Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Fiscal Decentralization and Delivery of Public Services: Evidence from Education Sector in Pakistan Cover

Fiscal Decentralization and Delivery of Public Services: Evidence from Education Sector in Pakistan

Open Access
|Jun 2017

References

  1. Alderman, H. (1998). “Social Assistance in Albania: Decentralization and Targeted Transfers”. LSMS Working Paper no. 134, World Bank, Washington D.C.10.1596/0-8213-4245-2
  2. Azfar, O. and J. Livingston (2002). “Federalist Disciplines or Local Capture? An Empirical Analysis of Decentralization in Uganda.” IRIS, University of Maryland.
  3. Azfar, O., S. Kahkonen, and P. Meagher (2001). “Conditions for Effective Decentralised Governance: A Synthesis of Research Findings.” IRIS working paper # 256, University of Maryland.
  4. Azfar, O., S. Kahkonen, J. Livingston, P. Meagher, and D. Rutherford (2000). “Making Decentralization Work: An Empirical Investigation of Governance and Public Services in Uganda.” IRIS, University of Maryland.
  5. Azfar, O.,T. Gurgur, S. Kahkonen, A. Lanyi, and P. Meagher (2000). “Decentralization and Governance: An empirical investigation of public service delivery in the Philippines.” IRIS, University of Maryland.
  6. Bardhan, P. and D. Mookherjee, 1998, “Expenditure Decentralization and the Delivery of Public Services in Developing Countries”, CIDER Working Paper C98/104.
  7. Bardhan, P. and D. Mookherjee (2003). “Poverty Alleviation Effort of West Bengal Panchayats”.http://econ.bu.edu/dilipm/wkpap.htm/epwsumm.pdf
  8. Dickey, D. A. and W. A. Fuller, (1981), “Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root”, Econometrica, 49, 1057-1079.10.2307/1912517
  9. Enikolopov, R. and E. Zhuravskaya (2003). “Decentralization and Political Institutions.”http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/webfac/bardhan/e271_f03/oct6.pdf10.2139/ssrn.408060
  10. Eskeland, G. and D. Filmer (2002). “Autonomy, Participation, and Learning in Argentine Schools: Findings and Their Implications for Decentralization.” Policy Research Working Paper 2766. World Bank, Washington DC.
  11. Eskeland, G. and D. Filmer, 2000, “Does Decentralization Improve Learning? Autonomy and Parental Participation in Argentine Schools”, mimeo, World Bank.
  12. Estache, A. and S. Sinha (1995). “Does Decentralization Increase Spending on Public Infrastructure?” The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 1457.
  13. Faguet, J. and Paul G., 2001, “Does Decentralization Increase Government Responsiveness to Local Needs? Evidence from Bolivia”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2516.10.2139/ssrn.260579
  14. Faguet, J. P. (1997). “Decentralization and Local Government Performance.” World Bank/FAO/GTZ paper for the Technical Consultation on Decentralization, Rome.
  15. Faguet, J.P. (2001). “Does Decentralization Increase Responsiveness to Local Needs? Evidence from Bolivia.” Policy Research Working Paper #2516. World Bank, Washington DC.10.2139/ssrn.260579
  16. Gurgur, T. and A. Shah (2002). “Localization and Corruption: Panacea or Pandora’s Box?” In Ehtisham Ahmad and Vito Tanzi,veditors, Managing Fiscal Decentralization, pp. 46–67. Routledge Press, London and New York.
  17. Galasso, E. and M. Ravallion (2001). “Decentralised Targeting of an Anti-Poverty Program.” Development Research Group Working Paper. World Bank, Washington D.C.10.1596/1813-9450-2738
  18. Galasso, E. and M. Ravallion (1998). “Reaching Poor Areas in a Federal System.” Policy Research Working Paper #1901. World Bank, Washington DC.
  19. Habibi, N., C. Huang, D. Miranda, V. Murillo, G. Ranis, M. Sarkar, and F. Stewart (2001). “Decentralization in Argentina.” Economic Growth Center Discussion Paper 825, Yale University.
  20. Huther, J. and A. Shah (1998). “Applying a Simple Measure of Good Governance to the Debate on Fiscal Decentralization.” Policy Research Working Paper Number 1894. World Bank, Washington, DC.
  21. Isham, J. and S. Kähkönen (1999). “What Determines the Effectiveness of Community-based Water Projects? Evidence from Central Java, Indonesia on Demand Responsiveness, Service Rules, and Social Capital.” University of Maryland.
  22. Khaleghian, P (2003). “Decentralization and Public Services: The Case of Immunization.” Policy Research Working Paper 2989. World Bank, Washington, DC.10.1596/1813-9450-2989
  23. King, E. and B. Ozler (1998). “What’s Decentralization Got To Do With Learning? The Case of Nicaragua’s School Autonomy Reform. Development,” Research Group Working Paper, World Bank, Washington D.C.
  24. Lieberman, S.S., (2002), “Decentralization and Health in the Philippines and Indonesia: An Interim Report”, East Asia Human Development.
  25. Litvack, J. and J. Seddon (1999), “Decentralization Briefing Notes”, World Bank Institute.
  26. Narayan, P. K. (2005), “The savings and investment nexus for China: Evidence from cointegration tests,” Applied Economics, 37, 1979-1990.10.1080/00036840500278103
