Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Fiscal Decentralization inan Era of Globalization:An Evaluation of theWorld Bank Institute’sDecentralization Program
Werner BussmannMaurya West MeiersAdrian Hadorn
WBI Evaluation StudiesNo. ES02-54
The World Bank InstituteThe World BankWashington, D.C.
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................iv
FOREWORD ...................................................................................................................................vii
1. FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS...............................................................................................1
Integrated Public Policy and Training Framework........................................................................1
Comprehensive Program Rationale ...............................................................................................2
Evaluation Concept Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Elements.............................................4
2. PROGRAM FORMULATION AND START .............................................................................6
Progress in Theory and Empirical Research..................................................................................6
Growing Concern over Issues of Governance ...............................................................................6
Start of the FD Program with Pilot Core Course in Vienna, Austria (March 1998)......................7
3. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND OUTPUTS 1998–2001.....................................................9
Subject of the FD Program ............................................................................................................9
Objectives and Strategy of the FD Program ..................................................................................9
Management of the FD Program....................................................................................................9
Components of the FD Program ..................................................................................................10
Financial Aspects .........................................................................................................................22
Evolving Context .........................................................................................................................23
Participant Views of Outputs .......................................................................................................27
4. FD PROGRAM PARTNER ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS....................38
FD Program's Multiple Target Groups ........................................................................................38
Quality of Partnerships Assessed by Partners..............................................................................38
Development of Partnerships.......................................................................................................38
Assessment of Partnerships and Networks ..................................................................................40
Impacts of Partnerships on Policymaking....................................................................................42
5. PARTICIPANT ASSESSMENTS OF OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS.....................................47
ii
Training for Policy Improvements .............................................................................................. 47
Enlightenment Function of Social Research ............................................................................... 47
Overview of Usefulness of the Course (Personally; in Work; in Training, Teaching, andResearch Activities; and Overall)................................................................................................ 49
Factors Restricting Impacts ......................................................................................................... 61
Strategies to Overcome Obstacles ............................................................................................... 62
6. OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE ................................................................................................. 64
Two Perspectives......................................................................................................................... 64
The Core Course Participants’ Views ......................................................................................... 64
FD Program Partners' Views ....................................................................................................... 66
Synthesis...................................................................................................................................... 68
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................... 69
Strengths and Weaknesses........................................................................................................... 70
Choices and Possible Strategies for the Future ........................................................................... 72
References and Selected Bibliography........................................................................................ 80
iii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AFR Africa region (sub-Saharan Africa)
CEE Central and Eastern Europe
CEU Central European University, Budapest-Main Campus
COE Council of Europe
DL Distance learning
EAP East Asia and the Pacific region
ECA Europe and Central Asia region
EDI Economic Development Institute (until March 1999, the predecessor of the WBI)
ESAF Escola de Administração Fazendária (School of Financial Management, Brasilia, Brazil)
FD program Fiscal Decentralization program
FDI Fiscal Decentralization Initiative for Central and Eastern Europe
FIPE/FEA-USP
Faculdade de Economica, Administração e Contabilidabe—Universidade de São Paulo
FSU Former Soviet Union
GDLN Global Distance Learning Network
GSU Georgia State University
IFRLFM Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations and Local Financial Management
IMF International Monetary Fund
IPEA Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada
LAC Latin America and the Caribbean region
LGI Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative of the Open Society Institute
LOGIN Local Government Information Network
MDP Municipal Development Programme
MDPESA Municipal Development Program for Eastern and Southern Africa
MENA Middle East and North Africa region
NGO Nongovernmental Organization
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OSI Open Society Institute (of the Soros Foundation)
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers
SA South Asia region
SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WBI World Bank Institute
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The World Bank Institute’s Fiscal Decentralization (FD) program is engaged in managing andenlarging a cutting-edge knowledge base on fiscal decentralization issues and providing trainingopportunities to a wide audience that includes university teachers, national and subnational publicofficials, and employees of private institutions, among other groups. It also provides specificservices to policymakers. This is done with both the financial and intellectual support of donorpartners and the work of training partners who assume large training responsibilities and willeventually take over entire course delivery.
Fiscal decentralization encompasses many elements of governance. A particular interest lies withthe different layers of government within the state. The FD program deals with the question ofassigning revenues and tasks to the national and subnational governments. Fiscal decentralizationalso involves the question of how to reduce economic differences among regions. It involvesquestions of transparency and accountability in providing services. These institutionalarrangements have an effect on the citizens’ balance of taxes paid and services received.
The aim of this evaluation was to gather information about outputs, outcomes, and impacts of theFD program; to determine its strengths and weaknesses; and to contribute—through theinformation provided—to its improvement. Although the summative and formative functions ofevaluation are not easy to reconcile, this evaluation has aimed at accomplishing both of them. Inconjunction with the ongoing evaluation, the FD program team has, in the past year and a halfsince this evaluation commenced, updated and enlarged course materials (adding cases, exercises,self-tests, and new modules and translating materials into French, Chinese, and Russian) andaddressed new regions and countries (including very poor countries in Francophone Africa, SouthAsia (SA), and East Asia and the Pacific (EAP) regions). These efforts have resulted in the FDteam emphasizing the link between fiscal policy and poverty reduction, both in content andgeographical reach. It has also provided policy services to countries torn by ethnic and politicalcleavages.
The FD program’s main partners expressed great satisfaction about the timing and content of theFD program. The FD program has handed important responsibilities over to them and supportedtheir self-initiated activities. Partners have been able to combine and cross-fertilize the FDprogram training that they gave jointly with the WBI with their other activities. Through theseactivities the outreach of the FD program has been greatly increased. Chances are good that thetraining of the majority of these partners will be firmly rooted and entirely taken up by themwithin the coming years.
Judging by the results of the survey of former course participants, the respondents were satisfiedwith the courses they took and with the outcomes and impacts that the courses had on their work.They regard the high quality of contents and materials and instructors and presentations as theprincipal strengths of the course. The main weakness that was mentioned is the short duration orhigh intensity of the course.
A total of 84 percent of the respondents rated the overall usefulness of the course that they tookwith “4” or “5” on a five-point scale (with “1” being a low rating and “5” being a high rating;mean=4.1). When asked how the course has helped them personally, the top-rated items weremeeting new people or networking (mean 4.2) and two aspects related to the conceptual(enlightenment) function of training: providing fresh or new ideas (mean 4.2) and providing aframework for thought (mean 4.1). Following closely behind were improving professional skills(mean 4.1) and updating previously acquired skills (mean 4.1). To a lesser degree respondents also
v
considered courses to have been helpful to them in solving existing problems (mean 3.3),becoming involved into new professional activities (mean 3.4), and increasing opportunities forpromotion (mean 3.1).
A total of 70 percent of respondents has integrated elements of the course into training, teaching,or research activities, which leads to the expectation of considerable multiplier effects from the FDprogram training.
When asked to rate the extent to which the courses helped them in their work, survey respondentsgave the top ratings to the way the courses helped them to make choices among various policies(arbitrage function); they feel safe in arguing for or against certain policy options (mean 4.0), insupporting or opposing policy options by referring to best international practices (mean 4.0), and,to a lesser extent, in identifying the most suitable policy options (mean 3.8). The second highestrating received was the advisory function, which consists of advising colleagues and managers(mean 4.0) and advising the political top level (mean 3.7). For the policy initiativefunction—which covers developing better policy options (mean 3.7) and developing technicalcontent of policies (mean 3.5)--the rating is still above average, or a rating of “3,” but lower thanfor the other functions. The last two points relate to the fact that the 5-10-day training in fiscaldecentralization cannot fulfill all the needs for knowledge transfer and that demand is far frombeing saturated, even in the regions already covered by the FD program.
Partners of the FD program and course participants were asked about their views on improving theFD program. Both favor a strategy that preserves the identity of the FD program and builds on itsmain strengths. Partners would like to improve the regional knowledge and content base (forexample, by developing regional course modules) and to have the quality of their work ensuredthrough peer reviews or input from advisory groups. They would like to incorporate morepractitioners into course delivery and to extend its geographical limits (a wish that has alreadybeen taken up by the FD program team). In a similar vein, participants favor tailoring coursesmore to country and regional needs, providing advanced courses that develop specific skills anddeveloping and using more examples and case studies. They suggest including more policymakersas participants to build further regional networks for courses, to increase knowledgedissemination, and to establish post-course communication networks for alumni. As most of theseoptions are rather resource intensive, even more functions will have to be devolved to partners torespond to these concerns.
The FD program’s partners also suggested increasedresearch on the relation between fiscal decentralization andpoverty reduction. The present evaluation cannot providesufficient evidence on this causal path. The formulation andimplementation of policy reforms in fiscal decentralizationtakes time. More than three years have passed since the start of the training. Multiple cases ofpolicy initiatives due to the FD program can be documented. A few years from now it would beuseful to document successful country cases. This evaluation also recommends that scientificinquiry into the relation between fiscal decentralization and poverty reduction be intensified toempirically examine the linkages postulated by theory to further refine the theory.
During this evaluation effort, the FD program team has already undertaken the following activitiesthat were desired by participants and partners: emphasizing the link between fiscaldecentralization and poverty alleviation by adding content and targeting poor countries in trainingdelivery; preparing and delivering the core course for the first time in French; and revising andimproving the web site by improving search options, adding content, and providing moreinformation on past and future activities.
The recommendations for the FDprogram are presented on pages72 to 79.
vi
The FD program team has mainly collected information on the outputs, outcomes, and impacts ofthe FD program in two ways. First, the Budapest Experts Workshop brought together the FDprogram team, partners of the program, and the evaluation team for five days to discuss the qualityof partnership and explore ways to further improve the FD program. Second, the program teamdistributed a survey to former participants of core courses. It included questions on thebackground of the participant such as sex, country, and profession; strengths and weaknesses ofthe course; insights gained during the course; usefulness of the course personally; usefulness ofthe course for policymaking and teaching; and assessment of the curriculum, instructors, andactivities. The questionnaire also asked for suggestions for improvement of the course. Of the 512participants in the course participant database, 25 percent responded to the survey (of the 422participants who were successfully contacted by mail, e-mail, or fax, 30 percent responded to thesurvey). Additional research tools were document studies, interviews, and participant observationsof two core courses and two policy service events.
vii
FOREWORD
This report presents the findings from the evaluation of the World Bank Institute’s (WBI’s) FiscalDecentralization (FD) program.
The study was carried out between May 2000 and November 2001. The evaluation teamconducted preparatory work (evaluability assessment, including analysis of goals and programcontent) during spring 2000.
The evaluation aims to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the FD program. It presentsevidence on outputs, outcomes, and impacts. In doing so, it draws on the experiences and views ofthose who have come into contact with the program during the past years, that is, the program’smain partners and the participants of the core courses offered in the context of the FD program.
The objective of this report is to present as rich a picture of the FD program as possible. Eventhough this is sometimes postulated by evaluation theory, the present report does not strive tomake a summative judgment on the worth and merit of the FD program. Such a judgment wouldhave required a cross-comparative evaluation of all of WBI programs, an endeavor well beyondthe means dedicated to this study. The information provided in this report by itself will not be anappropriate management decision tool. Combined with other information sources this reportshould however be able to improve the information base on WBI programs. It will also contributeto improve accountability of its programs.
Most programs are part of a larger policy or institution. The FD program is one of WBI variousprograms. It has not been a purpose of this study to evaluate the FD program completely isolatedfrom its context. This means that the strengths and weaknesses of this program reflect not onlyefforts of the FD team but the overall WBI context.
The evaluation process has been marked by a flow of information (by means of discussions andemail) within the evaluation team and between the evaluation and FD team. It has been a learningprocess for both sides. The evaluation team hopes that the evaluation has been helpful in thestrategic reorientation that the FD program is undertaking for FY 2002, which includesemphasizing low-income countries; moving toward knowledge building through activities such asdeveloping new skill-based activities; responding to special, client-demanded training workshops;and integrating the WBI’s and its partners’ knowledge of training for capacity building into thePoverty Reduction Strategy Paper process and the Country Assistance Strategies. Because thisevaluation has been funded by the Swiss government, it is also hoped that the experiences gainedduring this process will flow back into the evaluation practices within Swiss cooperation anddevelopment policies and that donors and others will benefit.
The FD program team has been most cooperative throughout this evaluation. Within the timeconstraints that it is confronted with in its various activities, it has provided all the information thatwas necessary and useful. It was generous in giving access to all of its activities.
Although the evaluation was undertaken in close partnership between the FD program team andthe evaluation team, its impartiality has been assured. The study has been financed by sourcesoutside of the WBI, notably the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation.
The program’s training and donor partners provided their time, resources, and guidancethroughout this evaluation period. I would like to thank all of the partners for their willingness tobe interviewed and the support that the training partners provided in our survey of former
viii
participants of the core courses. Finally, the partners who attended the Budapest ExpertsWorkshop contributed to making the experience fruitful for all involved.
This report is the fruit of a close collaboration among all the team members charged with thisstudy. I thank my partners for this study, Maurya West Meiers and Adrian Hadorn, for theircommitment to this evaluation and for their precious help. At all turns, the FD program teammembers, Robert Ebel, Victor Vergara, Michelle Morris, Serdar Yilmaz, and Blanca Moreno-Dodson, provided information and assistance in all aspects of the evaluation. Also acknowledgedis the valuable assistance of the following individuals at the WBI: Patrick Tse, William Eckert,Michelle Daniels, Zhenfang Shi, Matilde Bordon, Sandra Gomes de Castro Lopes, RomanNovojilov, Violaine le Rouzic, Marlaine Lockheed, Jaime Quizon, Nidhi Khattri, Tanya Loftus,Connie Hurley, Humberto Diaz, Marie-Aline Wood, Gulnara Febres, Galina Voytsekhovska,Christopher Duggan, and Lilian Quiah. Finally, I would like to thank the Swiss Agency forDevelopment and Cooperation for their financing of and cooperation in this project.
Werner Bussmann
1. FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS
The following sections provide the evaluation approach used in this study and present the FiscalDecentralization (FD) program rationale.
INTEGRATED PUBLIC POLICY AND TRAINING FRAMEWORK
The present study rests on the assumption that the FD program goes well beyond transmittingspecific skills to its target audience, which consists largely of academics, civil servants,policymakers, nongovernmental organization representatives, and persons from the private sector.Aside from providing training, it aims to enhance the conceptual understanding of the complexissues and interrelated facets of FD (with the creation of a knowledge base and materials) and atpromoting a global dialogue on FD. Conceptual learning and the results of an improved dialogueshould prepare the groundwork for policy improvements in fiscal decentralization. Improvementsof the fiscal system and of service delivery will ultimately contribute to political stability and topoverty reduction. The FD program thus ultimately aims at policy changes.
To take account of both the training and the policy content of the FD program, the evaluation teamhas combined two evaluation approaches, which are shown in table 1.1.
Table 1.1. Two Evaluation Approaches
Bussman, Klöti, and Knoepfel’sseven-step public policy approachlinks the policy concept to the finalresults of the program
A training approach developed byKirkpatrick for training purposesidentifies four levels of analysis
A. Policy concept
B. Policy design/ or administrativeprogram
C. Institutional arrangement
D. Implementation plan
E. Output 1. Participants’ reaction
F. Change of behavior of targetgroup (outcome)
2. Participants’ learning3. Participants’ change of behavior
G. Economic, social, political,environmental, and so on changedue to program (impact)
4. Final results
Source: Bussmann, Klöti, and Knoepfel (1997, 1998); Kirkpatrick (1998).
The two concepts are similar. Kirkpatrick’s level 1 is related to the public policy approach’soutput (E), levels 2 and 3 are related to outcomes (F), and level 4 is related to impacts (G).
2
Combining the two approaches provides an integrated framework that highlights the causal path ofthe FD program as shown in table 1.2.1
Table 1.2. Combined Evaluation Approaches to Highlight the Causal Path of the FDProgram
Policy concept
Policy design or administrative program
Institutional arrangement
Implementation plan
Output Services and training provided Partners' and participants' reactions
Change of behavior of target group (outcome) Participants' learning Partners' and participants' change of behavior
Economic, social, political, environmental, and so on change due to program(impact)
Source: Bussmann, Klöti, and Knoepfel (1997, 1998); Kirkpatrick (1998).
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM RATIONALE
Programs are usually constantly evolving; priorities and goals shift, and processes and structureschange. This is true of the FD program. For the purpose of conducting the present study, however,it was necessary for the FD program team and the evaluation team charged with this study to reacha common, albeit temporary, understanding about the basic components of the program, itsobjectives, and the ways it can achieve outcomes and impacts. The result of these deliberations isthe program rationale. The program rationale was originally developed in discussions between theFD program team and the evaluation team and further refined by program partners, trainers, anddonors at the Budapest Experts Workshop in Budapest in February 2001. The program rationalewill serve as a framework for presenting outputs, outcomes, and impacts of the evaluation (seefigure 1.1). The approach adopted in this study is to follow the causal path of the program and itseffects. Due to the multifold objectives of the study, a control group design was not used (seeAnnex 1, section entitled “Analysis of Outcome and Impact”).
1 For a theoretical discussion, see Chen (1990) and Pawson and Tilley (1997). For an example of an evaluationof World Bank training, see Leeuw, van Gils, and Kreft (1999).
3
Figure 1.1. Program Rationale
Teachingreferenceknowledge
Creatingsustainablepartnerships
Satisfyingdemand for policy
advice
Teachers, Trainers, and Academic Community—Change Agents in the Public Sector and Civil Society
Creating cutting-edge knowledge
Otherfactors
Political stability • Economic efficiency & justiceRule of law • Poverty reduction
Otherfactors
Building capacity and humancapital (partnerships and networks,
skills and conceptualunderstanding) in FD
Enlarging policy options andpromoting global dialogue on FD
through the facilitation of institutional changes to improve responsiveness, efficiency, transparency, equity, and fiscal justice
Systematicimprovements
International, national,subnational, and local
governments
Economicimprovements
Service delivery closerto people and efficiency
gains
Politicalimprovements
Grassroots democracy,political diversity,legitimacy, andaccountability
Social andenvironmentalimprovements
Quality of life outcomesand effectiveness of
expenditures
Knowledgebase
Training:Core courses
and othercourses
Partnerships andnetworks
Policyservices
FD program
IMPACTS
Improved governmental fiscal systems
OUTCOMES
OUTPUTS
Source: Authors and FD program team.
4
EVALUATION CONCEPT MIXING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE ELEMENTS
To facilitate understanding of the substantive findings in the subsequent chapters, the evaluationdesign is briefly presented here in table 1.3. It is described in more detail in Annex 1.
Table 1.3. Evaluation Concept of FD Program
FD programcomponents FD program dimensions Evaluation components
• Knowledge base
• Training (corecourses)
• Partnerships andnetwork building
• Policy servicesa
• Output (partners andparticipants’ reactionsa
and services and trainingprovided)
• Outcomes (participants’learninga, skills andconcepts, careeropportunities, contacts,and improvements inpolicy advice)
• Impacts (policy initiativesand policy changes)
• Long-term impactsa
• Document studyb, c
• Interviewsc
• Data analysisb, c
• Budapest ExpertsWorkshopc
• Brazilian, African, andCentral European casestudiesc
• Peer reviewc
• Surveyb
a Not included in the studyb Quantitative methodsc Qualitative methodsSource: Authors.
The FD program contains four key components: knowledge base, training (core courses),partnerships and network building, and policy services. This study evaluates all programcomponents with the exception of policy services, although some information on policy services isincluded in this report. Policy services consist of short (one to two day) training sessions, usuallyupon request (typically by governments or World Bank country offices). Most policy services arejointly organized with other institutions or other offices of the World Bank. Because of the uniquequalities of each policy service, varying organizers, and the short duration of the training, it isinherently difficult to obtain reliable information on outcomes and impacts of policy services.Furthermore, it would have taken considerable time to improve the participant databasesufficiently to include policy service participants into the survey.
A cautionary note should be added with regard to partnership and network building. The study hasnot focused on the individual performance of partners, and it has mostly relied on partners’judgments when assessing the quality of partnerships.
5
With respect to the causal path of the FD program (see table 1.2), this study covers all of itsdimensions with three exceptions: partners and participants’ reactions, participants’ learning, andlong-term impacts.
Partners and participants' reactions can more easily be assessed immediately after the event. Dueto the time that has elapsed since the 1998 and 1999 core courses, this also holds true for thelearning dimension, which has been excluded entirely from this study. Because the FD programwas launched as recently as March 1998 and because it can be safely assumed that it has majorlatent ("sleeper") effects, it is too early to assess its long-term impacts. However, the evaluationwill examine whether the FD program actually has created a potential for such long-termimprovements.
The evaluation combines qualitative and quantitative methods. Its cornerstones are the BudapestExperts Workshop and a survey of former participants of the program’s core course,Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations and Local Financial Management (IFRLFM).
The Budapest Experts Workshop (February 12-16, 2001) united 27 experts outside of the WorldBank Institute (WBI) who are affiliated with the program, five persons from the FD program, andthree persons from the evaluation team. At this workshop, the attendees took stock of the FDprogram and discussed options for its future development (see Annexes 1 and 2).
The survey was addressed to all the participants of the IFRLFM core course offerings held sinceMarch 1998. Out of the 512 participants in the WBI database, 126 (25 percent) responded.However, only 422 of all participants were successfully contacted by e-mail, fax, postal mail, ortelephone. Taking this number into account, the response rate becomes 30 percent. Thequestionnaire included questions on the background of the participants such as sex, country, andprofession; the strengths and weaknesses of the course; the insights gained during the course; thepersonal usefulness of course; the usefulness of course for policymaking and teaching; and anassessment of curriculum, instructors, and activities. The questionnaire also asked for suggestionsfor improvement of the course (see Annexes 1, 3, and 4).
Because of the limited number of respondents, comparisons of appraisals among the main regionscovered by the FD program were not feasible.
Other methods used in the evaluation include (i) document studies; (ii) statistical analyses thatconcentrate on program outputs; (iii) interviews and participant observations of core courses(Annex 5); and (iv) Brazilian, Eastern and Southern African, and Central European case studies ofpartnership relations, core course organization, and related teaching and research activities. Thesecase studies were presented at the Budapest Experts Workshop and served as inputs for the debate.Additionally, Professor Bernard Dafflon, Professor of Public Finance at the University ofFribourg, Switzerland is conducting a peer review of the knowledge base.
6
2. PROGRAM FORMULATION AND START
Issues of good government and of governance have in the past years become a growing concernfor development policies, especially within the World Bank. Fiscal decentralization has been atheme of scientific inquiry, and analysts have made theoretical progress in this discipline. Betterpublic finance data has facilitated international and inter-regional comparisons and empirical tests.
PROGRESS IN THEORY AND EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
In the past decades, economic theorists have turned their interest to the institutional framework ofeconomically relevant activities. As part of this endeavor, a body of knowledge on fiscaldecentralization has steadily evolved over the past 40 years, which has normative implicationswith regard to the distribution of competencies in matters of expenditures, taxation, and transfersbetween the national and subnational levels of government. Parallel to the increased theoreticalinterest, analysts have made efforts to improve data on public expenditure and revenue at thenational and subnational levels. In the past decades, analysts have continually improved thedatabase and expanded it to include countries beyond the member countries of the Organisationfor Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The improved database in turn serves totest the theoretical presumptions about fiscal decentralization.
GROWING CONCERN OVER ISSUES OF GOVERNANCE
Over the last decade, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank have embracedgood governance to guide their work with member countries (Ngaire 2000). In its 1989 report onsub-Saharan Africa (AFR), the World Bank defined governance as encompassing the state'sinstitutional arrangements; the processes for formulating policy, decisionmaking, andimplementation; information flows within government; and the overall relationship betweencitizens and government (World Bank 1989). Subsequently, this understanding of governance hasbeen expanded and refined by both the World Bank and the IMF so as to propound standards thatare in keeping with their constitutional mandates and that might improve the effectiveness of theirmembers' use of resources. In 1992, the World Bank published a report on governance anddevelopment, followed up in 1994 with a book on the World Bank’s experience of governance(World Bank 1992, 1994). Since these publications, the World Bank has focused even more on theissue of good governance, underlining in the 1997 World Development Report that “an effectivestate is vital for the provision of the goods and services--and the rules and institutions--that allowmarkets to flourish and people to lead healthier, happier lives,” and publishing many statementsand studies on good governance (World Bank 1997a).
In both of the Bretton Woods institutions, the World Bank and the IMF, the good governanceagenda includes promoting transparency, accountability, efficiency, fairness, participation, andownership. These values translate into a broad objective to improve political accountability,participation, the rule of law, transparency, and flows of information between governments andtheir citizens. The international institutions recognize that this support requires politicalaccountability, such as through elections or other direct links between those who rule and thosewho are ruled. Limited by their own mandates, however, both the IMF and the World Bank havefound narrower ways to implement principles such as participation and ownership so as toenhance support and commitment from citizens and governments toward IMF and World Bankprograms. The new orthodoxy is that active participation by local policymakers and citizens mustbe sought in planning and designing policies and programs, because this ensures localcommitment and action in implementing and maintaining them.
7
The transition from communism to democracy has highlighted the importance of goodgovernance. The fall of communism left not only a vacuum in economic terms but also in terms ofthe way the state was organized. Communist rule had relied heavily on national decisionmakingand implementation. The transition in economic systems resulted in the need to create a morebalanced system of assigning tasks and revenues at the national and subnational levels.
To help transition economies carry out intergovernmental reform and create a knowledge base fordisseminating best practices, a joint multiyear program called the Fiscal Decentralization Initiative(FDI) was launched in 1995. Initiated by the Council of Europe (CoE), the OECD, the U.S.Agency for International Development (USAID), and the WBI (which was called the EconomicDevelopment Institute until March 1999), the initiative represented an effort to coordinate donoractivities and to serve as a development and dissemination learning center. The World Bank'sinvolvement in FDI was an important catalyst for developing a core course on fiscaldecentralization.2
START OF THE FD PROGRAM WITH PILOT CORE COURSE IN VIENNA, AUSTRIA(MARCH 1998)
The following section describes the beginning of the program, which started with the developmentof a knowledge base and delivery of its first core course.
WBI Core Course on Fiscal Decentralization
In fall 1997 the WBI established a series of so-called core courses. They were designed to meetclient demands for learning activities of greater length and depth than had been previously offered.IFRLFM was among the themes to be established as a core course. Many reasons existed for theorganization of the IFRLFM course: it could enhance World Bank operational missions to variouscountries in support of their strategies of fiscal decentralization (see Annex 6); it was consistentwith the World Bank's recent commitments to the broad issues of governance; and it wasinfluenced by the World Bank's involvement in FDI and the urgent needs for training and supportin transition countries.
Course Preparation
From the start, the pilot IFRLFM core course was targeted to countries from all regions of theworld. It was designed to facilitate well-functioning intergovernmental systems in the context oftransition economy reforms and with the intent that the course would be replicated in otherregions. So while the location of the course (Vienna) and some of the regional focus was on theEurope and Central Asia (ECA) region initially, it was conceived with a global perspective inmind.
The course was organized by the WBI, the Fiscal Affairs Division of the OECD, and GeorgiaState University (GSU). The outline of the course structure and its main contents were designedwithin the WBI. During a thinkers' session the key players in the World Bank and the scientificcommunity reviewed strategy and contentsamong. Within the established structure, persons ofproven expertise elaborated on the modules (see program and resource persons of the Vienna corecourse in Annex 7).
2 Robert Ebel, codirector for the FD program was responsible for FDI in WBI. He subsequently had a lead role indeveloping core course content for the FD program.
8
The knowledge base created through this joint effort was novel in four ways:
• It had a global focus. This meant that it focused on best practices and on lessonsconfirmed by international comparative research. Content was apt to be used in differentpolitical contexts. This in turn meant that the content should be presented as contextuallyneutral and that value-loaded terminology (such as federalism, which has partisan andeven contradictory connotations in different parts of the world) was to be avoided.
• It was designed to be comprehensive, that is, to include all knowledge elements relevantfor a deeper understanding of decentralized systems of governance.
• It was designed to be open to further refinement and adaptation. While some moduleswere and are forming the core of the course (Concept of Fiscal Decentralization andWorldwide Overview, Intergovernmental Relations and Macroeconomic Stability andGrowth, Expenditure Assignment, Revenue Assignment, Local Revenues, andIntergovernmental Grants), others are more apt to be included or excluded according toparticipants’ needs in different course offerings.
• It was designed to be adapted and extended regionally and for individual country focususe.
Vienna Core Course
The first course took place at the OECD Multilateral Tax Centre in Vienna, Austria March 16-27,1998 (see Annex 7). Its objectives were threefold: (i) to provide an operational framework to raisethe level of fiscal policy debate, (ii) to build long-term capacity through the training of trainers,and (iii) to develop a network for cross-country sharing of experiences with best (and failed)practices. The target audience comprised 32 senior and mid-level participants who were involvedwith training activities as heads of research institutes, university professors, and subnational andcentral government training officials. Participants came from 17 client countries and representedall major regions of the world, particularly Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), the Near East,Africa, and Latin America. There were approximately ten observers in addition to the registeredparticipants.
9
3. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND OUTPUTS 1998–2001
This chapter provide information on the FD program’s development and outputs, includingparticipants’ assessments of core course outputs.
SUBJECT OF THE FD PROGRAM
Fiscal decentralization encompasses many elements of governance. The FD program deals withthe question of assigning revenue sources and tasks to the national and subnational government.This has effects on and is related to service provision to citizens and the fiscal arrangements thatfacilitate service provision. Fiscal decentralization also involves questions of how to reduceeconomic differences among regions and of transparency and accountability in providing services.These institutional arrangements have an effect on the citizens’ balance of taxes paid and servicesreceived. Fiscal decentralization can be done well or badly. It can have an influence on citizens'well-being. This is why training and policy services in the field of fiscal decentralization can be auseful tool for poverty reduction (see the program rationale in figure 1.1).
OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGY OF THE FD PROGRAM
The WBI's FD program strategy reflects a predominantly regional (as opposed to country) focusfor knowledge development and dissemination. Below are the objectives and strategy of the FDprogram as developed in the year 1998 (see also FD program rationale in figure 1.1).
• Define, document, and disseminate the world's best practices. This involves providingparticipants and partners with different types of decentralization options and outliningadvantages and disadvantages of these options.
• Develop training (capacity building) materials adapted to the region that relate to emergingdevelopments in the discipline. Consistent with WBI management’s interest in producing andassembling innovative knowledge, the FD program team strives to develop a cutting-edgeknowledge base.
• Transmit knowledge that can be used by participants and partners.
• Build, in a sustainable way, client capacity in local and central financial management throughthe establishment of partnerships worldwide. This also includes supporting the developmentof partner-partner relationships or networks.
• Actively draw on the comparative advantages of bilateral (cofinancing partner or donor) andother multilateral experts and on the knowledge base being developed by other divisions ofthe World Bank.
MANAGEMENT OF THE FD PROGRAM
When this evaluation began, the FD team comprised five members: codirectors Robert Ebel (LeadEconomist) and Victor Vergara (Senior Public Sector Management Specialist), task managersSerdar Yilmaz (Public Sector Specialist) and Blanca Moreno-Dodson (Senior Economist andCourse Director), and Michelle Morris (Program Assistant). In addition, two senior fellows,Richard Bird and François Vaillancourt, were and continue to be affiliated with the program.Consistent with the growth of the FD program and a reorganization of all WBI programs (fall2001), the FD program has been renamed Public Finance, Decentralization, and Poverty
10
Reduction, and now also includes Serap Bindebar (Research Assistant), Jasmine Chakeri(Research Assistant), Eric Champagne (Urban Specialist), Migara de Silva (Senior Economist),Vasumathi L. Rollakanty (Team Assistant), and Roxanne Scott (Public Sector Specialist andGender Analyst). Backgrounds of team members are found in Annex 6.
COMPONENTS OF THE FD PROGRAM
Recognizing the merits of a multitool approach to learning, the FD program is organized as abalanced mix of knowledge base (curriculum), training, policy services, and partnership andnetworking activities (shown in figure 3.1). Each program component draws upon othercomponents to contribute to and take advantage of information and experiences. Thus, forexample, each policy service event, which is usually offered in response to a specific clientcountry request, not only draws upon a curriculum developed in support of training activities (suchas the IFRLFM core course), but also serves to bolster the practitioner knowledge element of thenext training activities. Properly designed, this knowledge development and disseminationstrategy has a potential for synergy.
Figure 3.1. Four Main Components of the FD Program
Knowledgebase
(Curriculum)
TrainingIFRLFM core courseand other courses
Partnershipsand network
building
Policyservices
Fiscal decentralization program
Source: Authors.
Knowledge Base (Curriculum)
The knowledge base, as it is referred to in the WBI, is the program’s curriculum. See Annex 8 fora detailed list of modules and materials.
Main Contents
The main priority of the FD program involves preparing and updating a knowledge base of contentrelated to the field of fiscal decentralization. This knowledge base is the foundation of the programand enables the WBI and its partners to provide training in fiscal decentralization. The program’sIFRLFM core course is structured around the knowledge base and consists of 13 different moduleson the broad theme of fiscal decentralization as shown in box 3.1.
11
Box 3.1. Original Modules of IFRLFM
1. Concept of Fiscal Decentralization and Worldwide OverviewLays out some key questions to be examined in subsequent presentations and discussions.
2. The Political Economy of Fiscal DecentralizationProvides a general outline and introduction into political mechanisms necessary to make fiscaldecentralization work.
3. Constitutional and Legal Framework and GuidelinesLays out the objectives for writing local government laws and reviews the types of laws thattypify an intergovernmental system.
4. Intergovernmental Relations and Macroeconomic Stability and GrowthExamines the intergovernmental theory and practice for designing a system of decentralizedfiscal decisionmaking consistent with stabilization policy.
5. Expenditure AssignmentOffers a guide to expenditure assignment and the problems that may result from failure ofclarity and stability in the assignment process.
6. Revenue AssignmentDiscusses the macroeconomic module as a way of introducing the conventional scope ofinquiry and its limitations as it may apply to different systems.
7. Local RevenuesExamines revenue sharing versus surcharges of income and receipt levies, local propertytaxes, vehicle taxes, and business receipts or profits tax.
8. Intergovernmental GrantsDiscusses the objectives of an intergovernmental grant system, types of grants, and the trade-offs of alternative formula approaches.
9. Financing InfrastructureDiscusses the roles of user charges in planning, financing, and improving the delivery ofinfrastructure services like water supply and electric power.
10. BudgetingOutlines the purpose of budgets, reviews how to evaluate financial outcomes, and discussesthe nature and role of capital budgeting.
11. Credit and Debt, or How to Measure Municipal Creditworthiness, and Policies on Borrowingand DebtCovers the general features of municipal credit markets, reviews important parameters ofmunicipal fixed income instruments, and provides examples of structured financing.
12. Fiscal RiskFocuses on the needs of policymakers to understand and handle different types of fiscal risks(such as explicit, implicit, direct. and contingent liabilities).
13. Accountability and Transparency in Municipal GovernmentsOutlines the principal mechanisms for establishing accountability and presents a conceptualframework for defining curative and preventative initiatives for minimizing corruption at thelocal level.
Source: FD program team data.
12
Development 1998–2001
The knowledge base has in the past years been continually expanded and updated. It is almostentirely accessible on the Internet (available at http://www.decentralization.org). Contents are alsoavailable on CD-ROM. Currently the WBI is developing a sourcebook. Through the courses givenin the regions and with the help of the partners, more and more documents related to regionalcontexts (ECA, Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), AFR, SA, EAP, Middle East and NorthAfrica (MENA)) have been developed. As courses have been presented in various languages(Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Chinese, and most recently French) many course documents havebeen translated and are available on the program web site. Country papers on fiscaldecentralization have also been made accessible. New themes (such as accountability andtransparency, asymmetrical federalism and minorities, and e-governance) have been added aslibrary topics to the web site.
Recently the WBI commissioned reports on the theme of governance and decentralization as partof its new Learning Resource Series. The first book published in this series is entitled Russia’sTransition to a New Federalism, which was authored by Jorge Martinez-Vazquez and JamesonBoex of GSU and edited by the FD program team (Martinez-Vazquez and Boex 2001). Two recentadditions to this series are Decentralizing Education in Transition Societies: Case Studies fromCentral and Eastern Europe (Fiszbein 2001) and The Development of Property Taxation inEconomies: Case Studies from Central and Eastern Europe (Malme and Youngman 2001).
An updated sourcebook on Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations in Eastern Europe is expected tobe completed in early 2002 (Urban Institute forthcoming). It is funded by the FD program andUSAID and is being prepared by staff of The Urban Institute and Training Resources Group, Inc.In early 2003, the FD program plans to deliver a textbook and CD-ROM of its modules andcomplementary materials.
The FD program is continually updating materials, especially the course module on the concept offiscal decentralization and the worldwide overview. Documents that are out of date are deletedfrom the web site and from the course syllabus.
Training (IFRLFM Core Course and Other Courses)
Core courses were introduced in the fall of 1997. They were designed to meet client demands forlearning activities of greater length and depth than had been previously offered by the WBI.
Before this time, the WBI has delivered mainly basic skills training, which by 1997 was becomingincreasingly available from other institutions. The introduction of core course helped to move theWBI toward a goal of offering a curriculum focused on the policy courses and specializedknowledge needed to address the issues critical to equitable and sustainable development,particularly in areas where World Bank expertise represents a comparative advantage (EDI 1998).
Concept
The WBI and its partners provide module-based training to participants, mostly in the form of corecourses that typically have a duration of five to ten days. The program’s IFRLFM core course isplanned, programmed, and delivered in close collaboration with regional and local partners. At theinception of the program, the WBI’s FD team organized courses and taught modules. In the threeyears since the first course, the WBI’s partners (such as training institutes or universities) havetaken over the lead role in most of the organization and design of courses and have modified thecourse design to meet their local needs. These training partner institutions organize and sponsor
13
training events to meet the needs of their local audiences, finding trainers from their ownuniversities and institutions. Now, WBI FD team members’ participation in courses is morelimited. They teach some modules, provide some organizational aid, help to build partnerrelationships, and directly provide or locate funding for training partners. Using the WBI or otherdonor funding, training partners have greater flexibility to do such things as hiring internationallyrecognized experts or trainers to deliver training sessions in the core courses (see also boxes 3.2and 3.3).
In addition to the IFRLFM core courses, the FD program offers similar training activities. Forinstance, a course might have an emphasis that is different from that of a typical IFRLFM course.An example is the training course, Latin American Distance Learning Seminar on MunicipalManagement, offered by the Monterrey Institute of Technology, Virtual University in Monterrey,Mexico in collaboration with the FD program.
Beginning in January 1999, this course represented the FD program’s first attempt at distancelearning. This particular course involved videoconferencing and web-based learning. Since then--consistent with the World Bank’s strategy of increasing distance learning offerings to World Bankclients--the FD program has organized or helped to organize five courses via distance learning.
Participants: Typical participants include the following: trainers such as heads of researchinstitutes, university professors, researchers, and subnational and central government trainingofficials; national- and subnational government officials who are responsible for the design andimplementation of intergovernmental fiscal relations and local financial management; employeesof public and private institutions who deal with fiscal issues; and World Bank country office staff.The trainers who participate in courses are particularly important because they can contribute tolarge multiplying effects in knowledge dissemination. This group of participants reflects theWBI’s objective to train trainers.
Organizers of the courses—usually partner institutions—are responsible for the selection ofparticipants.
Trainers and Presenters or Resource Persons: International and regional experts fromuniversities, think tanks, training institutions, professional associations, and governmentorganizations, in addition to World Bank staff, are the typical presenters of courses.
14
Box 3.3. WBI Core Course Guidelines
Core courses are designed to increase both efficient resource use and impact in the followingways:• They address issues of critical importance to the development process globally, rather than simply
in one or several countries.• They incorporate content that draws on state-of-the-art theory and practice.• They are replicable worldwide.• They have a syllabus, peer review, and a core body of materials that can be presented in person or
through distance education.• They use instructional models that allow for larger class size and lower unit costs without reducing quality.• They involve partner institutions in their development and teaching and facilitate rapid transfer to
these partners for replication.• They recover costs from the private sector and share costs with the public sector.
Criteria for selecting core coursesThe subject matter must be of critical importance for development policy and action.• The World Bank must have a comparative advantagea and strategic interest in the topic.• The client countries must exhibit evidence of demand.• The course must exhibit depth and intensity relevant to the subject matter.• The course must be replicable.
a Comparative advantage means first that the course is based on the World Bank’s multicountry experience; second, that theWorld Bank has subject matter specialists on the course topic, that is, if necessary, the WBI can (and often does) call on otherWorld Bank staff and/or donor and training partners to deliver parts or all of the course; and third, that the World Bank has thenecessary expertise to peer review the course to ensure that its content is indeed state-of-the-art.
Source: WBI (1998).
Box 3.2. How Training Is Organized and Delivered: Five Illustrations
1. The WBI FD program leads the organization of courses, instruction, and participants.
2. Partner institutions lead the organization of courses and selection of participants and providetraining with a combination of:
• Their own trainers• Experts or guest speakers from institutions such as the government, academia, or the
private sector in their own countries or regions• International and/or regional expert trainers, often funded by the WBI or donor agencies.
3. A consortium of partners organized a multiyear program in 2001 on Creating Change Networks ForLocal Governance in Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan)through the Fiscal Decentralization Initiative for CEE (see www.decentralization.org, FiscalDecentralization Initiative).
4. A fully CD-ROM-based course designed for face-to-face and distance learning (DL). DLpedagogies will be published in spring 2002. This self-standing source book on IntergovernmentalFiscal Relations and Local Financial Management in Central and Eastern Europe includes ausers’ guide for self-study with an extensive and up-to-date bibliography and glossary (UrbanInstitute forthcoming).
5. A Russian language course based on the WBI core course is now being developed by the RussianAcademy of Civil Service in cooperation with the Institute of Urban Economics in Moscow. It willbe piloted in both face-to face and DL formats in late 2002.
15
Development 1998 – 2001
The Vienna core course was a catalyst for offeringsimilar yet regionally adapted courses in variousregions of the world (see box 3.4). Following thispilot course, several Vienna core courseparticipants immediately worked to offer corecourses at their respective institutions.3 The coursewas delivered in cooperation with and/or adoptedby institutions in Brazil, Hungary, Venezuela, andZimbabwe. Other institutions later joined theeffort. Some participants of the Vienna courseacted as trainers (resource persons) for these newofferings. Finally, some expert trainers from theVienna course established new relationships withthese institutions and provided training in the newofferings, funded in part by the WBI and by otherdonors (COE, the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP), and the governments ofBelgium, Canada, Finland, Japan, the NetherlandsSpain, Switzerland, and the United States).
With the help of its partners, the FD program hasbeen very successful in increasing the outreach of its training. Since the start of the program inVienna, 672 students received training in the IFRLFM core course. In FY 2000 (July 1, 1999 toJune 30, 2000), the FD program was involved in offering training to 3,956 participants for all ofthe program’s training activities, excluding FDI activities. (This accounts for 14 percent of allWBI participants and 19 percent of all WBI training days. Training days are calculated bymultiplying the number of participants by the number of days of the course.) Partly due to this andother efforts, the FD team received a WBI-wide performance award in June 2000.
The FD program has been able to reach so many participants in part through its use of distancelearning. In addition to the courses with distance learning components such as the Latin AmericanDistance Learning Seminar on Municipal Management discussed earlier in this chapter, the teamhas undertaken two additional distance learning initiatives: East Asia Decentralization Dialoguesand the Africa Local Government Action Forum.
Currently in its second year of operation, the dialogues draw on a wealth of decentralizationtraining materials and utilize the distance education facilities of the Global Distance LearningNetwork (GDLN). The audience consists of central, regional, and local government officials aswell as other stakeholders who interact on topics of decentralization and local financialmanagement. The dialogues are structured as five three-hour interactive sessions (betweenOctober 2001 and June 2002) that are currently being delivered via videoconference amongGDLN facilities and World Bank country offices in Bangkok, Beijing, Hanoi, Jakarta, Manila, and
3 Maria de Fatima Cartaxo and Amaury Gremaud from Brazil, Rosa Amelia Gonzalez from Venezuela, and AdrianIonescu and Gàbor Péteri working in Hungary established courses at their institutions. Three other Viennacourse participants, Tekaligne Godana, Nobuhle Maphosa, and Richard Madavo, were in close contact with twoofficials from the Municipal Development Programme (MDP) in Zimbabwe, George Motovu and Winnie Mulongo-Luhana, leading to the MDP’s engagement with the course and three subsequent offerings of it. See list ofVienna core course participants in Annex 7.
