GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Research
    • Governance
      • Democracy & elections
      • Public sector management
      • Security & justice
      • Service delivery
      • State-society relations
      • Supporting economic development
    • Social Development
      • Gender
      • Inequalities & exclusion
      • Poverty & wellbeing
      • Social protection
    • Conflict
      • Conflict analysis
      • Conflict prevention
      • Conflict response
      • Conflict sensitivity
      • Impacts of conflict
      • Peacebuilding
    • Multi-Hazards
    • Humanitarian Issues
      • Humanitarian financing
      • Humanitarian response
      • Recovery & reconstruction
      • Refugees/IDPs
      • Risk & resilience
    • Development Pressures
      • Climate change
      • Food security
      • Fragility
      • Migration & diaspora
      • Population growth
      • Urbanisation
    • Approaches
      • Complexity & systems thinking
      • Institutions & social norms
      • Theories of change
      • Results-based approaches
      • Rights-based approaches
      • Thinking & working politically
    • Aid Instruments
      • Budget support & SWAps
      • Capacity building
      • Civil society partnerships
      • Multilateral aid
      • Private sector partnerships
      • Technical assistance
    • Monitoring and evaluation
      • Indicators
      • Learning
      • M&E approaches
  • Services
    • Research Helpdesk
    • Professional development
  • News & commentary
  • Publication types
    • Helpdesk reports
    • Topic guides
    • Conflict analyses
    • Professional development packs
    • Reports & literature reviews
    • Working Papers
    • Webinars
    • Covid-19 evidence summaries
  • Projects
  • About us
    • Our team
    • 25 years advancing evidence
    • International partnerships
    • Privacy policy
    • Terms and conditions
    • Contact Us
Home»Document Library»One Size Fits All? Decentralisation, Corruption, and the Monitoring of Bureaucrats

One Size Fits All? Decentralisation, Corruption, and the Monitoring of Bureaucrats

Library
Christian Lessmann, Gunther Markwardt
2009

Summary

Does decentralisation reduce corruption in all institutional contexts? This cross-country comparative study finds that the impact of decentralisation on corruption varies with a country’s level of press freedom – that is, according to the capacity to monitor public officials. Decentralisation seems to counteract corruption in countries with high degrees of press freedom, but can increase corruption in countries with little press freedom. A free press is therefore a necessary precondition for successful decentralisation programmes.

Most empirical studies have found lower corruption in decentralised countries. However, analysis suggests that the positive impact of decentralisation on the absence of corruption in almost all earlier studies is very sensitive to how decentralisation and corruption are measured, and to the particular countries studied. The earlier studies do not consider the weak institutional structure of developing countries, such as the low degree of press freedom, which hampers the public monitoring of bureaucrats.

Using press freedom as an indicator for the effective monitoring of bureaucrats, this study reinvestigates the relationship between decentralisation and corruption. It finds that decentralisation’s positive effects on corruption occur only where there is comprehensive public monitoring:

  • The effect of decentralisation on the absence of corruption is in general positive
  • However, it is strongly negative in countries with the lowest degree of press freedom
  • In countries with a ‘middle’ degree of press freedom, decentralisation is found to have no effect on corruption.

Decentralisation is a feasible instrument by which to reduce corruption if bureaucrats are effectively monitored. The benefits of inter-jurisdictional competition only occur if there is a supervisory body, such as a free press. Where supervisory institutions are inadequate, decentralisation can contribute to high corruption levels.

This research has also been published in World Development: Lessmann, C. and Markwardt, G., 2010, ‘One Size Fits All? Decentralization, Corruption, and the Monitoring of Bureaucrats’, World Development, vol. 38, no. 4, pp.631-646

Source

Lessmann, C. and Markwardt, G., 2009, 'One Size Fits All? Decentralisation, Corruption, and the Monitoring of Bureaucrats', CESifo Working Paper No. 2662, CESifo, Munich

Related Content

Issue-Based Programming and Coalitions: Evidence of Effectiveness and Approaches to Providing Support
Helpdesk Report
2023
Climate Related Fiscal Risk
Helpdesk Report
2023
Lessons from Local Governance Programmes in South Sudan
Helpdesk Report
2018
Local Governance in South Sudan: Overview
Helpdesk Report
2018

University of Birmingham

Connect with us: Bluesky Linkedin X.com

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2026; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2026; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2026

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".