects.

3. Accountability Mechanisms

China emphasizes upward accountability to the central government, with performance targets driving investment. However, this often comes at the expense of downward accountability to local populations.
Indonesia and the Philippines have struggled with both upward and downward accountability, due to weak monitoring systems and short political terms for local officials.
In Indonesia, NGOs have played a role in monitoring water quality and coverage in pilot projects.
In the Philippines, Naga City has improved accountability by publishing procurement prices publicly.

Key Information

Decentralization is not inherently beneficial; it depends on coordination and accountability.
China's model is centralized in policy but decentralized in execution.
Indonesia and the Philippines have faced coordination gaps and weak institutional frameworks.
Middle-tier governments are essential for managing economies of scale and spillover benefits.
Civil society and public information can partially compensate for weak formal accountability mechanisms.

Conclusion

The success of decentralization in infrastructure depends on the establishment of regional coordination mechanisms and the balance between upward and downward accountability. While China's top-down model has driven investment, it has also limited local input. Indonesia and the Philippines, despite their democratic transitions, have not fully realized the promised benefits of decentralization due to institutional weaknesses and political constraints. However, innovative solutions and external scrutiny are emerging as tools to strengthen accountability in these contexts.