Box 3.4. Impact of the 1998 ViennaIFRLFM CourseMaria de Fatima Cartaxo, Director of the Escolade Administração Fazendária (ESAF) inBrasilia, Brazil
“After the Vienna course the power and prestigeof the World Bank contributed to adopting thiscourse in Brazil. The high level of content ofcourse materials lead to a commitment andfinalization of partnership…Wtihout having theinitial support of the Vienna course, certainlythe Brazilian partners probably could not beable in implementing such an important andprestigious program…The excellentrelationship with WBI staff in Washington wasa great input for the whole process in terms ofsupport, flexibility, and specialized knowledgeabout the course themes.”
Statement at the Budapest Experts Workshop
16
Washington, D.C. Each session includes a 60-minute presentation on the fundamentals" of a topicthat combines a worldwide and regional perspective, followed by a two-hour dialogue on thecountry-specific application of these concepts to the decentralization envisioned or beingimplemented.
The Africa Local Government Action Forum is a joint initiative of the Municipal DevelopmentProgram for Eastern and Southern Africa (MDPESA), the WBI, and the GDLN through distancelearning centers in Africa (Abuja, Accra, Addis Ababa, Dar Es Salaam, Harare, Kampala, Kigali,and Nairobi). The program consists of 12 modules, presented on the first Friday of each month.Each four-hour module is based on a keynote presentation supported by a reference reading. Thereading is posted on the MDPESA web site and the FD program web site. The forum includes acore set of approximately 100 participants, who are awarded certificates for regular attendance, aswell as an additional 60-80 participants who participate in specific sessions depending on theirparticular interests. Special sessions are added as needed.
Over the past years the FD program has been engaged in expanding its activities to different partsof the world. This has met with varying degrees of success. In some regions, the IFRLFM corecourses are well rooted, such as in the ECA, the LAC, and AFR regions, while in other regions,courses have only been presented three times, as in the EAP region (Chiang Mai, Thailand once;Beijing, China twice) or not at all, as in the cases of the SA and MENA regions (see World Bankregional divisions in figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2. World Bank Regional Divisions
Source: World Bank map department data.
It is interesting to note that training activities were not taken up in all of the regions represented atthe Vienna workshop. In choosing their regional fields of activity, the FD program team hasfollowed a demand-driven approach. While participants from the MENA region were wellrepresented at the workshop, no IFRLFM core course training activity has occurred there, in spiteof FD program team efforts. In contrast, strong partnerships have developed in the ECA regionwith the Central European University, the Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiativeof the Open Society Institute, the Open Society Institute of the Soros Foundation, and the COE; inthe LAC region with the ESAF, the University of São Paulo, and the United Nations EconomicCommission for Latin America and the Caribbean; and in AFR with the Municipal DevelopmentProgram and many courses have been offered as a result. Very few participants from the EAP andSA regions attended the Vienna core course. See figure 3.3 for locations of IFRLFM courses andbox 3.5 for a description of key events in the evolution of the core course of the FD program. Seealso Annex 9 for more details on each the program’s core course deliveries since 1998.
17
Figure 3.3. Locations of IFRLFM Core Courses (March 1998-May 2001)
Source: Authors.
18
Box 3.5. Evolution of the IFRLFM Core Course Coorganized by Partners and the WBI since 1998
Location and partners for each offering
1998 Pilot IFRLFM core course occurs. Partnerships to offer the course begin with former participants of the Vienna course in• Vienna, Austria in March 1998 at the OECD Multilateral Tax Centre, organized and presented jointly with the Fiscal
Affairs Division of the OECD and GSU.• Budapest, Hungary in September 1998, organized with the COE and the USAID• Brasilia, Brazil in November 1998, organized with the ESAF, Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade-
Universidade de São Paulo (FIPE/FEA-USP), and Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (IPEA)• Harare, Zimbabwe between November 1998 and December 1998, organized with the MDPESA.
1999 Partners continue to deliver courses and new partnerships are formed and DL is introduced in• Chiang Mai, Thailand between February 1999 and March 1999, organized with the National Economic and Social
Development Board of the Royal Thai Government and the World Bank-Netherlands Partnership• Caracas, Venezuela in June 1999, organized with El Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Administración, Centro
Latinoamericano de Capacitación y Desarrollo de Los Gobiernos Locales, LAC Regional Office of the World Bank, andthe WBI
• Budapest, Hungary between July 1999 and August 1999, organized with the Open Society Institute (OSI) of the SorosFoundation, the Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative of the Open Society Institute (LGI), and theCentral European University (CEU)
• Beijing, China in November 1999, organized with the Ministry of Finance• Brasilia, Brazil in November 1999, organized with the ESAF, the FIPE/FEA-USP, and the IPEA• Jinja, Uganda in December 1999, organized with MDPESA• Monterrey, Mexico in January 1999, organized with the Monterrey Institute of Technology, Virtual University in
Monterrey, Mexico.
2000 Partners continue to deliver course and new partnerships are formed in• Budapest, Hungary in April 2000, organized by the COE and the USAID• Almaty, Kazakhstan in April 2000, organized by the Eurasia Foundation, the COE, the Academy of Civil Service under
the President of Kazakhstan, and the UNDP• Santiago, Chile in June 2000, organized by the Economic Commission for the LAC region, the Inter-American
Development Bank, and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit, GmbH• Beijing, China in June 2000, organized by the Ministry of Finance• Budapest, Hungary in July 2000, organized by the OSI, the LGI, and the CEU• Atlanta, Georgia between July 2000 and August 2000, organized by GSU• Brasilia, Brazil in October 2000, organizaed by the ESAF, the FIPE/FEA-USP, and the IPEA• Kampala, Uganda in November 2000, organized by the MDPESA.
2001 Partners continue to deliver course in the following countries. In addition, a French-language version of the course wasintroduced.
• Budapest, Hungary in July 2001, organized by the OSI, the LGI, and the CEU• Atlanta, Georgia between July 2001 and August 2001, organized by GSU• Brasilia, Brazil in November 2001, organized by the ESAF, the FIPE/FEA-USP, and the IPEA• Dakar, Senegal in October 2001, organized by the Municipal Development Programme for Western and Central Africa• Kampala, Uganda in December 2001, organized by the MDPESA and the Uganda Management Institute.
Source: FD program data.
19
Partnerships and Network Building
Cofinancing and Training Partners
The WBI works with a number of partners from institutions in cooperating countries. Thesepartners belong to two groups: cofinancing partners and training partners. A complete list ofcofinancing and training partners is in box 3.6.
Box 3.6. Cofinancing and Training Partners
Partners represented at the Budapest Experts Workshop are listed in bold letters.
• Academy of Civil Service under the President of Kazakhstan in Almaty, Kazakhstan• Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane, Morocco• Asociación de Universidades Confiadas a la Compañía de Jesús en América Latina (Association of Latin American
Jesuit Universities) at 26 universities in 13 Latin American countries• Belgian Administration for Development Cooperation in Brussels, Belgium• Canadian International Development Agency• CEU in Budapest, Hungary• Centro Interamericano de Administraciones Tributarias (Inter-American Center of Tax Administrations) in Panama
City, Panama• China National School of Administration in Beijing, China• Comision Económica para America Latina y el Caribe (United Nations Economic Commission for Latin
America and the Caribbean), headquarters in Santiago, Chile• COE, headquarters in Strasbourg, France• Council of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (Council of Europe), headquarters in Strasbourg, France• Government of Denmark• ESAF in Brasilia, Brazil• Eurasia Foundation, headquarters in Washington, D.C.• Government of Finland• FDI, based at the Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative, Open Society Institute of the Soros
Foundation in Budapest, Hungary• Foundation for Local Government Reform in Sofia, Bulgaria• FIPE/FEA-USP in São Paulo, Brazil• GSU in Atlanta, Georgia• Institute of Federalism of the University of Fribourg, in Granges-Paccot, Switzerland• Institute of Social Studies in The Hague, The Netherlands• Institute of Urban Economics in Moscow, Russia• IPEA in Brasilia, Brazil• Instituto de Estudios Fiscales in Madrid, Spain• Instituto de Estudios Superiores En Administracion in Caracas, Venezuela• Government of Italy• Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, Massachusetts• LGI in Budapest, Hungary• Metropolitan Research Institute of Hungary in Budapest, Hungary• Ministry of Finance, People’s Republic of China in Beijing, China• Monterrey Institute of Technology, Virtual University in Monterrey, Mexico• MDP at the Western and Central African office in Cotonou, Benin and the Eastern and Southern African
office in Harare, Zimbabwe• National Economic and Social Development Board, Royal Thai Government in Bangkok, Thailand• Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs Minister for Development Cooperation, Netherlands-World Bank
Partnership Program in The Hague, The Netherlands• New York University, Wagner Graduate School of Public Service in New York, New York• OSI in New York, New York and Budapest, Hungary• OECD Taxation and Fiscal Affairs, headquarters in Paris, France• Romanian Academic Society in Bucharest, Romania• Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC) in Bern, Switzerland• Uganda Local Government Finance Commission in Kampala, Uganda• Uganda Management Institute Kampala, Uganda• UNDP Sustainable Human Development, headquarters in New York, New York• USAID in Washington, D.C.
20
• Universidad Rafael Landivar in Guatemala City, Guatemala• University of Toronto, Rotman School in Toronto, Canada• World Bank Poverty Net, headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Source: FD program data.
Cofinancing (Donor) Partners: The WBI has an expanding range of partnerships with bilateraland multilateral donors, foundations, and private sector organizations. The WBI's learningprograms depend on cofinancing partners for intellectual and financial support (box 3.7).
The FD program, its partners, and thebroader community interested in fiscaldecentralization issues have benefitedgreatly from the support of cofinancingpartners. Importantly, their funding hasenabled the FD program to engageresearchers in developing materials for theprogram’s knowledge base. The WBI andits training partners have used cofinancingfunds to hire experts to teach sections ofprogram courses. These funds have alsobeen applied to supporting general courseorganization expenses, includingarrangements for scholarships for someparticipants.
Another example of the use of donor support involves a recent effort by the FD program inworking with countries on their Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs). For some Africancountries, the course has been linked to their respective PRSP processes and coordinates with theWorld Bank’s Attacking Poverty Program. PRSP teams from these countries--which emphasizeintergovernmental fiscal relations--have received special support from the WBI, with fundingprovided by the Belgian Administration for Development Cooperation. The purpose of thisfunding is to enhance the relationship between intergovernmental fiscal reforms and povertyreduction. The funding to PRSP teams will be available on a multiyear basis.
In addition to the intellectual and cooperative support that donors have provided the program, theirfinancial support has been substantial. The donors’ contributions to the program make upapproximately 60 percent of the program’s budgets for both FY 2000 (July 1999 – June 2000) andFY 2001 (July 2000 – June 2001). The planned budget for the current fiscal year (FY 2002) alsohas a ratio of 60 percent donor funding and 40 percent from World Bank sources.
Training Partners: The WBI has established formal training partnerships with many academicand training institutions (universities, research centers, and think tanks). Training partners in bothdeveloping and industrialized countries collaborate with the WBI in preparing course materialsand modules. They also work together with the WBI in the presentation of courses. The WBIforms partner relationships with developing country institutions to build their capacity and enablethem to take over full responsibility for presentations of courses originally developed by WBI(WBI 2000). Among the key benefits to the World Bank of these partnerships is that they expandthe reach of the World Bank’s work and support the World Bank’s efforts to link lending andlearning.
Box 3.7. Key Cofinancing Partners and Roles inIntellectual and Financial Support
• Belgian Administration for DevelopmentCooperation
• Canadian International Development Agency• Government of Finland• Policy and Human Resources Development
Trust Fund of the Government of Japan• Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Minister for Development Cooperation,Netherlands-World Bank Partnership Program
• Government of Spain• Swiss Agency for Development and
Cooperation• United States Agency for International
Development
21
The arrangements with training partners are usually formalized with two types of workingagreements: memorandums of understanding and work program agreements.4 As mentionedearlier, an important responsibility of the formal partners involves the organization of training.Common duties of partners are to determine regional content needs, advertise courses, selectparticipants, recruit trainers, and organize logistics.
Development 1998-2001
From the beginning of the program (Vienna core course), the FD program team establishedpartnerships that proved to be crucial for the delivery of core courses. While these contacts haveremained strong, the FD program team has created and nourished contacts with other partners. Inthe past year, the FD program team has established contacts in countries where core courses andpolicy services have not been delivered as yet (including Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia,Turkey, Vietnam, and, through the FDI partnership, Armenia and Georgia). More demand forpartnership building and cooperation on training has been expressed, but the FD team reports thatadditional staff time and resources are necessary to pursue additional activities.
Policy Services
Although policy services were not evaluated for this study, a brief description of the role of policyservices in the FD program is provided in the following section.
Concept
Although a relatively small part of the FD program in terms of staff time and financialcommitments, the FD program team organizes and/or participates occasionally in policy services.The policy services are usually two- to three-day training events, often tailored to specific requestsfrom governments and World Bank country offices for knowledge and learning in a particular areawhere the WBI has strong expertise. They can take the form of seminars, conferences, andregional forums. Box 3.8 contains titles of select policy service events.
Box 3.8. Selected Policy Services from 1998 to 2001
• MDP Steering Committee Meeting (Annually)• Mediterranean Development Forum in Marrakech, Morocco (September 6-8, 1998)• Armenia Forum on Fiscal Decentralization in Yerevan, Armenia (March 15-17, 1999)• Symposium on Critical Issues for Subnational Governance in Bangalore, India (March 24-27, 1999)• Symposium on Fiscal Decentralization in Yerevan, Armenia (April 20-21, 1999)• Urban and City Management in Toronto, Canada (May 2-12, 1999)• Forum on Fiscal Decentralization in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina (June
14-16, 1999)• Annual Bank Conference for Developmental Economics-LAC 1999: Decentralization and Accountability of
the Public Sector in Santiago, Chile (June 20-22, 1999)• Annual Bank Conference for Developmental Economics- LAC in Santiago, Chile (June 20-23, 1999)• Turkey Municipal Finance Workshop, Seminar for Mayors on Fiscal Decentralization and Local
Government Policy in Antalya, Turkey (June 21-22, 1999)• Latin American Summit of Mayors in Miami, USA (July 6-10; 1999)• Africa: Dialogue with Ministry of Local Government in Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe (September 20-24, 1999)
4 A memorandum of understanding is typically a long-term umbrella agreement that generally outlines suchthings as work responsibilities and funding arrangements. A work program agreement is usually used for anindividual project or activity. The WBI and its partner organizations develop and agree to these terms jointly.
22
• Serbia Mayors Seminar in Budapest, Hungary (September 30 - October 1, 1999)• Fiscal Decentralization for Asian Development Bank Staff in Manila, Philippines (October 11-15, 1999)• Palestinian Local Finance in Nablus (October 18-22, 1999)• Participatory Budgetary Workshop in São Paulo, Brazil (November 10-13, 1999)• Swiss Forum on Diversity in Bern, Switzerland (December 8-9, 1999)• Diversity and Asymmetry Project: The Conference on Intergovernmental Relations and National Cohesion
in Murten, Switzerland (February 10-12, 2000)• Benefits and Risks of Decentralization in Singapore (June 5-8, 2000)• Nepal Decentralization in Kathmandu (October 2000)• Symposium on the Japanese Model of Achieving Intergovernmental Reform: A Dialogue for East Asia in
Bangkok, Thailand (June 15-16, 2001)• African Local Government Summit in Côte d’Ivoire (1998) and Namibia (1999)• Delivering and Financing Local Services in East Asia in Denpasar, Indonesia (January 2001)
Source: FD program data.
Development 1998-2001
Policy services are very much demand-driven. They not only allow the use of the FD programteam’s accumulated knowledge for training and consulting, but also enable the team to broadenthe base of its experience. Policy services can open gates for further training activities.
The FD program team has been quite successful in providing policy services. In FY 2001, RobertEbel together with the other coorganizers received the Nepal Country Management Unit-NepalCountry Office Spot Awards for the Nepal Decentralization Workshop. A WBI-World BankIndonesia Country Office decentralization-grants workshop in Indonesia also received verypositive feedback from the World Bank’s Country Director for Indonesia.
FINANCIAL ASPECTS
The program has benefited from the generosity of donors who contributed approximately 60percent of program funds for the current fiscal year (FY 2002) and two previous fiscal years (FY2001 and FY 2000). The donor funds have been used for such things as supporting travel andtuition costs for participants in some courses, covering organization costs for training partners, andthe hiring of expert trainers (consultants) for courses.
World Bank funds have accounted for the remaining 40 percent of the three fiscal years’ budgets.The World Bank funds have paid for similar activities as those mentioned in the context of donorfunds, in addition to such things as World Bank staff salaries and operating costs.
The budgets for the current and two most recent fiscal years are found in table 3.1.
23
Table 3.1. Source of FD Program Funding
Source offunds
FY 2000disbursed
(US$)
Percentageof total FY
2000(percent)
FY 2001disbursed
(US$)
Percentageof total FY
2001(percent)
FY 2002planned(US$)
Percentageof total FY
2002(percent)
Donor trust 1,481,723 62 1,306,996 60 1,687,176 60
World Bank 915,204 38 877,539 40 1,133,583 40
Total 2,396,927 100 2,184,535 100 2,820,759 100
Source: FD program data.
EVOLVING CONTEXT
Change Management in the World Bank and the WBI
Although this present evaluation clearly focuses on the FD program, its evolution can only beunderstood in the broader terms of the World Bank's and the WBI's expanding strategies. TheWBI is the World Bank's learning arm. Although activities in fiscal decentralization had beenundertaken within the World Bank throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, the focus on fiscaldecentralization grew clearer when, in 1997, the WBI announced its intention to present a series ofcore courses for topics of strategic importance. This strategy was and is strongly motivated by theKnowledge for Development initiative as elaborated in the 1998-1999 World Development Report(World Bank 1999). It put the focus on extensive use of information technology and DL.
The challenge and ambition of the WBI has been to generate cutting-edge knowledge on relevantdevelopment issues. To progress in this strategy requires stronger links to the learning andknowledge producing centers of the World Bank and within the WBI, including (i) the researcharm of the World Bank (Development Economics group); (ii) the knowledge networks within theWorld Bank (such as the Human Development Network, the environmentally and sociallysustainable vice presidency, the private sector and infrastructure network, and the povertyreduction and economic management network); (iii) research capacity centers in developmentcountries; and (iv) learning and knowledge production centers in industrialized countries.
Impacts on the FD Program
The evolution of the FD program's strategy in many ways reflects the changes that have beeninitiated in the World Bank group and in the WBI.
In the last three and a half years, the FD program has established and consolidated core courses.Strengthening partnerships is widening their outreach and deepening their impact deepened. Thisechoes another leitmotiv of the World Bank during the 1997-2001 period: partnership.
The FD program is strongly and increasingly--through its partners and support--involved in DL.The Latin American Distance Learning Seminar on Municipal Management course at theMonterrey Institute of Technology in Mexico was presented entirely in DL form in cooperation
24
with the FD program. This emphasis on DL is very much in line with the Knowledge forDevelopment initiative.
Some of WBI's more recent decisions, for example, the grouping of the former 25 core coursesinto 15 thematic groups, are motivated by the objectives of better integration and a clearer focus.Some of the FD program’s partners expressed a wish for better integration of different trainingprograms at the Budapest Experts Workshop, noting their desire to see the World Bank and othersuppliers’ training programs better bundled and coordinated (see chapter 6). This requiresconsolidation and better cooperation among course suppliers.
In the period 1998-2001, the FD program’s core courses reached maturity. This opens newhorizons. Partners of the FD program are assuming full responsibility for the FD program's corecourses in ECA and LAC. By design, the FD program team is reducing its substantive work inpresenting those courses, thus reducing the WBI’s financial inputs. Substantial knowledge andexperience is flowing back to the WBI. The expertise the FD program team, affiliated expert-trainers, and partner organizers have gained since the 1998 pilot course could be exploited infuture sponsorship of core courses and policy services in other regions. The know-how of the FDprogram team can provide inputs for operational activities (especially lending operations) withinthe World Bank Group. To that end, it might prove useful for World Bank operational staff to bemore involved in the training activities.
Management Information Systems within the WBI
Management decisions within the WBI have had an immediate impact on the management of theFD program. The FD program has quickly taken up the WBI’s emphasis on program outreach.The FD program’s strategy of increasing outreach by wholesaling training to strong and reliablepartners has corresponded well with the WBI’s management objectives.
WBI management’s value placed on participant days (number of participants per course multipliedby the number of days per course) appears to be a relatively weak indicator of a program's overallperformance. Participant days involve aspects that can only be partly assessed quantitatively.Currently the WBI is trying to move from output- to impact-related indicators. Impact indicatorsmay yield information about whether impact targets are reached. Because impact indicatorsnecessarily involves causal aspects, such indicators can rarely confirm that impacts are due to theprogram in question. Some indicators may get manipulated. A vast array of information is neededto get a full picture of training programs (Bussmann 1999).
Strategic Themes for the FD Program
Many strategic themes guide the FD program. One important theme is the position of the WBI asthe learning arm within the World Bank Group. Since 1998 there has been a strong drive to bringthe lending and the learning functions of the World Bank closer together to improve the relevanceand impact of training programs (EDI 1998). This move raises the crucial question about thefunction of the WBI within World Bank: is it a learning arm in terms of a training institution or interms of a learning institution, that is, an institution that is acquiring and developing the bestavailable knowledge, has efficient outlook capabilities, and is capable of drawing lessons from itsown and others’ past successes and failures? While the WBI clearly understands the function of alearning arm in the second sense, it is debatable whether all necessary skills for this ambitious role(for example, self-reflective capabilities) are fully developed.
25
The WBI’s programs in fiscal decentralization have grown in response to the convergence of anincreasing client demand and the World Bank’s emphasis on developing knowledge programs as acritical ingredient for accomplishing the twin goals of economic development and povertyreduction. Moreover, because of its special nature as an institution with a rich and continuingexpertise in public sector economics, the World Bank is well positioned as a value-addedknowledge institution in fiscal affairs.
In response to these developments, beginning in FY 2002, WBI reorganized key elements of itsfiscal programs and has incorporated the FD program under the broader program of PublicFinance, Decentralization, and Poverty Reduction. The program now has three components (ofwhich FD still clearly dominates): decentralization, public tesource policies to benefit the poor,and tax policy in developing countries. Box 3.9 contains a description of these componants asdescribed by the FD program team in their FY 2002 WBI program brief.
Box 3.9. Componants of the Newly Formed Public Finance, Decentralization, and PovertyReduction Program
Decentralization
The 1999–2000 World Development Report: Entering the 21st Century (World Bank 2000), findsthat there are two forces shaping the world in which development policy will be defined andimplemented: globalization (the continuing integration of the countries of the world) andlocalization (the desire for self-determination and the devolution of power) (World Bank 2000).Within this context, three key points emerge that reveal the logic of a WBI program in publicfinance, decentralization, and poverty reduction.
First, localization, which is the devolution of political and fiscal power to subnational, regional,and local levels, stresses the inherently intergovernmental nature of governance, that is, thecentral-local sorting out of decisions about how people collectively determine the services thateach level of government should deliver and how they should deliver them by establishing a set oftransparent and competent institutions that citizens can understand and control. Thus, localizationis at the same time a public finance discipline (for example, service delivery and finance) and apolicy dimension (the governance of how collective institutions are organized and structured). Asthe 1999-2000 World Development Report (World Bank 2000) notes, decentralization is about therethinking of government as we enter the first millennial decade.
Second, a well designed intergovernmental system is a critical element in a successful strategy toattack poverty. The proximity of subnational governments to the poor and familiarity with theinstitutional situations and hostile environments that the poor inhabit in different regions andcommunities provide distinct advantages to the well decentralized governmental units in designingand implementing antipoverty policies.
Third, the shift from government to governance is fundamentally tied to the topic ofdecentralization. The degree to which good governance objectives are achieved is a oftencontingent on getting the right sequence of sorting out the respective roles of central versus localservice providers and then following up by developing capacity for carrying out the assigned tasksfor service delivery and revenue mobilization.
26
Public Resource Policies to Benefit the Poor
With the PRSP initiative and the release of the 2000–2001 World Development Report: AttackingPoverty, the World Bank is moving to further mainstream poverty reduction in its partnershipdevelopment and capacity building activities (World Bank 2001). As part of this effort, the WBI isdeveloping learning products that concentrate on cutting-edge issues related to poverty analysisand poverty reduction strategies, which range from measurement issues to the impact ofmacroeconomic adjustment on poverty and income distribution to poverty and decentralizationand gender budgeting. In designing these products, the WBI taps into the World Bank and itspartners’ accumulated knowledge on poverty reduction matters, including conceptual issues andbest practices as indicated by international experience. Three major issues are the main focus ofthe WBI’s work on poverty reduction, as reflected in its product lines:
• The kind of economic growth (that is, equitable and sustainable) most favorable to the poor.
• The policies and institutions to build the capacity of the poor to fully benefit from growth,ranging from distributional issues to participatory approaches to enhance social inclusion.
• The interventions required to protect the most vulnerable segments in the developing world'ssocieties.
The FD program team’s contribution is the development of a training program (to date, entirelyDL)--Public Resource Policies to Benefit the Poor--that focuses on budget (revenues andexpenditures) as a central locus of strategies to fight poverty. After various consultations, it isclear that a strong demand exists for such a course not only in PRSP countries but also for theclient base generally.
Tax Policy in Developing Countries
One of the key messages of the World Bank’s Strategic Compacta is that if it is to effectivelyaddress its priorities of poverty reduction, empowerment and social inclusion, and goodgovernance, it must be selective in its programmatic structure and yet comprehensive in itsapproach. These are not contradictory concepts. Selectivity is about focusing on activities thathave a large impact on people’s lives. It is therefore about how a society’s resources are bothtransferred and used. However, for this selectivity strategy to work, the tools chosen must becomprehensive in the sense that all the essential components of a system are understood andconsidered.
Within this context, the proposal for further development of the World Bank’s tax program passesthe joint tests of selectivity and comprehensiveness. There are two sides to the comprehensivenesstest: the use of collective resources and the generation of resources. The World Bank extensivelyaddresses the use side through a variety of specialized activities that range from a focus on publicexpenditure management to sectoral work. The resources side, which is an essential component ofa comprehensive view of public sector management, is given much less attention. This is true eventhough a well designed revenue system is key to the achievement of many of the broader reformobjectives of our clients.
Indeed, of all the facets of public involvement in the economy, few are as a cross-cutting andmultidimensional as the system of laws, rules, and institutions established for paying for itscollective needs, that is, the tax side of the budget. As a matter of governance, then, the tax systemis more than a compendium of technical laws and arcane institutions; rather, as noted before, it is afundamental expression of community relationships between the people and their government.
27
Indeed, a society’s tax and revenue system is both an entry point for citizen participation and acritical vehicle for giving citizens ownership of their government. This combination of entry andownership is the essence of good governance.
At the same time, the way that a revenue system is designed and implemented has enormousconsequences for the achievement of a nation’s broader economic goals of fiscal architecture ofgood governance, private sector development, poverty reduction, and an effective anticorruptionpolicy.
a. The Strategic Compact is a plan for fundamental reform and renewal of the World Bank to makeit more effective in achieving its basic mission of reducing poverty (World Bank 1997b).
Source: FD program data.
PARTICIPANT VIEWS OF OUTPUTS
The text and tables in the remainder of this chapter are drawn from the results of a survey that wassent to former IFRLFM core course participants in April-May 2001.
Assessment by Course Participants
Course output quality has been assessed through the survey among former core courseparticipants. Details about the survey, the questionnaire, and the aggregate results are presented inAnnexes 1, 3, and 4. Survey questions on outputs concerned:
• Contacts and information about the course• Utilization of knowledge base• Satisfaction with course delivery• Insights from the course• Strengths and weaknesses of the course.
Contacts and Information about the Course
Course participants were asked how they learned about the course they attended. It is interesting tonote that while 83 of the respondents reported that they were employed by central, subnational, orlocal governments (see Annex 4), only 50 government employees had received information aboutthe course from the government itself. However, four respondents that were not employed by thegovernment received information about the course through government sources. Another 24participants received the information from the World Bank (either by direct contact, for exampleby e-mail, or by visiting the web site). Additional sources reported by respondents (shown in table3.2) were the World Bank’s regional training partners (26), employers (private ornongovernmental organization (NGO)) (9), friends or relatives (6), and other sources (30), whichincluded training institutes and development agencies.
28
Table 3.2. Source of Information about Course
Question 2. From what source(s) did you learn about the course? (Fill all that apply.) Total
Government 54
Employer (private sector or NGO) 9
School, university, training -research institution, or regional training organization 26
Friends or relatives 6
World Bank 24
Other 30
Source: Participant survey data.
Forty-one respondents reported that direct mail and e-mail was the main medium of information.For 23 respondents, indirect mail or e-mail (through newsletters, flyers, brochures, posters, and soon) was the main source of information. Newspapers or magazines, television, and radio did notprovide respondents with any course information.
The FD program team makes its knowledge base, to a great degree, accessible on the Internet. TheFD program web site has thus the character of an international public good. Within the 12-monthperiod between June 2000 and May 2001, of 28,921 unique visitors to the FD website, 6,290 ofthem were multiple visitors (that is, visitors who visited the site more than once during theperiod).5 Visitors most frequently came to the FD program web site from Internet serviceproviders of the following ten countries as shown in table 3.3.
5 Most of these users visited several pages. Altogether 572,858 hits were counted for this period.
Table 3.3. Web Site Visitor Sessions Organized by National Internet Service Providers(Top 10)
Rank CountryJune 2000–May 2001
visitor sessions1 United States 24,0112 United Kingdom 2,2503 Canada 8964 Australia 6915 Germany 5326 Japan 4047 Mexico 3478 Netherlands 3329 Indonesia 31110 Brazil 293Note: Visitor sessions indicate the number of visits to the web site.
29
Source: FD program data.
While the providers of the most frequent visitors are located in industrialized countries, peopleusing providers in transition and developing countries, including very poor countries (for example,Bhutan, Cuba, Ethiopia, Nepal, and Zimbabwe) also visit the site.
Core course participants were asked inthe survey about their assessment ofthe strengths and weaknesses of FDprogram web site. Out of 51comments, nine mentioned theabundance of information, six wroteabout the high quality of information,and four found no weaknesses (see box3.10). Weaknesses were mentioned in11 comments and concern wasexpressed about various aspects of theweb site (such as lack of translations,insufficient regional focus, anddifficult to use).
Satisfaction with Course Delivery
Course participants were asked whether they were satisfied with the main aspects of the deliveryof the course (giving ratings of 4 or 5 on a 1 to 5 scale with 1 being a low rating and 5 a highrating). Thematic aspects received the best two ratings: 93 percent of the respondents (mean=4.4,N=121) were satisfied with the course materials and 93 percent with the curriculum (mean=4.3,N=120). Next, 88 percent of the respondents were satisfied with classroom interaction amongparticipants (mean=4.3, N=120) and 82 percent were satisfied with the degree case studies wererelevant to their country (mean=4.2, N=120). These two ratings refer to the responsiveness toneeds of the course participants. Following these ratings, 79 percent of respondents were satisfiedwith social activities, or opportunities to network and socialize with one another, (mean=4.2,N=119) and 76 percent with instructional techniques (mean=4.1, N=118). The lowest ratingsreceived (69 percent) concerned the short duration of the course (mean=3.9, N=120). While thequestionnaire only asked about the duration in general (meaning it could be either too long or tooshort), the 32 respondents who provided comments on this issue all noted that the course was tooshort and/or too loaded with content for the given course period. Figure 3.4 shows therespondents’ satisfaction with the course delivery.
Box 3.10. A User’s Recommendation of the FD WebSite
"A superb site on fiscal federalism from a globalperspective, from the World Bank. Features an on-linecourse, Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations and LocalFinancial Management, Course Directors: Dr. RobertEbel and Victor Vergara."
Source: GWU Washington University doctoralcandidate web site on federalism (available athttp://www.min.net/~kala/fed/index.htm).
30
Figure 3.4. Overall Satisfaction with Course Aspects
Source: Participant survey data.
Satisfaction with and Insights Gained from Course Materials, Curriculum,Instructors, and Activities
The text and tables in the following section highlight the insights that survey respondents reportedgaining from the course materials, curriculum, instructors, and activities.
Insights from the Course
Related to the main modules of the course participants were asked to describe the most importantinsight that they gained from the course. Respondents answered this question in two ways: (i) theymentioned specific course modules that provided them with important insights, and/or (ii) theydescribed the nature of those insights.
Modules that Provided the Most Insights
Referring to the 13 module titles provided in the questionnaire (see box 3.1), respondentsmentioned that the course modules presented in table 3.4 provided the most important insights thatthey gained from the course.
Question 20. To what extent were you satisfied overall with the followingaspects of the course?
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.1
3.9
1 2 3 4 5
a. Course materials
c. Curriculum (contents of the course)
e. Classroom interaction among participants
b. Degree to which case studies were relevant toyour country or region
f. Social activities (opportunities to network andsocialize with one another)
d. Instructional (pedagogical) techniques
g. Duration of the course
Mean (1 to 5 scale)
31
Table 3.4. Usefulness of Course Contents by Module
Question 12: Taking into consideration the main contents of the course, pleasedescribe the most important insight that you gained from the course. Total Rank
Intergovernmental grants 27 1
Concept overview: Concept of FD and worldwide overview 26 2
Revenue assignment 26 2
Expenditure assignment 18 4
Budgeting 17 5
Intergovernmental relations and macroeconomic stability and growth 14 6
Local revenues 11 7
Accountability and transparency in municipal governments 11 7
Political economy of FD 9 9
Financing infrastructure 6 10
Constitution and legal framework 5 11
Credit debt or how to measure municipal creditworthiness: Policies on borrowing anddebt
5 11
Fiscal risk 4 13Source: Participant survey data.
Respondents also listed modules only offered in certain regions (mostly Brazil) from which theyalso gained important insights.
Nature of the Insights
A total of 88 comments were given on the nature of insights that the respondents gained (see table3.5). The two most frequent comments can be grouped under (i) understanding or comparinginternational experience of decentralization of government (27 comments) and (ii) generaloverview of FD principles and responsibilities of different levels of government (16). Next come(iii) tools or mechanisms to implement changes (6), (iv) sharing responsibilities among differentlevels of government (6), and (v) trade-offs of decentralization (benefits and risks) (6). Most ofthese comments do not assess the course outputs, but are already indications of outcomes (changeof behavior of participants). A major part of these insights (i, partially ii, and v) concern whatCarol H. Weiss calls the “enlightenment function” (described in chapter 5). Only (iii) is related toinstrumental use, that is, to direct application of knowledge. Examples of comments related toinsights are shown in box 3.10.
32
Table 3.5. Usefulness of Course Contents: Substantive Aspects
Question 12: Taking into consideration the main contents of the course,please describe the most important insight that you gained from the course. Total Rank
i. Understanding or comparing international experience of decentralizationof government
27 1
ii. General overview of FD principles and responsibilities of different levelsof government
16 2
iii. Tools or mechanisms used to implement changes 6 3
iv. Sharing responsibilities among different levels of government 6 4
v. Trade-offs of decentralization (benefits and risks) 6 5Source: Participant survey data.
33
Box 3.10. Comments on the Nature of Insights
Question 12: Taking into consideration the main contents of the course, please describe the mostimportant insight that you gained from the course.
"Before the course I did not consider FD an important issue (probably under the influence of IMFphilosophy). Now I think FD is an important ingredient in building democracy and promoting transparency."
"I had intuitive knowledge about all the themes. However, to study these themes concretely and take notice ofthe international reality was very useful, as it provides more trust in a broader analysis. At that time, 1998,the Fiscal Responsibility Law was a very polemical subject, because it was the beginning of these discussionsin the country, so it was very relevant to take notice about the international experiences."
"The most important were the presentation about the international experience on fiscal decentralization, theoutcomes, the advantages, and the disadvantages."
"Generally, the course helped me to improve my capacity of analysis and policymaking in the FD field."
“For me the main contribution of the course was not in obtaining new knowledge (although this occurred),but in the general vision of the program and the inter-relation between the different modules. For those who,like me, belong to academic and training institutions, this value-added is very important for the design of newcourses and programs."
"Experiences on Intergovernmental Grants and Transfers were particularly relevant as this is an area underthe spotlight in ...[name of the country] at the moment. The need for constitutionalizing fiscal arrangementsbetween the central and local governments is still under debate in my country, so the course provided usefulinsights. It was also clear that in many countries, local revenues are not receiving adequate attention, yet theycan become the main source of local government finance as is the case here."
“The analysis comparing the fiscal realities in the countries of the Americas. Analyzing the strong points inmy country and the successful experiences in other countries."
"During the course I acquired knowledge of the world practice of fiscal decentralization. Especiallyinteresting was the Hungarian experience. I also acquired knowledge about problems in budgetary relationsand about ways of resolving it used in different countries. The Russian experience is of particular importanceto us."
Note: Identifying information has been removed.
Source: Participant survey data.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Course
Participants assessed the strengths and weaknesses of the courses that they had attended. Therespondents could list as many strengths and weaknesses as they desired. This is why the totalnumber of comments (206 strengths and 139 weaknesses) exceeds the number of respondents (107respondents listing strengths, and 34 respondents listing weaknesses) to this question.
Strengths and weaknesses of the course were asked in two separate questions (questions 26 and27, see Annexes 3 and 4). Because another survey question on course delivery (question 21:provide suggestions for improvement if ratings on satisfaction with aspects of the course wererated lower than 3; see Annex 4) provoked similar comments, the results of these two questionsare presented together.
34
Strengths
The 206 comments on the strengths of IFRLFM courses concern a wide array of aspects,summarized in table 3.6 along with a sample of comments in box 3.11.
Table 3.6. Strengths of the Course
Question 26: What are the strengths of the course(s) that you attended? Total Rank
Contents and materials 54 1
Instructors and presentations 46 2
Exchange experiences, interaction, discussion 21 3
Organization, facilities, equipment, and atmosphere 20 4
International comparisons 18 5
Networks, contacts, follow up 11 6
Cases 7 7
Teamwork 6 8
Quality participants 6 8
Videoconferencing 5 10
Social activities 4 11
Pedagogical techniques 3 12
Exercises and examples 2 13
Computer simulation 2 13
Conceptual learning 1 15
Unique comments 206
Respondents to question 107
Source: Participant survey data.
Fifty-four respondents considered contents and materials to be the key strengths of the IFRLFMcore courses. A participant commented on contents and materials, saying “the strengths of thecourse stem from its conceptual framework, highlighting the comprehensive or systems approachto the design and implementation of fiscal decentralization.”
For 46 respondents the quality of instructors and presentations was a strength of the courses. Thehigh level of teaching was often mentioned along with instructors being noted for quality,excellence, and competence.
Mentioned by 21 respondents as a strength of the course was the exchange of experiences,interactions, and discussions. Typical comments from this group concern the opportunity toexchange experiences and meet people from different countries with different opinions anddifferent knowledge.
Cited by 20 respondents were organization, facilities, equipment, and atmosphere, and 18respondents mentioned international comparisons (of fiscal decentralization experiences) asstrengths of the course. The last point is related to the contents and materials.
35
Another 11 respondents noted networks, contacts, and follow up as a strength of the course.
Rounding out the strengths, 36 respondents listed a variety of items such as case studies, groupwork, and quality of participants, among others.
The high quality of contents and materials and of instructors and presentations together with thecomparative approach, which in turn facilitates participants’ exchange of experiences and favorstheir interactions, clearly emerge as the core strengths of the IFRLFM core courses.
Box 3.11. Comments on the Strengths of the Course
Question 26: What are the strengths of the course(s) that you attended?
"The high qualification of some instructors, the level of preparation and the experience of severalparticipants, the quality of the information discussed, and the opportunity to participate in a network ofrelations, with people who work in related areas."
"(i) Variety of topics covered in a relatively short time period; (ii) good and useful, highly relevant practicalcases illustrated; (iii) Good alumni network established after the course and continual news updates; (iv) avery good social program during the course."
"All presentations in general were very good and laid out themes that opened the mind. The material wasvery good and the willingness of (name removed) to submit more materials was excellent."
"(i) Instructors' competence, (ii) organizers' efficiency, (iii) contents, (iv) new relationships."
"The strengths of the course were that it combined presentations that covered all aspects of decentralization.It involved good lecturers with much expertise and experience in decentralization. It provided a good set oftraining materials."
"New. Comprehensive. Professional. Experienced."
Note: Identifying information has been removed.
Source: Participant survey data.
Weaknesses
There were 150 comments in response to questions 21 and 27 (see table 3.7) describing courseweaknesses. Sample comments on weaknesses are in box 3.12.
36
Table 3.7. Weaknesses of the Course
Question 21: If you provided an answer of “3” or lower for question 20,please provide suggestions for improvement on these items or any other aspectof the course.
Question 27: What were the weaknesses of the course(s) that you attended? Total Rank
Short, loaded, intensive 32 1
Lack of country or regional examples 18 2
Lack of time for interactions or discussions 11 3
Insufficient quality of instructors or presentations 11 3
Insufficient pedagogical techniques 11 3
Thematic changes suggested 9 6
Participant selection 7 7
Lack of social activities or opportunities 7 7
Lack of follow up and support 5 9
Repetition of themes or course too large 4 10
Organization or insufficient respect for schedule 4 10
Lack of on site visits 3 12
Insufficient preparation of participant presentations 3 13
Other (single comments) 14 14
Total comments (excluding “no weaknesses found”) 139
Respondents to questions (excluding “no weaknesses found”) 34
No weaknesses found 11
Total comments (including “no weaknesses found”) 150Source: Participant survey data.
Citing an imbalance between content and duration, 32 persons mentioned that duration was tooshort, the course was too intensive (too loaded) or both.
The lack of examples from their particular country or their particular region was mentioned by 18respondents. Among the comments explaining this weakness were “instructors were notsufficiently familiar with their country or region” and “course materials did not include country orregional examples.”
Another 11 respondents commented on the lack of interactions and discussion during courses anda similar number on the insufficient quality of presentations and/or instructors. The same number,11 respondents, were not able to find any weakness at all in the courses they had taken. Yetanother 11 participants mentioned insufficient pedagogical techniques of various kinds, forexample, too academic and inappropriate visual aids.
A total of nine respondents suggested various thematic changes (for example, to include the topicof ethics or social questions).
37
Additional comments on other aspects of course delivery included: inappropriate selection ofparticipants, especially with regard to knowledge of language (7 respondents); lack of socialactivities or opportunities (7); lack of follow up and support (5); repetition of themes or course toolarge (4); lack of on-site visits (4); organization or disrespect for schedule (3); insufficientpreparation of participants’ presentations (3); and other aspects (14).
Besides the short duration and/or high intensity of the course, a complaint not uncommon amongthe WBI's core courses, no common denominator emerged from the answers of the respondents onweaknesses. In other words there does not seem to be an inherent flaw in the IFRLFM corecourses. However, this does not mean that room for improvement does not exist in the IFRLFMcore courses (see chapter 6 on options for the future).
Box 3.12. Comments on Course Weaknesses
Questions 21 and 27: If you provided an answer of “3” or lower for question 20, please providesuggestions for improvement on these items or any other aspect of the course and what were theweaknesses of the course(s) that you attended?
Duration too short:
"I see the short duration of the course (two and a half weeks) as the major weakness of the course."
Lack of examples from particular country or region:
“The instructors and discussions tended to favor overseas and were not adequate or very little on Africa."
Lack of examples from particular country or region:
“More detailed study of cases that are relevant to our region. It is necessary to choose the countries that haveconditions close to those of our region for detailed study and generalization of experience."
Insufficient quality of presentations and or instructors:
"Instructional techniques should be for adults. Models and examples should be the basis of the presentation."
Insufficient quality of presentations and or instructors:
"Some teachers were not up to the job; maybe they were experts, but they had no talent for teaching and theirlectures were boring."
Lack of interactions and discussion during courses:
"It should be stimulated and provided an open space in the course's agenda, for the creation of discussiongroups of people who work in related professional areas, so that they could discuss among them, theirproblems, experiences, and potential solutions."
Lack of interactions and discussion during courses:
"The course should be more interactive, using adult-learning methods and techniques. The participants shouldhave similar level of understanding English."
Note: Identifying information has been removed.
Source: Participant survey data.
38
4. FD PROGRAM PARTNER ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOMESAND IMPACTS
Information on partner assessments of outcomes was gained through the authors’ individualinterviews with partners, group discussions with partners at the Budapest Experts Workshop, andpartner-prepared case studies and presentations at the Budapest Experts Workshop.