  27. Narayan, P.K., Narayan, S., (2005), “Estimating income and price elasticities of imports for Fiji in a cointegration framework,” Economic Modelling, 22, 423–438.10.1016/j.econmod.2004.06.004
  28. Oates, W. (1972). “Fiscal Federalism”, Hamshire, England: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1972.
  29. Oates, W. (1977). “The Political Economy of Fiscal Federalism”, Lexington Books, Toronto 1977.
  30. Oates, W. (1999). “An essay on fiscal federalism”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XXXVII (September 1999), pp. 1120-1149.
  31. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. and R. J. Smith, (2001), “Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of long run relationships”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16, 289-326.10.1002/jae.616
  32. Pesaran, M.H. and Shin, Y. (1999), “An autoregressive distributed-led modeling approach to cointegration analysis.” In Econometrics and Economic Theory in the 20th Century. The Ragnar Frisch Centennial Symposium, ed. Steinar Strom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Pakistan. Finance Division, Economic Advisor’s Wing: Economic Survey 2010-2011. Islamabad.
  34. Pakistan. Ministry of Education & MSU. GOP. (2003). Technical Group Meeting on Devolution and Decentralization: Implications for the Education Sector. Islamabad.
  35. Pakistan. Ministry of Education, Education For All Wing. (2002). Facts and Figures: Islamabad.
  36. Pakistan. Ministry of Education. (2003). Education Sector Reforms: Action Plan 2001-2005. Islamabad.
  37. Pakistan. Ministry of Education. (2001). Education Sector Reforms: Action Plan 2001-2004. Islamabad.
  38. Pakistan. Ministry of Education. (2003). National Plan of Action on Education for All (2001-2015): Islamabad.
  39. Qian, Y. and Weingast (1997). “Federalism as a commitment to preserving market incentives”, Journal of Economic perspectives, Vol II, No. 4: 83-92.10.1257/jep.11.4.83
  40. Saeed, M. (2007). “Education System of Pakistan and the UK: Comparisons in Context to Inter provincial and Inter-countries Reflections.” Bulletin of Education & Research, 29 (2), 43-57.
  41. Shah, A (1998). “Balance, Accountability and responsiveness – Lessons About Decentralization.” Policy Research Working Paper No. 2021, December, World Bank, Washington, DC
  42. Shah, A (1998). “Fiscal Federalism and Macroeconomic Governance – For Better or For Worse?” Policy Research Working Paper No. 2005, November, World Bank, Washington, DC10.1596/1813-9450-2005
  43. Shah, A. (1994). “The Reform of Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations in Developing and Emerging Market Economies.” World Bank, Washington, DC.10.1596/0-8213-2836-0
  44. Shah, D.(2003). “Decentralization of educational system in Pakistan”, Presented at UNESCO Seminar on Decentralization Policies and Strategies in Education held at Buenos Aires, Argentina from 30th June to 3rd July, 2003
  45. Shah, D. (2003). “Decentralization in the education system of Pakistan: Policies and strategies.” Paper presented in UNESCO Seminar on Decentralization Policies and Strategies in Education, Buenos Aires, Argentina (p.20-21).
  46. Shami, P.A. & Hussain, K.S. (2006). “Development of education in Pakistan.” Islamabad. Academy of Educational Planning and Management, Ministry of Education (p.11-13 & 61)
  47. West, L. and C. Wong (1995). “Fiscal Decentralization and Growth Regional Disparities in Rural China: Some Evidence in the Provision of Social Services.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 11(4): 70 – 84.10.1093/oxrep/11.4.70
  48. Winkler, D. “Decentralization in Education: An Economic Perspective.” Washington, DC: World Bank, 1989.
  49. Winkler, D. “The Design and Administration of Intergovernmental Transfers: Fiscal Decentralization in Latin America.” World Bank Discussion Paper 235. Washington, DC: World Bank, 1994.10.1596/0-8213-2822-0
  50. Winkler, D. and Gershberg, Alec. “Education Decentralization in Latin America: The Effects on the Quality of Schooling.” Human Development Department LCSHD Paper Series No. 59. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2000.
  51. Winkler, D. and T. Rounds (1996). “Municipal and Private Sector Response to Decentralization and School Choice.” Economics of Education Review. 15 (4): 365–376.10.1016/S0272-7757(96)00036-2
  52. Zafar, F. (2003) “Fiscal Devolution in Education. Case Study Reflecting Initial Responses.” Islamabad: Ministry of Education.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sbe-2017-0013 | Journal eISSN: 2344-5416 | Journal ISSN: 1842-4120
Language: English
Page range: 174 - 184
Published on: Jun 15, 2017
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 3 issues per year

© 2017 Abdur Rauf, Amara Akram Khan, Sher Ali, Ghulam Yahya Qureshi, Dilshad Ahmad, Numera Anwar, published by Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.