FD PROGRAM'S MULTIPLE TARGET GROUPS
The FD program seeks through a multilayered path and together with various actors to improveconditions in transition and developing countries (see figure 1.1, the program rationale). Trainingis not an end in itself but a means to support policy changes in the countries involved. The qualityof partnerships with training institutions however already has merits of its own. Strong andsustainable partnerships contribute to capacity building, which has spillover effects beyond the FDprogram.
QUALITY OF PARTNERSHIPS ASSESSED BY PARTNERS
The partners themselves can bestassess the quality of thosepartnerships. The quality ofinteractions within thepartnerships and their effects oncapacity building were discussedand assessed during the BudapestExperts Workshop, which wasattended by representatives ofmore than half of the FDprogram’s partner institutions,especially those with the mainresponsibilities of training.6
WBI’s partners presented threecase studies (from the LAC, AFR,and ECA regions) of partnershiprelations, core courseorganization, and related teachingand research activities. Thesecase studies served as inputs forthe workshop.
DEVELOPMENT OFPARTNERSHIPS
In all three cases presented, similar developments of partnerships took place (see also box 4.1).
6 See box 3.6.
Box 4.1. Shifting Roles of the WBI and its Partners:From Exiting by Regional Wholesaling to South-SouthLearning to World Bank Staff Learning
Both the FDI and ESAF partnerships have been so successful atwholesaling the initial coure course concept and content that now,in two regions, the WBI has not only largely exited its lead role topartners in Central Europe and Brazil, but also stepped back to theextent that these partners now have the lead in South-SouthIFRLFM knowledge development and training. In Central Europe(since 2000) and now, increasingly, in Central Asia and theCaucuses, the FDI is the lead developer and presenter (with theWBI still a partner) of the IFRLFM core course (with the FDI ledby the LGI, the Metropolitan Research Institute in Budapest, andthe UNDP Good Governance program in Bratislava). Similarly,ESAF has not only taken over (and expanded) the core course forall of Brazil, but is in the lead for FD training for Portuguese-speaking Africa (the first course was held jointly with the WBIand the SDC in mid-February 2002). To take this wholesaling-partnership a (major) step further, the WBI is now in exploring--with both the FDI and the ESAF--the possibility of a joint FDI-WBI and ESAF-WBI development and delivery of a new FY2002 program for training World Bank field staff in the ECA andLAC regions, respectively.
Source: FD program data and evaluation team interviews.
39
1. A short time after the Vienna workshop in March 1998, IFRLFM core courses wereoffered in Budapest (September 1998), Brasilia (November 1998), and Harare(November-December 1998). While these first core courses were almost identical to theone presented in Vienna, increasingly more time has been devoted to country or regionalquestions (in the Brazilian and Central European cases more than in the African case) inthe subsequent courses, although the basic contents have been retained.
2. The main partner institutions of the WBI in turn have increasingly collaborated withpartners from their respective country or region. In the case of the third offering of theIFRLFM in Africa (Kampala, Uganda in November 13-17, 2000), organized by theMDPESA in partnership with the WBI, the Institute of Social Studies, and the UgandaManagement Institute, two-thirds of the presentations were delivered by regional andlocal resource persons.
3. The knowledge gained by organizing and giving the IFRLFM core courses has led tofurther training activities. The most interesting case in this respect is the ESAF’s Schoolof Financial Management in Brasilia, which has engaged in related activities (see box4.2). From the perspective of the IFRLFM core courses these activities can be consideredspin-offs. They can also be considered an intelligent combination and a cross-fertilizationof the various activities in which the FD program’s main partner institutions are engaged.Partner institutions bundle programs offered by the World Bank and other donors in sucha way that they serve best the needs of their target groups. While ideas and concepts ofthe IFRLFM core course have been integrated into other activities of the WBI’s partners,the IFRLFM core courses in turn have also benefited from their other activities. In theESAF case experience, the preparation of the Brazilian law on fiscal accountability hasenriched IFRLFM course content. Most recently, the ESAF and the WBI have workedtogether more closely on the joint preparation of modules.
4. Persons from partner institutions are also being increasingly used as resource persons forcontracting purposes by other international organizations.
Box 4.2. Brazilian Case Study: Synergy from Partnership
Two Brazilian scholars, Amaury Gremaud, Professor at the Fundação Instituto de Pesquisas Econômicas (InstituteFoundation of Economic Research) of the University of São Paulo and Maria de Fatima Cartaxo, Director of ESAF,the School of Financial Management, attended the March 1998 Vienna course. The ESAF is a large traininginstitute in financial and fiscal management for civil servants, teachers, and researchers. Its headquarters are inBrasilia, and it has 10 regional training centers.
Maria de Fatima Cartaxo and Amaury Gremaud were both interested in ways to improve the professionalism ofgovernment staff in the fiscal sector. Immediately after the Vienna course, the ESAF and the University of SãoPaulo established a partnership with the WBI for presenting the IFRLFM core courses. Courses were then offered inBrasilia in November 1998, November 1999, October 2000, and November 2001.
When presenting the course in Brasilia, the core materials and structure of the original Vienna course were retained,with complete course materials translated into Portuguese and distributed to the participants. Conceptual references,however, were shortened. The time for treating current issues of Brazilian fiscal federalism was expanded.Numerous national experts were included as course presenters for that purpose. The ESAF’s activities in financialmanagement training and in Brazilian fiscal reforms (for example, laws on fiscal accountability, tax reform, andparticipatory budgetinga) have had a positive impact on the further development of the course.
These three Brazilian offerings of the IFRLFM have concentrated on Brazilian experiences and, to some degree,other Latin American cases. The majority of attendees were Brazilian, with a small number of participants fromother Latin American countries. The course also created South-South linkages by including participants fromlusophone Africa.
40
The ESAF had established strong ties with regional and global institutions prior to the Vienna core course. Forexample, in June 1997, the ESAF hosted--in partnership with the OECD--the first International Conference inDecentralization, Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations, and Macroeconomic Governance. The partnership with theWBI helped to improve the already existing ties. It enhanced the relations among partners in the field of fiscaldecentralization on the national level (for example with the Banco Nacional para o Desenvovimento Economico eSocial) and global level (for example with the WBI, the OECD, the IMF, the UNDP, the Inter-American Center ofTax Administration, and the Inter-American Development Bank).
The partnership with the ESAF and the University of São Paulo has also extended to other WBI training programsincluding the Urban and City Management core course beginning in 1999 and the Macroeconomics Management:New Methods and Current Policy Issues core course, beginning in January 1999.
The partnerships with Brazilian institutions had (and has) several advantages for the FD program. It contributes toenlarging the knowledge base of the program. The Brazilian reform process is an interesting case for the interactionbetween macroeconomic reforms and decentralization policies. It is therefore well observed in internationaleconomic and policy research. Strong regional partners are of great help in this work. As far as training isconcerned, course management in Brazil presents features that are of interest to other institutions as well (forexample, pre- and post-course tests, focus groups for evaluation purposes, and plans for workshops with formercore course participants).
Participation in the FD program has had positive impacts on the ESAF as a whole. Elements of the course havebeen introduced into other teaching activities. Basic concepts were integrated into the training-of-trainers in theNational Program of Fiscal Education for Citizenship. This program has a large outreach (measured in the numberof its target population: almost one million students in the year 2000), but effects will only gradually, withcontinuous training-of-trainers, make themselves felt by the target group.
In a similar vein, concepts of the FD program have been introduced into a number of other activities, includinguniversity graduate courses at the ESAF, the University of São Paulo, and the University of Brasilia; training ofcivil servants; training of mayors; workshops for the secretaries of finance of the states to assess the tax reform billintroduced in Parliament; and various teaching activities about the Brazilian law on fiscal accountability. Some ofthese themes and new topics, such as participatory budgeting and strengthening democracy, transparency in publicmanagement, and social control, are being presented during courses and workshops in 2001-2002.
A most interesting facet of the ESAF’s activity lies in civic education. The ESAF contributes to educational videos,games, and workshops within the National Program of Fiscal Education for Citizenship. It has established aneducational magazine Tudo as Claras (everything out in the open). Concurrent with the objective of the law onfiscal accountability citizens are encouraged to use their rights and ask for information on public spending. The verypoor who contribute to public revenue often without realizing it (for example, through sales taxes) are a specialtarget to inform of their rights as citizens. The ESAF, through this training and information, contributes to createpreconditions that are crucial for the success of fiscal decentralization reforms (effective democracy and financialaccountability). Thus the ESAF’s approach to fiscal relations is comprehensive. The ESAF strives to link issues offiscal decentralization with those of reducing poverty and of strengthening democracy. Cross-fertilization betweenthe FD program and the ESAF’s other activities is taking place.
Although the IFRLFM course represents only a small fraction of its training activities, participation in the FDprogram is of high priority for the ESAF. At the Budapest Experts Workshop, the ESAF’s director mentioned theprestige of the World Bank and the WBI; the knowledge, flexibility, and strong support of its groups of experts, andthe high level of the Vienna course materials as main reasons for the ESAF’s strong commitment to the program. Itmay be added that the partnership with the World Bank (and with other institutions as well) contributes to enlargethe knowledge base of the ESAF, to link it with the global knowledge network and to strengthen its position withinthe national and the regional (Latin American) context.
a The City of Porto Alegre has introduced so-called participatory budgeting by reserving a fraction of the budget forprojects for citizens’ groups. This part is then spent on the best project(s).
Source: Compilation of text from presentations given by Maria de Fatima Cartaxo, Director General of the ESAF,at the Budapest Experts Workshop.
ASSESSMENT OF PARTNERSHIPS AND NETWORKS
At the Budapest Experts Workshop strengths and weaknesses of partnerships were implicitlytreated in the case studies and discussed. Questions about future collaboration were raised and
41
proposals for improvements put forward (see chapter 6, “Options for the Future”). Thesediscussions also provided opportunities to assess strengths and weaknesses of partnerships andnetworks.
Strengths
The FD program has in the past three years been remarkably successful in building partnershipsand networks. The program clearly came about at the right time and with the appropriate anddesirable content. The twin forces of globalization and localization combined with the problems ofcountries in transition have contributed to the growing interest in fiscal decentralization and localfinancial management. The WBI’s IFRLFM core course attracted partners and helped to createcontacts and networks, some of them of temporary, others of a strong and ongoing nature. TheWBI’s partnerships have greatly increased the outreach of the FD program.
The main content and the inherent message of the IFRLFM courses--the devolution of power tononcentral agencies--to a large degree has been translated into the management of the FD programitself. A common philosophy exists within the IFRLFM courses that favorable results are notachieved by imposing conditions, but by providing high-quality services provided and vivid andintensive interactions among the FD program team and its partners. The FD program teamintegrates more and more people into its networks through a variety of means such as involvingnew persons in courses, visiting courses and partners, exchanging e-mails, and conductingvideoconferences, and encourages its partners to do likewise. All of these factors help to explainthe fact that the FD program team contributed 19 percent of the WBI’s training days and in June2000 won a performance award for its work during the period July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000.
Questions
It is too early to determine whether the partnerships created and the networks formed will continueto function well after the WBI has ceased supporting and financing these activities. At theBudapest Experts Workshop, the FD program’s partners said that at present it was too early for theWBI to exit. However, they could not define the moment when sustainable partnerships will havebeen created. Whether the FD program goal to create sustainable partnerships will be achieved canonly be assessed in about three to five years. Partnerships with the ESAF and CEU are already onthe verge of being sustainable.
In choosing their regional fields of activity, the FD program team has clearly followed a demand-driven approach. It developed strongholds where reliable partners could be found that would takeover responsibility for the training. However, the FD program team--due to limits in resources--was not able to meet all demands. It concentrated on the regions with the greatest potential foroutreach. In spite of demands voiced (and reiterated at the Budapest Experts Workshop), Frenchwas not included in the languages in which the knowledge base is presented and in which corecourses are offered until October 2001.7 Also, case studies illustrating and enlarging the content ofcore courses have been developed in and for Central Europe and Latin America, but to a muchlesser degree in and for AFR.
7 As a result of the Budapest Experts Workshop a French version of the knowledge base was established in FY2002, with a course offered in October 2001 in Dakar, Senegal. New regions will be addressed based onpriorities.
42
Weaknesses
The demand-driven approach to partnerships, which is due to the small size of the FD programteam, has had a price. Geographical distribution of the main partners and of courses offered isuneven across the globe. Regional strongholds are CEE, Latin America, and AFR. IRFLM corecourses have also been offered in China, Kazakhstan, and Thailand. However, China, the Indiansubcontinent, and Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa, where a large proportionof the world’s poor live, are not well covered by the FD program. Among the transition countries,the Russian Federation and some of the countries within the Commonwealth of Independent Statesare not yet well integrated into the FD program’s networks. The reasons for this weakness are to alarge degree beyond the control of the FD program team. Explanations for this include othereconomic or political questions being on the agenda of governments or of World Bank countryoffices; lack of awareness about the various options on fiscal decentralization; and difficulties inplanning events in some regions, such as bureaucratic obstacles and requirements by governmentsto select participants and approve materials.
Over the past year, the FD program team has made special efforts to extend beyond its recentgeographical strongholds and plans to do so even more intensely in FY 2002. The program website has started to include documents in Russian. Close contacts have been established withinstitutions from Indonesia, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, and other countries. A French-language version of the course has recently been prepared and delivered. Policy servicesworkshops in decentralization have been held in Indonesia, Nepal, and other countries, perhapsopening doors to closer relationships. However, it would clearly take a considerable effort to coverthose areas more densely.
IMPACTS OF PARTNERSHIPS ON POLICYMAKING
Partners report that involvement with the FD program has strengthened their knowledge,functions, and credibility. This in turn has improved their capacity to provide policy advice. All ofthe FD program's main partners in the ECA, LAC, AFR regions have been involved in policyadvice at the national and the subnational levels. The ESAF has been involved with theformulation and implementation of the law on fiscal accountability and was recently involved withthe tax reform bill introduced in the National Parliament. The main partner in Zimbabwe,MDPESA, has initiated at the ministerial level a process of explicitly recognizing the merits ofmunicipal governments (see box 4.3). In CEE and the former Soviet Union (FSU) region, policyadvice has been advanced through the FDI grant program that was designed to assist transitioneconomies in carrying out intergovernmental reform (see box 4.4).
43
Box 4.3. Case Study from the AFR Region: Victoria Falls Declaration
Three representatives from Zimbabwe attended the March 1998 pilot IFRLFM course held in Vienna. They hadcontacts with George Matovu and Winnie Mulongo-Luhana, Regional Director and Senior Program Officer(respectively) of the MDP, Eastern and Southern Africa. This organization is mainly financed and supported bythe World Bank and the Institute of Social Studies, Netherlands. Following the Vienna meeting, the MDPESAorganized the first core course for the AFR region in November-December 1998 in Harare, Zimbabwe. Amongthe participants were academics, policymakers from the central government, mayors, and town clerks (includingmunicipal treasurers).
This first course was important in several respects, according to Winnie Mulongo-Luhana: “It was the first timethat representatives of the countries of AFR had come together to discuss specific intergovernmental relations intheir respective countries. We discovered so many differences in the ways the countries operated. Some wereahead in municipal development, some behind.”
The first core course in Africa inspired the MDPESA staff to hold a political summit on municipal questions atthe impending turn of the century. According to Winnie Mulongo-Luhana, “We thought it would be important tobring ministers of local government and ministers of finance from the African continent together in order to gettheir collective views and visions. At the turn of the century we wanted to be guided on what we should focus onin the 21st century.”
The summit idea was presented to the MDPESA board of directors, which agreed to pursue this idea. TheGovernment of Zimbabwe was requested to host the ministers of the African countries. The then ZimbabweMinister of Local Government and National Housing, Honorable J. Nkhomo, put the request to the RepublicanPresident Mugabe and after his approval, invited his fellow ministers to the summit.
MDPESA staff and the Zimbabwean Ministry of Local Government and National Housing organized theconference.
From September 19-21, 1999, delegations from 25 AFR countries, in 15 cases led by the ministers of localgovernment, converged at Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe. It was the first time that ministers of local government fromthis area had come together in this fashion. Representatives from each country made presentations on the state ofdecentralization and the financing of their local government in their respective countries. The delegation thenworked out the Victoria Falls declaration, which laid out the vision for municipal development in Africa in the21st century.
The governments that signed the Victoria Falls declaration committed themselves to devolving power andresponsibility to lower echelons, promoting local democracy and good governance, and promoting localgovernment structures that are representative of and accountable to all sectors of the local population and thatenable effective community participation in local governance. Furthermore financial resources should beavailable to local authorities in a manner that is reliable, adequate, predictable, transparent, accountable,sustainable, and equitable, and the basic components of a decentralized system of local government should beenshrined in the constitution. The governments pledged to cooperate, share information, and build capacity onlocal government issues by supporting the formation and strengthening of national associations of localgovernment; supporting exchange programs among African countries; promoting information sharing andencouraging the development of systems for information dissemination; and, last but not least, recognizing theuseful role that traditional leaders, wherever they exist, play in the process of development. The print andelectronic media coverage of this event in Zimbabwe and the other African countries was very wide. TheVictoria Falls conference was a building block to the second Africities summit that took place from 15-20 May2000, in Windhoek, Namibia. This meeting of central government officials and of city and town representativesfocused on the financing of local government. The Africities summit reached consensus and affirmed the visionthat came from the Victoria Falls conference.
Source: Based on two interviews with Winnie Mulongo-Luhana, Senior Program Officer of MPD, Eastern andSouthern Africa.
As mentioned earlier, in the CEE and FSU region, policy advice has been advanced through theFDI grant program (see box 4.4).
44
Box 4.4. The WBI Flagship Partnership Program in Eastern and Central Europe and CentralAsia: The FDI
The FDI is a grant program designed to assist transition economies carrying out intergovernmentalreform. It is designed to provide institutions such as central governments, parliaments, subnationalgovernments, and associations of local authorities with technical and financial resources to analyzeproblems, develop solutions, and implement improvements in local government policy andmanagement. The FDI seeks to assist transition economies in the areas of capacity building,institutional strengthening and training, fiscal decentralization, and improving fiscal management. Itsmajor objective is to facilitate the analysis of policy options and develop a knowledge base, therebyenhancing the capabilities and effectiveness of newly formed local governments throughout CEE.The needs of the governments and other institutions in the process of fiscal decentralization drive theprogram. Donor agencies support the process with financial and technical resources and facilitateaccess to global knowledge.
The FDI is a joint undertaking of the COE, the OECD, the OSI, the WBI, USAID, SDC, theCanadian International Development Agency, and the UNDP. In early 2002, a new FDI memberemerged as a new member, with the Czech Republic Ministry of Foreign Affairs moving from beinga client to a donor partner.
The client ownership is evidenced not only by the direct client control over all aspects of the programcontent, but also by the fact that as of June 2001 the role of the General Secretariat has been fullytransferred from the WBI to a newly established client-based NGO (which is based in Budapest andretains the name of the FDI).
The FDI’s activities encompass three different spheres: (i) grants to CEE experts and practitioners toconduct research or activities on the issues of fiscal decentralization and local government reform, (ii)seminars and conferences, and (iii) region-wide, multiyear knowledge dissemination-capacitybuilding projects.
Grants
A portion of the FDI operating budget is set aside to fund proposals from organizations in CEE andthe FSU to conduct action research in some aspect of intergovernmental relations and local financialmanagement. Some 35 proposals have been funded after being reviewed by the FDI SteeringCommittee (comprised of the nine donor-partner organizations). They range from support for aworkshop on municipal energy efficiency in Lithuania to training for government officials in Bosnia-Herzegovina in budgeting and financial reporting. The FD program maintains a list of all activitiesfor FDI since the inception of the program including all national and regional conferences, proposalsfunded, and publications. Virtually every country in the region is represented here. Proposals cancome from governments, universities, NGOs, research institutes, or associations of local authorities.Research is almost always linked to a dissemination strategy, for example, workshops, seminars, orother training, and the results are also frequently published as part of the FDI publication series(twelve publications to date). It is important to note here that all of the grant monies for this programfund experts in the region and all research and activities are conducted by country experts. It is not avehicle for hiring Western consultants.
Core Courses and Seminars
Under the leadership of the LGI and its program delivery partner the CEU, the FDI has drawn on theWBI core course curriculum to tailor training courses throughout the region. In addition, the FDI hassponsored national forums on fiscal decentralization in nine countries in the region with moreplanned for the future. These activities bring together all of the various players in fiscaldecentralization issues from all levels of government, sometimes for the first time, to discuss the most
45
pressing issues confronting them. The goal is not only a reconnaissance of the issues, but a discussionof next steps in intergovernmental reform. Participants are encouraged to submit their proposals foraction research to the FDI for possible funding, which frequently takes place. Regional conferencesare organized, frequently with the assistance of donor partners and always with a client countrypartner. Topics are identified by a variety of sources, such as clients, donor-partners, and World BankOperations, and have included intergovernmental fiscal transfers, property tax reform, municipalcreditworthiness, the role of associations of local authorities, and the role of associations of municipalfinance officers. Representatives from countries throughout the region participate in theseconferences, which are designed to build both individual and institutional capacity, facilitatenetworking and knowledge sharing, and disseminate best practices.
Multi-year Region-wide Projects
Two new important projects have grown out of the partnerships forged within the FDI that will havefar reaching effects not only for CEE-FSU countries, but also as a model for other decentralizingcountries: the Decentralization Indicators System and the Local Government Information Network(LOGIN).
Decentralization Indicators System
Setting up of local fiscal systems and intergovernmental financial relations involves multiple andoften conflicting economic and political objectives. It is also one of the most complex reformprocesses to implement. Yet there is no international comparative set of data available to measure thetransition from stage 1 political decentralization to stage 2 fiscal decentralization. To date, analystshave had to rely on the IMF’s government finance statistics, which fail to adequately distinguishbetween deconcentrated and devolved fiscal systems (for a discussion seehttp://www.worldbank.org/wbi/publicfinance/decentralization/coursemodule.html#1).
In response to the need to develop uniform set of fiscal decentralization indicators, the FDI and FDIpartner organizations (led by the OECD, which developed the survey format and methodology; theOSI; and the WBI) have initiated a survey of fiscal decentralization for the purpose of providing asystematic comparable international comparison of intergovernmental fiscal systems.
The indicators to be surveyed were identified in a series of consultative meetings between 1997 and1999 involving the partner organizations in the project, experts from the region, and internationalexperts in fiscal decentralization.
The identified benchmarks and the list of indicators form the basis of the survey on fiscaldecentralization. The survey will result in internationally comparative figures on fiscaldecentralization and qualitative descriptions of design of local finance and intergovernmentalfinancial relations. The first country reports (the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,Lithuania, and Poland) of the Decentralization Indicators Systems project were presented at the FDI’sannual meeting in February 2000. A second set of studies for four countries (Bulgaria, Romania,Slovakia, and Slovenia) was initiated in the fall of 2002, with a target for completion of the survey setin April 2003. This will bring the comparable database to 10 countries. The second set of four studiesare being jointly financed by the FDI, with additional resources contributed by the OECD, and withthe support of the World Bank research grant and the WBI.
LOGIN
The goal of LOGIN is to improve the capacity and professionalism of local government andcommunity development actors in the CEE-FSU region through the exchange of information andexperience. LOGIN provides policymakers and practitioners alike with an Internet-based,multilingual, interactive knowledge base of best practices, case studies, and current information onlegislation and budgets.
LOGIN links (both technically and through activities) organizations in the region that are serving
46
local government officials with information, knowledge sharing, and training. Each participatingorganization makes available information on national legislation, documented best practices,research, and news. In addition, the four sponsoring agencies (the COE, the OSI, USAID, and theWBI) make available their research and training documents pertaining to fiscal decentralization andlocal government issues. LOGIN went online in June 2000 (www.logincee.org). LOGIN’scomparative advantage, and what sets it apart from any other online service, is that from thebeginning the strategy has been not to create a new network, but to draw upon and enhance whatalready exists. At present, the WBI in cooperation with the World Bank's East Asia PovertyReduction and Economic Management Network is exploring the application of the LOGIN softwareand format to China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Source: FD program data.
47
5. PARTICIPANT ASSESSMENTS OF OUTCOMES ANDIMPACTS
Participant assessments of outcomes and impacts were compiled from quantitative and qualitativeresults of the partipant survey that was sent in April-May 2001 to former IFRLFM core courseparticipants.
TRAINING FOR POLICY IMPROVEMENTS
The WBI's training programs (such as the FD program) seek to transmit skills and knowledge toparticipants. They should trigger learning processes and affect participant behavior by changingattitudes and increasing professional knowledge. Outcomes refer to such changes of behavior ofprograms' target groups.
Outcomes in terms of improved knowledge and changing attitudes of course participants are notsufficient. The environment may not be receptive to the learning that took place. On a micro level,superiors of employees who have participated in training might not allow their established ways ofhandling problems to be challenged. On a macro level, political conditions might block policyreforms from being adopted or even being debated. In these cases training will not have real worldimpacts. Impacts in terms of effective policy improvements usually presuppose a match betweenknowledge and skills transmitted through training and an administrative and political environmentfavorable for reforms or "windows of opportunity."
ENLIGHTENMENT FUNCTION OF SOCIAL RESEARCH
For some time, social science research has considered the ways in which knowledge and researchis being transmitted into the policy arena. Early research on knowledge utilization was based onthe concept that knowledge acquired through social science research and evaluation would beapplied in a straightforward manner. This so-called instrumental use of knowledge was challengedin the 1970s by Carol H. Weiss (see box 5.1). Her work shows that knowledge utilization is morecomplex than was originally thought. In her view, it is not immediate instrumental use, but theenlightenment function of social research that is of most importance (Weiss 1977).
The FD program’s goals are largely of conceptual nature. The training aims to provide participantswith a broad array of policy options for consideration and possible implementation. The FDprogram leaders emphasize that the program’s focus and course contents do not advocate theimplementation of particular policies, but provide participants with conceptual information, newperspectives, and a menu of policy options to consider in their work.
Box 5.1. Enlightenment Function of Social Research
Noted educational and evaluation researcher Carol H. Weiss of Harvard University has writtenextensively on the topic of the enlightenment function of social research. Her work illustrates thatresearch--or knowledge gained through training in the case of WBI activities--does not necessarily haveto be applied by policymakers to be judged valuable and useful. Weiss contends that decisionmakersconsider research to be useful if it is a source of ideas and information and if it challenges current valuesand political feasibilities.
Weiss discounts assumptions that research must lead to the choice or implementation of a policy,
48
particularly in the short term. She argues that government officials use research more to orientthemselves to problems than in problemsolving. They use research to define their problems and considernew ideas and perspectives.
Drawing on her own research while at Columbia University and additional studies by the University ofMichigan and of government officials in Vienna, Austria, Weiss suggests that the major effect ofresearch on policy may be the gradual sedimentation of insights, theories, concepts, and ways of lookingat the world. She writes, “Coupled with other changes, social research can play a role in clarifying,accelerating, and legitimating the changes in opinion. In fact, this process--bringing new perspectives toattention and formulating issues for resolution--may be the most important contribution that socialresearch makes to government policy” (Weiss 1977, p. 535). While she cautions that it is difficult todocument, Weiss’s work indicates that “it appears likely that the social research has helped shift theagenda and change the formulation of issues in a wide variety of fields” (Weiss 1977, p. 535).
Weiss notes that long-term effects of research are not easily discernible because the process is soindirect, diffuse, and circuitous. She notes that “much of this use (of research) is not deliberate, direct,and targeted, but a result of long-term percolation of social science concepts, theories, and findings intothe climate of informed opinion” (Weiss 1977, p. 534).
In her research, Weiss identifies four key dimensions that potential users use to describe and evaluateresearch: research quality, conformity to user expectations; action orientation, and challenge to the statusquo. She adds that relevance is a lesser, but nevertheless important, dimension.
Research Quality
Respondent judgment on the quality of research that provides a basis for trust in the research.
Conformity to User Expectations
Consistency with what the respondent already knows and believes about the research characteristics thatprovides a basis for trust in the research.
Action Orientation
This involves a direct connection between the research and some decision or action, the “problem-solving” factor, which offers direction toward doing something about problems.
Challenge to Status Quo
This offers innovative ways of thinking about issues and identifying problems and possible responsesand offers direction toward doing something about problems.
Relevance
Relevance of research to the decisionmaker’s work also influences usability.
While noting that all of these dimensions are important determinants of usability, Weiss’s work findsthat the challenge to the status quo is the most important single factor contributing to the judgedusefulness of research. Based on respondents’ answers to questions on usefulness in her studies, Weissnoted that research that challenges the status quo “is particularly useful for such purposes as changingways of thinking about an issue, raising an issue to the attention of government decisionmakers, and
49
formulating new policies and programs” (Weiss 1977, p. 542). Her research suggests that this is the caseeven when the research implies actions that are currently unacceptable in the political system. Further,Weiss’s study “suggests that decisionmakers believe it is a good thing to have controversial research,challenging research, research that makes them rethink comfortable assumptions” (Weiss, p. 544).
Source: Weiss (1977).
OVERVIEW OF USEFULNESS OF THE COURSE (PERSONALLY; IN WORK; INTRAINING, TEACHING, AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES; AND OVERALL)
In the survey that was sent to former core course participants, nine questions were raised on themost important dimensions of usefulness. Both the closed-ended (rated) and open-ended (unrated)responses to these questions appear to be consistent with Weiss’s findings on how policymakersjudge research and knowledge. That is, respondents tended to emphasize usefulness in terms of thebenefits gained from acquisition of new knowledge and perspectives over the usefulness of thecourse in leading to the solving of problems and implementation of policies, although the latter didoccur. Chief among the results on respondents’ opinions on course usefulness are that, to varyingdegrees, the course
• Deepened participant knowledge• Broadened participant views and understanding of concepts• Resulted in further study (formal education) of the concepts• Improved confidence of participants to speak with colleagues and superiors on concepts• Generated a sharing of ideas on the topics (informally in their work and formally in
research, presentations, conferences, and teaching activities)• Introduced networking opportunities• Contributed to improved work programs• Led to development and implementation of new projects and policies.
Detailed descriptions are found below on the findings on four areas of usefulness: personal; inwork; in teaching, training, and research; and overall usefulness.
Personal Usefulness
When asked how the course has helped respondents personally, the top-rated items were inproviding fresh or new ideas (mean 4.2, N=119) and in meeting new persons or networking (mean4.2, N=116) (see figure 5.1). Following closely behind these two items were providing aframework for thought (mean 4.1, N=118), updating previously acquired skills (mean 4.1,N=119), and improving professional skills (mean 4.1, N=121). When grouping answers to themain themes of personal usefulness, the networking function (13h) received the highest rating.The networking function can have a potentially strong impact on the participants' countries byfavoring exchange of experiences and on their region by favoring mutual comprehension andcollaboration within regions. Ranked second (with means 4.2 and 4.1) is the conceptual (orenlightenment) function of training (13e and 13d). A rather high rating (mean 4.1) involved thefunction of updating and improving professional skills (13b and 13a). Quite in agreement withCarol Weiss’s findings is the rating (mean 3.3) of the instrumental function, or solving existingproblems (13c). Less highly ranking, but still above the average, or a rating of “3,” was the careerfunction of training (13f and 13g).
50
Figure 5.1. Personal Usefulness
Question 13: To what extent has or have the course(s) helped you personally in:
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.1
3.3
3.1
3.4
1 2 3 4 5
13h. Meeting new persons (networking)
13e. Providing fresh or new ideas
13d. Providing a framework for thought
13b. Updating previously acquired skills
13a. Improving professional skills
13c. Solving existing problems
13g. Increasing opportunities for promotion
13f. Becoming involved in new professional activities
Source: Participant survey data.
To follow- up on this question, respondents were asked (in subsequent question 14) to provideconcrete examples of how the course was personally useful. Eighty-three participants gave at leastone example in response to this question, with most giving more than one. The 172 examplesgiven can be categorized into 37 categories of responses, with most types of responses mentionedmultiple times. (Annex 4 contains tabulated results of responses.) Looking at unique responses,the example of personal usefulness most mentioned was general improvement in understanding ofconcepts (N=24), followed by improvement in professional skills and opportunities (N=16),teaching elements of the course to others (N=14), preparation of a project using knowledge(N=13), networking (N=13), and general helpfulness to work (N=10).
Because of the many unique responses, it is useful to combine further the unique responses intorelated themes (see figure 5.2). When doing this, the results were benefit to work or organization(N=57), improvement of knowledge both general and specific (N=41), professional developmentand education (N=38), contribution to teaching activities (N=19), networking (N=14), and other(N=3). See box 5.2 for a sample of comments on this question.
51
Figure 5.2. Personal Usefulness: Main Themes of Comments
Question 14: Please provide concrete examples, if thereare any, of how the course(s) helped you personally
(categorized by theme)
Benefit to workor organization
57
Improvement ofknowledge both
general andspecific
41
Other3Networking
14
Contribution toteachingactivities
19
Professionaldevelopment and
education38
Source: Participant survey data.
Box 5.2. Comments on Personal Usefulness
Question 14: Please provide concrete examples, if there are any, of how the course(s) helped you personally.
General Improvement of Knowledge and Understanding
“The course offered me a solid background in all fiscal decentralization topics. It helped me a lot because myprofessional background before attending the course was a technical one. My present area of activity ismostly economics and financial.”
General Improvement of Knowledge and Understanding
“I have been working for a long time with the development of information systems in the fiscal revenue field,which limited my point of view. With the course, I began to have a broader perspective about fiscaladministration.”
General Improvement of Knowledge and Understanding
“In my case, working at the municipal level, the course was not very useful. But the information received wasuseful for the assumption of new attitudes.”
Execution of Projects or Policies
“I have been able to present to the central government areas requiring attention for the DecentralizationProgram and these have been accepted…The local policy on income now reflects required concepts…Thecentral government has acknowledged the need to enshrine revenue sharing in the constitution. The centralgovernment now recognizes the local government sector as a key player in the economy.”
52
“I have been able to convince my local government about the importance of budgeting processes and its usesfor control and evaluation purposes.”
Execution of Projects or Policies, Improvement in Professional Skills and Opportunities, andInformation Sharing
“At the time of the course I was giving professional advice to the government, and my profile was raised tothe point where I was invited to write proposals for the national constitutional assembly. I wrote a proposalfor the Office of Public Finance in my state and later became involved (as an advisor) in a presidentialcampaign. Further, I disseminated what I learned in the course to interested members of a national reformteam.”
Professional Development and Education
“I began my master’s degree, then I switched to another professional field becoming devoted to the directrelations with states and municipalities.”
Training and Research
“Edited four books on local elections, employers, and mayors….Prepared articles on fiscaldecentralization…We have coorganized a study tour on fiscal decentralization for a group of mayorsfollowed by seminars with experts….”
“The course was very useful for my work as a university lecturer and post-graduate researcher. I gaineduseful insights for (i) curriculum development incorporating issues of fiscal decentralization and localbudgeting and (ii) research in the area, describing and analyzing local finances and fiscal decentralization inmy country during the transition to a market economy.”
"This course has provided me with a lot of materials for the Local Government course that I teach to Masterof Public Administration students. I learned new teaching practices; the precourse distant learning packagewas very useful for organizing my own course. My previous knowledge of Public Finance has been expandedwith regard to local finance management. I got the idea to research the local budget evaluation because thenew form of programming budget has been introduced in some cities of [name of country]."
Networking and Training and Research
“The course enabled the creation of new contracts, leading to new opportunities for my professional life,mainly in the area of training directed at employees in the public sector.”
Note: Identifying information has been removed.
Source: Participant survey data.
Contacts and Networking
Concerning the contacts and networking dimension of personal usefulness, 80 percent ofrespondents (N=126) have maintained contacts established during the course. A total of 58 percentof respondents (N for all remaining indications=126) stayed in contact with other courseparticipants and their institutions, 26 percent stayed in contact with the regional organizers, 20percent stayed in contact with nonWorld Bank instructors, and 15 percent with World Bankinstructors. They also visited the web sites of the FD program (25 percent) and of the regionalcourse organizers (23 percent). What is emerging from these figures is evidence of intensivecontacts among course participants after completion of the training and ties primarily with theregional organizers and secondarily with the WBI. This result is much in accordance with thedecentralized strategy of the FD program. Results of contacts and networking are highlighted intable 5.1 and figure 5.3.
53
Table 5.1. Contacts and Networking
10. Since your course(s) ended, have you had any involvement with the course, itsorganizers, instructors, and/or participants? If yes, what activities did you engage in?
Total
Percentageof total
(percent)
Stayed in contact with course participants (students) and/or their institutions 73 58
Stayed in contact with the regional organizers 33 26
Visited the web site of the WBI’s Fiscal Decentralization team(www.decentralization.org or www1.worldbank.org/wbiep/decentralization)
32 25
Visited the web site of the regional organizers of the course 29 23
Stayed in contact with instructors who are employed by institutions other than theWorld Bank or regional institutions that organized the course
25 20
Stayed in contact with the WBI 19 15
Requested documents on fiscal decentralization from the regional organizers of thecourse
13 10
Other contacts or activities 9 7
Requested documents on fiscal decentralization from the World Bank Institute 6 5
Note: Based on 126 respondents
Source: Participant survey data.
Figure 5.3. Contacts and Networking (Activities)
Question 10. In which activities did you engage?
5%
7%
10%
15%
20%
23%
25%
26%
58%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Documents from WBI
Other
Documents from regional organizers
Contact with WBI
Contact with non-WBI instructors
Regional organizer web site
WBI FD web site
Contact with regional organizers
Contact with course participants
Source: Participant survey data.
54
Usefulness to Work
When asked to rate the extent to which the course(s) contributed to help them in their work, surveyrespondents gave the top ratings to what can be called the arbitrage function: making choicesamong various policies. They feel safe in arguing for or against certain policy options (mean 4.0,N=112), in supporting or opposing policy options by referring to best international practices(mean 4.0, N=110), and, to a lesser extent, in identifying the most suitable policy options (mean3.8, N=107). The second highest rating received involved the advisory function, with considerabledifferences in ratings on the object of advice; usefulness of training for advising colleagues andmanagers was rated higher (mean 4.0, N=111) than for advising the political top level (authoritiesor politicians: mean 3.7, N=105). Preparing background documents and/or written papers or briefswas rated in between these two answers (mean 3.9, N=108). Looking at the policy initiativefunction--develop better policy options (mean 3.7, N=97) and develop technical content ofpolicies (mean 3.5, N=105)--the ratings are still higher than a rating of “3” or average, but lowerthan for the other functions. This comparatively low rating could be related to the participants'complaints that the duration of the course was too short and their expressed desires for (i) coursestailored to country and regional needs, (ii) advanced courses that develop specific skills, and (iii)more examples and case studies (see table 3.7 and chapter 6). Looking at these ratings, it appearsthat respondents returned to their offices from this course with greater confidence to make choicesabout different policies and to speak about issues of fiscal decentralization, especially withcolleagues and managers. When it comes to developing specific policies they feel there is stillroom for learning.
In a follow-up question, respondents were asked to elaborate on ways that the knowledge gainedfrom the course helped them in their work, citing concrete examples (see figure 5.4). Seventy-three respondents to the questionnaire answered this question, providing 119 examples. These 119examples could be subdivided into 21 different types of responses. Most frequently mentioned (by16 respondents) was that the course was helpful in the preparation and/or implementation of apolicy and/or project, with respondents typically citing a specific example of a policy or project.Next highest, by 14 respondents, was the provision of advice to government, followed by 11examples of preparation of documents (papers, reports, books, briefing papers, and articles).
55
Figure 5.4. Usefulness of Course to Work
Source: Participant survery results.
By combining the specific responses even further, six basic themes emerge (see figure 5.5). Mostprominent among these themes, with 35 responses, concerned the contributions the course made torespondents’ work or projects. Respondents cited examples of usefulness in preparation and/orimplementation of policy and/or projects (16), choosing appropriate and/or best policies andpractices (10), choosing appropriate technical aspects of project and/or policy design (2),monitoring and evaluation of projects (5), and general improvement to government projects (2).
Question 15: To what extent has/have the course(s) contributed to help
you in your work to:
4.0
4.0
3.8
4.0
3.7
3.9
3.7
3.5
0 1 2 3 4 5
15c. Argue for or against certain policy options
15d. Support or oppose policy options byreferring to best international practices discussed
15b. Identify the most suitable policy options
15g. Advise colleagues and managers
15f. Advise authorities or politicians
15h. Prepare background documents and/orwritten papers or briefs.
15a. Develop better policy options
15e. Develop technical content of policies
56
Figure 5.5. Usefulness to Work: Main Themes of Contents
Question 16. Please provide concrete examples, if thereare any, of how you were able to use knowledge gained
from the course(s) in your work.
Knowledgeor research
33
Work orprojects
35
Advice19
Informationsharing
18
Training10
No use4
Source: Participant survey data.
Thirty-three respondents provided examples of how the course contributed to their knowledge andresearch for their work. With the course knowledge, respondents were able to prepare documents(11), compare their respective nations’ experiences to international experiences in fiscaldecentralization (10), realize improved confidence to analyze issues (6), and use the knowledge intheir research and education (6).
Nineteen responses were cited on the theme of advice to government, superiors or colleagues,media, and educational institutions. Closely related to the theme of advice was the fourth mostfrequently mentioned theme of information sharing with 18 examples. Also related to informationsharing, were 10 examples on how the course benefited their teaching and training activities.
Interestingly, four respondents said that they could not provide examples of how the course hadbeen useful to their work. Three of these reported that their positions were either too junior for theknowledge gained in the course to be of much use in their work or their work was not very relatedto the course. Another respondent spoke passionately about the inability to use the knowledgebecause of political conditions in the respondent’s country. (Note that nonrespondents to thisquestion are not considered.) See box 5.3 for a sample of comments on this question.
Box 5.3. Comments on Usefulness to Work
Question 16: Please provide concrete examples, if there are any, of how you were able to use knowledge gainedfrom the course(s) in your work.
Improvements in work: Projects and policies
“I conducted an assessment about the status of fiscal decentralization and necessary legal frameworkimprovements in my country. Together with other important stakeholders whom I successfully involved, theassessment results were promoted to legislative national organizations. This proposal includes different policy
57
options that are suitable and necessary for our context: the income shared tax structure to be fixed and notchangeable each year (as it is now) and to introduce other shared taxes, models for horizontal balance, revenuemaximization tools, financial performance indicators, and so on.”
“The knowledge acquired in the course allowed me to improve the development and execution of the programthat we are undertaking, basically in the areas of fiscal cleansing, community participation, transfer ofcompetencies, fiscal responsibility, and fiscal control of indebtedness and transfers.”
“The central government recently scrapped an excise duty to enhance decentralization.”
“A decentralization policy is being created in the country and to be able to make international comparativeanalyses gives solidity to the proposals. Knowing international experiences that have been validated over severalyears gives support to the work proposals. It has been possible to make alternative proposals, according todifferent experiences in several countries.”
“A working group to spearhead a vibrant bond market is in place, and I am co-chair.”
“When I took the course I was developing a national policy the objective of which was distribution of resources.The new knowledge helped me to perfect the document and arguments necessary to defend better each one of thepoints.”
Improvements in work: Projects and policies and information sharing
“The Income Policy Design for Budgeting now incorporates equity, accountability, and social differentiation totackle poverty issues; we have convinced the council to privatize and successfully commercialized someoperations. Both central and local governments encourage and support public-private partnerships in servicedelivery and financing infrastructure. In presentations that I have (since) made, I drew a lot from the lessonslearned from the course. In local and regional workshops and conferences I have been able to quote confidentlythe state of decentralization from various parts of the world.”
Improvements in work: Projects and policies, research, and information sharing
“We have prepared briefs describing Decentralization on Local Power, from the treasury point of view, fortreasury offices in all districts.”
Training
“In training that we organized for the staff in our general office (600 in 1999), we included the subject ofdecentralization and cooperative federalism. This subject was taught by 25 employees from our general office,and out of those 25, three were from the highest level in our organization.”
“The new knowledge that I gained from the course was useful for me in updating my curriculum in the “StateFinances” discipline and I have also advised in the preparation of the curriculum on the topic of “StateManagement of Economy.” I started to use new teaching methods after the course and to give more informationon fiscal relations between different levels of government to my students.”
Advice
“Prepared recommendations for the government on the reform of budget relations.”
Note: Identifying information has been removed.
Source: Participant survey data.
Usefulness in Teaching, Training, and Research
A somewhat surprising finding of the survey results involves the high number of respondents whoare somehow involved with training, teaching, or research. When asked if they had integrated
58
elements of the course that they attended into their own training, teaching, or research activities,83 of 119 (70 percent) responded affirmatively. This demonstrates how the course has experiencedpositive multiplier effects, not only in the adoption of the course by WBI partners, but moreinformally, and perhaps more broadly, by participants of the course. It is worth noting that it is astrategy of WBI management for WBI programs to “plant seeds” and encourage the growth and“fertilization” of core courses, especially through the establishment of formal partnerships. TheFD program leaders were explicit in this strategy with the first course in Vienna and with Vienna’sparticipants. The strategy was perhaps not so explicit since Vienna, but the expected andunexpected sprouting of new training in fiscal decentralization in universities and governmenttraining centers and the research and publications undertaken by former participants can be seen asan accomplishment of the program leaders, partners, and expert trainers.
The respondents who declared that they had integrated elements of the course into their owntraining, teaching, or research activities were asked to specify the activities in which they engaged(multiple answers possible). Sixty-two had used contents of the course in their own research, 35integrated the course contents into their own teaching activities, 14 participated as an instructor orresource person in other offerings of the course, 11 had organized a similar course, and 22indicated other activities.
In an additional open-ended question, respondents were asked to elaborate on the activities inwhich they engaged (in teaching, training, and research). The 91 responses by 59 respondentswere similar to the answers reported earlier, but with more detail. Twenty-eight shared theirexperiences in teaching and/or organizing similar courses, while 24 gave examples of how thecourse was beneficial to them in their research. A total of 21 respondents described how theyshared the information gained in the course through participation in conferences, workshops, orseminars (10); making oral presentations (6); informally discussing and debating the issues (4);and by disseminating materials to others (1). Fifteen commented on how the course was useful totheir work due to project design (7) and advising and technical assistance (9). Two respondentsreported that they had enrolled in similar courses. See box 5.4 for a sample of comments on thisquestion and box 5.5, which describes the experiences of the core course of a former participant.
Box 5.4. Comments on Teaching, Training, and Research
Question 16: Please provide concrete examples, if there are any, of how you were able to useknowledge gained from the course(s) in your work.
Research and work advice
“I have prepared four background articles for senators working on fiscal decentralization, mainly thetheoretical aspects and alternative models.”
Workadvice and information sharing
“I gave a presentation to my colleagues at a bilateral organization on fiscal decentralization. I am currentlyproviding advice on fiscal decentralization to my counterparts at the Ministry of Finance.”
Training, work advice, and research
“I conducted a national program, ‘Fiscal Decentralization--Capacity Building to Manage Change,’ initiated asa result of the course attended. The program included developing and printing a training manual based on theknowledge gained in the course, using some of the materials provided during the course, training for trainersfor local government financial officers, and training for government representatives (elected and appointed). Ialso integrated course elements into other technical assistance that I provided for local governments invarious fields, such as local economic development strategies, public service delivery, and citizenparticipation in local governance. As an external expert, I taught local taxes and fees at the post-graduatecourse at a local institute, presenting different country examples gained from the course.”
59
Training and research
“This year I have included in my lectures new themes such as ‘Concept of Decentralization,’‘Intergovernmental Grants,’ and ‘Municipal Creditworthiness.’ The main subjects of my scientific researchare the financial problems of enterprises in transition economies, but I have started to investigate problems ofmunicipal enterprises’ management in my country.”
Training
“Organized, designed, and conducted a training of trainers session and seven regional workshops onmunicipal credits. Some of the knowledge gained in the course was integrated into this training program,which will benefit more than 100 persons from local governments.”
Work advice and training
“Convinced the directors of the graduate program (Economics: Public Finance) of the necessity to enhancethe program by including additional courses and/or incorporating local finance issues into the offeredcourses.”
Information sharing
“I made presentations and participated with my support documents in various events and conferences on thesubject, in many gatherings and political consultancies.”
Note: Identifying information has been removed.
Source: Participant survey data.
Box 5.5. Experiences from the Republic of Slovakia
“After the Vienna course, the World Bank provided technical information and contacts with other persons.This allowed us to use the experiences of these people. We also used the team from the World Bank andcooperated with them…. This assistance helped to increase the conviction that we were going in the rightdirection. Of course there was huge opposition, and opponents were using professional arguments. It isfortunate in this case to have points you can be convinced of, and then to have opportunities to discuss andsolve some problems as well as to clarify your policy….”
“…In decentralization reforms you have to be technically perfect, but this is not sufficient…. The maincontribution [of the FD program] has been to provide methods of how to think, analyze, and collectinformation, in other words, how to use the brain. It was a good experience, and there is still a very importantprocess going on…”
“…The target groups of this kind of knowledge are people from self-governments, which means mayors orpersons from the association of mayors. (But this should) not exclude people from state administrations, (as)there are problems there. Politicians and experts within the parties, if convinced, are important for action.Teachers at universities who are teaching these topics and are doing it well are selling this message tohundreds and thousands of people….”
Source: Comments are from the presentation of Ivan Miklos, Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs ofthe Republic of Slovakia and participant at the March 1998 Vienna core course, at the 2001 Budapest ExpertsWorkshop.
60
Overall Usefulness
After asking the respondents how the course was useful to them personally, in their work, and intraining and research activities, they were asked to rate the overall usefulness of the course (seefigure 5.6). The overall rating was relatively high, with a mean score of 4.1 (N=114), and 84percent of respondents giving overall usefulness a rating of “4” or “5” on a 1 to 5 scale with “1”being a low rating and “5” a high rating. This rating is very close to the WBI quality benchmark of85 percent for client and staff learning programs and identical to the performance of other WBIcore courses for this measure, although the average rating (4.1) was slightly lower than the WBIaverage (4.2). The lowest rating given (by 16 percent of the participants) was a rating of “3,” oraverage, meaning that no respondent considered the course to be below average.
Figure 5.6. Distribution of Ratings on the Question of Overall Usefulness
Question 19. Rate the overall usefulness of the course.
0% 0%
16%
55%
29%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1
(low)
2 3 4 5
(high)
Ratings(percent)
Rating
Source: Participant survey data.
The evaluation team undertook statistical tests to identify the several possible factors that couldexplain participants' assessments of the overall usefulness of courses.8,9 Analysis of the questionon overall usefulness was done using backward stepwise logistic regression (starting withvariables of age, region, year attended course, and education level). Results showed that the agegroup 40-49 was statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level.10 Together with the
8 Year the course was taken, region the respondents live in, age group respondents belong to, and highesteducation respondents completed.9 Question 19 of the survey (see Annex 3)10 As 57 percent of the participants (out of 106 valid cases) rated overall usefulness with a score of “4” (on ascale from 1 to 5), for analytical purposes we eliminated the ratings of “4” and concentrated on thoseparticipants who gave either “5” (=1) or “3,” “2,” and “1” (=0) ratings.
61
age group 30-39 and the ECA regional group it correctly explained 71.7 percent of respondents'answers on the overall usefulness of the course.11
These correlations are of rather weak nature and hard to interpret. It is not known whether therating of personal usefulness actually corresponds to the degree to which respondents could put theknowledge accumulated during the course to use. It could also be that the rating on overallusefulness was influenced by the affinity of the respondents to the course instructors. It remainsunknown what factors influence the 40-49 age group’s more positive rating of usefulness. Amongmany possible answers are that their greater experience (compared with younger participants) injudging what is or is not useful; their lack of familiarity with innovative teaching methods andmaterials than younger, more recently educated participants, which may cause them to be lesscritical and more impressed with pedagogical advances; or their seniority made them sufficientlyinfluential or at high enough professional levels to consider and/or apply lessons learned.12
As far as regions are concerned, attribution to the ECA region proved to have some significance(at the 90 percent confidence level). This might explain that, in the transition countries, changes doindeed take place and that this affects respondents' assessments of overall usefulness.
FACTORS RESTRICTING IMPACTS
There is a long and fragile path from training to real world impact. Many intervening factors canrestrict or impede impacts: a mismatch between training and expectations, insufficient learninggains, a job situation not conducive to apply acquired knowledge, political circumstances blockingpolicy changes, and so on. (For examples, see comments in box 5.6.)
To determine key obstacles to fiscal decentralization that exist in course participants’ countries,the respondents were asked to rank (i) obstacles according to three levels of government (central,subnational, and local) and (ii) specified types of obstacles. The central or national governmentwas considered an obstacle by more respondents (mean 3.7, N=115) than the subnational (mean3.4, N=96) or the local government (mean 3.3, N=101). While respondents from subnational orlocal levels more frequently found obstacles at the central government level (mean 4.11),respondents from the central or national government levels still found slightly more obstacles atthe central government level (mean 3.54) than at the subnational government level. Interestingly,respondents from subnational government were rather self-critical and indicated more obstacles atthe subnational level of government (mean 3.5) than respondents from the central or nationalgovernments (mean 3.46).
11 As a cautionary note, the number of cases used in this model was low (46 respondents gave ratings of “5” or“3” or lower), and the analysis could be subject to measurement error.12 While age can be considered an instrumental variable of respondents’ influence level, an alternativeinstrumental variable could be employment type. The following employment types were deemed to have highlevels of influence when compared with other employment categories: ministers; parliamentarians at the centrallevel of government; heads of government at the subnational level; and university, training, or researchinstitution heads and professors. (See Annex 4, question 9.) Adding this newly created variable of influence, thesame backward regression was run again. Results showed that this influence is not statistically significant inexplaining respondents’ ratings of overall usefulness.
62
When looking at specific types of obstacles, the highest rated obstacles found were lack ofpolitical consensus on a strategy for fiscal decentralization (mean 4.1, N=114) and economicdisparities among regions (mean 3.9, N=114). The high rating of the second of these two obstaclesis surprising, to some extent, because the issue of how to reduce disparities by intergovernmentalgrants is well addressed in the IFRLFM core courses and technical tools are provided. Thequestions of whether and to what degree regional disparities should be attenuated involves toughpolitical questions with no readymade solutions.
The next important obstacles were lack of organizational capacity at the subnational or local level(mean 3.7, N=114) and lack of awareness of the benefits and risks of fiscal decentralization (mean3.5, N=113). The following obstacles were considered to be less important: lack of knowledge ofthe appropriate options for fiscal decentralization (mean 3.4, N=114), macroeconomic instability(mean 3.2, N=114), and political instability (mean 3.0, N=112). Twenty respondents citedobstacles in addition to those just mentioned; they were of varying nature, eight of themexpressing distrust with the competence, will, and integrity of administrators and politicians.
STRATEGIES TO OVERCOME OBSTACLES
How could IFRLFM core courses contribute to reduce obstacles to fiscal decentralization? Eighty-eight respondents gave suggestions. Most noteworthy of all, resignation was not expressed inthose comments; only three respondents found there was no way to overcome the existingobstacles, while 19 recommended inviting and including policymakers in courses to reduceobstacles, 18 expressed their confidence that the diffusion of knowledge will ultimately havepositive effects on fiscal decentralization, 10 respondents suspected that successful foreignexamples will produce this effect as well; eight respondents proposed technical solutions, andseven respondents thought that providing knowledge and skills would be sufficient. Othersuggestions included offering courses in their own country or region (6 respondents), favoringdiscussions through networks (4), and elaborating country-specific proposals (4). Finally, fiverespondents expressed their general confidence that courses have positive effects and did not enterarguments about obstacles. See box 5.7 for examples of comments.
Box 5.6. Comments on Restrictions for Impacts
Questions 12 and 16: Taking into consideration the main contents of the course, please describethe most important insight that you gained from the course and please provide concreteexamples, if there are any, of how you were able to use knowledge gained from the course(s) inyour work.
"The presentations about experiences related to health and education sectors expenditures were veryinteresting, but I think that the debate on poverty and inequalities in Brazilian states and municipalities,even at the conceptual level, was not very interesting. It should be more explored, as the concentration ofthe income is very high in Brazil, and this matter is often treated like a taboo (very hard to be discussed) inour country.”
"The effects in my work were small, because I do not work directly in the government's fiscal area. I workin a development institution, focused on the promotion of policies that stimulate economic growth andsocial improvements. My interest in the course is owed to the importance of municipal administrations inlocal (governments)."
"The rating was relatively low, not because of the level of the course itself, but because I think talkingabout policies in terms of advising on them takes a higher level of competence than I have."
Note: Identifying information has been removed.
63
Box 5.7. Comments on Overcoming Obstacles
Question 25: Based on your experience in this course, how might this course have any effect on reducingthese obstacles?
"The course opens new horizons and new forms of thought. The qualification of government officials isparamount, because they have the power and the ability to change the systems implemented before today."
"Intensifying debates among participants, about the implementation of public policies that have been successfulin other countries; that eliminated hunger, unemployment, and illiteracy; and that gave better social conditions tothe people who really needed it."
"By increasing the number of qualified technicians, create a group of people who are able to criticize, which caninfluence government decisions in the future."
"Through networking among authorities and professionals who participated (in the course) and by means ofpermanent on-line consulting in case certain questions arise."
"More courses. More success."
"I think that the more people are aware of things that happen and of the ways to solve problems, the fastersolutions will come up."
"I believe that the participants in the course are people with relevant representativeness in their work places andable to exert positive influences in these matters."
Note: Identifying information has been removed.
Source: Participant survey data.
64
6. OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
The options for the future of the FD program discussed in the following chapter were put forwardby IFRLFM core course participants and program partners.
TWO PERSPECTIVES
Options for the future of the FD program were based on two perspectives. First, formerparticipants of the IFRLFM core courses were asked in the survey about their recommendationsfor the future of the course. Second, the FD program partners were asked at the Budapest ExpertsWorkshop to develop their vision for the IFRLFM core course.
THE CORE COURSE PARTICIPANTS’ VIEWS
Course participants were presented with 14 preselected options for improving the IFRLFM corecourses (see table 6.1). They were asked to select three options and rate them most useful, thesecond most useful, and the third most useful course improvement. Survey respondents were alsoable to propose further (“other”) options. They used this possibility in only three cases.Respondents were also invited to comment on the choices they made.
Table 6.1. Options for Course Improvements
Question 28: The course organizers are interested in making improvements to the course.In your opinion, what would be the three most useful improvements to the course?
Sum ofpointsa Rank
a. Tailor courses more to country and regional needs 103 1e. Provide advanced courses that develop specific skills 103 1b. Develop and use more examples and case studies 95 3j. Include more policymakers (politicians, mayors, and so on) as participants 75 4i. Build further regional networks for courses and knowledge dissemination 74 5n. Establish post-course communication networks for alumni 67 6g. Rely more on the Internet as an interactive learning tool 31 7d. Add new topics 26 8m. Lengthen the duration of the course 26 8h. Engage more in distance learning 19 10f. Improve teaching materials 15 11c. Delete topics 9 12l. Shorten the duration of the course 6 13o. Other: 5 14k. Include more journalists as participants 4 15a For each respondent’s answer to this question, the first option was given a score of “3,” the second option was given a score of“2,” and the third option was given a score of “1.” The weighted scores were then tallied for each option, with total points andranks for each option shown.
Source: Participant survey data.
With regard to the support received three groups of options emerge:• Options well supported by respondents (ranks 1-6)• Options moderately supported by respondents (ranks 7-11)• Options little supported by respondents (ranks 12-15)
65
Options Largely Supported by Respondents
Respondents ranked the option that courses should be increasingly tailored to country and regionalneeds highly. They believe that each country's situation and needs are different. Tailoring coursesto those needs makes the courses more relevant and increases chances for knowledge applications.Some participants hoped that solutions adapted to the region or the country could be identified andapplied.
The option to develop advanced courses that develop specific skills was also ranked highly byrespondents. In the comments given by participants supporting this choice, specialization, in-depthknowledge, and professionalism are key words describing the option. This coincides with the wishexpressed in other parts of the survey (see table 3.7) that more time could be devoted to the course.It also matches the view that there should be increased follow-up activities and that "continuity isessential," as one participant put it.
Further, more examples and case studies should be developed, according to the participants.Various reasons are given for this. The comment "theory is better understood through examples"illustrates the didactic purpose advocated by some participants. Other participants were mostlyinterested in the practice of fiscal decentralization. Still others hoped that through examples andcase studies, practical solutions for their respective regional or country problems could bedeveloped.
Participants also recommended that more policymakers (such as politicians and mayors) beincluded as participants. One respondent put it bluntly, "They are participants with greater powerto decide." Quite a few respondents would like to include policymakers in training because theyhope that this will facilitate implementing reforms. Yet other respondents favored integration ofpolicymakers into courses for didactic purposes; they would like to learn about their experiencesor become better connected to (political) realities.
Also well received are the concurrent options to build further regional networks for courses andknowledge dissemination and establish post-course communication networks for alumni. Whilesome of the respondents supporting this option commented on the possibilities to exchangeinformation among former participants, others expressed the hope that they would receiveinformation and updates of information that were not available during their respective courses.
Options with Moderate or Little Support
It should be noted that some options proposed to the IFRLFM core course participants were rarelyselected by respondents as top priorities. While only moderate support or lack of support forvarious options is in line with respondents’ assessment of the course quality (improve teachingmaterials, delete topics, and shorten the duration of the course) or does not call for further inquiry(include journalists as participants), the only moderate support for the option engage more in DLcomes as a surprise when compared with the World Bank’s strong policy in favoring DL. It isfurthermore partially at odds with the medium support for the option, rely on the Internet as aninteractive learning tool. Three reasons can be advanced for explaining this verdict.
• Only participants from face-to-face courses were included in the survey. They may havebeen concerned that DL could threaten the high quality of the training.
• The moderate support for DL could also reflect lack of awareness about DL’s potentialfor interactive learning, for example, through e-mail, discussion groups, andvideoconferences and a prejudice toward this form of training.
66
• Some respondents or persons known to them might have had unsatisfactory experienceswith DL.
Whether judgment on DL is based on real experience or not, a certain reluctance toward thistraining modality should be taken into account by the WBI when increasing its engagement in DL.DL should not jeopardize some of IFRLFM core courses’ inherent strengths, such as quality ofcontents, materials, and presentations and the opportunity to exchange experiences. It should beassured that participants are well engaged during the DL training and that they can interact withthe trainers and each other. DL could be used effectively in post-course, follow-up activities, suchas creating on-line opportunities on the FD website for instructors and participants to correspondon the implementation of technical aspects of FD.
FD PROGRAM PARTNERS' VIEWS
At the Budapest Experts Workshop four hours were devoted to debating the strengths andweaknesses of the FD program and to develop options for the future (box 6.1). The work wasorganized in the following way:
• Participants were asked to take 10 minutes to write down strengths and weaknesses of the FDprogram.
• Their findings were then presented to the whole workshop audience. As participants oftenpresented an agenda for the future under weaknesses, the title challenges proved to be moreadequate.
• Strengths and challenges were then grouped under six headings:o Knowledge baseo Target audience of courseso Course content: Core and scopeo (Distance) learning or course deliveryo Partnerships and networkso Governance, finance, and donor coordination.
• Participants then worked for an hour in groups related to their regional or professionalbackground (Central European countries, Latin American countries, African countries,donors, and universities). They also developed options and strategies for the future.
• The groups then presented their results to the whole audience.
Box 6.1. Voices of the Budapest Experts Workshop
“We recommend the organization of a Strategic Alignment Seminar between the WBI and its new Brazilianpartners to strengthen the partnership and to define the mission and role of each entity in the process and toassure the program’s continuity.” Maria de Fatima, Director of the ESAF, Brasilia
“There is a strong need for an IFRLFM course in French-speaking Western Africa.” François Yatta,Regional Adviser, MDP Western and Central Africa
The results of this joint effort to develop options for the future are summarized in table 6.2.
Tab
le 6
.2. O
ptio
ns f
or t
he F
utur
e: R
esul
ts f
rom
Bud
apes
t E
xper
ts W
orks
hop
The
me
Stre
ngth
sC
hall
enge
sO
ptio
ns a
nd s
trat
egie
sK
now
ledg
e ba
seo
Im
port
ant t
opic
o
Coh
eren
t fra
mew
ork
o
Com
preh
ensi
ve a
ppro
ach
o
Con
vinc
ing
cont
ent
o
Inno
vativ
e ap
proa
cho
R
ight
pro
gram
at t
he r
ight
mom
ent
o
Web
site
con
tent
of
exce
llent
qua
lity
o
To
be in
clud
ed in
to th
e kn
owle
dge
base
:ü
D
istr
ibut
iona
l con
sequ
ence
sü
E
thic
sü
A
sym
met
rica
l dec
entr
aliz
atio
nü
R
elat
ions
bet
wee
n lo
cal g
over
nmen
t and
sect
oral
min
iste
rsü
Po
litic
al s
tabi
lity
or e
thni
c qu
estio
nso
Im
prov
e pr
esen
tatio
n of
the
web
site
o
Dec
entr
aliz
atio
n to
mar
kets
and
to lo
cal g
over
nmen
tsha
s be
en a
rriv
ing
at th
e sa
me
time
o
Impr
ove
data
base
o
Supp
ort r
egio
nal r
esea
rch
and
data
base
dev
elop
men
to
E
ngag
e in
crea
sing
ly in
res
earc
h on
rel
atio
n be
twee
n fi
scal
dece
ntra
lizat
ion
and
pove
rty
redu
ctio
no
A
void
mak
ing
the
know
ledg
e ba
se to
o la
rge
Tar
get a
udie
nce
of c
ours
es a
ndta
rget
reg
ions
o
Aca
dem
ics
and
youn
g pe
rson
s am
ong
targ
et a
udie
nce
o
Incr
ease
vis
ibili
ty o
f th
e FD
pro
gram
o
Pres
ent c
ours
es in
fra
ncop
hone
Afr
ica
o
Incl
ude
prac
titio
ners
(po
licym
aker
s, im
plem
ente
rs, a
ndPa
rlia
men
tari
ans)
and
pri
vate
sec
tor
Cou
rse
cont
ent:
Cor
e an
d sc
ope
o
Cor
e co
urse
con
tent
is c
onvi
ncin
go
M
aint
ain
core
of
the
prog
ram
o
Inte
grat
e co
urse
con
tent
of
the
WB
I an
d of
oth
erpr
ovid
ers
into
a p
acka
ge s
uite
d to
the
need
s of
spe
cifi
cta
rget
aud
ienc
eso
D
evel
op m
ore
Afr
ican
cas
e st
udie
s
o
Dev
elop
reg
iona
l mod
ules
(E
CA
, LA
C, a
nd s
o on
)o
Pr
eser
ve id
entit
y of
the
FD p
rogr
am w
hen
intr
oduc
ing
new
cont
ents
(no
t nec
essa
rily
cal
led
mod
ules
)o
C
reat
e ad
viso
ry g
roup
s to
rev
iew
reg
iona
l kno
wle
dge
base
for
qual
ity a
ssur
ance
(Dis
tanc
e) le
arni
ng o
r co
urse
deliv
ery
o
Due
to m
ultid
isci
plin
ary
natu
re o
f to
pic,
dif
fere
ntun
iver
sity
dep
artm
ents
are
aff
ecte
do
D
iffi
culty
of
mea
suri
ng th
e im
pact
of
cour
ses
o
Stre
ngth
en s
ocia
l cap
abili
ties
duri
ng c
ours
es
o
Prov
ide
for
qual
ity s
tand
ards
and
cer
tific
atio
n of
cou
rses
and
prov
ide
qual
ity a
ssur
ance
thro
ugh
eval
uatio
ns
Part
ners
hips
and
net
wor
kso
C
ross
-fer
tiliz
atio
n be
twee
n th
e W
orld
Ban
k an
d pa
rtne
rso
N
etw
orks
are
val
uabl
eo
R
egio
nal s
tron
ghol
ds a
s m
ain
asse
to
C
ombi
natio
n of
inte
rnat
iona
l and
loca
lre
sour
ce p
erso
nso
E
valu
atio
n-st
ruct
ured
pro
cess
of
revi
ewan
d im
prov
emen
to
M
anag
emen
t of
the
FD p
rogr
am s
uite
d to
its c
onte
nt (
part
ner
orie
ntat
ion)
o
Flex
ibili
ty in
par
tner
ship
s an
d co
urse
so
T
echn
ical
sup
port
fro
m th
e W
BI
o
Lac
k of
fol
low
up
on c
ount
ry e
xper
ienc
eso
R
egio
nal p
artn
ersh
ips
not y
et s
usta
inab
le e
noug
ho
C
ontin
ue in
tegr
atin
g lo
cal t
eam
so
Fe
ar th
at p
artn
ersh
ip w
ill b
e th
reat
ened
if s
taff
with
inth
e FD
team
leav
e th
e pr
ogra
m
o
Impr
ove
hori
zont
al li
nks
betw
een
part
ners
(w
ith r
egar
d to
cour
se m
ater
ials
and
age
ndas
), f
or e
xam
ple,
by
mea
ns o
fvi
deoc
onfe
renc
eo
T
he W
BI
shou
ld b
e co
mm
itted
to m
ultiy
ear
plan
ning
o
Anc
hor
part
ners
hips
in s
uch
a w
ay th
e ac
tiviti
es c
an b
eca
rrie
d on
whe
n th
e W
BI
pulls
out
o
Impr
ove
coor
dina
tion
betw
een
dono
rs (
to f
acili
tate
the
tapp
ing
of r
esou
rces
in d
ecen
tral
izat
ion
issu
es)
Gov
erna
nce,
fin
ance
, and
don
orco
ordi
natio
no
Pa
rtne
rshi
p an
d fu
ndin
g ar
e re
late
do
H
ow to
mak
e co
urse
s fi
nanc
ially
sel
f-su
stai
nabl
e?o
C
onso
lidat
e ex
istin
g pa
rtne
rshi
ps b
efor
e ai
min
g at
cha
nges
o
Coo
rdin
ate
deliv
ery
of d
iffe
rent
cou
rses
bet
ter
with
in th
eW
BI
o
Use
reg
iona
l exp
erts
or
thin
k ta
nks
for
cont
ent d
evel
opm
ent
o
Mov
e co
urse
s cl
oser
to m
arke
t-ba
sed
mod
els
of p
aym
ent
o
Dev
elop
new
way
s to
fin
ance
par
tner
s, f
or e
xam
ple,
.in
dust
ry-s
pons
ored
sch
olar
ship
s
Sour
ce:
Aut
hors
.
68
SYNTHESIS
Survey respondents’ and partners’ views on options for improvement are highly consistent. Therespondents’ main concerns were also voiced by the FD program’s partners at the Budapest ExpertsWorkshop (see table 6.2 under challenges and options and strategies). 13
The FD program’s partners, while favoring changes such as developing regional research and database,including new topics, offering courses in new regions, improving follow up, and including practitioners,voice some cautions, for instance, avoid making the knowledge base too large and preserve identity of theFD program when introducing new contents. An echo of this concern can be found among surveyrespondents expressing moderate or low support for adding or deleting new topics. Respondents andpartners want the core elements of the FD program to be maintained. They do not favor drastic changes, buta strategy that builds on the existing strengths of the program while deepening its impact.
The similar preferences—of both participants and partners—for future action creates a favorableprecondition for implementing changes. As discussed in chapter 7, however, it will not be easy to fulfill allthe wishes at the same time and with the limited resources that are available.
13 See table 6.1. Tailor courses more to country and regional needs, provide advanced courses that develop specific skills,develop and use more examples and case studies, include policymakers as participants, build further regional networksfor courses and knowledge dissemination, and establish post-course communication networks for alumni.
69
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 7.1 synthesizes the quantitative and qualitative results of this report. See Annex 4 for detailed resultsof the survey.
Figure 7.1. Overview of Results
Participants
Not examinedin this study
Assessment of Impacts
70 percent of respondents report involvement intraining, teaching or research activities
Multiplier effects
6. Arbitrage function“making choices”
(mean 3.9)
7. Advisory function(mean 3.7/4.0)
8. Policy initiativefunction (mean 3.6)
2. Conceptual function“enlightenment”
(mean 4.15)
4. Instrumentalfunction
(mean 3.3)
1. Networkingfunction
(mean 4.2)
3. Improvingprofessional skills
(mean 4.1)
5. Career function(mean 3.25)
Participants
Not examinedin this studyin this studyAssessment of outputs
Knowledgebase
Training(core courses)
Partnershipsand networks
Policyservices
Assessment of outcomes
Valued by peers Satisfaction with coursedelivery (mean 3.9–4.4)
Satisfaction with quality of partnership, variousexamples of cross-fertilization
Web site: Frequent visits andpositive appraisals
Contents and materials valuedby course participants
Assessment of ImpactsAssessment of impacts
Not examined
Various policy initiatives mentioned by participants and partners. More time must pass until real policy changes can be found.
Economic and political stability and poverty alleviation (effects are deductible from theory, further empirical studies needed).
Obstacles: lack of political consensus (mean 4.1), economic disparities among regions (mean 3.9).
Source: Authors.
70
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Knowledge Base
A peer review of the knowledge base by Professor Dafflon of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland isunder way. The positive appraisal by core course participants of the quality of contents and materials (seetable 3.5) is an indicator of the quality of the knowledge base. Many comments on personal usefulness;usefulness to work; and usefulness in teaching, training, and research mirror the high ratings of theknowledge base (see the comments in boxes 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5). The FD program partners also regardthe knowledge base as one of its main strengths (see table 6.2).
Core Courses
The FD program partners and course participants assessed the quality of contents and materials, instructors,their presentations, and other aspects positively (see chapters 4 and 5). Participants found coursespersonally useful. Positive outcomes on training and research and in the form of improved policy arbitrageand advisory skills, and to a lesser degree, policy initiative skills, were also noted. Also mentioned invarious instances were examples of policy initiatives inspired by the training that participants had received.
Besides the fact that courses are considered too short, too loaded, and/or too intensive, respondents foundno other major weakness (chapter 3).
Although it might be considered disappointing that no impacts in terms of policy changes due to theIFRLFM core course were reported, such a result could not reasonably be expected. Three years elapsedsince the start of the FD program in Vienna (March 1998) and the survey. It takes considerably more timeto formulate, adopt, and implement policy changes in a complex field such as fiscal decentralization.14
A top priority for the FD program in the coming years must be to maintain the high quality of theknowledge base and of course contents and materials. This is no easy task in a rapidly evolving world ofgovernance and in the changing fields of activity of the FD program.
Results of the survey on weaknesses (chapter 3) and opportunities for improvement (chapter 6) suggest thatthere are various possibilities to tailor IFRLFM core courses even better to participants’ needs and wishes.
14 One of the authors of this study is engaged in a reform of fiscal decentralization that started in 1996, which will beadopted in 2006.
71
Table 7.1. Weaknesses: Options for Improvement and Constraints for Core Courses
Weakness Options for improvement Constraints• Short duration and too loaded
(1)• Advanced courses that
develop specific skills (1)• Lengthen duration of
course (8)
Preparation: Timeconsuming
Preparation: Time-consuming
• Lack of country or regionalexamples (2)
• Thematic changes (6)
• Tailor courses more tocountry and regional needs(1)
• More examples and casestudies (3)
Preparation: Timeconsuming
Preparation: Timeconsuming
Pedagogical techniques• Insufficient pedagogical
techniques (3)• Insufficient quality of
instructors or presentations (3)
• Include more policymakersas participants(4)
• Internet as a learning tool(7)
Conflict: Length and specificity ofcourseHow to embed and engageparticipants?
Embedding and engagingparticipants• Lack of time for interactions
and discussions (3)• Participant selection (7)• Lack of social activities or
opportunities (7)• Lack of follow up and support
(9)
• Regional networks forcourses and knowledgedissemination (5)
• Post-course communicationnetworks for alumni (6)
Time needed for looking afternetworks
Note: In brackets: Rank of weaknesses according to table 3.7 and rank of options according to table 6.1.
Source: Authors.
Table 7.2 presents survey respondents’ views of weaknesses and possibilities for improvement. They aregrouped in such a way that their logical relation becomes evident. Two options for improvement, morepolicymakers as participants and Internet as a learning tool, however, are not completely deductible fromrespondents’ answers on weaknesses. The recommendation to include more policymakers as participants is,as various comments show, strongly motivated by respondents’ high priority on putting knowledge intoaction. Their implicit argument is that those who have decisionmaking power would be more inclined totake steps for a reasonable policy of fiscal decentralization if they had received training. “To rely more onthe Internet as a learning tool” has to do with the potential as well as the prestige of Internet; it symbolizesprogress and access to the community of knowledge.
We have added a third column on constraints. All options for improvement have their price tag. The firstfour options, provide advanced courses that develop specific skills, lengthen duration of course, tailorcourses more to country and regional needs, and develop and use more examples and case studies, allsignify an increased customization of core courses. We will explore this question more deeply in thesubsequent sections.
The last two options presented in table 7.1, regional networks for courses and knowledge dissemination andpost-course communication networks for alumni, presuppose considerable investments before and whileputting them into practice. While some of the survey respondents conceive the first option as a tool forexchanging information among participants, others wish to receive information complements and updatesafter the course from the regional course organizer or from the WBI. Looking after regional networks forcourses and knowledge dissemination can, in part, be outsourced to the FD program’s partners. However, itstill needs some involvement by the FD program team. This also holds true for the last option, establishingpost-course communication networks for alumni. As this service would probably create benefits not onlyfor the FD program, but also for the WBI and the World Bank as a whole (in mobilizing support andlegitimacy), it should probably be embedded into a larger World Bank or at least WBI policy on alumni.
72
To include more policymakers (politicians, mayors) as participants at first glance seems to be an option thatcan easily be implemented. It is, however, somewhat at odds with some other options, for instancelengthening the duration of courses. Politicians usually have serious time constraints. We will explore thischallenge in the subsequent section.
To rely on the Internet as a learning tool is in line with current World Bank efforts on DL and the WBI’spolicy of widening outreach and deepening impact (“scaling up”).15 The FD program is already heavilyengaged in DL (see chapter 3). It is, with the exception of staff resources, well prepared for relying more onthe Internet as an interactive learning tool. The main constraint for this option for improvement is how bestto embed the participants socially while using this tool. Experiences show that that dropout rates in DL maybe much higher than in conventional training. They also show that offering courses on the Internet takes asmuch preparation time as face-to-face training (for instance, in making comments on papers, answeringquestions by e-mail, animating discussion groups, and updating website materials). It could be that theInternet is not so much a help in reducing costs per participant, but a tool allowing persons to participate intraining while staying at their workplace most of the time, thus increasing geographical outreach of training(at least in those regions of the world where the Internet is presently accessible without great problems).
Partnerships and Networks
The high quality of partnership and networks is clearly among the main strengths of the FD program thatcould serve as an example of best practice within the WBI. The FD program clearly has--under the title ofwholesaling training--a strategy of empowering its partners not only in training initiatives, but also inresearch and the exchange of experiences. Much of this success of building positive relationships with bothtraining and cofinancing (donor) partners is due to the strong commitment of its two lead managers and thecooperative climate within the entire FD team.
CHOICES AND POSSIBLE STRATEGIES FOR THE FUTURE
The following sections describe ongoing program changes and recommendations for the future.
Changes Already on Their Way
The FD program is actually engaged in a vast exercise of updating course contents and materials. It consistsof
• Adding new modules (see Annex 8);• Including cases, exercises, and self-tests (several of these are partner- and client- developed); and• Providing both face-to-face and DL training updates.
This updating exercise has been carried out as part of an ongoing consultative process with donor-partnersand training partners alike. An especially important event in support of this consultative process was theFebruary 2001 Budapest Experts Workshop, which was an evaluation and planning workshop jointlyhosted by the FD program team and the SDC. It brought together the key client and donor partners(approximately 30 participants) from across the globe who now have a lead responsibility for delivering theIFRLFM core courses. Each of the participants were provided an update of the global core course materialsand asked to come to Budapest to address the following critical questions: has there been a clear concept ofstrategy and final product? Did the program for a core course raise the quality of the country'sintergovernmental policy discussion? Did it provide the kind of documentation and evenhanded analysisthat not only takes one beyond simplistic guidelines such as casual observation, but also establishes aframework such that persons with legitimately different interests can nevertheless agree? Do the coursematerials adequately incorporate elements for skills development (for example, practical applications of
15 It should be remembered that the option “engage more in distance learning” received only little support amongrespondents of the survey (see table 6.1).
73
analytical methods)? Are the components of the core course content such that they can be readily andrelevantly be replicated and tailored from country to country?
The workshop was organized as an integrated mix of (i) the presentation of certain key core trainingmodules as tailored to specific country needs by trainers from Brazil, Guatemala, Hungary, Thailand, andUganda; (ii) piloting of new modules, for example, simulation models and new evidence on thecontroversial issue of the macro impacts of decentralization policy; (iii) interventions by this evaluationteam (Bussmann, West-Meiers, and Hadorn); (iv) formal peer review comments by Professor Dafflon,University of Fribourg; and addresses on the practical application of the training materials by Lord Mayorof Budapest Gabor Demszky and Slovak Deputy Prime Minister Ivan Miklos, who was a participant in thefirst Vienna course.
In the course of this present evaluation certain changes have been suggested, for example, at the BudapestExperts Workshop, that have already been introduced by the FD program team. One such change is theteam’s emphasis on intensified research regarding the link between fiscal decentralization and povertyalleviation. While fiscal decentralization can be a challenge for all countries, the World Bank’s emphasis ison poverty-stricken regions. The FD program is taking steps in that direction in FY 2002 by including somevery poor countries such as Vietnam.
The FD program is moving aggressively in that direction in FY 2002-2003 by exiting from several of itsmiddle-income client countries (largely in Central Europe and Latin America) and increasing its focus oncountries that have a predominance of poverty (for example, the PRSP countries of AFR, EAP—China,Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam—and SA—Nepal and Pakistan). In addition, a new effort on therelationship between poverty and decentralization is to be initiated in SA in FY 2003 (with the support ofthe Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and with SDC).
Another matter of concern of the evaluation team has been the inclusion ofsubject matter on preconditions to fiscal decentralization (for example, thelegal framework, accountability, and democratic participation) into thecourse content. The legal framework topic has been integrated into thecourse content. The topic of accountability and democratic participation hasalready been included in the courses given by the ESAF.
Two additional efforts of the FD program include work in the areas ofconflict and gender. In 2000 the SDC, the Swiss Institute of Federalism in Fribourg, and the WBI jointlyinitiated a program to examine the question of whether employing tools for enhancing fiscal autonomyand/or addressing fiscal disparities within a country leads to a sense of national cohesion, or whetherfreeing diverse linguistic, ethnic, or territorial groups from intergovernmental fiscal cooperation mayencourage separatist tendencies and, ultimately, the disintegration of the nation state. This work, which ledto global seminar of experts and a Swiss Insititute of Federalism book on the role of intergovernmentalfiscal relations in shaping effective states within fragmented societies (Bird and Stauffer 2001), concludesthat while many factors influence the degree to which "subsidiarity" may affect "solidarity," the fiscalrelationships among diverse groups can be an important determinant of how otherwise fragmented societiesare able to build and sustain an effective national government. Indeed, in some cases, a well designedintergovernmental system is seen to be a key to nation building. This topic of subsidiarity versus solidarityserves as the building block to examine the next step of whether intergovernmental fiscal practice andpolicy can serve as a tool for conflict prevention and, if necessary, post-conflict reconstruction. A report onthis important question is under development in the FY 2002-2003 period.
Core training on gender, public finance, and decentralization will be initiated during the first quarter of FY2003 with the development of four modules: (i) Mainstreaming Gender in Government Activities; (ii)Gender, Decentralization, and Political Participation; (iii) Gender-disaggregated Indicators; and (iv)Gender-responsive Budgeting. Development of the module on gender-responsive budgeting is alreadyunderway for newly elected district and provincial officials in Pakistan and for government trainers andoblast officials in Russia. In SA, where countries are at similar stages of their respective decentralization
Three recent additions tothe FD program’sknowledge base includepreconditions to fiscaldecentralization, conflict,and gender.
74
plans and where gender disparities are particularly high, a South Asian Gender and DecentralizationDialogue series is proposed for the second half of FY 2003. This will address the need for cross-countrysharing of experiences and cooperative knowledge development on gender equality and decentralizationefforts. Towards the end of FY 2003, a GDLN Dialogue series on Gender and Decentralization will bedeveloped for the African region. This initiative will complement the WBI Africa GDLN Dialogues(African Local Government Action Forum).
Questions about pedagogy and the need forsystematic course evaluation have been voiced by theevaluation team. These concerns have been taken intoaccount in the development of course modules andthrough the systematic evaluation of participants’reactions and the assessment of participants’ learningprogress. However, other points of concern needmore systematic treatment and time to evolve and/orare beyond the sole reach of the FD program team.Furthermore, these concerns often involve difficulttrade-offs. Adopting the changes suggested by theresponses in the survey and by the FD programpartners can involve considerable costs in terms ofside effects or real costs that have to be taken intoaccount.
Creating Sustainable Partnerships or Expanding to Other Regions?
The need for sustainable partnerships and continuity has been expressed both by the FD program's partnersand by IFRLFM core course participants. The partners expressed some fear that partnerships might bethreatened by too early an exit and asked for follow-up on country experiences and for multiyear planning.The respondents of the survey favored options that take care of their specific needs: courses increasinglytailored to country and regional needs, advanced courses that develop specific skills, more examples andcase studies, include policymakers into courses, further regional networks for courses and knowledgedissemination, and post-course communication networks for alumni. They clearly opted for continuity andfor the deepening of knowledge and skills.
This indicates that needs for training in fiscal decentralization are far from being saturated. IFRLFM corecourses even create a demand for further courses. Fulfilling those demands will likely be resourceintensive, given the increased customization of courses.
We have seen that the FD program team has adopted a decentralized approach to partnerships and courseofferings. This strategy has facilitated the offering of courses and services adapted to regional needs. Aconsiderable and additional effort that may go beyond the resources available for the FD program teamclearly would be required to satisfy all new demands and needs that have been expressed. The need forspecialty courses and follow up, furthermore, competes with another very legitimate need: the inclusion ofregions not yet well covered by the FD program. Indeed some of the areas where a large part of the world’spoor population lives--SA; East Asia; and Central, Western, and Northern Africa--are not well covered bythe FD program.
If the budget for the FD program is not drastically expanded, crucial choices will have to be made. Pullingout of regions that are now served by the FD program before a critical mass and before sustainablecapacities exist could mean that part of the investment into training may be lost. Continued support foractivities that could be taken over by the partners, however, would signify dead-weight losses. Thoseresources could be used for other purposes, especially for initiatives in regions hitherto not well covered by
Evaluations and Recommendations
Evaluations are an effective tool for determiningoutputs, outcomes, and impacts of programs andfor assessing their strengths and weaknesses.They indicate where the program stands. Theempirical findings by themselves, however,rarely provide a sufficient basis for setting thecourse for future action. The latter involveschoices and thus value questions (for example, onwhether to leave a strong program as it is or todedicate increased resources to it). Therecommendations that follow are not deductiblefrom the empirical results of this study. Theyreflect largely the appreciation of the evaluationteam.
75
the FD program. In order to diminish the danger of an exit taking place before a critical mass in the partnercountry is reached, the following possibility should be examined.
An exit strategy could be facilitated in the comingyears by a supportive structure for the partnerinstitutions in transition and developing countries.One of the FD program partners could assume alead role in providing services such as producing anewsletter on fiscal decentralization, organizingbiannual meetings among specialists, andproviding updates on country developments incollaboration with other partner institutions. All ofthese functions could, for a number of years, befinanced by the WBI on the basis of aperformance-related contract. This is not withoutrisks. To some extent the WBI would transfersome of its knowledge and networking monopolyto this partner institution. The WBI would focuson improving the knowledge base and be the principal networking agent. It is debatable whether the WBIshould also hand over alumni-related activities to such a lead role organization. 16 There are good reasonsfor keeping this task within the WBI, because it would allow for a more holistic (that is, across the WBI’sprograms) alumni policy and could be important for WBI legitimacy and support in the future.
Maximizing Outreach or Quality of Delivery?
The FD program has been most effective in increasing the outreach of training. It has examined whetherthat success has been achieved to the detriment of quality. The survey results do not confirm thishypothesis. Satisfaction with course delivery has been quite high.17 The assessment of usefulness toparticipants personally has yielded equally satisfying results.18
Of course, in a training program, outreach and quality of delivery should both be maximized. In practice,however, there are certain trade-offs. The FD program has followed the maxim of content first, and wefully approve of this strategy. Quality of content, presentations, and instructors have been mentioned as themain strengths of the program both by partners and by participants. The fact that the program hasdeliberately conceived its courses in a scholarly manner has perhaps contributed to the fact that thecomplaint most often voiced was that course duration was too short, that the course was too intensive (tooloaded) or both. While the scholarly quality of the courses should be maintained, it could be worthwhile toincreasingly experiment with adult-teaching devices (such as taking account of their limited attention spansand encouraging further utilization of knowledge, see the following recommendation).
We fully support the strategy of the FD program to entrust its main partner institutions with all aspects ofcourse delivery. It also lies within the partner institutions’ responsibilities to decide on the appropriatepedagogical techniques. Along with this, partners are responsible--in conjunction with the basic evaluationrequirements of the WBI for core courses--for assuring that evaluation of its courses takes place (at aminimum to measure certain aspects of participant reactions to the course and, in some cases, to test thelearning of participants with a pre- or post-course test). Partners are encouraged to go beyond thoserequirements and complement them with their own systems of evaluation.
16 Handing over functions taken over by the WBI up to now (contacts with former participants) would necessitate initialinvestments (for example, creating a reliable database on former core course participants).17 See chapter 3, figure 3.4. On a 1 to 5 scale with “1” being a low rating and “5” a high rating, the scores ranged from amean of 3.9 (short duration of the course) to a mean of 4.4 (course materials).18 See chapter 5, figure 5.2.
Recommendations
In negotiation with its partners, the FD programshould develop a more explicit exit strategy. Itshould be guided by the vision to assuresustainability, allow cross-fertilization between theWBI and the partner institution, and leave resourcesfor new activities. It is vital that the exit strategy isnot guided by short-term WBI budget decisions butby an integrated approach (WBI budget concerns andpartner institutions’ capabilities).
The move of the FD program in FY 2002 to addressnew regions and very poor countries is stronglysupported.
76
We support the FD program team’s current efforts to update course contents and materials and to enrichthem with case studies and exercises. This will not make the FD program foolproof in the sense that coursedelivery will be automatically attuned to participants’ expectations. But updated and enriched contents andmaterials will facilitate partner institutions’ efforts in meeting participants’ expectations.
Recommendation
FD program should occasionally engage adult-teaching specialists to facilitate or accompany or observecore courses that are not organized by the WBI’s main partners. This will help to make course deliveryeven more responsive to participants’ needs. Consideration should be given to the WBI in providing suchpedagogical support.
The FD web site’s contents are of high quality. Although it is well presented and has an efficient searchengine, it could be useful to make contents more easily available by interlinking keywords and byproviding better access in each of its languages (English, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, and--mostrecently--French). This investment could well be justified with regard to the high number of visitors.Some program information is missing and should be easier to find, such as a complete list of all historicand future courses and activities.
Standardized or Customized Training?
The WBI’s decision in 1997 to set up a series of core courses that are replicable worldwide has to someextent bet on standardization. It has been shown (in chapters 2 and 4) how courses have evolved in themain regions and that regionally specific elements have been added. The modular structure of the FDprogram’s curriculum furthermore allows flexibility within the conceptual framework provided (see box7.1).
A somewhat surprising result of the survey is that in spite of these efforts to be responsive to participants’situations and needs, the wish for increasingly customized training is still very strong. Survey respondentsopt for courses increasingly tailored to country and regional needs, for advanced courses that developspecific skills, and for more examples and case studies (see table 6.1). While these suggestions and theirunderlying concerns (usability of knowledge) should be taken very seriously, the limits posed by theexisting resources for the FD program should not be overlooked either. The concept of core courses wasdeveloped with efficiency concerns in mind (reduced unit costs per persons trained). Increasedcustomization usually means higher costs per person trained.
Will the ongoing revision of course contents and materials resolve those problems? Will new modules bean answer to the concerns expressed? We feel that the FD program’s ongoing efforts to update coursematerials and enrich them with cases, exercises, and self-tests can be a prerequisite for even more attractivecourses. The same holds true for the new modules. However, all of these elements will not fully providewhat participants expect: answers to their real world problems.
77
One suggestion is examining thepossibility of offering learningcourses (see the followingrecommendation). The secondsuggestion is to acknowledge thelimits of the role and theresources of a worldwideoperating institution such as theWBI. This role will not allow fora fully developed customization.Being explicit about one’s owninstitutional limits (in the FDprogram as well as in otherprograms) could contribute tokeeping clients’ expectationswithin reasonable boundaries.The third suggestion is related tothe FD program partners’concern to preserve the identityof the program, echoed in theparticipant survey by the low priority on the options to add or delete topics (see tables 6.1 and 6.2). Thisconcern with the program’s identity does not impede adding new modules. But when adding them, theirrelation to the core content should become completely evident and maybe the core content should berevised in such a way as to make more explicit reference to additional modules.
Box 7.1. Module-Based Training: A View from an FD Program Expert Trainer
When commenting on the final draft of this study and in particular on the recommendation to extend thelength of the AFR course, an expert trainer suggested a module-like course structure as an alternative totwo-week courses (see Annex 1, under Budapest Experts Workshop). The following idea has threecomponents worth considering:
• A three-day intensive core course to cover the theoretical principles of decentralization
• Additional two-to-three-day specialized course (open to additional participants) to treat country cases andspecific problems. Some of this course could be tailored according to participants’ wishes (for example, byasking participants about their topics of interest in advance).
• Follow-up sessions (for example, by means of videoconference) with all or some of the participants (which couldbe combined with an ex-post evaluation).
Target Audience: Trainers and Public Servants or Policymakers?
The IFRLFM core courses clearly have had a focus on trainers and public servants up to now. They havebeen remarkably successful (as shown in chapter 5) in triggering additional activities; 70 percent of therespondents affirmed that they had integrated elements of the courses that they attended into their owntraining, teaching, or research activities.
Partners and course participants, however, pleaded to some extent for increasingly integratingdecisionmakers into courses, because they are persons "with greater powers to decide." It is expected thatpolicymakers’ participation will facilitate policy changes with regard to fiscal decentralization.
To include more policymakers into the IFRLFM courses, as tempting as it sounds, raises several questionsand problems.
Recommendation
Consideration should be given to extend the length of the AFR corecourse from one to two weeks. The second week could be used toapply theoretical concepts to participants’ policy cases. (Courses inBrazil, for instance, are of a two-week duration.)
The FD team should examine whether one-week specialized learningcourses in fiscal decentralization should be offered. Such courses canbe addressed to persons who either have followed a core course or candemonstrate that they have received equivalent training. Candidatesfor taking the course would, for instance, present a two-to-four-pagediscussion paper on the policy problem that they wish to discuss indepth during the course. Selection of candidates could be based on thequality and relevance of the papers presented. During the course fiveto nine cases from about 25 participants could be treated in depth. Oneadvantage of such courses would be to broaden the WBI’s knowledgebase. Cases could subsequently be presented on the FD programwebsite.
78
• As already mentioned, policymakers have serious time constraints. The concept of in-depth knowledgetransfer within core courses can hardly be reconciled with these constraints.
• The IFRLFM core courses do not advocate specific policy solutions for fiscal decentralizationproblems. Their main strength is to provide a framework and the intellectual tools necessary to dealwith these problems. This may not coincide with policymakers’ needs for specific answers to theirparticular questions and problems.
• The scholarly approach of the IFRLFM courses may not perfectly match with policymakers’ problem-oriented and solution-minded dispositions.
Due to these problems andleaving enough room foruseful exceptions wesuggest that policymakersshould not be the targetaudience for the longer-duration core courses. 19
Rather, they should beinvited for participation inpolicy services, which aretypically of a shorterduration (see therecommendation).Policymakers should betargeted on specificdemands (as has been thecase with policy services)or in collaboration withcore course alumni.
Do Good Things or Speak about Them?
This evaluation has been conducted with the aim of learning about the FD program’s strengths andweaknesses. At the beginning of this evaluation process, the program rationale and underlying assumptionshad to be reconstructed and negotiated. We feel that this exercise was helpful, not only for the evaluationteam to understand the program, but also for the FD program team to clarify their program’s rationale andmake it explicit.
The WBI’s managers are striving hard to give the best training in issues of critical importance to thedevelopment and to incorporate content that draws on state-of-the-art theory and practice.
19 While the WBI database on the IFRLFM core courses does not contain explicit information on the participants’professional backgrounds, the survey results show that out of 126 respondents, nine persons clearly belong to the groupof policymakers (ministers, members of national parliaments, head of subnational governments or mayors, and membersof subnational parliaments or of city councils).
Recommendation
Improve the database of former and future core course and policy servicesparticipants. This requires collecting more demographic information onparticipants and ensuring that complete addresses (including mail, fax,telephone, and e-mail) are included in the database and that participant listsfor all activities are located in one central database.
Enhance alumni services at the WBI or the World Bank. Keep alumniinformed on World Bank strategy, as well as on their fields of specificinterest (such as fiscal decentralization). Staying in touch with alumni willbe beneficial in sending surveys to former participants and doinglongitudinal evaluation studies such as this study.
Use the IFRLFM course alumni for targeting policy services or short andintensive courses for policymakers. Such courses should be principallyconceived by the FD program’s main partners, but participation by the FDprogram team or their consultants is desirable.
79
Recommendations
We suggest that the FD team (and other WBI teams) periodically update and reconstruct its programrationale (as was done in the context of the present evaluation) at periodic intervals. This will help tofocus targets more clearly and adjust performance, outcome, and impact indicators to shifting goals andlogic.
A more active WBI or World Bank policy on alumni would facilitate follow-up studies because it wouldprovide some reward in exchange with answering surveys.
Studies on long-term policy effects of the World Bank’s training, although not usable for immediatemanagement decisions, could be crucial to demonstrate the World Bank’s capabilities to achieveimprovements in poverty alleviation. Long-term studies should be encouraged and sponsored (forexample, studies concentrating on recipient countries across different World Bank activities).
Further research is needed to bring forth empirical evidence on the positive effects of fiscaldecentralization reforms on poverty alleviation. Cross-national and/or cross-jurisdictional econometricstudies as well as in-depth studies of country cases could bring forth empirical advances in this muchdebated question and help the Bretton Woods’ twin sisters (World Bank and IMF) to better align on thistopic.
In public opinion, the World Bank’s best known and most frequently criticized activities are the countryassistance strategies and the structural adjustments. The World Bank’s knowledge expanding (“learning”)and training activities usually are not present in the public mind. The World Bank’s aspirations to become alearning institution in its most ambitious sense and to keep track of the impacts of its own strategies andactivities has perhaps not been sufficiently communicated to the broader public.
It seems appropriate to take stock from time to see whether results have been achieved and whether thetarget is set right. It is important that the learning arm of the World Bank takes the necessary step back toassess its own activities and consider their impacts.
This present evaluation has had a mid-term time frame. More than three years after the start of the FDprogram its outputs, outcomes, and impacts have been assessed. Some impacts have been recorded, whileothers have not been traced because of the longer time-span that is typical of policy reform in fiscaldecentralization. We encourage the WBI to keep further track of the FD program’s impacts.
80
REFERENCES AND SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
The word processed describes informally reproduced works that may not be commonly available throughlibrary systems.
Bird, Richard, and Thomas Stauffer, eds. 2001. Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations in FragmentedSocieties. Basel, Switzerland: Helbing and Lichtenhahn.
Bussmann, Werner. 1999. “Verwaltungsleistung Messen und Steuern: Konzeption, Konsens, und Kosten.”Gesetzgebung heute 2: 61-77.
Bussmann, Werner, Ulrich Klöti, and Peter Knoepfel. 1997. Einführung in die Politikevaluation. Basel,Switzerland: Helbing and Lichtenhahn.
––––––. 1998. Politiques Publiques: Evaluation. Paris: Economica.
Chen, Huey-Tsyh. 1990. Theory-Driven Evaluations. Newbury Park, United Kingdom: Sage.
De Mello, Luiz. 2000. “Can Fiscal Decentralization Strengthen Social Capital?” IMF Working Papers00(129).
EDI (Economic Development Institute). 1998. Annual Report 1998. Washington, D.C.
––––––. 1998. “A Report on Strategic Directions.” Report No. R98-18, Washington, D.C.
Fiszbein, Ariel, ed. 2001. Decentralizing Education in Transition Societies: Case Studies from Central andEastern Europe. Learning Resources Series. Washington, D.C.: WBI.
GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office). 1990. “Prospective Evaluation Methods: The ProspectiveEvaluation Synthesis.” Transfer Paper 10.1.10, Washington D.C.
––––––. 1991. “Designing Evaluations.” GAO/PEMD-10.1.4, Washington, D.C.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. 1994. The Program Evaluation Standards: Howto Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kirkpatrick, Donald L. 1998. Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels, 2nd edition. San Francisco:Berret-Koehler.
Leeuw, Frans L., Gèr H. C. van Gils, and Cora Kreft. 1999. “Evaluating Anticorruption Initiatives:Underlying Logic and Mid-term Impact of a World Bank Program.” Evaluation 5(2): 194-219.
Malme, Jane H., and Joan M. Youngman, eds. 2001. The Development of Property Taxation in Economies:Case Studies from Central and Eastern Europe. Learning Resources Series. Washington, D.C.:WBI.
Marra, Mita. 2000. “How Much Does Evaluation matter? Some Examples on the Utilization of theEvaluation of the World Bank’s Anti-Corruption Activities.” Evaluation 6(1): 22-36.
Martinez-Vazquez, Jorge, and Jameson Boex. 2001. Russia’s Transition to a New Federalism. LearningResources Series. Washington, D.C.: WBI.
Mohr, Lawrence B. 1995a. Impact Analysis for Program Evaluation, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
––––––. 1995b. “The Qualitative Method of Impact Analysis.” Paper prepared for delivery at the annualmeeting of the American Evaluation Association, Vancouver, November 1-5, University ofMichigan, Ann Arbor. Processed.
Newman, John, Laura Rawling, and Paul Gertier. 1994. “Using Randomized Control Designs in EvaluatingSocial Sector Programs in Developing Countries.” World Bank Research Observer 9(2): 181-201.
Ngaire, Woods. 2000. “The Challenge of Good Governance for the IMF and the World Bank Themselves.”World Development 28(5). Also available at http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ntwoods/GG%26IFIs.htm
81
Pawson, Ray, and Nicholas Tilley. 1997. Realistic Evaluation. Newbury Park, United Kingdom: Sage.
Scriven, Michael. 1976. “Maximizing the Power of Causal Investigations: The Modus Operandi Method.”Evaluation Studies Review Annual 1: 101-18.
Urban Institute. Forthcoming. Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations in Eastern Europe. Washington, D.C.
WBI (World Bank Institute). 1989. “Core Courses Definition and List.” WBI Manual, section 14,Washington, D.C.
––––––. 1999. Annual Report 1999. Washington, D.C.
––––––. 2000a. “Fact Sheet 2000.” Washington, D.C.
––––––. 2000b. Annual Report 2000. Washington, D.C.
Weiss, Carol H. 1977. “Research for Policy’s Sake: The Enlightenment Function of Social Research.”Policy Analysis 3(4): 531-46.
Weiss, Carol H., and Michael J. Bucuvalas. 1980. Social Science Research and Decision-Making. NewYork: Columbia University Press.
World Bank. 1989. Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, D.C.
––––––. 1992. Governance and Development. Washington, D.C.
––––––. 1994. Governance: The World Bank's Experience. Washington, D.C.
––––––. 1997a. 1997 World Development Report. Washington, D.C.
––––––. 1997b. “The Strategic Compact: Renewing the Bank’s Effectiveness to Fight Poverty.”Washington, D.C.
––––––. 1999. 1998-1999 World Development Report: Knowledge for Development. Washington, D.C.
––––––. 2000. 1999-2000 World Development Report: Entering the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.
––––––. 2001. 2000-2001 World Development: Attacking Poverty. Washington, D.C.
82
83
ANNEX 1: EVALUATION: PURPOSE, DESIGN, SCOPE &PROCESS
PURPOSE
The objective of this evaluation is to provide useful information on the successes and weaknesses of the FDprogram. This should contribute to increase accountability and lay the foundations for the future strategyof FD program.
The following stakeholders are interested in the results of the evaluation:• the donors of FD program (especially the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation - SDC
- as the underwriter of this evaluation study);• the past and future participants of the FD program courses;• the partner institutions of the FD program; and• various World Bank offices and staff members including the WBI Vice President, the manager of
the division that sponsors the FD program (WBI’s Economic Policy and Poverty ReductionDivision - WBIEP), WBI’s co-financing team which arranges donor funding, the staff of WBI’sEvaluation Unit (WBIES) and, perhaps primarily, the FD program task managers and team.
The study tries to answer the following questions:
Knowledge Base Is the program’s knowledge base (curriculum) adequate and innovative(such as providing cutting-edge knowledge), should coursework bedeleted or added and how can materials and applications be adapted forlocal needs?
Pedagogy How can pedagogical and delivery methods be further improved,including participatory learning and distance learning?
Partnerships How can relationships with partners be strengthened?
Outputs,Outcomes andImpacts
Is there any evidence of behavioral changes or outcomes amongparticipants and partners who have been involved in the course? Isthere any evidence of impacts in their countries?
Future Does the FD training program have to be reshaped in order to attract theright participants, transmit policy-relevant knowledge through theappropriate partners and adapt to local and regional needs?
84
DESIGN
The evaluation design includes a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches. In order to obtainreliable information the strengths of two approaches are combined and their weaknesses arecounterbalanced.
Strengths and weaknesses of qualitative and quantitative methods
Qualitative methods Quantitative methods
Strengths - Exploring and probing reality
- Yielding rich, in-depthinformation
- Aiming at transmitting anundistorted view of what peoplethink and how they behave
- Yielding quantitative data onselected aspects
- Creating a base for comparisons
- Improving credibility amongstakeholders
Weaknesses - Difficulties in providingcomparative information
- Difficulties in aggregatinginformation (includingproblems in simplifying andcategorizing descriptivestatements from respondents)
- Difficulties in providinginformation on a large numberof persons or participants.
- Responses formed by datagathering procedures
- Previous in-depth knowledge ofthe subject necessary
- Conventional methods (e.g., post-course multiple choice exams)rarely give useful answers onlong-term capacity building andskills development
Qualitative methods are best used for the first research steps. They allow us to explore and probe reality,they give an idea of how programs work and they help the evaluators to get acquainted with the field.These first steps usually include document studies and open- or semi-structured interviews. All of thesemethods are used in the present evaluation. The main qualitative instrument however is the experts’workshop in Budapest (next page).
Quantitative methods can build on the understanding generated by qualitative enquiry. They allow thegathering of data on a large number of respondents. This in turn can contribute to allow comparisons andto generalize beyond the respondents included in the data gathering procedure. In the present study, themain quantitative instrument is the survey among IFRLFM core course participants.
85
QUALITATIVE METHODS
Budapest Experts' Workshop
Important aims of the Budapest experts’ workshop (February 12-16, 2001) involved determining thefollowing: successes and weaknesses of the WBI-sponsored FD program; the evolving needs and demandsin fiscal decentralization; and the strategic choices to be made and options to be pursued (includingassigning priority roles for key actors and partners).
The workshop was attended by 35 persons: 6 from Central and Eastern Europe, 5 from Latin America, 3from Africa, 1 from the Near East, 1 from South-east Asia, 6 from universities outside of the previouslymentioned areas (some of them with strong affiliations to one or more of these regions), 5 from sponsorcountries and NGOs, 7 from World Bank (3 from the FD program team, 1 from another unit of WBIEP and2 from WBIES) and one being the contracted outside evaluation expert. The invitation letter to theworkshop participants, the workshop agenda and a list of the participants are provided in Annex 3.
The workshop also provided an opportunity for program organizers, resource persons and partners tointroduce new course modules and materials that they had prepared. There was time devoted to havingworkshop participants critique and fine-tune the modules to meet the needs of the various audiencesworldwide.
The workshop allowed attendees to:• exchange experiences among FD program partners from different world regions and to discuss
about lessons learned and best practices;• explore exhaustively the complex issues involved in FD program and through the exchange of
persons involved and outside observers to gain a deeper understanding of the program rationale;• present case studies from different regions that included substantive evidence on impacts
(partnerships, capacity building, training spill-over, political impact);• deliberate on the criteria by which the FD program can be judged and on the successes and
weaknesses of the program;• explore options for future action within the FD program and to discuss its strategy;• discuss the purpose, the design and the content of the participants’ survey; and• determine future involvement of the experts in the process of this present evaluation.
The participants considered the Budapest experts' workshop to have been an effective and innovative toolin uniting program partners and in exchanging experiences. While the information transmitted was onlyjudged by 75% of the participants as new (rating of “4” or “5” on a scale from “1” to “5” ), all of theparticipants who responded thought that the workshop was useful for their activity (rating of “4” or “5” ona scale from “1” to “5”). In the final discussion round, the fact that results of WBI’s programs areevaluated was appreciated.
The participants at the Budapest experts' workshop have been involved in the work on this evaluation. Theyhave submitted comments on the draft of the final report.
Peer review
Professor Bernard Dafflon from the University of Fribourg (Switzerland) is reviewing the contents andform of presentation of course materials (as given to course participants and as presented on the Internet).He is assessing whether FD program course materials (current and newly developed modules):
• are “state of the art” and create cutting edge knowledge;• address the “right” set of issues (content);• address their issues in a straightforward, simple and understandable way;• treat all of the relevant issues for improving governmental fiscal systems;• use the Internet’s potential for presenting teaching materials;• can be easily adapted to regional needs; and• have a potential to be increasingly used in distance learning.
Prof. Dafflon is also providing comments on how the FD program course materials could be improved ifweaknesses were found.
86
Brazilian, Eastern and Southern African and Central European Case Studies
The Brazilian, Eastern and Southern African and Central European case studies focused on partnershiprelations, on core courses organization and on related teaching and research activities. The case studies:
• provided the context of fiscal decentralization, including the roles of the local, state and federalgovernments;
• described the evolution of fiscal decentralization, including the roles of the partners and theinvolvement of WBI’s FD program;
• illustrated the shared knowledge gains of the local, state and federal contexts among partners intheir countries and regions;
• documented instances of capacity building through partner institutions;• examined the extent to which the courses contributed to the potential for improved governmental
fiscal policies and whether instances of policy initiatives or policy choices could be linked to theFD program; and
• assessed strengths and weaknesses of the FD program and provided thoughts on its futuredevelopment.
All three case studies were presented at the Budapest experts' workshop. They contributed to the exchangeof experiences among workshop participants and they were inputs for discussing options for the future ofthe FD program.
Further qualitative methods used
Further qualitative methods used were documents studies (mostly internal documents of the FD program),interviews and a participant observation of IFRLFM core courses (see Annex 6).
87
QUANTITATIVE METHODS
Survey
The survey provides quantitative information about the participants’ assessment of the IFRLFM corecourse that they have attended. It was addressed (in English, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish) to all thepast IFRLFM participants except to those from China and those taking the core courses only in DL format.Participants from the IFRLFM core courses held in Beijing were excluded mainly because the contents ofthe course were sufficiently dissimilar to the other core courses from over the three year period of theprogram (the Chinese Ministry of Finance selected course modules to be and not to be presented andselected the participants) and some participant address information was incomplete.
The questionnaire included questions on the background of the participants (such as sex, country andprofession), the strengths and weaknesses of the course, the insights gained during the course, theusefulness of course personally, the usefulness of course for policymaking and teaching, the assessment ofcurriculum, instructors and activities. The questionnaire also asked for suggestions for improvement of thecourse (see Annexes 4 and 5).
A draft of the questionnaire was submitted to attendees of the Budapest experts' workshop in February2001. The experts provided valuable suggestions for improving the questionnaire. Later drafts of thequestionnaire were tested among experts and course participants known to WBIES. Before the survey hadbeen sent to participants, the FD program’s regional partner institutions sent pre-survey notification lettersto former participants of the IRLFM core courses that they organized, informing them about theforthcoming survey and encouraging them to take the necessary time to respond to it. The survey waslaunched on April 13, 2001, by e-mail, fax and postal mail, facilitated by World Bank Field Offices inAfrica and Central Asia. Telephone and e-mail follow-up was undertaken in cases when e-mail, fax andpostal mail did not provoke feedback.
Out of the 512 participants in the WBI database 422 (82 percent) were reached and 25 percent (126 of 512;or 30 percent at 126 of 422) responded (77 percent responded with the online-questionnaire, 17 percent byfax and 6 percent by ordinary mail).
A response rate similar to the present survey is quite common among international surveys. It can in thisplace be explained by the following factors:
• About half of the IFRLFM core courses have had their own pre/post-tests. This accounts for acertain saturation with surveys.
• There is no structured alumni program at WBI. No convincing “reward” (such as a continuousinformation on WBI training) can be given in exchange for answering the survey.
• Judging by telephone and e-mail follow up on former participants, job mobility seems somewhathigh.
Due to the lack of a sound, historic database on participants in WBI, it is not possible to compare theprofile of respondents to all IFRLFM core course participants. It could be that responses would have beensomewhat different, if a larger part of former participants would have answered. It cannot be excluded thatsurvey respondents represent a higher proportion of participants who were well satisfied with the course. Itis however highly improbable that the positive feedback on IFRLFM core courses would have beenreversed if all of the participants had answered the survey. The positive assessment matches well withexperiences of FD program partners (as expressed at the Budapest experts' workshop), with feedbackwithin World Bank - such as in the case of the Nepal Decentralization workshop and the WBI/EACIF(World Bank Indonisia Country Office) Indonesian Decentralization and Grants Workshop - and withparticipant observation of members of the evaluation team (see Annex 6).
The aggregate survey results are presented in Annex 5. The results are presented and commented in thechapter on outputs, outcomes and impacts (see Chapters 3, 4 and 5).
Scope of Evaluation
See Chapter 1.
88
ANALYSIS OF OUTCOME AND IMPACT
A primary function of evaluations is to give reliable information on the outcomes and impacts of programs.In order to assess a program it is necessary to know what difference it makes compared to a situationwithout such a program.
Impact analysis is often done by an experimental and quasi-experimental design. The situation of the groupof persons affected by the program is compared with the situation of persons not affected by the program.Differences found are attributed to the program. This is usually achieved by quantitative methods, but inprinciple, qualitative methods can also be used for such comparisons (Mohr 1995b).
When the conditions (as presented in the box to theright) are not fulfilled, experimental and quasi-experimental designs are hardly applicable in theirpure form.
The FD program presents features different fromthe setting in which experimental and quasi-experimental designs are typically applied. It isbroad-aimed, large in scope, has a multi-layeredcausal path, is oriented at capacity building andaddresses many regions and countries. Real worldimpacts are achieved by a variety of ways, somedirect (such as giving courses to public servantsand policy-makers who then apply the conceptsthey have been confronted with or, alter theirdecision-making processes with newly acquired knowledge and perspectives) and some indirect (throughtraining of trainers). Whether the desired impacts (improvement of the governmental fiscal system whichin turn will contribute to poverty reduction) are achieved depends on historical and political circumstancesin the countries included in the FD program. Impacts are thus not achieved mechanically but are ofcontingent nature (Pawson and Tilley 1997). Success of the FD program depends on windows ofopportunity.
The FD program can and should do two things. First, it can provide a knowledge base (in this case on“good governance”) so that when the political situation is “right” for reform, the knowledge base will be inplace and users of the knowledge base will have the capacity to respond. Second, in a politically unreadyenvironment, the FD program can help build the case for good government reforms.
The evaluation approach adopted consists of making explicit, the causal path by which the FD program islikely to affect political, economic and social reality in the program’s target countries (transition anddeveloping countries). Impacts are then traced by following this causal path step by step. The designapplied is known in evaluation theory under various names: Modus operandi (Scriven 1976), theory-drivenevaluations (Chen 1990), realistic evaluations (Pawson and Tilley 1997).
When following the causal path (see Chart 1.3, Program Rationale, in Chapter 1), normative and causalaspects have to be examined (US General Accounting Office 1991, 67-70). The normative aspect involvesdetermining whether the steps postulated by the program design are actually carried out. This can usuallybe done by simply observing and describing reality. The causal aspect relates to the question whether theoutputs, outcomes and impacts observed can be attributed to FD program. Causality cannot be observed, ithas to be reconstructed. It should be avoided to attribute outputs, outcomes and impacts to the FD programthat would have been produced or would occur anyway. The attribution has to be plausible and backed byevidence. Especially in joint decision-making processes it is, however, often difficult to disentangle theeffects of the various influences. Reasoned debate can contribute to make better guesses on the causalforces operating in those cases, where the experimental or quasi-experimental evaluation design is notfeasible.
In arguing about causality, two possible distortive effects have to be taken into account. First, pride ofone’s own independence sometimes prevents individuals from acknowledging external influence on theiractions. This could result in underestimating the size of the FD program outputs, outcomes and impacts. A
The experimental design is typically applied insettings where the “treatment” (e.g. medical,psychological treatment, educational training,welfare payments) is:• directed to well specified objectives (e.g.
relieve illness, improve working capacity);• conducted in a uniform way;• not combined with other treatments;• reaches its effects in a predictable and uniform
way; and• primarily affects the target population (no
indirect effects on other persons)*
*Newman, Rawling and Gertier 1994
89
second distortive effect arises when individuals or organizations derive benefits (monetary and othersupport) from a program. In this case they may be inclined for tactical reasons (such as maintainingprogram support) to exaggerate its influence on their decision-making. This in turn could result inoverestimating the size of FD program outputs, outcomes and impacts. Both distortive effects cannotcompletely be controlled. By making cross-comparisons (between individuals/institutions for whichindependence is of higher or lower value or between individuals/institutions which are more or lessdependent on the FD program) certain distortions can be controlled to some extent.
90
Evaluation questions
Evaluation questions and evaluation design are linked in the following way:
Evaluation questionData collection
methodKnowledge baseDo FD program course materials (recent and newly developed modules)
1. correspond to the state of art and create cutting edge knowledge?2. address their issues in a straightforward, simple and understandable way?3. treat all the relevant issues for improving governmental fiscal systems?4. use DL techniques’ potential for presenting teaching materials in a
sufficient way?5. have a potential to be increasingly used in DL?6. allow for adaptability to regional needs?7. present various options for improving intergovernmental fiscal systems?
• Peer review
• Budapest experts'workshop
• Survey
Core courses8. Are the right participants attending FD program courses?9. Do FD program courses meet the needs of participants in content and form
of delivery?10. Do courses offer new concepts and different ways of thinking about fiscal
matters?11. Can participants increase their skills?12. Do participants gain a deeper understanding of fiscal decentralization?13. Do courses create the potential for improvements of governmental fiscal
systems?14. Are any policy initiatives or policy choices due to FD program reported?
• Survey• Budapest experts'
workshop• Case studies• Participant
observation of corecourses
Partnerships15. Are the right partners associated with the program?16. Does FD program contribute to capacity-building efforts of partners and
create sustainable partnerships?17. Does FD program contribute to develop partner-partner relationships?
• Budapest experts'workshop
• Case studies
Reshaping the program18. How can the knowledge base and courses be improved to meet the needs of
people around the world even better?19. How can FD program increase use of participatory and distance learning?20. How can partnerships, capacity building and outreach be further increased?21. What are the key roles the various actors should play in reshaping FD
program?
• Budapest experts'workshop
• Survey
91
Process
The study has been undertaken from May 2000 until December 2001. Preparatory work (evaluabilityassessment, including analysis of goals and program content) was made during spring 2000. Theevaluation includes the steps illustrated in the chart below.
Evaluation Schedule
2000Months
2001Months
Evaluation activity2-5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6/7
8-12
Evaluability assessment, analysis ofgoals and program content
X
Establish evaluation plan X
Establish participant database;identify key participants
X X
Fix date and country of workshop,reserve location
X
Prepare main content and invitationsfor workshop (select speakers,moderators and participants)
X X
Prepare workshop in detail X X X X
Prepare questionnaire and plan dataanalysis (Excel, SPSS)
X X X X X
Present workshop X
Write report on workshop results,including interviews
X
Test questionnaire (duringworkshop); edit questionnaire
X
Send out questionnaire X X
Record questionnaire results X
Prepare statistical analysis andtables/charts
X
Write evaluation report X
Videoconferences to gain feedbackabout the evaluation; reviseevaluation appropriately
X
Prepare report for publication X
Present report findings (ex post) X
92
ANNEX 2: BUDAPEST EXPERTS' WORKSHOP INFORMATION
Letter to Experts Explaining Workshop Objectives, Agenda & Participant List
Intergovernmental Relations and Local Financial ManagementCouncil of Europe Youth Center
Budapest, Hungary - February 12-16, 2001
LETTER TO EXPERTS EXPLAINING WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES
Overview of Program Objective and Themes
As well documented in the Bank’s World Development Report (WDR), Entering the 21st Century, there are“two main forces shaping the world in which development policy will be defined and implemented:globalization (the continuing integration of the countries of the world) and localization (the desire for self-determination and the devolution of power).” (p.31-2) The WDR goes on to note that whereasglobalization (economic integration) and devolution (fiscal decentralization) at first seem likecountervailing forces, the evidence is that “they stem from the same source and reinforce one another.” Tomiss this trend is to miss an opportunity for shaping development policy as we enter the 21st century.
The problem, and the challenge, is that localization and decentralization can be done very well and or verybadly. If done well, the payoffs are enormous: a genuine and constructive empowerment of citizens; animproved growth record, establishment of new tools for developing human capital, and a powerful tool forpoverty alleviation. But to achieve these payoffs a necessary condition must be satisfied – development ofthe capacity to deliver good governance, which entails, as a necessary condition, a systematic and rigorousfocus on the very topics in the WBI course curriculum, e.g., mobilization of new types of public sectorrevenues (in most cases, replacing those of the center), how to institutionalize mechanisms for financialtransparency, effective subnational budgeting and budget execution, and methods for achievingimprovements in public service delivery (e.g., girls education, clean water, local transportation, and pickingup the garbage). And, for some countries, a well functioning intergovernmental system is key to nation-building—the maintenance of the state (large or small) in the in an era of “regionalism” and growingdiversity of geographical, ethnic and/or other minority (e.g., language) interests. But, if decentralization isdone badly, it can lead to a macroeconomic mess, corruption, and collapse of the safety net. So, whereasdecentralization can help revolutionize prospects for human development, it could also lead to chaos andincreased human suffering.
Accordingly, the job of World Bank and its partners is to do it “right” –that is, to tilt decentralizationtowards its promised benefits. One tool to insure that this occurs is to recognize and then strategicallyrespond to the need for human and institutional capacity building and strengthening in client countries.This does not mean adopting a Swiss, Dutch, Hungarian, Brazilian or Japanese model. Nor, is it only aboutthe traditional definition of capacity building, which, though it quite appropriately focuses on skillsdevelopment, has tended to miss the importance of seeing skills development within a framework of theneed for a transparent set of rules and an structure of governance that reflects participation of citizens tofreely shape society’s collective decisions. What is does mean, however, is that there can be lessons learnedand a transfer of knowledge from experiences worldwide. Moreover, it is a message that partnerorganizations and their agents can and must learn from one-another. This is what the World BankInstitute’s governance and decentralization program is about.
93
• A well functioning intergovernmental fiscal system is often key to the achievement of a country’sbroader reform objectives of global competitiveness, macro-economic stability, maintenance of thesocial safety net, and, in some countries, nation building.
• The proximity of local governments to the poor and the familiarity and understanding of the varyinginstitutional situations and hostile environs in which the poor inhabit in different regions andcommunities provide distinct advantages to the decentralized governmental units in designing andimplementing and monitoring anti-poverty policies.
• The shift from government to governance is fundamentally tied to the cross-cutting nature of fiscaldecentralization – the process by which people collectively determine which services should bedelivered by which type of government and in a manner that they, the citizens, can understand andcontrol. To put this in the context of decentralization, the intergovernmental system is more than acompendium of dry law and arcane economics data. It is an expression of communityrelationships—between individuals and between the people and their governments.
And, in order to successfully address the goals framed by these themes, investment in human capitalthrough effective knowledge development and dissemination is critical. This is at the heart of the programobjective: to help people help themselves by providing resources to share knowledge, build capacity, andforge partnerships.
Training Course: Preparation and PresentationThe WBI decentralization course aims to (i) provide participants with the analytical framework forunderstanding and implementing an efficient and equitable intergovernmental system; (ii) enhance thecapacity of participants to successfully implement public sector resource management and reform byanalyzing different mechanisms for the transfer of resources among governments and providing skills toways to address the issue of regional disparities and local resource mobilization; and (iii) identify partnersand establish partnerships to present this course in other regions of the world.
To accomplish these aims, the content focuses on issues such as: ensuring balance between sub-nationalexpenditure responsibilities and financial resources; increasing autonomy of sub-national governments byproviding incentives to mobilize revenues of their own; designing budget policies that support a stablemacroeconomic manner; providing mechanisms for mobilizing revenues in an accountable, transparentmanner that respects local priorities; establishing a set of intergovernmental transfers based on objectiveand predictable criteria; minimizing administrative costs to conserve administrative resources; andincorporating mechanisms to support public infrastructure development and its appropriate financing.Attuned to new pedagogical techniques for teaching adults, the course aims to achieve the appropriatebalance of exercises, lectures, and interactive learning methods. This includes the dissemination ofmaterials prior to the course presentation, via paper and/or electronically, and supplementing the contentwith distance learning technologies utilizing CD-ROMs, videos, electronic mail, Internet linkages,teleconferencing and satellite presentations.
Because each offering must be tailored to its regional (or country) audience each training activitycombines “core curriculum” modules with presentations such as case studies having special relevance toeach audience. All of these materials are available on the partners’ decentralization website athttp://www.decentralization.org/. There, the course material can be found on the homepage by going tothe course drop-down dialogue box. We note that this website provides course materials in Portuguese,Spanish, English and Russian (although the Russian material is a bit thin at this time).
Evaluation
The twin issues of identifying project outputs and the carrying out a meaningful evaluation of the courseproducts and outcomes is difficult to address in a short term, systematic way. This it not to offer anapology; but rather to acknowledge with respect to knowledge development and capacity building,statements about outcomes are difficult. Of course, one can always point to a list of products and standarduser-satisfaction reports and pre-and post-tests. And, we do this routinely. But, the more importantquestion that the Parliament and their aid agencies are likely to ask—does all of this donor support make adifference? —is as difficult as it is germane.
In response to this concern, the decentralization team has embarked on a year-long project to bringprofessional evaluators (a three member team led by an external evaluator and in cooperation with the SDC
94
and the WBI evaluation unit), to undertake a systematic review of the core course history, content and thepedagogy. One of the key elements of the project is this convening of a mix of past-participants in thecourse, partner institutions that now co-deliver the course with WBI, and donor-partner representatives.This evaluation will go beyond the standard form and test approach to examine such critical questions as:Is there a clear concept of strategy and final product? Did the program's activities raise the quality of thecountry's intergovernmental policy discussion? Did it provide the kind of documentation and evenhandedanalysis that not only takes one beyond simplistic "guidelines" such as casual observation, but alsoestablishes a framework such that persons with legitimately different interests can nevertheless agree? Didthe research product pass basic quality tests such as appropriate peer review approval? And, are theproducts of sufficient merit that they could be replicated in other regions?
And, finally, we note the title of this event: evaluation and planning. This week is not only about lookingback (though that is important), but also looking ahead to determine how the lessons learned from thisweek’s review of content and pedagogy can become key factors for planning and designing futureknowledge activities.
Sincerely,
Robert Ebel
95
Agenda
February 12 Activity Description Resource Person(s)
0915-0945 Introduction Introduction of participants andpresentation of workshop objectives
Robert EbelWerner Bussmann
0945-1130
(Break 1000-1030)
Module 1: FiscalDecentralization: Overview /General Framework
Presentation and Review of the (revised)introductory module: content, deliveryand pedagogy aspects of content anddelivery (F2F, DL, teaching materials,PowerPoint, FAQ, self-test, exercises, E-learning platform).
Serdar Yilmaz
Maria de Fatima Pessoa deMello Cartaxo
1300-1500
(Break 1500-1530)
Evaluation 1: Purpose, Design,Process
Presentation of the purpose, design andprocess of the year-long evaluation effortof the FD program.
Evaluation Team: WernerBussmann, Adrian Hadorn& Maurya West-Meiers
1530-1715 Case 1: Partner Presentations Experience in presenting contentindifferent contexts (AFR/ LAC/ ECA)and with F2F and DL
Jozsef HegedusEdgar OrtegonRosa GonzalezWinnie Mulongo
February 13 Activity Description Resource Person(s)
0830-1030
(Break 1100-1230)
Module 2: Decentralization andMacroeconomic Stability
Case 2: Republic of Slovakia
Revised Macro-Stability module revisionin progress, link with HBC,credit/debt/borrowing.
Bernd Spahn
Deputy Prime Minister IvanMiklos
1345-1545
(Break 1545-1700)
Learning Methods 1:Developing DL
Case 3: ESAF/FIPE Brazil
WEB Site, experience from Monterrey,AlGAF; East Asian Dialogues
Serdar YilmazGeorge MotovuVictor VergaraCharas Suwanmala
Maria de Fatima Pessoa deMello CartaxoAmaury Gremaud
February 14 Activity Description Resource Person(s)
0900-1030 Module 3: Grants SimulationExercise
Intergovernmental Transfer Model:Simulation Model
Jameson Boex
(Break 1100-1200) Module 4. Simulations withLimited Data
Francois Vaillancourt
1315-1700
(Break 1430-1500)
Evaluation 2: How to evaluatetraining
Evaluation 3: Survey Questions
Exchange opinions on the methods thatWBI and partner institutions use tomeasure participants’ reactions andlearning.
Gather feedback and suggestions forimprovement on the proposed survey thatwill be sent in late February 2001 to pasttraining participants (‘98-present).
Evaluation team
96
February 15 Activity Description Resource Person(s)
0830-09300930-1030
(Break 1100-1200)
Case 4: Budapest MunicipalStrategy
Evaluation 4: Program Logic
Panel on the Budapest Experience.
Determine strengths and weaknesses ofthe program. Identify future challengesand needs.
Gabor Demszky, LordMayor of BudapestKatalin Pallai
Evaluation team
1315-1700
(Break 1515-1615)
Working Group Discussion ofNew Topics to be Updated orIntroduced Into the Course
Module 5: Rule of LawModule 6: ParticipationModule 7: Civil ServiceModule 8: Local EconomicDevelopmentModule 9: Poverty AlleviationModule 10: Data
Introduction of New FiscalCourse: Fiscal Policy ForPoverty Reduction
Presentations on new modules underdevelopment.
Nicolas Levrat and Maria deFatimaVictor VergaraTony VerheijenBert HelmsingRobert EbelLeif Jensen
Blanca Moreno-Dodson
February 16 Activity Description Resource Person(s)
0900-1200
(Break 1030-1100)
Conclusion 1: Look at theCourse Content and PedagogyConclusion 2: Next steps inPartnerships
Determine what content to keep, revise,discard and add.Determine future partner needs incontent, pedagogy and finances.
Robert EbelWerner BussmannAdrian Hadorn
1300-1430 Conclusion 3: Evaluation forPlanning and Design
Determine how evaluation efforts shouldcontinue for 2001 and beyond.
Evaluation Team
97
Participant List
Participants of the Budapest Experts’ Workshop
Name Position Organization
Sati' Arnaout Consultant in Urban & Regional Development Based in Lebanon
Hugo Beteta Mendez-Ruiz Vicerrector Administrativo Universidad Rafael Landivar
Jamie Boex Senior Research Fellow, International StudiesProgram
Georgia State University, Andrew Young School ofPolicy Studies
Bernard Dafflon Professor of Public Finance University of Fribourg
Maria De Fatima Pessoa De MelloCartaxo
Director General Ministry of Finance, Executive Secretary, School ofFinancial Administration
Roberto Fasino Head of Division, Programmes for DemocraticStability
Council of Europe, Directorate General I - LegalAffairs, Directorate of Cooperation for Local andRegional Democracy
Rosa Amelia Gonzalez Researcher Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Administracion -IESA
Amaury Gremaud Professor Doutor - Depto De Economia Universidade de Sao Paulo, Faculdade de Economia,Adminstracao E Contabilidade
Jozsef Hegedus Head Metropolitan Research Institute
Albert Helmsing Economist, Professor of Local & RegionalDevelopment
Institute of Social Studies
Adrian Ionescu Program Director at OSI Budapest, LocalGovernment and Public Service Reform Initiative
Open Society Institute (Soros)
Leif Jensen Principal Administrator, Fiscal Federalism OECD
Nicolas Levrat Maitre d'enseignement et de recherche Universite de Geneve, Institute Europeen DeL'Universite De Geneve
Alessandro Mancini Council of Europe
George Matovu Regional Director Municipal Development Programme, Eastern &Southern Africa
Ivan Miklos Deputy Prime Minister of Slovakia
Winnie Mulongo Senior Program Officer Municipal Development Programme, Eastern &Southern Africa
Edgar Ortegon Director, Projects Division United Nations Economic Commission for LatinAmerica and the Caribbean, ECLAC
Katalin Pallai Advisor to Mayor of Budapest / Consultant –
98
Participants of the Budapest Experts’ Workshop (Continued)
Name Position Organization
Gabor Peteri Research Director Open Society Institute (Soros)
Bernd Spahn Professor of Public Finance J.W. Goethe-University
Charas Suwanmala Director, College of Local GovernmentDevelopment
Chulalongkorn University, King Prajadhipok'sInstitute
François Vaillancourt Research Fellow at the C.R.D.E. and Professor atthe Départment de sciences economiques
Université de Montréal, Centre de recherche etdéveloppement en économique (C.R.D.E.)
Tony Verheijen Chief Technical Adviser, Good Governance United Nations Development Programme, RegionalBureau for Europe and the CIS – RBEC
Sjoukje Volbeda Senior Adviser, Institutional Development Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands
Deborah Wetzel Lead Economist, Poverty Reduction & EconomicDevelopment Sector (ECSPE)
World Bank, East European and Central Asia
Francois Yatta Regional Adviser Local Economies & Finances, MunicipalDevelopment Programme, West and Central AfricaUnit
Organizers of the Budapest Experts’ Workshop
Name Position Organization
Werner Bussmann Senior Adviser Swiss Department of Justice
Robert Ebel Lead Economist WBI Economic Policy & Poverty ReductionDivision (WBIEP)
Adrian Hadorn Senior Evaluation Officer WBI Evaluation Unit and Swiss Agency forCooperation and Development
Blanca Moreno-Dodson Senior Economist WBIEP
Angela Radosits Executive Assistant Open Society Institute (Soros)
Victor Vergara Senior Public Sector Management Specialist WBIEP
Maurya West Meiers Consultant WBI Evaluation Unit
Serdar Yilmaz Public Sector Specialist WBIEP
99
ANNEX 3: QUESTIONNAIRE
This version of the English questionnaire was sent by fax and postal mail. The electronic version of thequestionnaire is located at http://www1.worldbank.org/nars/wbies/introen.htm. The questionnaires were sent to
respondents according to language of delivery of the course (English, Portuguese, Spanish or Russian).
April 13, 2001
Re: Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations and Local Financial Management CourseSurvey among former participants
Dear Course Participant:
Since 1998 the World Bank Institute (WBI), which prior to March 1999 was referred to as the EconomicDevelopment Institute, and training organizations in many countries have been offering courses onIntergovernmental Fiscal Relations and Local Financial Management. These courses have been delivered in manyregions of the world and offered in four languages. Our records indicate that you have participated in one ormore of these courses.
Now it is time to take stock of the work that has been done and to evaluate all aspects of the course. To dothis, WBI - with financial support from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation - has commissioned aformal evaluation of the courses. I have been entrusted to lead the evaluation and to assure its independenceand impartiality.
We would like to determine if the right things have been done and if so, if these things have been done right.This review is intended to assure accountability and to improve courses in areas where weaknesses are found.
A cornerstone of this evaluation is the attached questionnaire that is being sent to all former courseparticipants. Its purpose is to gather information about the outcomes and impacts of the courses. We hope thatyou received advance notification from the training institute/regional organization that organized your course thatI would be sending this questionnaire to you. The training institutes/regional organizations that have co-organized the courses with WBI have assisted in the design of the questionnaire and fully support the surveyprocess.
Your responses are very important to us. Please be frank in answering each question. Your individualresponses will remain confidential. Only the Evaluation Unit of the World Bank Institute and I will have access tothem. We will only disclose aggregate—not individual—results or responses to organizers of the courses from WBIand its partner training institutes.
The results of the survey will be combined with additional review work of the course that our evaluation teamwill be assembling in the next few months. We plan to publish the final evaluation report and make it available onWBI’s Fiscal Decentralization website <www.decentralization.org>. I encourage you to visit this website inOctober 2001 to learn about the aggregate results of the survey and discover the conclusions that have beendrawn from the answers that you and other participants have given. We will notify you when the report has beenprepared and is available on the website.
I would be grateful if you could complete and return this questionnaire on or before April 20,2001. If you would prefer to respond to the survey electronically, please go to our websitehttp://www1.worldbank.org/nars/wbies/introen.htm and fill in the e-mail version of the form. It is important thatwe receive the completed questionnaires promptly so we may include your responses in our report. Thank youagain for taking your valuable time to respond to this questionnaire.
Sincerely,
Werner Bussmann, Ph.D.Former President of the Swiss Evaluation SocietySwiss Federal Office of Justice, BernJaunweg 30, 3014 Bern, SwitzerlandTel: 41 31 322 47 98; Fax 41 31 322 84 0; Email: [email protected]
100
Follow-up Questionnaire to be completed by former participants in theIntergovernmental Fiscal Relations & Local Financial Management Course
Sponsored by the World Bank Institute and regional organizations
Introduction
From March 1998 to February 2001, the World Bank Institute-WBI (which until March 1999 wasknown as the Economic Development Institute) has co-sponsored Intergovernmental FiscalRelations and Local Financial Management courses. Our records indicate that you participated in atleast one of these courses. We are in the process of reviewing and updating these courses andwould like to ask for your opinions about the course.
Course topics included the following: Concept of Fiscal Decentralization and Worldwide Overview;Political Economy of Fiscal Decentralization; Constitutional and Legal Framework and Guidelines;Intergovernmental Relations and Macroeconomic Stability and Growth; Expenditure Assignment;Revenue Assignment; Local Revenues; Intergovernmental Grants; Financing Infrastructure;Budgeting; Credit Debt or How to Measure Municipal Creditworthiness - Policies on Borrowing andDebt; Accountability and Transparency in Municipal Governments; and Fiscal Risk. In addition,regional organizers of these courses might have offered supplementary topics which are not listedabove.
WBI’s Fiscal Decentralization office developed these courses with local institutions in manycountries, and will use your opinions to improve the courses. Only an independent evaluator, Dr.Werner Bussmann of the Swiss Evaluation Society, and the Evaluation Unit of WBI, will have accessto your responses. The evaluators will only disclose aggregate—not individual—results orresponses to the WBI Fiscal Decentralization office. Your responses are important to us for thefuture planning of the course. We encourage you to be frank in answering each question as yourindividual responses will remain confidential.
Before returning your questionnaire, please make sure that it is completed clearly and accurately.Please check that you answered all the questions that applied to you. We appreciate your truthfuland complete responses to this confidential questionnaire.
Please be very attentive to the following:
G Your responses will be read by a scanner. To ensure accuracy, please completely fill(darken) the circles corresponding to your answers, like this, using a black or blue pen ormarker:
If by mistake you filled a circle and cannot erase your response, please correct it in this way:1) Draw an arrow pointing to this circle and write “error” at the start of the arrow.2) If applicable, fill the circle corresponding to the answer that you wanted to give.
101
1. Listed below are the cities and dates in which these courses occurred. Although we have maintained records of yourparticipation, to simplify the computer processing of this questionnaire, would you please indicate below the cities(s) anddate(s) in which you participated in the course(s) in addition to your role(s) in the course(s). (Fill all that apply.)
1998 City and date of course What was your role in this course?
¡la Vienna, Austria (March 1998) ¡l1 Participant ¡l2 Organizer/instructor
¡lb Budapest, Hungary (September 1998) ¡l1 Participant ¡l2 Organizer/instructor
¡lc Brasilia, Brazil (November 1998) ¡l1 Participant ¡l2 Organizer/instructor
¡ld Harare, Zimbabwe (November-December 1998) ¡l1 Participant ¡l2 Organizer/instructor
1999 City and date of course What was your role in this course?
¡le Chiang Mai, Thailand (February-March 1999) ¡l1 Participant ¡l2 Organizer/instructor
¡lf Caracas, Venezuela (June 1999) ¡l1 Participant ¡l2 Organizer/instructor
¡lg Budapest, Hungary (July-August 1999) ¡l1 Participant ¡l2 Organizer/instructor
¡lh Beijing, China (November 1999) ¡l1 Participant ¡l2 Organizer/instructor
¡li Brasilia, Brazil (November 1999) ¡l1 Participant ¡l2 Organizer/instructor
¡lj Jinja, Uganda (December 1999) ¡l1 Participant ¡l2 Organizer/instructor
2000 City and date of course What was your role in this course?
¡lk Budapest, Hungary (April 2000) ¡l1 Participant ¡l2 Organizer/instructor
¡ll Almaty, Kazakhstan (April 2000) ¡l1 Participant ¡l2 Organizer/instructor
¡lm Santiago, Chile (June 2000) ¡l1 Participant ¡l2 Organizer/instructor
¡ln Beijing, China (June 2000) ¡l1 Participant ¡l2 Organizer/instructor
¡lo Budapest, Hungary (July 2000) ¡l1 Participant ¡l2 Organizer/instructor
¡lp Atlanta, Georgia, USA (July-August 2000) ¡l1 Participant ¡l2 Organizer/instructor
¡lq Brasilia, Brazil (October 2000) ¡l1 Participant ¡l2 Organizer/instructor
¡lr Kampala, Uganda (November 2000) ¡l1 Participant ¡l2 Organizer/instructor
102
2. From what source(s) did you learn about the course? (Fill all that apply.)
¡la Government
¡lb Employer (private sector, non-governmental organization/NGO)
¡lc School, university or training / research institution / regional training organization
¡ld Friends / relatives
¡le World Bank
¡lf Other sources (Please describe: ___________________________________________________________ )
3. Through which means did you receive information about the course? (Fill all that apply.)
¡la Personal contact / notification
¡lb Direct mail / e-mail notification
¡lc Indirect mail / e-mail notification (newsletter, flyer, brochure, poster, etc.)
¡ld Newspaper / magazine
¡le Television
¡lf Radio
¡lg Other sources (Please describe: ___________________________________________________________ )
4. What is your sex?
¡la Male
¡lb Female
5. What is your present age? (Fill one circle.)
¡la less than 20 ¡lc 30 to 39 ¡le 50 to 59 ¡lg 70 and more
¡lb 20 to 29 ¡ld 40 to 49 ¡lf 60 to 69
103
6. What is the highest level of education that you have completed? (Fill one circle.)
¡la High school/ secondary education or lower
¡lb University level (e.g., Undergraduate degree, Bachelors, B.A., B.S., Licence, Licenciatura, etc.)
Indicate your field of study: _______________________________________________________
¡lc Masters level or equivalent (e.g., Graduate degree, MPA, MBA, Maîtrise, Maestría, etc.)
Indicate your field of study: _______________________________________________________
¡ld Doctorate (Ph.D., M.D., J.D., etc.)
Indicate your field of study: _______________________________________________________
¡le Other (Please specify and describe it with regard to the above list.)
Indicate your field of study: _______________________________________________________
7. In which country do you live? (Write your response here.) ________________________________________________
8. In which region do you currently work? (Fill only one circle. If you work in more than one region, please indicate “Global /Multiple Regions.” Refer to the map below.)
¡la Global / Multiple Regions
¡lb Australia, Canada, Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, USA and Western Europe
¡lc (Eastern) Europe & Central Asia
¡ld East Asia & Pacific (excluding Australia, Japan, Republic of Korea and New Zealand)
¡le Latin America & Caribbean
¡lf South Asia
¡lg Middle East & North Africa
¡lh Sub-Saharan Africa
¡li Other / unsure (Please specify: __________________________________________________________ )
104
9. Which of the following most closely matches your type of employment when you (first) participated in the course? (Fillonly one circle.)
Central / NationalGovernment
Subnational / Local / MunicipalGovernment Other
¡la Minister / Deputy Minister ¡lf Head of Government / Mayor ¡lk University or Training / ResearchInstitution
¡lb Parliament / Legislature ¡lg Legislative / City Council ¡ll Private Sector
¡lc Advisor / Management ¡lh Staff ¡lm Media Organization
¡ld Staff ¡li Association of municipalities ¡ln Non-Governmental Organization(NGO)
¡le Other __________________ ¡lj Other __________________ ¡lo Multilateral / Regional / BilateralOrganization
¡lp Student
¡lq Other _____________________
10. Since your course(s) ended, have you had any involvement with the course, its organizers, instructors and/or participants?
¡la Yes. If yes, in what activities did you engage? (Fill all that apply.)
¡l1 Requested documents on fiscal decentralization from the World Bank Institute.
¡l2 Requested documents on fiscal decentralization from the regional organizers of the course
¡l3 Visited the web site of the World Bank Institute’s Fiscal Decentralization team (www.decentralization.org orwww1.worldbank.org/wbiep/decentralization).
¡l4 Visited the web site of the regional organizers of the course.
¡l5 Stayed in contact with the World Bank Institute.
¡l6 Stayed in contact with the regional organizers.
¡l7 Stayed in contact with instructors who are employed by institutions other than the World Bank or regional
institutions that organized your course.
¡l8 Stayed in contact with course participants (students) and/or their institutions.
¡l9 Other contacts or activities: _________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________.
¡lb No
105
11. If you have visited the World Bank Institute’s Fiscal Decentralization team’s web site for this course(www.decentralization.org or www1.worldbank.org/wbiep/decentralization), what are its strengths and weaknesses?
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
Usefulness of the Course Contents
12. Taking into consideration the main contents of the course (see the box below), please describe the most importantinsight that you gained from the course.
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
Course Contents
Concept of Fiscal Decentralization and Worldwide Overview; Political Economy of Fiscal Decentralization;Constitutional and Legal Framework and Guidelines; Intergovernmental Relations and MacroeconomicStability and Growth; Expenditure Assignment; Revenue Assignment; Local Revenues; IntergovernmentalGrants; Financing Infrastructure; Budgeting; Credit Debt or How to Measure Municipal Creditworthiness -Policies on Borrowing and Debt; Accountability and Transparency in Municipal Governments; and FiscalRisk. In addition, regional organizers of these courses might have offered supplementary topics whichare not listed above.
106
minimum
maximum
no
opinion
minimum
maximum
no
opinion
Usefulness of the Course to You Personally
• Please rate each aspect of the course listed below on a progressive scale of 1 to 5,where 1 is the minimum and 5 is the maximum.
• If you feel that a question does not apply to you, or that you do not have enoughinformation to express an opinion, please fill the “no opinion” option.
• Please fill only one circle per question.
13. To what extent has/have the course(s) helped you personally in:
a. Improving professional skills ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
b. Updating previously acquired skills ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
c. Solving existing problems ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
d. Providing a framework for thought ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
e. Providing fresh/new ideas ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
f. Becoming involved in new professional activities ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
g. Increasing opportunities for promotion ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
h. Meeting new persons (networking) ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
14. Referring to question 13 above, provide concrete examples, if there are any, of how the course(s) helped you personally.
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Usefulness of the Course to Your Work
15. To what extent has/have the course(s) contributed to help you in your work to:
a. Develop better policy options ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
b. Identify the most suitable policy options ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
c. Argue for or against certain policy options ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
d. Support or oppose policy options by referring to best international practices discussedin the course
¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
e. Develop technical content of policies ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
f. Advise authorities or politicians ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
g. Advise colleagues and managers ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
h. Prepare background documents and/or written papers or briefs ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
107
minimum
maximum
no
opinion
16. Referring to question 15 above, please provide concrete examples, if there are any, of how you were able to useknowledge gained from the course(s) in your work.
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
17. Have you integrated elements of the course that you attended into your own training, teaching or research activities?
¡la Yes. If yes, in what activities did you engage? (Fill all that apply.)
¡l1 Participated as an instructor or resource person in other offerings of the course.
¡l2 Organized a similar course.
¡l3 Integrated content of the course into teaching or training.
¡l4 Used contents of the course in my own research activities.
¡l5 Other contacts or activities: _________________________________________________________________
¡lb No
18. If you answered “Yes” to question 17 above, please elaborate on the activities in which you engaged.
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
Overall Usefulness of the Course
• Please rate the usefulness of the course on a progressive scale of 1 to 5, where 1is the minimum and 5 is the maximum.
• If you feel that a question does not apply to you, or that you do not have enoughinformation to express an opinion, please fill the “no opinion” option.
• Please fill only one circle.
19. What was the overall usefulness of this course? ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
108
minimum
maximum
no
opinion
Satisfaction with Course Materials, Curriculum, Instructors andActivities
• Please rate each aspect of the course listed below on a progressive scale of 1 to 5,where 1 is the minimum and 5 is the maximum.
• If you feel that a question does not apply to you, or that you do not have enoughinformation to express an opinion, please fill the “no opinion” option.
• Please fill only one circle per question.20. To what extent were you satisfied overall with the following aspects of the course?
a. Course materials ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
b. Degree to which case studies were relevant to your country or region ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
c. Curriculum (contents of the course) ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
d. Instructional (pedagogical) techniques ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
e. Classroom interaction among participants ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
f. Social activities (opportunities to network and socialize with one another) ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
g. Duration of the course ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
21. If you provided an answer of “3” or lower for question 20, please provide suggestions for improvement on these itemsor any other aspect of the course.
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
109
minimum
maximum
no
opinion
Obstacles to Fiscal Decentralization
• Please rate each aspect of the course listed below on a progressive scale of 1 to 5,where 1 is the minimum (no obstacles) and 5 is the maximum(many/significant obstacles).
• If you feel that a question does not apply to you, or that you do not have enoughinformation to express an opinion, please fill the “no opinion” option.
22. To what extent do obstacles to fiscal decentralization exist at the following levels ofgovernment in your country? (Please fill only one circle per question.)
a. Central government ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
b. Sub-national government (intermediary, state, regional, etc.) ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
c. Local government ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
23. To what extent are the items listed below, obstacles for fiscal decentralization in yourcountry? (Please fill only one circle per question.)
a. lack of awareness of the benefits and risks of fiscal decentralization ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
b. lack of knowledge of the appropriate options for fiscal decentralization ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
c. lack of political consensus on a strategy for fiscal decentralization ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
d. macroeconomic instability¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
e. economic disparities between/among regions¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
f. political instability¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
g. lack of organizational capacity at the sub-national / local levels¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
h. other (Please describe). __________________________________________ ¡l1 ¡l2 ¡l3 ¡l4 ¡l5 ¡l
24. Please elaborate on any obstacles in questions 22 and 23 that you rated “4” or “5,” meaning that obstacles are relativelyhigh.
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
25. Based on your experience in the course, how might this course have any effect in reducing these obstacles?
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
110
Strengths and Weaknesses
26. What were the strengths of the course(s) that you attended?
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
27. What were the weaknesses of the course(s) that you attended?
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
111
Future Course Improvements
The organizers are interested in makingimprovements to the course.
28. In your opinion, what would be the 3 most useful improvements to thecourse? (Look at the list from letters "a to o" below to choose 3 ideas forimprovement. Then, referring to the columns to the right, make oneselection per column.)
Most usefulimprovement
2nd mostuseful
improvement
3rd mostuseful
improvement
a. Tailor courses more to country and regional needs ¡la ¡la ¡la
b. Develop and use more examples and case studies ¡lb ¡lb ¡lb
c. Delete topics ¡lc ¡lc ¡lc
d. Add new topics ¡ld ¡ld ¡ld
e. Provide advanced courses that develop specific skills ¡le ¡le ¡le
f. Improve teaching materials ¡lf ¡lf ¡lf
g. Rely more on the Internet as an interactive learning tool ¡lg ¡lg ¡lg
h. Engage more in distance learning ¡lh ¡lh ¡lh
i. Build further regional networks for courses & knowledge dissemination ¡li ¡li ¡li
j. Include more policymakers (politicians, mayors, etc.) as participants ¡lj ¡lj ¡lj
k. Include more journalists as participants ¡lk ¡lk ¡lk
l. Shorten the duration of the course ¡ll ¡ll ¡ll
m. Lengthen the duration of the course ¡lm ¡lm ¡lm
n. Establish post-course communication networks for alumni ¡ln ¡ln ¡ln
o. Other: ________________________________________ ¡lo ¡lo ¡lo
29. Please elaborate on why you made these three choices for improvement in question 28 above.
1st Choice:____________________________________________________________________________
2nd Choice: ___________________________________________________________________________
3rd Choice: ____________________________________________________________________________
Please fill only one circle in each of the three columns. If
you do not have enough information to express an
opinion, do not fill the circles.
112
30. If you have any further comments you may use the space below. Please specify whether the comments refer to thecourse or to the questionnaire itself.
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you very much for completing this questionnaire!
If you have a fax machine, please send thequestionnaire to either one of these fax
numbers:
Fax: (1) (202) 614-1541 or
Fax (1) (202) 522-1655
Please send to the attention of:Decentralization Survey 2001
c/o M. West Meiers, WBI Evaluation Unit
If you would prefer to mail the questionnaire,please send it to the following address.
Decentralization Survey 2001c/o M. West Meiers, WBI Evaluation Unit
1818 H. Street N.W., MSN J4-401Washington, DC 20433 United States of America
Telephone: (1) (202) 473-8543
113
1.
Lis
ted
bel
ow
are
th
e ci
ties
an
d d
ates
in w
hic
h t
he
cou
rses
occ
urr
ed.
Alt
ho
ug
h w
e h
ave
mai
nta
ined
rec
ord
s o
f yo
ur
par
tici
pat
ion
, to
sim
pli
fy c
om
pu
ter
anal
ysis
of
this
qu
esti
on
nai
re,
wo
uld
yo
u p
leas
e in
dic
ate
bel
ow
th
e ci
ty(-
ies)
an
d d
ate(
s) in
wh
ich
yo
u p
arti
cip
ated
in t
he
cou
rse(
s) in
ad
dit
ion
to
yo
ur
role
(s)
inth
e co
urs
e? (
Fill
all t
hat
appl
y.)
Loca
tion
and
Dat
e of
Cou
rse
Rol
e in
the
Cou
rse:
Pa
rtic
ipan
t or
Org
aniz
er/I
nstr
ucto
r or
No
Res
pons
e G
iven
Num
ber
ofRes
pond
ents
to
the
Surv
ey
Num
ber
of R
egis
tere
dPa
rtic
ipan
ts in
Cou
rse
Perc
ent
resp
ondi
ng t
osu
rvey
(Pa
rtic
ipan
ts &
Org
aniz
ers)
Perc
ent
resp
ondi
ng t
osu
rvey
(Pa
rtic
ipan
tsO
nly)
Vien
na, Au
stria
(M
arch
98)
Part
icip
ant
Org
aniz
erN
ot G
iven
Par
ticip
ant
or O
rgan
izer
/Ins
truc
tor
30
03
329%
9%Bu
dape
st, H
unga
ry (
Sept
embe
r 98
)Pa
rtic
ipan
tO
rgan
izer
Not
Giv
en
P
artic
ipan
t or
Org
aniz
er/I
nstr
ucto
r3
10
428
14%
11%
Bras
ilia,
Bra
zil (
Nov
embe
r 98
)Pa
rtic
ipan
tO
rgan
izer
Not
Giv
en
P
artic
ipan
t or
Org
aniz
er/I
nstr
ucto
r14
00
1446
30%
30%
Har
are,
Zim
babw
e (N
ovem
ber-
Dec
embe
r 98
)Pa
rtic
ipan
tO
rgan
izer
Not
Giv
en
P
artic
ipan
t or
Org
aniz
er/I
nstr
ucto
r1
01
220
10%
10%
Chi
ang
Mai
, Th
aila
nd (
Febr
uary
- M
arch
99)
Part
icip
ant
Org
aniz
erN
ot G
iven
Par
ticip
ant
or O
rgan
izer
/Ins
truc
tor
30
14
2715
%15
%Car
acas
, Ve
nezu
ela
(Jun
e 99
)Pa
rtic
ipan
tO
rgan
izer
Not
Giv
en
P
artic
ipan
t or
Org
aniz
er/I
nstr
ucto
r3
10
427
15%
11%
Buda
pest
, H
unga
ry (
July
-Aug
ust
99)
Part
icip
ant
Org
aniz
erN
ot G
iven
Par
ticip
ant
or O
rgan
izer
/Ins
truc
tor
52
07
3222
%16
%Br
asili
a, B
razi
l (N
ovem
ber
99)
Part
icip
ant
Org
aniz
erN
ot G
iven
Par
ticip
ant
or O
rgan
izer
/Ins
truc
tor
100
010
4522
%22
%Ji
nja,
Uga
nda
(Dec
embe
r 99
)Pa
rtic
ipan
tO
rgan
izer
Not
Giv
en
P
artic
ipan
t or
Org
aniz
er/I
nstr
ucto
r0
11
127
4%0%
Buda
pest
, H
unga
ry (
April
00)
Part
icip
ant
Org
aniz
erN
ot G
iven
Par
ticip
ant
or O
rgan
izer
/Ins
truc
tor
151
016
3348
%45
%Al
mat
y, K
azak
hsta
n (A
pril
00)
Part
icip
ant
Org
aniz
erN
ot G
iven
Par
ticip
ant
or O
rgan
izer
/Ins
truc
tor
50
17
2924
%24
%
Bo
th P
artic
ipan
t an
d O
rgan
izer
/Ins
truc
tor
Part
icip
ant
& O
rg./
Inst
ruct
or1
Sant
iago
, Chi
le (
June
00)
Part
icip
ant
Org
aniz
erN
ot G
iven
Par
ticip
ant
or O
rgan
izer
/Ins
truc
tor
150
116
4238
%38
%Bu
dape
st, H
unga
ry (
July
00)
Part
icip
ant
Org
aniz
erN
ot G
iven
Par
ticip
ant
or O
rgan
izer
/Ins
truc
tor
161
017
2959
%55
%At
lant
a, G
eorg
ia, U
SA (
July
-Aug
ust
00)
Part
icip
ant
Org
aniz
erN
ot G
iven
Par
ticip
ant
or O
rgan
izer
/Ins
truc
tor
70
07
1937
%37
%Br
asili
a, B
razi
l (O
ctob
er 0
0)Pa
rtic
ipan
tO
rgan
izer
Not
Giv
en
P
artic
ipan
t or
Org
aniz
er/I
nstr
ucto
r21
01
2244
50%
50%
Kam
pala
, U
gand
a (N
ovem
ber
00)
Part
icip
ant
Org
aniz
erN
ot G
iven
Par
ticip
ant
or O
rgan
izer
/Ins
truc
tor
71
08
3225
%22
%Tw
elve
par
ticip
ants
too
k m
ore
than
one
cou
rse.
O
ne o
f th
e 12
par
ticip
ated
in f
our
cour
ses
(onc
e as
a p
artic
ipan
t an
d th
ree
times
as
an o
rgan
izer
/ins
truc
tor)
. T
wo
of 1
2 pa
rtic
ipat
ed in
thr
ee c
ours
es (
each
onc
eas
a p
artic
ipan
t an
d tw
ice
as a
n or
gani
zer/
inst
ruct
or).
O
ne o
f 12
par
ticip
ated
in t
wo
cour
ses,
onc
e as
a p
artic
ipan
t an
d on
ce a
s an
org
aniz
er. T
he r
emai
ning
8 o
f 12
par
ticip
ated
in t
wo
cour
ses
each
as
part
icip
ants
onl
y.
In a
dditi
on t
o th
ese
twel
ve, on
e pe
rson
par
ticip
ated
as
a co
mbi
natio
n pa
rtic
ipan
t-or
gani
zer/
inst
ruct
or. T
wo
part
icip
ants
fro
m t
he 1
998
Har
are
cour
se a
re d
ecea
sed.
Th
e ac
tual
num
ber
ofpa
rtic
ipan
ts w
ho t
ook
that
cou
rse
was
22.
AN
NE
X 4
: A
GG
RE
GA
TE
SU
RV
EY
RE
SU
LT
S
114
Res
po
nd
ent
Info
rmat
ion
To
tal
Res
po
nse
Rat
es%
Num
ber
of R
egis
tere
d Pa
rtic
ipan
ts51
2Res
pond
ents
to
the
ques
tionn
aire
(12
6) o
ut o
f al
l reg
iste
red
part
icip
ants
(512
)25
%
Num
ber
of R
egis
tere
d Pa
rtic
ipan
ts S
ucce
ssfu
lly C
onta
cted
*42
2Res
pond
ents
to
the
ques
tionn
aire
(12
6) o
ut o
f al
l reg
iste
red
part
icip
ants
who
wer
e su
cces
sful
ly c
onta
cted
(42
2)30
%
Tota
l num
ber
of r
espo
nden
ts t
o th
e qu
estio
nnai
re12
6Res
pond
ents
to
each
cou
rse
(142
) ou
t of
all
regi
ster
ed p
artic
ipan
ts (
512)
28%
Tota
l num
ber
of r
espo
nden
ts t
o ea
ch c
ours
e (inc
ludi
ng 1
2 re
spon
dent
s w
hopa
rtic
ipat
ed in
mor
e th
an o
ne c
ours
e)14
2Res
pond
ents
to
each
cou
rse
(142
) ou
t of
all
regi
ster
ed p
artic
ipan
ts w
ho w
ere
succ
essf
ully
con
tact
ed (
422)
34%
* T
his
num
ber
was
det
erm
ined
by
trac
king
unr
etur
ned
and
succ
essf
ully
sen
t e-
mai
l, fa
x an
d po
stal
mai
l qu
estio
nnai
res.
In
add
ition
, in
form
atio
n on
"su
cces
sful
/uns
ucce
ssfu
l co
ntac
ts"
was
det
erm
ined
thro
ugh
tele
phon
e ca
lls t
o se
lect
ed p
artic
ipan
ts w
here
it
appe
ared
tha
t th
e qu
estio
nnai
res
had
not
been
rec
eive
d af
ter
mul
tiple
att
empt
s.
Wor
ld B
ank
offic
es i
n Af
rica
and
Cen
tral
Asi
a pr
ovid
edad
ditio
nal
info
rmat
ion
on
succ
essf
ul/u
nsuc
cess
ful
cont
acts
.
Rea
sons
fo
r un
succ
essf
ul
cont
acts
incl
uded
inc
ompl
ete
part
icip
ant
addr
esse
s, c
hang
e of
add
ress
/occ
upat
ion,
ino
pera
ble
reci
pien
t fa
xm
achi
nes/
num
bers
and
dea
th o
f pa
rtic
ipan
ts.
2.
Fro
m w
hat
so
urc
e(s)
did
yo
u le
arn
ab
ou
t th
eco
urs
e? (F
ill a
ll th
at a
pply
.)T
ota
l2
(co
nti
nu
ed).
Des
crip
tio
n o
f O
ther
so
urc
es.
To
tal
Gov
ernm
ent
54Tr
aini
ng I
nstit
ute
(La
Com
isió
n Ec
onóm
ica
para
Am
éric
a La
tina
(CEP
AL)
, Cen
tral
Eur
opea
n U
nive
rsity
(CEU
), E
scol
a de
Adm
inis
traç
ão F
azen
dária
(ES
AF),
Ins
titut
e fo
r Ec
onom
ic P
robl
ems
of R
ussi
a Aca
dam
y,In
tern
atio
nal E
duca
tion
Advi
sing
Cen
ter,
Ukr
aini
an A
cade
my
of P
ublic
Adm
inis
trat
ion
(UAPA
))13
Empl
oyer
(pr
ivat
e se
ctor
, no
n-go
vern
men
tal
orga
niza
tion/
NG
O)
9Cou
ncil
of E
urop
e1
Scho
ol, un
iver
sity
or
trai
ning
/ r
esea
rch
inst
itutio
n /
regi
onal
trai
ning
org
aniz
atio
n26
Deu
tsch
e G
esel
lsch
aft
für
Tech
nisc
he Z
usam
men
arbe
it (G
TZ)
3
Frie
nds
/ re
lativ
es6
Mun
icip
al D
evel
opm
ent
Prog
ram
me
ESA
2
Wor
ld B
ank
24So
ros
Foun
datio
n (M
osco
w O
pen
Soci
ety
Inst
itute
, So
ros-
Kaza
khst
an)
2
Oth
er30
USA
ID2
Urb
an A
utho
ritie
s As
soci
atio
n U
gand
a1
Foun
datio
n fo
r re
form
in lo
cal g
over
nmen
t1
Org
aniz
ers
1
Inte
rnet
1
Wor
ld B
ank
Web
site
1
IMF
book
s an
d pu
blic
atio
ns1
No
spec
ifica
tion
give
n1
To
tal
30
115
3.
Th
rou
gh
wh
ich
mea
ns
did
yo
u r
ecei
ve in
form
atio
n a
bo
ut
the
cou
rse?
(Fi
ll al
l tha
t ap
ply.
)T
ota
l3
(co
nti
nu
ed).
Des
crip
tio
n o
f O
ther
mea
ns.
To
tal
Pers
onal
con
tact
/ n
otifi
catio
n17
Prom
otio
nal m
ater
ials
of
CEP
AL
and
GTZ
1
Dire
ct m
ail /
e-m
ail n
otifi
catio
n44
Trai
ning
sec
tion
of t
he S
ecre
taria
t of
the
Nat
iona
l Tre
asur
y1
Indi
rect
mai
l / e
-mai
l not
ifica
tion
(new
slet
ter,
fly
er, br
ochu
re, po
ster
, et
c.)
23M
osco
w O
pen
Soci
ety
Inst
itute
fou
ndat
ion
1
New
spap
er/M
agaz
ine
0M
unic
ipal
Dev
elop
men
t Pr
ogra
mm
e ES
A1
Tele
visi
on0
Ukr
aini
an A
cade
my
of P
ublic
Adm
inis
trat
ion
(UAP
A)1
Rad
io0
Off
ice
of t
he P
resi
denc
y of
the
Nor
thea
st B
ank
1
Oth
er s
ourc
es15
My
gove
rnm
ent
1U
nive
rsity
1W
eb S
ite (
Wor
ld B
ank,
Cen
tral
Eur
opea
n U
nive
rsity
, un
iden
tifie
d)6
Fax
1T
ota
l1
5
4.
Wh
at is
yo
ur
sex
?M
ale
Fem
ale
To
tal
8442
126
67%
33%
100%
6.
Wh
at is
th
e h
igh
est
leve
l of
edu
cati
on
th
at y
ou
hav
e co
mp
lete
d?
(In
dic
ate
you
r fi
eld
of
stu
dy.
)T
ota
lM
ean
Hig
h sc
hool
/sec
onda
ry e
duca
tion
or lo
wer
43%
Uni
vers
ity le
vel f
ield
of
stud
y (e
.g., U
nder
grad
uate
deg
ree,
Bac
helo
rs, B.
A., B.
S., Li
cenc
e, L
icen
ciat
ura,
etc
.)41
33%
Mas
ters
leve
l fie
ld o
f st
udy
(e.g
., G
radu
ate
degr
ee, M
PA, M
BA, M
aîtr
ise,
Mae
stría
, et
c.)
6148
%
Doc
tora
te le
vel f
ield
of
stud
y (P
h.D
., M
.D., J
.D., e
tc.)
1613
%
Oth
er f
ield
of
stud
y (P
leas
e sp
ecify
and
des
crib
e it.
)3
2%
No
resp
onse
11%
To
tal
12
61
00
%
5.
Wh
at is
yo
ur
pre
sen
t ag
e?le
ss t
han
20
20
-29
30
-39
40
-49
50
-59
60
-69
70
+N
oR
esp
on
seT
ota
l
022
4644
120
02
12
6
0%17
%37
%35
%10
%0%
0%2%
116
Gen
eral
Fie
lds
of
Stu
dy
at t
he
Un
iver
sity
, M
aste
rs a
nd
Do
cto
rate
Lev
els
A.
Un
iver
sity
leve
lT
ota
l%
B.
Mas
ters
leve
lT
ota
l%
C.
Do
cto
rate
leve
lT
ota
l%
Busi
ness
(Ac
coun
ting,
Man
agem
ent)
821
%Bu
sine
ss (
Acco
untin
g, B
usin
ess
Adm
inis
trat
ion,
Fin
ance
, M
anag
emen
t)15
30%
Busi
ness
(Ac
coun
ting,
Bus
ines
sAd
min
istr
atio
n, F
inan
ce, M
anag
emen
t)3
20%
Com
pute
r Sc
ienc
es2
5%Ec
onom
ics
2244
%Ec
onom
ics
853
%Ec
onom
ics
2258
%En
gine
erin
g3
6%O
ther
427
%
Engi
neer
ing
38%
Publ
ic P
olic
y (D
evel
opm
ent
Plan
ning
,Pu
blic
Adm
inis
trat
ion,
Pol
icy,
Pol
itica
lSc
ienc
e, U
rban
Man
agem
ent)
1020
%T
ota
l1
51
00
%
Oth
er3
8%T
ota
l5
01
00
%T
ota
l3
81
00
%
Sp
ecif
ic F
ield
s o
f S
tud
y at
th
e U
niv
ersi
ty,
Mas
ters
an
d D
oct
ora
te L
evel
sU
niv
ersi
ty le
vel f
ield
s o
f st
ud
yT
ota
lU
niv
ersi
ty le
vel f
ield
s o
f st
ud
y (c
on
tin
ued
)T
ota
lAc
coun
ting
4Ec
onom
ics
with
Pos
tgra
duat
e St
udie
s in
Sys
tem
s An
alys
is1
Busi
ness
(H
onor
s) p
lus
MZI
PFA,
FCIS
, Reg
iste
red
Publ
ic A
ccou
ntan
t1
Law
1Civ
il en
gine
erin
g2
Man
agem
ent
2Civ
il en
gine
erin
g/sp
ecia
lizat
ion
in t
ribut
ary
law
1M
anag
emen
t an
d Ac
coun
ting
1Com
pute
r Sc
ienc
e1
Tour
ism
, Eu
rope
an U
nion
Stu
dies
1Com
pute
r Sc
ienc
es a
nd P
ostg
radu
ate
Stud
ies
in M
icro
com
pute
rs &
Mic
ropr
oces
sors
1U
nive
rsity
Deg
ree
plus
pos
t-gr
adua
te s
tudi
es in
Pub
lic F
inan
ce1
Econ
omic
s21
To
tal
38
Mas
ters
leve
l fie
ld o
f st
ud
yT
ota
lM
aste
rs le
vel f
ield
of
stu
dy
(co
nti
nu
ed)
To
tal
Mas
ters
leve
l fie
ld o
f st
ud
y (c
on
tin
ued
)T
ota
l
Acco
untin
g2
Econ
omic
s an
d Po
stgr
adua
te S
tudi
es in
Popu
latio
n an
d D
evel
opm
ent
1M
echa
nica
l Eng
inee
ring
1
Acco
untin
g an
d Au
dit
1Ec
onom
ics
and
Publ
ic P
olic
y1
Polit
ical
Sci
ence
1Civ
il En
gine
erin
g, A
ccou
ntin
g, M
BA in
Fin
ance
1Fi
nanc
e2
Polit
ical
Sci
ence
and
Int
ergo
vern
men
tal R
elat
ions
1
Cor
pora
te F
inan
ce1
Fina
nce
and
Acco
untin
g1
Prod
uctio
n En
gine
erin
g/Te
leco
mm
unic
atio
ns,
Info
rmat
ion
Syst
ems
1
Dev
elop
men
t Pl
anni
ng1
Fina
nce,
Inf
orm
atio
n Sc
ienc
es1
Publ
ic A
dmin
istr
atio
n4
Econ
omic
Pol
icy
and
Fina
ncia
l Man
agem
ent
1In
dust
rial E
cono
mic
s an
d In
tern
atio
nal L
aw1
Publ
ic F
inan
ce a
nd T
ax S
yste
ms
1Ec
onom
ics
9La
bor
Econ
omic
s, S
ocia
l Sec
urity
Sys
tem
s1
Publ
ic P
olic
y2
Econ
omic
s (A
pplie
d Ec
onom
etric
s)1
Mat
hem
atic
s: A
pplie
d to
Eco
nom
ics
1Pu
blic
Sec
tor
Econ
omic
s1
Econ
omic
s (B
anki
ng a
nd F
inan
ce)
1M
BA2
Soci
al a
nd E
cono
mic
Pla
nnin
g1
Econ
omic
s (E
cono
met
rics/
Qua
ntita
tive
Met
hods
)1
MBA
and
Int
erna
tiona
l Rel
atio
ns1
Stru
ctur
al E
ngin
eerin
g1
Econ
omic
s an
d D
evel
opm
enta
l Pla
nnin
g1
MBA
in P
ublic
Adm
inis
trat
ion
and
Know
ledg
eM
anag
emen
t1
Urb
an M
anag
emen
t1
Econ
omic
s an
d M
athe
mat
ical
Mod
elin
g1
MBA
: Ex
tern
al C
ontr
ol1
To
tal
50
117
Do
cto
rate
leve
l fie
ld o
f st
ud
yT
ota
lD
oct
ora
te le
vel f
ield
of
stu
dy
(co
nti
nu
ed)
To
tal
Do
cto
rate
leve
l fie
ld o
f st
ud
y (c
on
tin
ued
)T
ota
lAc
coun
ting
1Ec
onom
ics
5Pu
blic
Adm
inis
trat
ion,
Loc
al G
over
nmen
t1
Appl
ied
Mat
hem
atic
s1
Econ
omic
s an
d Fi
nanc
e2
Soci
olog
y1
Econ
omic
Geo
grap
hy1
Fina
nce
2Te
chni
cal S
cien
ces
1T
ota
l1
5
Oth
er f
ield
of
stu
dy
(oth
er t
han
Un
iver
sity
, M
aste
rs,
Do
cto
rate
)T
ota
lD
iplo
ma
- Ac
coun
tanc
y1
Dip
lom
a in
Coo
pera
tives
and
Bus
ines
s M
anag
emen
t1
Post
Gra
duat
e D
iplo
ma
in U
rban
Pla
nnin
g an
d M
anag
emen
t1
To
tal
3
7.
In
wh
ich
co
un
try
do
yo
uli
ve?
To
tal
%7
. I
n w
hic
h c
ou
ntr
y d
o y
ou
live
?(c
on
tin
ued
)T
ota
l%
7.
In
wh
ich
co
un
try
do
yo
u li
ve?
(co
nti
nu
ed)
To
tal
%
Alba
nia
22%
Ethi
opia
22%
Paki
stan
11%
Ango
la1
1%G
ambi
a, T
he1
1%Pa
ragu
ay1
1%Ar
gent
ina
32%
Geo
rgia
11%
Rom
ania
54%
Arm
enia
22%
Gha
na1
1%Rus
sian
Fed
erat
ion
65%
Boliv
ia4
3%G
uate
mal
a3
2%Sl
ovak
ia2
2%Bo
snia
-Her
zego
vina
11%
Hai
ti1
1%St
. Ki
tts
11%
Braz
il37
29%
Hon
dura
s1
1%Ta
jikis
tan
11%
Bulg
aria
108%
Hun
gary
22%
Tanz
ania
11%
Cap
e Ve
rde
22%
Indo
nesi
a1
1%U
gand
a2
2%Chi
le1
1%Ka
zakh
stan
32%
Ukr
aine
22%
Chi
na3
2%Ke
nya
11%
Uzb
ekis
tan
22%
Col
ombi
a1
1%Ky
rgyz
Rep
ublic
11%
Vene
zuel
a2
2%Cro
atia
43%
Mal
awi
11%
Fede
ral R
epub
lic o
f Yu
gosl
avia
11%
Cze
ch R
epub
lic2
2%M
exic
o3
2%Zi
mba
bwe
22%
Ecua
dor
11%
Mol
dova
11%
To
tal
12
61
00
%
8.
In
wh
ich
reg
ion
do
yo
u c
urr
entl
y w
ork
? (
If y
ou
wo
rk in
mo
re t
han
on
e re
gio
n,
ple
ase
ind
icat
e “m
ult
iple
/ g
lob
al r
egio
ns.
")T
ota
l%
East
Asi
a an
d th
e Pa
cific
(ex
clud
ing
Aust
ralia
, Ja
pan,
Rep
ublic
of
Kore
a an
d N
ew Z
eala
nd)
54%
(Eas
tern
) Eu
rope
and
Cen
tral
Asi
a46
37%
Latin
Am
eric
a an
d th
e Car
ibbe
an59
47%
Mid
dle
East
and
Nor
th A
fric
a0
0%So
uth
Asia
11%
Sub-
Saha
ran
Afric
a12
10%
Aust
ralia
, Can
ada,
Jap
an, Rep
ublic
of
Kore
a, N
ew Z
eala
nd, U
SA a
nd W
este
rn E
urop
e0
0%G
loba
l/M
ultip
le R
egio
ns1
1%O
ther
00%
No
Res
pons
e2
2%T
ota
l1
26
10
0%
118
9.
Wh
ich
of
the
foll
ow
ing
mo
st c
lose
ly m
atch
es y
ou
r ty
pe
of
emp
loym
ent
wh
en y
ou
(fi
rst)
par
tici
pat
ed in
th
e co
urs
e?T
ota
lM
ean
Tota
l Cen
tral
/Nat
iona
l Gov
ernm
ent
5444
%To
tal S
ubna
tiona
l / L
ocal
/ M
unic
ipal
Gov
ernm
ent
2924
%To
tal O
ther
4033
%To
tal T
ypes
of
Empl
oym
ent
123
100%
9.
Wh
ich
of
the
foll
ow
ing
mo
st c
lose
ly m
atch
es y
ou
r ty
pe
of
emp
loym
ent
wh
en y
ou
(fi
rst)
par
tici
pat
ed in
th
e co
urs
e?C
entr
al/N
atio
nal
Go
vern
men
tSu
btot
al -
Oth
erCen
tral
To
tal C
entr
al/
Nat
ion
alM
inis
ter
/ D
eput
y M
inis
ter
1Pa
rliam
ent
/ Le
gisl
atur
e1
Advi
sor
/ M
anag
emen
t25
Staf
f -
Cen
tral
/Nat
iona
l Gov
ernm
ent
24O
ther
- C
entr
al/N
atio
nal G
over
nmen
t3
N
atio
nal C
omm
issi
on o
f Ad
min
istr
ativ
e Ref
orm
1
Leg
isla
tive
Con
sulta
nt1
A
sses
sor
1T
ota
l Cen
tral
/Nat
ion
al G
ove
rnm
ent
54
9.
Wh
ich
of
the
foll
ow
ing
mo
st c
lose
ly m
atch
es y
ou
r ty
pe
of
emp
loym
ent
wh
en y
ou
(fi
rst)
par
tici
pat
ed in
th
e co
urs
e? S
ub
nat
ion
al /
Loca
l / M
un
icip
al G
ove
rnm
ent
Subt
otal
- O
ther
Subn
atio
nal
To
tal S
ub
nat
ion
al
Hea
d of
Gov
ernm
ent
/ M
ayor
6Le
gisl
ativ
e /
City
Cou
ncil
1St
aff
- Su
bnat
iona
l / L
ocal
/ M
unic
ipal
Gov
ernm
ent
18As
soci
atio
n of
Mun
icip
aliti
es2
Oth
er -
Sub
natio
nal /
Loc
al /
Mun
icip
al G
over
nmen
t2
F
eder
al-s
tate
org
aniz
atio
n1
A
dvis
ing
Cou
rt o
f Ac
coun
ts1
To
tal S
ub
nat
ion
al /
Lo
cal /
Mu
nic
ipal
Go
vern
men
t2
9
9.
Wh
ich
of
the
foll
ow
ing
mo
st c
lose
ly m
atch
es y
ou
r ty
pe
of
emp
loym
ent
wh
en y
ou
(fi
rst)
par
tici
pat
ed in
th
e co
urs
e? O
ther
(N
on
-G
ove
rnm
ent)
Subt
otal
- O
ther
Non
-Gov
ernm
ent
To
tal
Oth
erU
nive
rsity
/ T
rain
ing-
Res
earc
h In
stitu
tion
23Pr
ivat
e Se
ctor
4M
edia
Org
aniz
atio
n0
Non
-Gov
ernm
enta
l Org
aniz
atio
n (N
GO
)8
Mul
tilat
eral
/ R
egio
nal /
Bila
tera
l Org
aniz
atio
n3
Stud
ent
1O
ther
(N
ot C
entr
al o
r Su
bnat
iona
l Gov
ernm
ent)
1
Ban
k of
the
Nor
thea
st1
To
tal O
ther
40
119
10
. S
ince
yo
ur
cou
rse(
s) e
nd
ed,
hav
e yo
u h
ad a
ny
invo
lvem
ent
wit
h t
he
cou
rse,
its
org
aniz
er,
inst
ruct
ors
an
d/o
r p
arti
cip
ants
?T
ota
lM
ean
Yes
101
80%
No
2520
%T
ota
l1
26
10
0%
10
a. I
f ye
s, in
wh
ich
act
ivit
ies
did
yo
u e
ng
age?
(Fi
ll al
l tha
t ap
ply.
)T
ota
l%
of
12
61
0b
. D
escr
ipti
on
of
oth
er c
on
tact
s o
r ac
tivi
ties
.T
ota
l
Req
uest
ed d
ocum
ents
on
fisca
l dec
entr
aliz
atio
n fr
om t
he W
orld
Ban
k In
stitu
te.
65%
Org
aniz
ed e
xper
ts f
rom
the
cou
rse
to t
each
in S
erbi
a.1
Req
uest
ed d
ocum
ents
on
fisca
l dec
entr
aliz
atio
n fr
om t
he r
egio
nal o
rgan
izer
s of
the
cou
rse.
1310
%In
volv
emen
t as
par
ticip
ant
in a
noth
er c
ours
e.1
Visi
ted
the
web
site
of
the
Wor
ld B
ank
Inst
itute
's F
isca
l Dec
entr
aliz
atio
n te
am(w
ww
.dec
entr
aliz
atio
n.or
g or
ww
w1.
wor
ldba
nk.o
rg/w
biep
/dec
entr
aliz
atio
n).
3225
%Coo
pera
tion
with
Loc
al G
over
nmen
t In
stitu
te.
1
Visi
ted
the
web
site
of
the
regi
onal
org
aniz
ers
of t
he c
ours
e.29
23%
Prep
arat
ion
of a
stu
dy t
our
on t
he s
ame
topi
c.1
Stay
ed in
con
tact
with
the
Wor
ld B
ank
Inst
itute
.19
15%
Elab
orat
ed m
y w
ork
in t
his
area
.1
Stay
ed in
con
tact
with
the
reg
iona
l org
aniz
ers.
3326
%In
volv
emen
t in
Mun
icip
al M
anag
emen
t Ev
ent
of t
he N
orth
east
Ban
k1
Stay
ed in
con
tact
with
inst
ruct
ors
who
are
em
ploy
ed b
y in
stitu
tions
oth
er t
han
the
Wor
ldBa
nk o
r re
gion
al in
stitu
tions
tha
t or
gani
zed
your
cou
rse.
2520
%In
volv
emen
t in
AFR
ICIT
IES,
ALG
AF, U
rban
City
Man
agem
ent
Dis
tanc
e1
Stay
ed in
con
tact
with
cou
rse
part
icip
ants
(st
uden
ts)
and/
or t
heir
inst
itutio
ns.
7358
%Tr
ying
to
fost
er p
artn
ersh
ip b
etw
een
AYSP
S &
ILG
S.1
Oth
er c
onta
cts
or a
ctiv
ities
97%
Part
icip
ated
in t
he F
inan
cial
Dec
entr
aliz
atio
n Fo
rum
in S
epte
mbe
r 20
00.
1
To
tal
9
11
. If
yo
u h
ave
visi
ted
th
e W
orl
d B
ank
In
stit
ute
's F
isca
l Dec
entr
aliz
atio
n w
eb s
ite
for
this
co
urs
e (w
ww
.dec
entr
aliz
atio
n.o
rg o
r w
ww
1.w
orl
db
ank
.org
/wb
iep
/dec
entr
aliz
atio
n),
wh
at a
re it
s st
ren
gth
s an
d w
eak
nes
ses?
(Res
pons
es h
ave
been
syn
thes
ized
and
cat
egor
ized
und
er “
Info
rmat
ion”
and
“O
rgan
izat
ion.
”)
INFO
RM
AT
ION
To
tal
OR
GA
NIZ
AT
ION
To
tal
Inte
rest
ing
3Ap
peal
ing
2
Qua
ntity
Abu
ndan
t9
Not
App
ealin
g1
Qua
lity
Hig
h6
Easy
to
Use
3
Tran
slat
ions
- P
lent
iful
1D
iffic
ult
to U
se2
Tran
slat
ions
- N
ot P
lent
iful
2Fi
les
easy
to
dow
nloa
d1
Topi
cs -
Div
erse
3Fi
les
diff
icul
t to
dow
nloa
d1
Reg
iona
l Foc
us S
uffic
ient
3So
met
imes
diff
icul
t to
loca
te d
ata
1
Reg
iona
l Foc
us I
nsuf
ficie
nt2
Wou
ld li
ke t
o is
sue
pape
r on
web
site
1
Info
pro
vide
s go
od f
ram
ewor
k fo
r st
udy
1W
ebsi
te s
omet
imes
doe
s no
t w
ork
1
Con
tain
s pr
actic
al/u
sefu
l inf
o4
Con
tain
s go
od o
ppor
tuni
ties
to e
xcha
nge
know
ledg
e1
Con
tain
s up
-to-
date
info
1N
o w
eakn
esse
s fo
und
4
Som
e da
ta o
ut o
f da
te1
Un
iqu
e C
om
men
ts5
4R
esp
on
den
ts t
o Q
ues
tio
n2
4
120
12
. T
akin
g i
nto
co
nsi
der
atio
n t
he
mai
n c
on
ten
ts o
f th
e co
urs
e, p
leas
e d
escr
ibe
the
mo
st i
mp
ort
ant
insi
gh
t th
at y
ou
gai
ned
fro
m t
he
cou
rse.
Cou
rse
cont
ents
are
: Con
cept
of
Fisc
al D
ecen
tral
izat
ion
and
Wor
ldw
ide
Ove
rvie
w;
Polit
ical
Eco
nom
y of
Fis
cal D
ecen
tral
izat
ion;
Con
stitu
tiona
l and
Leg
al F
ram
ewor
k an
d G
uide
lines
; In
terg
over
nmen
tal R
elat
ions
and
Mac
roec
onom
ic S
tabi
lity
and
Gro
wth
; Ex
pend
iture
Ass
ignm
ent;
Rev
enue
Ass
ignm
ent;
Loc
al R
even
ues;
Int
ergo
vern
men
tal G
rant
s; F
inan
cing
Inf
rast
ruct
ure;
Bud
getin
g; C
redi
t D
ebt
or H
ow t
o M
easu
re M
unic
ipal
Cre
ditw
orth
ines
s -
Polic
ies
on B
orro
win
g an
d D
ebt;
Acc
ount
abili
ty a
nd T
rans
pare
ncy
in M
unic
ipal
Gov
ernm
ents
; an
d Fi
scal
Ris
k.
In a
dditi
on,
regi
onal
org
aniz
ers
of t
hese
cou
rses
mig
ht h
ave
offe
red
supp
lem
enta
ry t
opic
sw
hich
are
not
list
ed a
bove
. (
Res
pons
es h
ave
been
syn
thes
ized
and
cat
egor
ized
und
er “
Cor
e M
odul
es,”
“Ad
ditio
nal M
odul
es,”
“G
ener
al C
omm
ents
,” a
nd “
Oth
er C
omm
ents
.”)
CO
RE
MO
DU
LES
To
tal
AD
DIT
ION
AL
MO
DU
LES
(D
epen
ds o
n lo
catio
n of
cou
rse.
)T
ota
l
Con
cept
Ove
rvie
w-
Con
cept
of
Fisc
al D
ecen
tral
izat
ion
and
Wor
ldw
ide
Ove
rvie
w26
Cor
rupt
ion
Asse
ssm
ent
1 Po
litic
al E
cono
my
of F
isca
l Dec
entr
aliz
atio
n9
Se
ctor
App
roac
h1
Con
stitu
tiona
l and
Leg
al F
ram
ewor
k an
d G
uide
lines
5
Fede
rativ
e Q
uest
ion
(Bra
zil p
over
ty a
nd in
equa
litie
s)12
In
terg
over
nmen
tal R
elat
ions
and
Mac
roec
onom
ic S
tabi
lity
and
Gro
wth
14
Fisc
al R
espo
nsib
ility
Law
7 Ex
pend
iture
Ass
ignm
ent
18
Fisc
al f
eatu
res
of B
razi
lian
mun
icip
aliti
es2
Rev
enue
Ass
ignm
ent
26
Inte
rgov
ernm
enta
l sha
re o
f pu
blic
fun
ctio
ns a
nd e
ffic
ienc
y in
pub
lic e
xpen
ditu
res
10 Lo
cal R
even
ues
11
Polit
ical
eco
nom
y of
Cor
rupt
ion
in B
razi
l2
In
terg
over
nmen
tal G
rant
s27
Res
pons
ibili
ty o
f Ta
: co
ncep
tual
and
adm
inis
trat
ive
cons
ider
atio
ns in
the
sea
rch
for
asu
bnat
iona
l fis
cal a
uton
omy
9
Fi
nanc
ing
Infr
astr
uctu
re6
Cha
lleng
es o
f th
e Fi
scal
Dec
entr
aliz
atio
n in
Lat
in A
mer
ica
2 Bu
dget
ing
17
Fisc
al d
ecen
tral
izat
ion
and
its d
istr
ibut
ive
effe
cts
4 Cre
dit
Deb
t or
How
to
Mea
sure
Mun
icip
al C
redi
twor
thin
ess
- Po
licie
s on
Bor
row
ing
and
Deb
t5
Citi
zen
Con
trol
and
Sur
rend
er o
f Ac
coun
ts3
Fi
scal
Ris
k4
D
ecen
tral
izat
ion
and
finan
cing
of
the
soci
al s
ervi
ces.
1 Ac
coun
tabi
lity
& T
rans
pare
ncy
in M
unic
ipal
Gov
ernm
ents
11
GE
NE
RA
L C
OM
ME
NT
S (
Com
men
ts t
hat
coul
d be
gro
uped
.)T
ota
l
G
ener
al o
verv
iew
of
FD p
rinci
ples
and
res
pons
ibili
ties
of d
iffer
ent
leve
ls o
f go
vern
men
t16
Im
prov
ed m
y an
alys
is o
f to
pics
/ ju
dge
issu
es5
N
ew a
ppre
ciat
ion
that
FD
is im
port
ant
1 To
ols/
mec
hani
sms
used
to
impl
emen
t ch
ange
s6
Sh
arin
g -
resp
onsi
bilit
ies
betw
een
diff
eren
t le
vels
of
gove
rnm
ent
6 H
elpe
d m
e w
ith m
y w
ork
4 U
nder
stan
ding
/com
parin
g in
tern
atio
nal e
xper
ienc
e of
dec
entr
aliz
atio
n of
gov
ernm
ent
27 U
nder
stan
ding
situ
atio
n in
my
coun
try
4 U
nder
stan
d lin
ks b
etw
een
dece
ntra
lizat
ion
and
dem
ocra
cy2
Al
l the
mes
wer
e im
port
ant
2 Th
e ec
onom
ics
of in
terg
over
nmen
tal f
isca
l rel
atio
ns/d
evel
opm
ent
4 Tr
ade-
offs
of
dece
ntra
lizat
ion
(ben
efits
and
ris
ks)
6 U
nder
stan
ding
of
inte
rrel
ated
ness
of
vario
us c
ompo
nent
s of
dec
entr
aliz
atio
n2
So
cial
Ser
vice
s &
Fis
cal D
ecen
tral
izat
ion
(Hea
lth, Ed
ucat
ion,
etc
.)3
OT
HE
R C
OM
ME
NT
S (
Onl
y 1
resp
onde
nt p
er c
omm
ent)
To
tal
Se
e in
divi
dual
com
men
ts in
the
cha
rt b
elow
.23
Un
iqu
e C
om
men
ts3
44
Res
po
nd
ents
to
Qu
esti
on
10
0
121
OT
HE
R C
OM
ME
NT
S (
On
ly 1
res
po
nd
ent
per
co
mm
ent,
23
to
tal c
om
men
ts)
Pres
enta
tions
abo
ut e
xper
ienc
es r
elat
ed t
o he
alth
and
edu
catio
n se
ctor
s' e
xpen
ditu
res
wer
eve
ry in
tere
stin
g, b
ut I
thi
nk t
hat
the
deba
te o
n po
vert
y an
d in
equa
litie
s in
(m
y co
untr
y’s)
stat
es a
nd m
unic
ipal
ities
, ev
en a
t th
e co
ncep
tual
leve
l, w
as n
ot v
ery
inte
rest
ing
Fisc
al a
uton
omy,
whe
ther
ref
errin
g to
the
exp
endi
ture
s (d
ecis
ion
on e
xpen
ditu
res)
or
to r
even
ues
(pow
er t
o ra
ise
reve
nues
).
Subn
atio
nal g
over
nmen
t ha
s fis
cal c
ompe
tenc
e its
elf, b
eing
abl
e to
adju
st t
he b
udge
t an
d th
e ta
x bu
rden
to
its n
eeds
;U
nder
stan
ding
tha
t de
cent
raliz
atio
n sh
ould
be
part
of
our
cons
titut
ion
Suita
ble
mac
roec
onom
ic a
nd p
oliti
cal c
ondi
tions
The
fund
amen
tals
of
publ
ic f
inan
ce m
anag
emen
t an
d la
nd m
anag
emen
tLo
cal G
over
nmen
ts h
ave
som
e po
wer
for
lend
ing
Vert
ical
and
hor
izon
tal e
qual
izat
ion
syst
ems
Impo
rtan
t ex
perie
nces
on
dece
ntra
lizat
ion
of p
ublic
ser
vice
s an
d on
sha
red
budg
etin
g, in
Bra
zilia
nm
unic
ipal
ities
Iden
tifyi
ng d
ecen
tral
ized
fis
cal a
reas
Wor
k m
ust
be d
one
in s
elf
depe
nden
ce o
f th
e m
unic
ipal
ities
whe
n th
ey f
orm
the
inco
me
and
the
expe
nditu
re p
art
of t
heir
budg
ets.
Res
ourc
es a
vaila
ble
with
sta
tistic
al d
ata
on t
hem
esH
ow t
o lo
wer
the
fis
cal b
urde
n in
the
cou
ntry
on
one
hand
and
how
to
finan
ce o
blig
atio
ns t
hat
are
put
dow
n to
loca
l lev
els
on t
he o
ther
han
d
Dis
trib
utio
n of
the
rev
enue
s (a
nd o
f po
vert
y) in
(m
y co
untr
y)St
able
loca
l rev
enue
s an
d cl
ear
expe
nditu
res
with
in t
he c
onte
xt o
f so
und
loca
l fin
anci
alm
anag
emen
tCou
rse
mis
sed
a th
eme
on "
Coo
pera
tive
Fede
ralis
m",
bec
ause
as
our
fede
ratio
n is
so
dece
ntra
lized
, th
e pr
omot
ion
of jo
int
actio
ns b
etw
een
the
vario
us le
vels
of
Gov
ernm
ent
(des
ign,
fin
anci
ng a
nd e
xecu
tion)
is v
ery
unus
ual.
Fina
ncia
l lib
eral
izat
ion
of lo
cal m
anag
emen
t
Subn
atio
nal g
over
nmen
t el
ecte
d by
pop
ulat
ion
Mon
itorin
g an
d ev
alua
tion
of s
yste
ms
Subn
atio
nal g
over
nmen
ts t
echn
ical
and
adm
inis
trat
ive
capa
city
to
colle
ct f
isca
l rev
enue
san
d pr
ovid
e se
rvic
es e
ffic
ient
lyIm
port
ance
of
inst
itutio
nal c
hang
es f
or b
ette
r ac
coun
tabi
lity
Cen
tral
gov
ernm
ent
capa
city
to
mon
itor
the
proc
ess
Illu
stra
tive
mat
hem
atic
al m
odel
s de
alin
g w
ith t
he d
ecis
ion
mak
ing
in lo
cal t
ax p
olic
yAs
an
inst
ruct
or, en
joye
d se
eing
the
vis
ion
and
inte
rrel
atio
n of
mod
ules
13
. T
o w
hat
ex
ten
t h
as/h
ave
the
cou
rse(
s) h
elp
ed y
ou
per
son
ally
in:
Mea
n1
% 4
or
52
Low
est3
Hig
hes
t4S
td.
Dev
.5N
6
13a.
Im
prov
ing
prof
essi
onal
ski
lls4.
179
%1
50.
8112
1
13b.
U
pdat
ing
prev
ious
ly a
cqui
red
skill
s4.
179
%2
50.
8611
9
13c.
So
lvin
g ex
istin
g pr
oble
ms
3.3
40%
15
1.08
107
13d.
Pr
ovid
ing
a fr
amew
ork
for
thou
ght
4.1
76%
15
0.87
118
13e.
Pr
ovid
ing
fres
h/ne
w id
eas
4.2
82%
25
0.82
119
13f.
Beco
min
g in
volv
ed in
new
pro
fess
iona
l act
iviti
es3.
449
%1
51.
2511
1
13g.
In
crea
sing
opp
ortu
nitie
s fo
r pr
omot
ion
3.1
39%
15
1.32
107
13h.
M
eetin
g ne
w p
erso
ns (
netw
orki
ng)
4.2
76%
15
1.05
116
1 Ar
ithm
etic
ave
rage
rat
ing
of a
ll re
spon
dent
s to
the
que
stio
n on
a s
cale
of
1 to
5, w
here
1 =
min
imum
and
5 =
max
imum
.2
Prop
ortio
n of
par
ticip
ants
who
ans
wer
ed w
ith a
"4"
or
a "5
" ou
t of
all
resp
onde
nts
to t
he q
uest
ion.
3 Lo
wes
t ra
ting
awar
ded
by a
t le
ast
one
part
icip
ant
to t
he q
uest
ion.
4 H
ighe
st r
atin
g aw
arde
d by
at
leas
t on
e pa
rtic
ipan
t to
the
que
stio
n.5
Stan
dard
dev
iatio
n: t
he la
rger
the
sta
ndar
d de
viat
ion,
the
mor
e he
tero
gene
ous
the
opin
ion
of t
he g
roup
on
the
ques
tion.
6 N
umbe
r of
res
pond
ents
to
the
ques
tion.
122
14
. R
efer
rin
g t
o q
ues
tio
n 1
3 a
bo
ve,
ple
ase
pro
vid
e co
ncr
ete
exam
ple
s, if
th
ere
are
any,
of
ho
w t
he
cou
rse(
s) h
elp
ed y
ou
per
son
ally
. (
Res
pons
es h
ave
been
syn
thes
ized
and
cate
goriz
ed u
nder
”Pr
ofes
sion
al D
evel
opm
ent
& E
duca
tion,
” “W
ork/
Org
aniz
atio
n,”
“Gen
eral
Kno
wle
dge,
” “S
peci
fic K
now
ledg
e,”
“Tea
ch/O
rgan
ize,
” “N
etw
orki
ng,”
and
“O
ther
.”)
PR
OFE
SS
ION
AL
DE
VE
LOP
ME
NT
& E
DU
CA
TIO
NT
ota
lW
OR
K /
OR
GA
NIZ
AT
ION
To
tal
Impr
oved
pro
fess
iona
l ski
lls/o
ppor
tuni
ties
- M
otiv
ated
to
purs
ueop
port
uniti
es16
Hel
pful
to
my
wor
k /
orga
niza
tion
10
I am
bet
ter
prep
ared
to
part
icip
ate
in t
he p
roce
ss o
f de
cent
raliz
atio
n in
my
coun
try
2Pr
epar
ed p
roje
ct u
sing
kno
wle
dge
13
Impr
oved
my
abili
ty t
o ar
ticul
ate
polic
ies
1G
iven
pre
sent
atio
n(s)
on
the
topi
cs2
Impr
oved
my
conf
iden
ce t
o ad
voca
te a
nd a
pply
less
ons
lear
ned
2In
fluen
ced
polic
y m
aker
s on
FD
issu
es4
Beca
me
invo
lved
with
wor
king
-tea
m d
evot
ed t
o FD
in m
y co
untr
y1
I ha
ve/
do p
lan
to im
plem
ent
elem
ents
of
cour
se.
8
Beca
me
mem
ber
of t
eam
wor
king
on
issu
es3
Shar
ed n
ew c
ours
e kn
owle
dge
with
off
icia
ls in
my
coun
try
who
are
invo
lved
with
FD
5
Con
tinue
d to
par
ticip
ate
in s
imila
r co
urse
s/pr
ogra
ms/
foru
ms
6Cou
rse
incr
ease
d ex
chan
ges
on t
opic
in m
y co
untr
y (a
mon
g af
fect
ed p
artie
s lo
okin
g fo
rso
lutio
ns)
3
Know
ledg
e he
lped
me
in m
y fo
rmal
edu
catio
n4
Prep
ared
pap
er(s
)/bo
oks/
rese
arch
on
topi
c(s)
8
Con
tinue
to
stud
y su
bjec
t m
atte
r2
Enga
ged
expe
rts
from
the
cou
rse
on o
ne o
f m
y pr
ojec
ts4
Switc
hed
my
field
of
grad
uate
stu
dy -
now
foc
used
on
stat
e an
dm
unic
ipal
ity is
sues
1
GE
NE
RA
L K
NO
WLE
DG
E
TE
AC
H /
OR
GA
NIZ
E
Impr
oved
und
erst
andi
ng o
f IG
FR (
gene
rally
and
sys
tem
atic
ally
)24
Prep
ared
/am
pre
parin
g to
tea
ch e
lem
ents
of
this
cou
rse
14
New
app
reci
atio
n of
top
ic4
Impr
oved
my
teac
hing
met
hods
(pe
dago
gy)
4
KN
OW
LED
GE
– S
PE
CIF
IC
Org
aniz
ed S
tudy
Tou
rs f
or h
igh
leve
l off
icia
ls1
Know
ledg
e ga
in -
IG
FR in
my
coun
try
1N
ET
WO
RK
ING
Know
ledg
e ga
in -
ben
efits
and
ris
ks o
f FD
2Es
tabl
ishe
d an
d m
aint
aine
d co
ntac
t w
ith p
artic
ipan
ts/o
rgan
izer
s/in
stru
ctor
s(n
etw
orki
ng)
13
Know
ledg
e ga
in -
inte
rnat
iona
l exp
erie
nces
4In
tera
ctio
n w
ith c
ours
e st
aff
was
ver
y he
lpfu
l1
Know
ledg
e ga
in -
fin
anci
al g
rant
s1
OT
HE
R
Know
ledg
e ga
in -
inte
rgov
ernm
enta
l tra
nsfe
rs2
Rea
lized
tha
t th
e W
B an
d in
tern
atio
nal a
cade
mic
s ar
e co
ncer
ned
with
fis
cal p
erfo
rman
ceof
dev
elop
ing
coun
trie
s1
Know
ledg
e ga
in -
eff
ectiv
enes
s of
fis
cal r
enun
ciat
ion
polic
ies
1Rea
lized
tha
t W
B an
d in
tern
atio
nal a
cade
mic
s ca
n pr
ovid
e te
chni
cal a
ssis
tanc
e1
Know
ledg
e ga
in -
wea
lth-p
over
ty in
equi
ties
in m
y co
untr
y1
Des
pite
my
new
ly g
aine
d kn
owle
dge
and
opin
ions
, I
am a
t a
prof
essi
onal
leve
l tha
t w
illno
t be
abl
e to
aff
ect
chan
ge1
Know
ledg
e ga
in -
impo
rtan
ce o
f pu
blic
pol
icie
s fo
r th
e ch
ange
/mai
nten
ance
of p
rese
nt s
ocia
l situ
atio
n in
my
coun
try
1
Un
iqu
e C
om
men
ts17
2
Res
po
nd
ents
to
Qu
esti
on
83
123
15
. T
o w
hat
ex
ten
t h
as/h
ave
the
cou
rse(
s) c
on
trib
ute
d t
o h
elp
yo
u in
yo
ur
wo
rk t
o:
Mea
n1
% 4
or
52
Low
est3
Hig
hes
t4S
td.
Dev
.5N
6
15a.
D
evel
op b
ette
r po
licy
optio
ns3.
764
%1
50.
9997
15b.
Id
entif
y th
e m
ost
suita
ble
polic
y op
tions
3.8
65%
15
0.96
107
15c.
Ar
gue
for
or a
gain
st c
erta
in p
olic
y op
tions
4.0
80%
25
0.83
112
15d.
Su
ppor
t or
opp
ose
polic
y op
tions
by
refe
rrin
g to
bes
t in
tern
atio
nal p
ract
ices
dis
cuss
ed in
the
cou
rse
4.0
76%
15
0.86
110
15e.
D
evel
op t
echn
ical
con
tent
of
polic
ies
3.5
50%
15
1.07
105
15f.
Advi
se a
utho
ritie
s or
pol
itici
ans
3.7
64%
15
1.10
105
15g.
Ad
vise
col
leag
ues
and
man
ager
s4.
073
%2
50.
9111
1
15h.
Pr
epar
e ba
ckgr
ound
doc
umen
ts a
nd/o
r w
ritte
n pa
pers
or
brie
fs.
3.9
69%
15
1.09
108
1 Ar
ithm
etic
ave
rage
rat
ing
of a
ll re
spon
dent
s to
the
que
stio
n on
a s
cale
of
1 to
5, w
here
1 =
min
imum
and
5 =
max
imum
.2
Prop
ortio
n of
par
ticip
ants
who
ans
wer
ed w
ith a
"4"
or
a "5
" ou
t of
all
resp
onde
nts
to t
he q
uest
ion.
3 Lo
wes
t ra
ting
awar
ded
by a
t le
ast
one
part
icip
ant
to t
he q
uest
ion.
4 H
ighe
st r
atin
g aw
arde
d by
at
leas
t on
e pa
rtic
ipan
t to
the
que
stio
n.5
Stan
dard
dev
iatio
n: t
he la
rger
the
sta
ndar
d de
viat
ion,
the
mor
e he
tero
gene
ous
the
opin
ion
of t
he g
roup
on
the
ques
tion.
6 N
umbe
r of
res
pond
ents
to
the
ques
tion.
16
. R
efer
rin
g t
o q
ues
tio
n 1
5 a
bo
ve,
ple
ase
pro
vid
e co
ncr
ete
exam
ple
s, if
th
ere
are
any,
of
ho
w y
ou
wer
e ab
le t
o u
se k
no
wle
dg
e g
ain
ed f
rom
th
e co
urs
e(s)
inyo
ur
wo
rk.
(Res
pons
es h
ave
been
syn
thes
ized
and
cat
egor
ized
und
er “
Wor
k Pr
ojec
ts,”
“Ad
vice
,” “
Info
rmat
ion
Shar
ing,
” “K
now
ledg
e/Res
earc
h,”
“Tra
inin
g,”
and
“No
Use
.”)
WO
RK
PR
OJE
CT
ST
ota
lK
NO
WLE
DG
E /
RE
SE
AR
CH
To
tal
Prep
arat
ion
and/
or im
plem
enta
tion
of p
olic
y /
proj
ect
16Com
paris
on o
f in
tern
atio
nal p
ract
ices
10
Cho
osin
g ap
prop
riate
/ b
est
polic
ies-
prac
tices
10Im
prov
ed m
y ge
nera
l kno
wle
dge
/ an
alys
is -
con
fiden
ce6
Tech
nica
l asp
ects
of
proj
ect
/ po
licy
desi
gn2
Cou
rse
bene
fited
my
rese
arch
/edu
catio
n6
Mon
itorin
g an
d Ev
alua
ting
FD in
my
coun
try
5D
ocum
ent
prep
arat
ion
(pap
ers,
rep
orts
, bo
oks,
brie
fing
pape
rs)
11
Impr
ovem
ent
in g
over
nmen
t pr
ojec
ts2
TR
AIN
ING
AD
VIC
EIn
corp
orat
ed t
opic
s in
my
teac
hing
act
iviti
es8
Prov
ided
adv
ice
to g
over
nmen
t14
Use
d ne
w t
each
ing
met
hods
1
Prov
ided
adv
ice
to m
edia
1N
ew p
rofe
ssio
nal o
ppor
tuni
ties
(inc
ludi
ng c
onsu
lting
, te
achi
ng)
1
Prov
ided
adv
ice
to e
duca
tiona
l ins
titut
ion
1N
O U
SE
Prov
idin
g ad
vice
to
my
supe
riors
and
col
leag
ues
3Th
e co
urse
was
of
little
use
to
my
wor
k4
INFO
RM
AT
ION
SH
AR
ING
Shar
ing
of in
form
atio
n /
advi
ce in
my
wor
k (g
ener
al)
2
Deb
ates
/dis
cuss
ions
on
topi
cs7
Prom
ote
anal
ysis
, po
licy
and
activ
ities
on
FD in
my
coun
try
6
Pres
enta
tion
on F
D a
t a
foru
m /
con
fere
nce
3
Un
iqu
e C
om
men
ts11
9
Res
po
nd
ents
to
Qu
esti
on
73
124
17
. H
ave
you
inte
gra
ted
ele
men
ts o
f th
e co
urs
e th
at y
ou
atte
nd
ed in
to y
ou
r o
wn
tra
inin
g,
teac
hin
g o
r re
sear
ch a
ctiv
itie
s?T
ota
lM
ean
17
a. I
f ye
s, in
wh
ich
act
ivit
ies
did
yo
u e
ng
age?
(Fi
ll al
l tha
t ap
ply.
)T
ota
l
Yes
8370
%Pa
rtic
ipat
ed a
s an
inst
ruct
or o
r re
sour
ce p
erso
n in
oth
er o
ffer
ings
of
the
cour
se.
14
No
3630
%O
rgan
ized
a s
imila
r co
urse
.11
To
tal
11
91
00
%In
tegr
ated
con
tent
of
the
cour
se in
to t
each
ing
or t
rain
ing.
35
Use
d co
nten
ts o
f th
e co
urse
in m
y ow
n re
sear
ch a
ctiv
ities
.62
Oth
er c
onta
cts
or a
ctiv
ities
22
17
b.
Des
crip
tio
n o
f o
ther
co
nta
cts
or
acti
viti
esT
ota
l1
7b
. D
escr
ipti
on
of
oth
er c
on
tact
s o
r ac
tivi
ties
(co
nti
nu
ed)
To
tal
Atte
nded
VII
Int
erna
tiona
l Con
fere
nce
on P
ublic
Fin
ance
in P
ragu
e1
Org
aniz
ed a
ver
y si
mpl
e si
mila
r co
urse
1I
pass
ed t
he in
form
atio
n to
my
wor
k co
lleag
ues
1Ap
plie
d co
ncep
ts o
n U
N M
issi
on in
Som
alia
in 2
000
1
I've
used
the
con
tent
of
the
cour
se in
spe
akin
g at
sem
inar
s1
I am
try
ing
to w
rite
som
e pa
pers
in t
his
field
1
Org
aniz
atio
n of
Fis
cal D
ecen
tral
izat
ion
Con
fere
nce
1Im
prov
ed a
nat
iona
l pol
icy
docu
men
t an
d ga
ined
arg
umen
ts n
eces
sary
to
defe
nd it
1I
diff
use
the
cont
ents
, w
hen
ther
e is
an
inte
rest
ing
chan
ce f
or t
hat
1Pa
rtic
ipat
ion
and
prep
arin
g of
pre
sent
atio
n fo
r fo
rum
on
finan
cial
dec
entr
aliz
atio
n1
Cou
rses
on
Mun
icip
al C
redi
ts f
or lo
cal g
over
nmen
t in
Rom
ania
1U
se t
he m
ater
ials
fro
m t
he c
ours
e fo
r tr
aini
ng f
inan
cial
pro
fess
iona
ls1
Supp
ort
to t
he D
ecen
tral
izat
ion
Com
mis
sion
1U
sed
expe
rienc
es f
rom
Pol
and
and
Hun
gary
as
a re
fere
nce
in c
onst
ruct
ion
of a
new
mod
el o
f lo
cal g
over
nmen
t fin
ance
1
Part
icip
atio
n in
cou
rse
" Pu
blic
Adm
inis
trat
ion"
1N
o sp
ecifi
catio
n gi
ven
6
Con
tact
s w
ith o
ther
par
ticip
ants
1T
ota
l2
2
18
. If
yo
u a
nsw
ered
“Y
es”
to q
ues
tio
n 1
7 a
bo
ve,
ple
ase
elab
ora
te o
n t
he
acti
viti
es in
wh
ich
yo
u e
ng
aged
. (Res
pons
es h
ave
been
syn
thes
ized
and
cat
egor
ized
unde
r “W
ork
Proj
ects
,” “
Info
rmat
ion
Shar
ing,
” an
d “T
rain
ing/
Res
earc
h/Ed
ucat
ion.
”)
WO
RK
PR
OJE
CT
ST
ota
lU
sefu
l to
Wor
k; P
roje
ct D
esig
n7
Advi
sing
/ T
echn
ical
Ass
ista
nce
9IN
FOR
MA
TIO
N S
HA
RIN
GD
iscu
ssio
ns /
Deb
ates
on
topi
cs4
Pres
enta
tions
(O
ral)
6Con
fere
nce
/ W
orks
hop
/ Se
min
ar10
Dis
sem
inat
ion
of m
ater
ials
1T
RA
ININ
G /
RE
SE
AR
CH
/ E
DU
CA
TIO
NTr
aini
ng –
Tea
chin
g /
Org
aniz
ing
cour
ses
28Res
earc
h /
Pape
rs /
Boo
ks /
Dis
sert
atio
n24
Enro
lling
in s
imila
r co
urse
s2
Un
iqu
e C
om
men
ts91
Res
po
nd
ents
to
Qu
esti
on
59
125
Qu
esti
on
sM
ean
1%
4 o
r 5
2Lo
wes
t3H
igh
est4
Std
. D
ev.5
N6
19
. W
hat
was
th
e o
vera
ll u
sefu
lnes
s o
f th
is c
ou
rse?
4.1
84%
35
0.66
114
20
. T
o w
hat
ex
ten
t w
ere
you
sat
isfi
ed o
vera
ll w
ith
th
e fo
llo
win
g a
spec
ts o
f th
e co
urs
e?
a.
Cou
rse
mat
eria
ls4.
493
%3
50.
6312
1
b.
Deg
ree
to w
hich
cas
e st
udie
s w
ere
rele
vant
to
your
cou
ntry
or
regi
on4.
282
%2
50.
8012
0
c.
Cur
ricul
um (
cont
ents
of
the
cour
se)
4.3
93%
35
0.59
120
d.
Inst
ruct
iona
l (pe
dago
gica
l) t
echn
ique
s4.
176
%1
50.
8311
8
e.
Cla
ssro
om in
tera
ctio
n am
ong
part
icip
ants
4.3
88%
25
0.82
120
f. So
cial
act
iviti
es (
oppo
rtun
ities
to
netw
ork
and
soci
aliz
e w
ith o
ne a
noth
er)
4.2
79%
15
0.91
119
g.
Dur
atio
n of
the
cou
rse
3.9
69%
15
1.09
120
21
. –
Th
e re
sult
s o
f Q
ues
tio
n 2
1 h
ave
bee
n c
om
bin
ed w
ith
th
e re
sult
s o
f Q
ues
tio
n 2
7.
See
Qu
esti
on
27
fo
r th
e co
mb
ined
res
ult
s.
22
. T
o w
hat
ex
ten
t d
o o
bst
acle
s to
fis
cal d
ecen
tral
izat
ion
ex
ist
at t
he
foll
ow
ing
"lev
els"
of
go
vern
men
t in
yo
ur
cou
ntr
y?M
ean
1%
4 o
r 5
2Lo
wes
t3H
igh
est4
Std
. D
ev.5
N6
22a.
Cen
tral
gov
ernm
ent
3.7
63%
15
1.13
115
22b.
Sub
-nat
iona
l gov
ernm
ent
(int
erm
edia
ry, st
ate,
reg
iona
l, et
c.)
3.4
51%
15
1.10
96
22c.
Loc
al g
over
nmen
t3.
346
%1
51.
2010
12
3.
To
wh
at e
xte
nt
are
the
item
s li
sted
bel
ow
, o
bst
acle
s fo
r fi
scal
dec
entr
aliz
atio
n in
yo
ur
cou
ntr
y.23
a. la
ck o
f aw
aren
ess
of t
he b
enef
its a
nd r
isks
of
fisca
l dec
entr
aliz
atio
n3.
550
%1
51.
1311
3
23b.
lack
of
know
ledg
e of
the
app
ropr
iate
opt
ions
for
fis
cal d
ecen
tral
izat
ion
3.4
54%
15
1.11
114
23c.
lack
of
polit
ical
con
sens
us o
n a
stra
tegy
for
fis
cal d
ecen
tral
izat
ion
4.1
75%
15
1.07
114
23d.
mac
roec
onom
ic in
stab
ility
3.2
41%
15
1.29
114
23e.
eco
nom
ic d
ispa
ritie
s be
twee
n/am
ong
regi
ons
3.9
67%
15
1.06
114
23f. p
oliti
cal i
nsta
bilit
y3.
036
%1
51.
3611
2
23g.
lack
of
orga
niza
tiona
l cap
acity
at
the
sub-
natio
nal /
loca
l lev
els
3.7
59%
15
1.12
114
23h.
oth
er (
Plea
se d
escr
ibe)
4.4
83%
35
0.78
181
Arith
met
ic a
vera
ge r
atin
g of
all
resp
onde
nts
to t
he q
uest
ion
on a
sca
le o
f 1
to 5
, w
here
1 =
min
imum
and
5 =
max
imum
.2
Prop
ortio
n of
par
ticip
ants
who
ans
wer
ed w
ith a
"4"
or
a "5
" ou
t of
all
resp
onde
nts
to t
he q
uest
ion.
3 Lo
wes
t ra
ting
awar
ded
by a
t le
ast
one
part
icip
ant
to t
he q
uest
ion.
4 H
ighe
st r
atin
g aw
arde
d by
at
leas
t on
e pa
rtic
ipan
t to
the
que
stio
n.5
Stan
dard
dev
iatio
n: t
he la
rger
the
sta
ndar
d de
viat
ion,
the
mor
e he
tero
gene
ous
the
opin
ion
of t
he g
roup
on
the
ques
tion.
6 N
umbe
r of
res
pond
ents
to
the
ques
tion.
126
23
h.
Oth
er (
Des
crip
tio
ns)
To
tal*
Fisc
al c
apac
ity o
f th
e na
tiona
l gov
ernm
ent
1
Lack
of
tech
nica
l com
pete
ncy
1
Lack
of
tech
nocr
atic
/bur
eauc
ratic
will
1
Polit
ical
det
erm
inat
ion/
will
3
Lack
of
finan
ce1
Abili
ty o
f po
litic
ians
1
Lack
of
info
rmat
ion
to e
valu
ate
and
diag
nose
1
Appr
opria
te k
now
ledg
e of
reg
iona
l ine
qual
ities
1
Lack
of
lega
l cap
acity
the
loca
l lev
el1
Low
pol
itica
l rep
rese
ntat
ion
of t
he a
utho
ritie
s1
Patr
imon
ial c
ultu
re in
pub
lic a
dmin
istr
atio
n1
Hav
ing
com
patib
le d
istr
ibut
ion
oblig
atio
ns a
nd p
resc
riptio
ns1
Lack
of
tran
spar
ency
of
loca
l gov
ernm
ent
offic
ials
' wor
k1
Lack
of
activ
e ci
tizen
s' p
artic
ipat
ion
1
Cor
rupt
ion
2
Subn
atio
nal s
truc
ture
s do
not
influ
ence
the
tax
rat
e, k
inds
of
taxe
s an
d th
e ta
x ba
se. Ex
pend
iture
par
amet
ers
are
give
n by
the
cen
tral
gov
ernm
ent.
1
Dep
ende
ncy
of a
ll th
e st
ate
of d
iffic
ult
dece
ntra
lizab
le in
com
e1
To
tal*
20
* Fo
ur r
espo
nden
ts g
ave
num
eric
al r
atin
gs (
1 to
5)
for
ques
tion
23h,
but
did
not
pro
vide
des
crip
tions
of
"Oth
er O
bsta
cles
."
Six
resp
onde
nts
did
not
prov
ide
num
eric
al r
atin
gs (
1 to
5),
but
did
pro
vide
desc
riptio
ns o
f "O
ther
Obs
tacl
es."
24
. P
leas
e el
abo
rate
on
an
y o
bst
acle
s in
qu
esti
on
s 2
2 a
nd
23
th
at y
ou
r ra
ted
“4
” o
r “5
,” m
ean
ing
th
at o
bst
acle
s ar
e re
lati
vely
hig
h.
24
. O
BS
TA
CLE
ST
ota
l2
4.
OB
ST
AC
LES
(co
nti
nu
ed)
To
tal
Reg
iona
l dis
parit
ies
20Fe
ar o
f ta
king
res
pons
ibili
ty a
t lo
cal l
evel
5La
ck o
f po
litic
al c
onse
nsus
/ w
ill a
t ce
ntra
l lev
el19
Lack
of
Con
stitu
tiona
l /
Lega
l Fra
mew
ork
5La
ck o
f kn
owle
dge
18O
ther
5La
ck o
f ca
paci
ty a
t su
bnat
iona
l/ lo
cal l
evel
17La
ck o
f de
moc
ratic
val
ues
4Ec
onom
ic in
stab
ility
12La
ck o
f in
terg
over
nmen
tal t
rans
fer
polic
y at
cen
tral
leve
l4
Lack
coo
pera
tion
- Com
petit
ion
9Cen
tral
ist
ideo
logy
of
rulin
g pa
rty
2Po
litic
al in
stab
ility
6Tr
ansi
tion
to m
arke
t ec
onom
y1
Lack
of
reve
nue,
fis
cal c
risis
5N
o se
rious
obs
tacl
es e
xist
ing
1St
ate
capt
ured
by
priv
ate
inte
rest
s, c
orru
ptio
n5
Un
iqu
e C
om
men
ts1
38
Res
po
nd
ents
to
Qu
esti
on
81
127
Wea
kn
esse
sS
tren
gth
s
Co
mb
inat
ion
of
Res
po
nse
s fo
r Q
ues
tio
ns
21
& 2
7 (
Wea
kn
esse
s/Im
pro
vem
ents
)
21
. I
f yo
u p
rovi
ded
an
an
swer
of
“3”
or
low
er f
or
qu
esti
on
20
,p
leas
e p
rovi
de
sug
ges
tio
ns
for
imp
rove
men
t o
n t
hes
e it
ems
or
any
oth
er a
spec
t o
f th
e co
urs
e.2
7.
Wh
at w
ere
the
wea
kn
esse
s o
f th
e co
urs
e(s)
th
at y
ou
att
end
ed?
To
tal
26
. W
hat
wer
e th
e st
ren
gth
s o
f th
e co
urs
e th
at y
ou
atte
nd
ed?
To
tal
Shor
t /
load
ed /
inte
nsiv
e32
Con
tent
s an
d m
ater
ials
54
Lack
of
coun
try
/ re
gion
al e
xam
ples
18In
stru
ctor
s an
d pr
esen
tatio
ns46
Lack
of
time
or in
tera
ctio
ns /
dis
cuss
ions
11Ex
chan
ge e
xper
ienc
es, in
tera
ctio
n, d
iscu
ssio
n21
Insu
ffic
ient
qua
lity
of in
stru
ctor
s /
pres
enta
tions
11O
rgan
izat
ion,
fac
ilitie
s, e
quip
men
t an
d at
mos
pher
e20
Insu
ffic
ient
ped
agog
ical
tec
hniq
ues
11In
tern
atio
nal c
ompa
rison
s18
Them
atic
cha
nges
sug
gest
ed9
Net
wor
ks, co
ntac
ts, fo
llow
-up
11
Part
icip
ant
sele
ctio
n7
Cas
es7
Lack
of
soci
al a
ctiv
ities
/ o
ppor
tuni
ties
7Te
am w
ork
6
Lack
of
follo
w u
p an
d su
ppor
t5
Qua
lity
part
icip
ants
6
Rep
etiti
on o
f th
emes
/ c
ours
e to
o la
rge
4Vi
deoc
onfe
renc
ing
5
Org
aniz
atio
n /
Insu
ffic
ient
res
pect
of
sche
dule
4So
cial
act
iviti
es4
Lack
of
on s
ite v
isits
3Pe
dago
gica
l tec
hniq
ues
3
Insu
ffic
ient
pre
para
tion
of p
artic
ipan
t pr
esen
tatio
ns3
Exer
cise
s an
d ex
ampl
es2
Oth
er (
sing
le c
omm
ents
)14
Com
pute
r si
mul
atio
n2
To
tal C
om
men
ts (
excl
ud
ing
“n
o w
eak
nes
ses
fou
nd
”)13
9Con
cept
ual l
earn
ing
1
No
wea
knes
ses
foun
d11
Un
iqu
e C
om
men
ts (
incl
ud
ing
“n
o w
eak
nes
ses
fou
nd
”)15
0U
niq
ue
Co
mm
ents
206
Res
po
nd
ents
to
Qu
esti
on
34R
esp
on
den
ts t
o Q
ues
tio
n10
7
128
28
. T
he
cou
rse
org
aniz
ers
are
inte
rest
ed in
mak
ing
imp
rove
men
ts t
o t
he
cou
rse.
In
yo
ur
op
inio
n,
wh
at w
ou
ld b
e th
e 3
mo
st u
sefu
l im
pro
vem
ents
to
th
e co
urs
e?S
um
of
Po
ints
Ran
kS
um
of
Po
ints
Ran
ka.
Tai
lor
cour
ses
mor
e to
cou
ntry
and
reg
iona
l nee
ds10
31
m. Le
ngth
en t
he d
urat
ion
of t
he c
ours
e26
8
e. P
rovi
de a
dvan
ced
cour
ses
that
dev
elop
spe
cific
ski
lls10
31
h. E
ngag
e m
ore
in d
ista
nce
lear
ning
1910
b. D
evel
op a
nd u
se m
ore
exam
ples
and
cas
e st
udie
s95
3f. I
mpr
ove
teac
hing
mat
eria
ls15
11
j. In
clud
e m
ore
polic
ymak
ers
(pol
itici
ans,
may
ors,
etc
.) a
s pa
rtic
ipan
ts75
4c.
Del
ete
topi
cs9
12
i. Bu
ild f
urth
er r
egio
nal n
etw
orks
for
cou
rses
& k
now
ledg
e di
ssem
inat
ion
745
l. Sh
orte
n th
e du
ratio
n of
the
cou
rse
613
n. E
stab
lish
post
-cou
rse
com
mun
icat
ion
netw
orks
for
alu
mni
676
o. O
ther
: __
____
____
____
_5
14g.
Rel
y m
ore
on t
he I
nter
net
as a
n in
tera
ctiv
e le
arni
ng t
ool
317
k. I
nclu
de m
ore
jour
nalis
ts a
s pa
rtic
ipan
ts4
15
d. A
dd n
ew t
opic
s26
8
28
o.
Des
crip
tio
n o
f o
ther
imp
rove
men
tsM
ost
Use
ful
2n
d M
ost
Use
ful
3rd
Mo
st U
sefu
l
Incl
ude
mor
e in
tera
ctiv
e m
etho
ds1
Sele
ct b
ette
r th
e in
stru
ctor
s1
Exch
ange
of
expe
rienc
es1
28
. T
he
cou
rse
org
aniz
ers
are
inte
rest
ed in
mak
ing
imp
rove
men
ts t
o t
he
cou
rse.
In
yo
ur
op
inio
n,
wh
at w
ou
ld b
e th
e 3
mo
st u
sefu
l im
pro
vem
ents
to
th
e co
urs
e?1
st M
ost
Use
ful
2n
d M
ost
Use
ful
3rd
Mo
stU
sefu
lT
ota
l1
st P
oin
ts(x
3)
2n
d P
oin
ts(x
2)
3rd
Po
ints
(x1
)S
um
of
Po
ints
a.
Tailo
r co
urse
s m
ore
to c
ount
ry a
nd r
egio
nal n
eeds
288
339
8416
310
3
b.
Dev
elop
and
use
mor
e ex
ampl
es a
nd c
ase
stud
ies
1816
943
5432
995
c.
Del
ete
topi
cs1
14
63
24
9
d.
Add
new
top
ics
45
413
1210
426
e.
Prov
ide
adva
nced
cou
rses
tha
t de
velo
p sp
ecifi
c sk
ills
2016
1147
6032
1110
3
f. Im
prov
e te
achi
ng m
ater
ials
23
38
66
315
g.
Rel
y m
ore
on t
he I
nter
net
as a
n in
tera
ctiv
e le
arni
ng t
ool
47
516
1214
531
h.
Enga
ge m
ore
in d
ista
nce
lear
ning
16
411
312
419
i. Bu
ild f
urth
er r
egio
nal n
etw
orks
for
cou
rses
& k
now
ledg
e di
ssem
inat
ion
819
1239
2438
1274
j. In
clud
e m
ore
polic
ymak
ers
(pol
itici
ans,
may
ors,
etc
.) a
s pa
rtic
ipan
ts11
1512
3833
3012
75
k.
Incl
ude
mor
e jo
urna
lists
as
part
icip
ants
01
23
02
24
l. Sh
orte
n th
e du
ratio
n of
the
cou
rse
10
34
30
36
m.
Leng
then
the
dur
atio
n of
the
cou
rse
44
614
128
626
n.
Esta
blis
h po
st-c
ours
e co
mm
unic
atio
n ne
twor
ks f
or a
lum
ni7
928
4421
1828
67
o.
Oth
er:
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
10
23
30
25
129
ANNEX 5: LIST OF INTERVIEWS AND OF CORE COURSES/POLICYSERVICES EVENTS ATTENDED BY MEMBERS OF THE EVALUATIONTEAM
LIST OF INTERVIEWS
Werner Bussmann• Walter Kälin (University of Bern) on the Nepal Decentralization workshop, November 10, 2001 (interview)• Ulrich Klöti (University of Zürich) on the Nepal Decentralization workshop, May 21 and 28 (telephone
interview, followed by e-mail exchange)• Winnie Mulongo-Luhana on the Victoria Falls Declaration, February 14 and 15, 2001 (interview at the
Budapest experts' workshop)
Werner Bussmann and Maurya West-Meiers• Approximately 12 interviews (30-60 minutes) with Robert Ebel and/or Victor Vergara or Serdar Yilmaz
Attendance of core courses and policy services events
Werner Bussmann• Core course in Budapest, Hungary, held from April 10-15, 2000 (participants from the Balkans and Central
Asia)Adrian Hadorn
• Forum on Fiscal Decentralization in Bosnia & Herzegovina held in Sarajevo from June 14-16, 1999• Turkey Municipal Finance Workshop in Antalya, Turkey, held from June 21-22, 1999
Maurya West Meiers• Core course in Brasilia, Brazil, held from October 16 – 27, 2000 (participants from Brazil and other Latin
American countries), attendance from October 16 – 19, 2000
130
ANNEX 6: PROGRAM TEAM
ORIGINAL MEMBERS OF THE FD TEAM
Robert D. Ebel
Robert Ebel is a WBI Lead Economist. He is an authority on state and local finance in the United States, havingserved as Director of Public Finance Research for the United States Advisory Commission on IntergovernmentalRelations (ACIR), the Executive Director of Tax Study Commissions in Minnesota and the District of Columbia,director of tax studies for Nevada, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Hawaii. He alsorecently served as the Chair of a special revenue study commission for Washington, D.C., and the ExecutiveDirector of the National Tax Association (1995-2000).
At the World Bank he has managed intergovernmental fiscal reports in Hungary, Jordan, Palestine (West Bank-GazaStrip), India, and Yemen, and coordinated the Fiscal Decentralization Initiative (FDI) for Central and EasternEurope, a collaborative research grant program of the World Bank, Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment, Council of Europe, Open Society Institute, the United Nations Development Program, and thegovernments of Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Atpresent, he is the Theme Leader for the World Bank Institute's program on Decentralization (fiscal decentralization,federalism, local government, local financial management), which has a worldwide program. His communicationsskills range from the authorship of books, monographs, and articles to the series editor of a scholarly research serieson decentralization economics (JAI Press) and a regular economics columnist for two major U.S. newspapers (St.Paul and Honolulu).
Recent books are Decentralization of the Socialist State (with Richard Bird and Christine Wallich, World Bank,1995) and The Encyclopedia of Taxation and Tax Policy (with Joseph Cordes and Jane G. Gravelle, Washington,DC, Decentralization Institute Press, 1999). Other recent publications include: "Sorting Out IntergovernmentalRoles and Responsibilities in the Hungarian Transition," (with Istvan Varfalvi and Sandor Varga), in Lajos Bokrosand Jean Jacques Dethier, eds., Public Finance Reform During the Transition: The Experience of Hungary (WorldBank, 1998, Chapter 15); "Financing decentralization Governments," (with Francois Vaillancourt), in Emila Freireand Richard Stern, eds., Challenges of City Government (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Summer 2000); and"Intergovernmental Relations: Issues and Policies" (with Serdar Yilmaz), in Mila Zlatic, ed., Proceedings of theForum on Fiscal Decentralization (World Bank Fiscal Decentralization Initiative Series, 2000).
He received his Ph.D. and M.S. in Economics from Purdue University and a B.A. in Economics from MiamiUniversity.
Blanca Moreno-Dodson
Blanca Moreno-Dodson joined the World Bank Institute in 1998 as Economist and Course Manager of theMacroeconomic Management program, in WBI. Previously she worked at the World Bank as Economist with theCorporate Strategy Group (1997-1998), and as Country Economist and Country Officer in the West-Central AfricaDepartment (1993-1997). She has also worked in Country Operations in LAC and MENA, and in the ChiefEconomist and Policy Research Department (1991-1993).
Prior to joining the World Bank, Ms. Moreno-Dodson held positions at the Commission of the EuropeanCommunity, Brussels, and the European Parliament, Luxembourg. She received her Ph.D. and Masters inInternational Economics and Finance from the University Aix-Marseille II, France, and a Masters in Economicsfrom the University "Autonoma" Madrid, Spain.
Victor Vergara
Victor Vergara is Subnational Finance and Administration Specialist for WBI. Before joining the World Bank, Mr.Vergara was manager of assistance to disadvantaged coastal municipalities where he managed a multi-disciplinary
131
team in designing, implementing and supervising infrastructure investment programs in the poorest regions ofMexico. In the World Bank, he has worked with the Policy and Research Department where he assisted in thepreparation of the Bank’s Municipal Development Policy Paper. He was recruited by the operational branch of theWorld Bank where he was responsible for the design and supervision of technical assistance programs on financialmanagement and governance for subnational governments in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and Venezuela. Hewas the author of World Bank Policy Options Paper on sub-national reform for the Mexico (1994-2000) and aWorld Bank sector study, Venezuela Decentralized Provision of Urban Services: Finding the Right Incentives.Among Mr. Vergara’s responsibilities are the management of regional municipal technical assistance initiatives inLatin America and Eastern and Southern Africa and co-task management of the FD Core Course, IntergovernmentalFiscal Relations and Local Financial Management.
Mr. Vergara is a Mexican national and holds Master of Agriculture degree from Texas A&M University and aMaster of City Planning (Regional Economics) from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Serdar Yilmaz
Serdar Yilmaz is a Public Sector Specialist at the World Bank Institute (WBI). Mr. Yilmaz coordinates curriculumdevelopment activities of the WBI's Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations and Local Financial Management Program.In addition to his managerial assignments, he conducts research and produces scholarly work on the areas of publicfinance, regional development and intergovernmental fiscal design. His research interest include the analysis of thedecision making process in the public sector, intergovernmental policies in developing countries, and the role ofinfrastructure service provision in regional development patterns. He has participated in many learning activities ofthe WBI and his research has appeared in leading academic journals and edited books in the field.
Mr. Yilmaz received a Ph.D. in Public Policy and an M.A. in Telecommunications from George Mason University.He holds an M.A. in Political Science and a B.A. in Public Affairs from Istanbul University.
Michelle Morris
Michelle Morris is Administrative Program Manager for Public Finance and Decentralization. Her coreresponsibility is the management of the team’s budget. She also coordinates the administrative and organizationalfunctions for the Public Finance team. Ms. Morris joined WBI in February 1997. Prior to joing WBI, Ms. Morrisworked at a Law Firm Specializing in Juvenile Cases. Her background is in Public Administration and Psychology.
132
Richard M. Bird
Richard M. Bird, Senior Fellow of the program, is a Professor Emeritus of Economics, and an Adjunct Professor andCo-Director of International Tax Program, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, as well as aPetro-Canada Scholar, C.D. Howe Institute, a Distinguished Visiting Professor, Andrew Young School of PolicyStudies, Georgia State University, and a Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School (2001-02).
He was educated at Dalhousie University, Columbia University, and London School of Economics. He taught atHarvard University and University of Toronto and held visiting positions at Monash University, Australian NationalUniversity, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Japan Council of Science, Indian Council of Social Science, HarvardLaw School, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, University of York (UK), and Georgia State University.Other major positions held include Advisor on Tax and Monetary Policy, Government of Colombia, Chief of TaxPolicy Division, International Monetary Fund, and Director of Institute for Policy Analysis, University of Toronto.
He has published numerous books and articles on public finance and taxation issues. He is currently on the editorialboard of Tax Notes International, Public Finance Review, Canadian Tax Journal, and Environment and Planning C:Government and Policy. His other current affiliations include International Seminar in Public Economics (PastPresident), National Tax Association (long-time Honorary Director, Morris Beck Award), International Institute ofPublic Finance (former Board Member), American Economic Association, Canadian Economic Association,Canadian Tax Foundation. Associate of Institute of Fiscal and Monetary Policy (Japan), Program of Fiscal Studies,Lyceum of the Philippines, Centre for International Studies (Toronto), and Adjunct Fellow of International Tax andInvestment Center (US).
François Vaillancourt
François Vaillancourt, Senior Fellow for the program, holds a Ph.D. from Queen’s University(1978) and isProfessor, Department of Economics and Research Fellow, Centre de recherche et développement en économique(C.R.D.E.) at the Université de Montréal, and a Fellow, at the C.D.Howe Institute. He teaches, conducts researchand has published extensively in the areas of public finance and the economics of language. He has conductedresearch and acted as a Consultant for organizations such as the Canadian Tax Foundation, the Conseil de la languefrançaise, the Department of Finance, the Economic Council of Canada, Statistics Canada and the World Bank.
ADDITIONAL MEMBERS OF THE EXPANDED PROGRAM, PUBLIC FINANCE, DECENTRALIZATION ANDPOVERTY REDUCTION PROGRAM
Serap Bindebir
Serap Bindebir conducts research and assists with web page development for the Public Finance, Decentralizationand Public Resources team. She received a Bachelor’s degree in political science from Bates College in Lewiston,Maine, in 2001. She speaks French, German and Spanish in addition to Turkish and English. Prior to joining theWorld Bank, she worked at the Turkish Embassy in Paris, Capitol Hill and UNICEF in Turkey as an intern.
133
Eric Champagne
Eric Champagne, Urban Specialist, coordinates the core course on Urban and City Management in Africa andCentral America. He is also assistant coordinator of a research project to improve metropolitan management in LatinAmerica. Earlier, he was a researcher at the National Institute for Scientific Research (INRS-Urbanisation) inMontréal, Canada. Eric has authored/co-authored several studies, reports, papers and a book on metropolitangovernance, urban systems and economic development in North America (United States, Canada and Mexico). Heholds a Master’s degree in urban planning from Université Laval (Québec City) and his Ph.D. in urban studies atINRS-Urbanisation. In 1997, he was a visiting scholar at the Center for Economic Development of the University ofWisconsin and in 1998–99, he was an International Urban Fellow at Johns Hopkins University.
Jasmine Chakeri
Jasmin Chakeri is a research assistant working on the the administration and preparation of the distance learningcourse East Asia Decentralization Dialogues II and coordinates the logistics of the program for decentralization inEast Asia under the ASEM trust fund. Jasmin received a Master’s degree in International Relations from the JohnsHopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in 2001, and holds a Bachelor’s degree in JapaneseStudies from the University of Cambridge.
Migara de Silva
Mr. Migara de Silva has worked as a senior economist in the World Bank Institute since January 1998 specializingin East Asian Economics. He has taught a number of modules as part of the Institute's Core Course Programincluding, "Institutions and Economic Development, Natural Resource Abundance and Growth" and "Managementof Commodity Booms and Economic Growth".
Prior to the World Bank Institute, Mr. de Silva was with the Operations Evaluation Department (Country Policy,Industry and Finance) of the World Bank working in both Asia and Africa. He has conducted research at the JohnM. Olin School of Business, Washington University, and held numerous positions in the private sector in his nativeSri Lanka. He has also taught at Washington University and the University of Southern Illinois. Mr. de Silva holds aPh.D. in Political Economics and an M.A. in Economics from Washington University. He also has a M.Sc. in Civiland Industrial Engineering from Astrakhan Technical Institute.
Vasumathi L Rollakanty
Ms. Vasumathi Rollakanty is the program’s team assistant, providing administrative client support. She provides fullsecretarial/administrative support to the Regional Coordinator for Asia and to the program. Ms. Rollakanty joinedWBIEP in September 1999. She has worked on a number of regional workshops including the Asia DevelopmentForum. Prior to joining WBIEP, Ms. Rollakanty worked with the Information Solutions Group in InformationManagement Services and Knowledge Management Systems.
Roxanne Scott
Roxanne Scott is the program’s public sector specialist/gender analyst. Her work as an international developmentand learning systems specialist involves institutional strengthening of government policy processes, gender anddevelopment, civic participation and healthcare reform. She has particular expertise in training and educationalprogramming and has conducted knowledge needs assessments and developed staff training policies and programson gender equality for the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). Her international work hasfocused on the former Soviet Union countries where she developed, delivered and evaluated capacity buildingprograms for governments and civil society organizations in Ukraine on gender integrated frameworks in publicpolicy analysis, and worked with multi-donor initiatives supporting capacity building and sharing of best practices in
134
administrative reform in Ukraine and Poland and healthcare reform in Russia. Ms. Scott has published andpresented works on poverty reduction, technical assistance in the former Soviet Union, gender equality issues ininternational development and economic analysis of healthcare programs. She holds a Masters degree in PublicAdministration in International Development from Carleton University, Canada, and a Masters degree in AdultEducation from Brunel University, Great Britain.
135
ANNEX 7: AGENDA AND LIST OF PARTICIPANTS OF THE IFRLFMCORE COURSE IN VIENNA, AUSTRIA (MARCH 16–27, 1998)
AGENDA
Date (1998) Activity Resource Person
Sunday, March 15 Registration and Check-In n.a.
Monday, March 16 Introduction and Overview Robert Ebel and MichaelEngelschalk
Worldwide Perspectives Roy Bahl
Tuesday, March 17 Tax Assignment Charles McLure, Jr.
Wednesday, March 18 Structure and Systems David King
Thursday, March 19 Expenditure Assignment Jorge Martinez-Vazquez
Friday, March 20 Macroeconomics and Growth Paul Bernd Spahn
Monday, March 23 Intergovernmental Transfers Sally Wallace
Tuesday, March 24 Credit Markets and Financial Risks of LocalAuthorities
Samir El Daher
Wednesday, March 25 Budgeting Dana Weist
Thursday, March 26 Property Taxation Anders Muller
Thursday, March 26 Integrity Systems and Incentives Victor Vergara
Friday, March 27 Wrap-up and Evaluation Robert Ebel / MichaelEngelschalk
136
List of Participants and Organizers IFRLFM Core Course in Vienna, Austria (March16–27, 1998)
Country ofResidence/Work Name Position OrganizationBrazil Maria de Fatima Pessoa de
Mello CartaxoDirector General Ministerio de Fazenda
Brazil Amaury Patarick Gremaud Professor University of Sao Paulo
China Fan Zhang Associate Professor China Center for Economic Research
Czech Republic Saloua Sehilli CERGE & EI
Denmark Anders Muller Ministry of Taxation
Ethiopia Joseph Bhoyie M. Simelane Public Administration Officer Economic Commission for Africa
Ethiopia Yousif Ahmed Suliman Senior Economic Affairs Officer Economic Commission for Africa
France Michael Engelschalk Principal Administrator OECD, Fiscal Analysis Division
France Francois Paul Yatta IUP-OEIL
Germany Paul Bernd Spahn Professor University of Frankfurt am Main
Hungary Tim Honey ICMA
Hungary Adrian Ionescu Programme Director Open Society Institute, LocalGovernment and Public ServiceReform Initiative
Hungary Gabor Peteri Consultant
Iran Morteza Asadi Head, Department of Economics College of Economic Affairs (CEA)
Japan Toshihiro Fujiwara Japan Intercultural Academy ofMunicipalities
Latvia Galina Kanejeva Director Ministry of Economy
Lebanon Sami Atallah Lebanese Center for Policy Studies
Morocco Mina Baliamoune Undergraduate ProgramsCoordinator
Al Akhawayn University
Russia Sally Wallace Professor GSU Russia Fiscal Reform
Slovakia Ivan Miklos Executive Director MESA
South Africa Iraj Abedian Associate Professor, Director School of Economic, Applied FiscalResearch Centre
South Africa Ismail Momoniat Chief Director of IntergovernmentalRelations
Department of Finance
Tunisia Nejib Trabelsi Dir. de l’Unité de Suivi du Projet deDéveloppement Municipal
Ministère de l'Intérieur
Ukraine Olha M. Ivanytska Academy of Public Administration
Ukraine Nadia Ryazanova Deputy Head Kiev National University ofEconomics
United Kingdom David King Professor University of Stirling
USA Roy Bahl Dean, School of Policy Studies Georgia State University
USA Jerry Brown Distance Education Specialist
USA Alberto Chueca Mora Coordinator, EDI Business Dev. &Partner
World Bank
137
List of Participants and Organizers IFRLFM Core Course in Vienna, Austria (March16–27, 1998) (Continued)
Country ofResidence/Work Name Position OrganizationUSA Robert Ebel EDI Intergovernmental Fiscal
ProgramWorld Bank
USA Samir El Daher Financial Adviser World Bank
USA Jorge Martinez-Vazquez Professor of Economics and Directorof International Studies
Andrew Young School of PublicPolicy, Georgia State University
USA Charles E. McLure, Jr. Senior Fellow Hoover Institution-StanfordUniversity
USA Phil Rosenberg President Philip Rosenberg and Associates
USA Victor Vergara Senior Public Sector ManagementSpecialist
World Bank
USA Dana Weist Financial Economist World Bank
Venezuela Armando Barrios Researcher Center for Public Policy Institute ofAdvanced Studies in Administration(IESA)
Venezuela Rosa Amelia Gonzalez dePacheco
Researcher Center for Public Policy Institute ofAdvanced Studies in Administration(IESA)
West Bank and Gaza Suleiman Aref Head Ministry of Finance
West Bank and Gaza Jehad Rajab Hamdan Director General Ministry of Local Government
West Bank and Gaza Majed Ma’ali Executive Director Palestinian Economists Association
West Bank and Gaza Abla Nashashibi Director General Palestinian National Authority
West Bank and Gaza Adel Sai'd Zagha Chairperson Birzeit University
Yemen Republic Ibrahim Alnahiri Ministry of Finance
Zimbabwe Tekaligne Godana University of Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe Richard Madavo Head of Division Zimbabwe Institute of PublicAdministration and Management(ZIPAM)
Zimbabwe Nobuhle Maphosa University of Zimbabwe
138
AN
NE
X 8
: IF
RL
FM
PR
OG
RA
M M
OD
UL
ES
(A
S O
F F
EB
RU
AR
Y 2
002)
Sour
ce o
f in
form
atio
n is
the
FD
pro
gram
web
site
. New
fea
ture
s ar
e hi
ghlig
hted
in g
rey.
Top
icD
escr
ipti
onSu
ppor
t M
ater
ial
I. S
etti
ng
th
e F
ram
ewo
rk/ O
verv
iew
1. C
once
pt o
f F
isca
lD
ecen
tral
izat
ion
and
Wor
ldw
ide
Ove
rvie
w
The
pur
pose
of
this
intr
oduc
tion
is to
pro
vide
a c
ours
e ov
ervi
ew a
nd la
y ou
t key
ques
tions
to b
e ex
amin
ed in
sub
sequ
ent p
rese
ntat
ions
and
dis
cuss
ions
. The
initi
al d
iscu
ssio
ns f
ocus
on
the
conc
ept (
e.g.
, dis
tingu
ishi
ng f
isca
l fro
m o
ther
form
s of
dec
entr
aliz
atio
n an
d po
intin
g ou
t the
var
iant
s fi
scal
may
take
), a
nd th
enpr
ocee
ds to
ask
sev
eral
cri
tical
que
stio
ns:
• W
hy/w
hy n
ot d
ecen
tral
ize?
• W
hat a
re th
e be
nefi
ts a
nd r
isks
?•
How
doe
s on
e m
easu
re a
nd m
onito
r?•
Wha
t are
the
basi
c ap
proa
ches
and
inst
rum
ents
of
a fi
scal
dec
entr
aliz
atio
nan
d lo
cal f
inan
cial
man
agem
ent p
olic
y?
I. K
ey R
eadi
ngs:
• R
ober
t D. E
bel a
nd S
erda
r Y
ilmaz
. 200
1. “
Con
cept
of
Fisc
al D
ecen
tral
izat
ion
and
Wor
ldw
ide
Ove
rvie
w”
• E
nter
ing
the
21st C
entu
ry W
orld
Dev
elop
men
t Rep
ort 2
000-
2001
/ C
hapt
er 5
-D
ecen
tral
izat
ion:
Ret
hink
ing
Gov
ernm
ent
II. A
ddit
iona
l Rea
ding
s:•
Ric
hard
Bir
d, C
. Wal
lich
and
R. E
bel.
1995
. Dec
entr
aliz
atio
n of
the
Soci
alis
t Sta
te.
Cha
pter
1-
Fisc
al D
ecen
tral
izat
ion:
Fro
m C
omm
and
to M
arke
t•
Ric
hard
Bir
d an
d Fr
anco
is V
ailla
ncou
rt. 1
998.
Fis
cal D
ecen
tral
izat
ion
in D
evel
opin
gC
ount
ries
. Cha
pter
1: “
Fisc
al D
ecen
tral
izat
ion
in D
evel
opin
g C
ount
ries
: An
Ove
rvie
w”
III.
Pow
erP
oin
t P
rese
nta
tion
IV. C
ase
Stu
die
s2.
The
Pol
itic
al E
cono
my
of F
isca
l Dec
entr
aliz
atio
nD
iscu
ssio
ns f
ocus
on
the
inst
itutio
nal a
nd p
oliti
cal i
ncen
tives
that
def
ine
fisc
alre
latio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
leve
ls o
f go
vern
men
ts. T
he d
iscu
ssio
ns p
rovi
de a
gen
eral
outli
ne a
nd in
trod
uctio
n in
to p
oliti
cal m
echa
nism
s ne
cess
ary
to m
ake
fisc
alde
cent
raliz
atio
n w
ork,
incl
udin
g po
litic
al le
ader
ship
, ele
ctor
al m
odes
and
the
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
exec
utiv
e an
d le
gisl
ativ
e br
anch
es. D
ebat
es w
ill f
ocus
on
the
follo
win
g qu
estio
ns:
• Is
ther
e a
corr
ect m
odel
of
dece
ntra
lizat
ion?
• W
hat a
re th
e fu
ndam
enta
l pri
ncip
les
of f
isca
l dec
entr
aliz
atio
n?
I. K
ey R
eadi
ngs:
• R
ober
t Ebe
l. 20
00. "
Dem
ocra
cy, D
ecen
tral
izat
ion
and
Dev
elop
men
t"•
Shah
id Y
usuf
. 200
0. "
Whe
re th
e W
orld
is H
eadi
ng: T
owar
d G
loba
lizat
ion,
Loc
aliz
atio
nan
d th
e Pa
ttern
of
Dev
elop
men
t"II
. Add
itio
nal R
eadi
ngs
• Ja
mes
For
d. 1
999.
"C
onst
itutio
nal,
Leg
al, a
nd R
egul
ator
y Fr
amew
ork"
• Je
ssic
a Se
ddon
. 199
9. "
Part
icip
atio
n, C
ivil
Soci
ety,
and
Dec
entr
aliz
atio
n”•
Wol
f L
inde
r. 1
994.
Sw
iss
Dem
ocra
cy P
ossi
ble
Solu
tion
s to
Con
flic
t in
Mul
ticu
ltur
alSo
ciet
ies.
III.
Pow
er P
oint
Pre
sent
atio
nIV
. Cas
e St
udie
s 3.
Con
stit
utio
nal a
ndL
egal
Fra
mew
ork
and
Gui
delin
es
Beg
inni
ng w
ith th
e di
stin
ctio
n be
twee
n th
e of
ten
conf
used
pur
pose
s of
cons
titut
ions
(th
ey s
houl
d be
bro
ad)
vs. l
aws
(spe
cifi
c), t
he d
iscu
ssio
ns p
roce
edto
lay
out t
he o
bjec
tives
for
wri
ting
loca
l gov
ernm
ent l
aws
(cle
ar s
et o
f ru
les,
empo
wer
men
t, es
tabl
ish
limits
, rec
ogni
zing
law
s m
ust c
hang
e to
mee
t new
need
s) a
nd th
en r
evie
ws
the
type
s of
law
s th
at ty
pify
an
inte
rgov
ernm
enta
lsy
stem
. (e
.g.,
the
fram
ewor
k fo
r ce
ntra
l-lo
cal d
ivis
ion
of f
isca
l res
pons
ibili
ties,
loca
l tax
es, d
ebt a
nd b
ankr
uptc
y, p
riva
tizat
ion,
and
, som
etim
es, a
law
on
capi
tal
citie
s).
• W
hat i
s th
e ro
le o
f th
e de
sign
of
inte
rgov
ernm
enta
l rel
atio
ns o
n th
epe
rfor
man
ce o
f pu
blic
sec
tor?
• A
re f
eder
al s
yste
ms
mor
e co
nduc
ive
to im
plem
enta
tion
of f
isca
lde
cent
raliz
atio
n?•
Is s
ubna
tiona
l pol
icym
akin
g po
wer
sus
cept
ible
to s
hift
s in
cou
ntri
es w
here
I. K
ey R
eadi
ng:
• Ja
mes
For
d. 1
999.
”C
onst
itutio
nal,
Leg
al, a
nd R
egul
ator
y Fr
amew
ork
for
Dec
entr
aliz
atio
n"II
. Add
itio
nal R
eadi
ngs
• T
hom
as S
tauf
fer.
199
9. "
Subs
idia
rity
as
Leg
itim
acy?
"•
OE
CD
. 199
7. M
anag
ing
Acr
oss
Lev
els
of G
over
nmen
t. Pa
ris:
OE
CD
.N
ew F
eatu
reL
ocal
Gov
ernm
ent a
nd th
e R
ule
of L
awN
icol
as L
EV
RA
T, A
ssoc
iate
Pro
fess
or, U
nive
rsity
of
Gen
eva
and
Free
Uni
vers
ityof
Bru
ssel
s
Rul
e of
law
con
stitu
tes
a fo
rmal
pri
ncip
le a
t the
bas
e of
mod
ern
dem
ocra
cies
. It v
ery
sim
ply
sets
for
th th
at a
ll ac
tors
(m
ost o
f al
l pub
lic a
ctor
s) in
a s
yste
m g
over
ned
by
139
law
s ar
e en
acte
d by
sim
ple
maj
ority
?•
Is it
impo
rtan
t to
have
con
stitu
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
for
subn
atio
nal
gove
rnm
ents
' rev
enue
s an
d ex
pend
iture
ass
ignm
ents
?
the
Rul
e of
Law
sha
ll ac
t acc
ordi
ng to
law
. In
case
som
e ac
tions
app
ear
as v
iola
ting
the
law
, the
se m
ay b
e ch
alle
nged
in f
ront
of
an in
depe
nden
t jud
icia
l bod
y. J
udic
ial
revi
ew th
us e
nsur
es, i
n ca
se o
f di
sagr
eem
ent,
the
resp
ect o
f th
e R
ule
of L
awpr
inci
ple.
The
mai
n ad
vant
age
of th
is r
ule
of la
w p
rinc
iple
is th
at it
bui
lds
pred
icta
bilit
y in
the
beha
viou
r of
pub
lic a
utho
ritie
s. A
utho
ritie
s w
ill a
ct a
ccor
ding
to la
w, o
ther
wis
e th
eir
actio
ns r
isk
bein
g st
rick
en d
own
by a
Cou
rt. T
he o
ther
fac
et o
f th
e pr
inci
ple
is th
atac
ts a
dopt
ed a
ccor
ding
to th
e pr
oced
ures
set
for
th b
y ru
le o
f la
w w
ill b
e pr
otec
ted
byC
ourt
s an
d m
ay th
us b
e de
emed
val
id.
Firs
t con
ceiv
ed a
s a
way
to p
rote
ct in
divi
dual
s fr
om a
buse
and
arb
itrar
y de
cisi
ons
from
aut
hori
ties,
Rul
e of
Law
now
aday
s re
pres
ents
a k
ey e
lem
ent f
or b
uild
ing
inte
rgov
ernm
enta
l rel
atio
ns. C
omm
itmen
ts b
etw
een
diff
eren
t lev
els
of g
over
nmen
tbe
com
e p
ossi
ble
and
will
be
uphe
ld. N
atur
ally
, gua
rant
ees
for
com
plia
nce
othe
rth
an th
e R
ule
of L
aw (
for
exam
ple
resp
ect f
or th
e de
cisi
ons
of th
e el
ders
) m
ay a
lso
exis
t in
cont
exts
oth
er th
an li
bera
l dem
ocra
cies
.
How
ever
, the
Rul
e of
Law
pre
sent
s th
e ad
vant
age
of b
eing
neu
tral
inin
terg
over
nmen
tal r
elat
ions
. Hie
rarc
hy –
whi
ch p
lays
a m
ajor
rol
e w
ithin
an
adm
inis
trat
ion
depe
nden
t on
a si
ngle
ele
cted
gov
ernm
ent –
is n
ot a
n is
sue
whe
nre
latio
ns b
etw
een
diff
eren
t adm
inis
trat
ions
rel
atin
g to
dif
fere
nt e
lect
ed g
over
nmen
tsar
e ba
sed
on th
e ru
le o
f la
w p
rinc
iple
.4.
Int
ergo
vern
men
tal
Rel
atio
ns,
Mac
roec
onom
ic S
tabi
lity
and
Gro
wth
Upd
ated
Ver
sion
Due
Dat
e: M
ay 2
002
Rec
ogni
zing
that
a m
ultip
licity
of
gove
rnm
ents
and
gov
ernm
ent f
unct
ions
rai
ses
ques
tions
reg
ardi
ng m
acro
econ
omic
con
trol
by
a ce
ntra
l gov
ernm
ent,
disc
ussi
ons
focu
s on
the
inte
rgov
ernm
enta
l the
ory
and
prac
tice
(e.g
., ru
les)
for
desi
gnin
g a
syst
em o
f de
cent
raliz
ed f
isca
l dec
isio
n m
akin
g co
nsis
tent
with
stab
iliza
tion
polic
y. T
he m
essa
ge is
that
ther
e ne
eds
to b
e a
set o
f ru
les
lead
ing
to a
har
d su
bnat
iona
l bud
get c
onst
rain
t to
avoi
d th
e pr
oble
m o
f m
oral
haz
ard.
• D
oes
fisc
al d
ecen
tral
izat
ion
jeop
ardi
ze m
acro
sta
bilit
y?•
Is it
dif
ficu
lt to
mai
ntai
n fi
scal
dis
cipl
ine
and
coor
dina
tion
in d
ecen
tral
ized
syst
ems?
• D
oes
fina
ncin
g of
sub
natio
nal g
over
nmen
ts' s
pend
ing
circ
umve
nt c
entr
alfi
scal
pol
icy
obje
ctiv
es?
I. K
ey R
ead
ing:
Inte
rgov
ernm
enta
l Rel
atio
ns, M
acro
econ
omic
Sta
bili
ty a
nd G
row
thby
Ber
nd S
pahn
(fo
rthc
omin
g M
ay 2
002)
II. A
dd
itio
nal
Rea
din
gs•
R. E
bel a
nd S
. Yilm
az. 2
001.
“O
n th
e M
easu
rem
ent a
nd I
mpa
ct o
f Fi
scal
Dec
entr
aliz
atio
n”II
I. C
ase
Stu
die
s
5. F
isca
l Arc
hite
ctur
e
Not
e: M
odul
e or
igin
ally
deve
lope
d fo
r th
e W
BI
Cor
e C
ours
e on
Fis
cal
Pol
icie
s fo
r th
e P
oor.
Pow
erfu
l eco
nom
ic, d
emog
raph
ic, a
nd in
stitu
tiona
l and
tech
nolo
gica
l cha
nges
are
occu
rrin
g th
roug
hout
the
wor
ld. T
hese
cha
nges
impl
y pr
essu
res
for
publ
icex
pend
iture
s th
at a
re d
iffe
rent
dep
endi
ng o
n th
e ty
pe o
f ec
onom
ic a
ndde
mog
raph
ic c
hang
e oc
curr
ing
and
they
are
larg
ely
beyo
nd th
e co
ntro
l of
any
coun
try,
but
they
can
not b
e ig
nore
d in
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f an
y ef
fect
ive
fisc
alpo
licy.
The
cha
lleng
e of
the
fisc
al a
rchi
tect
ure
anal
ysis
is to
sys
tem
atic
ally
iden
tify
(on
a sp
endi
ng c
ateg
ory-
by-s
pend
ing
cate
gory
bas
is a
nd th
en, i
npa
ralle
l, on
a r
even
ue ty
pe-b
y-re
venu
e ty
pe b
asis
) th
e ne
eds
for
publ
icex
pend
iture
s an
d re
venu
e ge
nera
ting
capa
city
of
a co
untr
y an
d/or
reg
ion.
Thi
san
alys
is f
ocus
es o
n th
e de
velo
pmen
t of
a m
etho
dolo
gy to
det
erm
ine
the
effe
ct o
fth
ese
chan
ges
on “
fisc
al c
apac
ity”—
the
nece
ssar
y ex
pend
iture
s ba
sed
on n
eeds
of th
e po
pula
tion
vers
us r
even
ue c
apac
ity to
com
ply
with
thes
e ne
eds.
I. K
ey R
ead
ing:
• Sa
lly W
alla
ce. 2
001.
“Fi
scal
Arc
hite
ctur
e”II
. Exe
rcis
esII
I. P
ower
Poi
nt P
rese
ntat
ion
140
II. In
terg
ove
rnm
enta
l Des
ign
6. D
ecen
tral
izat
ion
and
Gov
erna
nce
Stru
ctur
esD
ue D
ate:
July
200
2
Fede
ralis
m is
mai
nly
cons
ider
ed a
s an
inst
itutio
nal s
truc
ture
or
even
as
aco
nstit
utio
nal f
ram
ewor
k. F
eder
alis
m is
mor
e th
an a
str
uctu
re. T
he p
roce
ss o
fac
com
mod
atio
n or
mut
ual a
gree
men
t bet
wee
n fe
dera
l and
sub
natio
nal
auth
oriti
es is
an
impo
rtan
t ele
men
t of
polit
ical
cul
ture
, mos
tly in
form
al, a
ndoc
casi
onal
ly p
resc
ribe
d as
a le
gal p
roce
dure
. Thi
s m
odul
e an
alyz
es s
truc
ture
san
d pr
oces
ses
in b
oth
fede
ral a
nd n
on-f
eder
al c
ount
ries
.
I. K
ey R
ead
ing:
Dec
entr
aliz
atio
n: F
rom
Gov
ernm
ent t
o G
over
nanc
eby
Wol
f L
inde
r (f
orth
com
ing
July
200
2)
7. E
xpen
ditu
re A
ssig
nmen
tT
he c
ore
now
pro
ceed
s fr
om th
e "f
ram
ewor
k" p
rese
ntat
ions
(ov
ervi
ew, l
egal
stru
ctur
e, m
acro
) to
the
"pra
ctic
e" o
f so
rtin
g ou
t fis
cal r
oles
and
resp
onsi
bilit
ies
and
the
oper
atio
ns o
f a
mul
ti-tie
r go
vern
men
t. T
o st
ress
the
axio
m th
at f
inan
ce f
ollo
ws
func
tion,
the
firs
t suc
h to
pic
is th
at o
f as
sign
men
tof
exp
endi
ture
s--t
he th
eory
and
pra
ctic
e of
the
divi
ding
line
bet
wee
n pr
ivat
ean
d pu
blic
sec
tor
activ
ities
, pri
ncip
les
to g
uide
exp
endi
ture
ass
ignm
ent,
and
the
prob
lem
s th
at m
ay r
esul
t fro
m f
ailu
re o
f cl
arity
and
sta
bilit
y in
the
assi
gnm
ent p
roce
ss. T
hen,
spe
cifi
c po
licy
choi
ces
are
disc
usse
d:•
oper
atin
g vs
. cap
ital s
pend
ing,
• bo
rrow
ing
resp
onsi
bilit
ies,
• ne
ed f
or a
n ap
prop
riat
e re
gula
tory
fra
mew
ork,
• th
e ro
le o
f pr
ivat
izat
ion
of p
ublic
ser
vice
s.
I. K
ey R
eadi
ng:
• C
harl
es M
cLur
e an
d Jo
rge
Mar
tinez
-Vaz
quez
. 200
0. ”
The
Ass
ignm
ent o
f R
even
ues
and
Exp
endi
ture
s in
Int
ergo
vern
men
tal F
isca
l Rel
atio
ns"
II. A
dd
itio
nal
Rea
din
gs•
Zol
tan
Her
man
n, T
amas
M. H
orva
th, G
abor
Pet
eri,
and
Gab
or U
ngva
ri. 1
999.
All
ocat
ion
of L
ocal
Gov
ernm
ent F
unct
ions
: C
rite
ria
and
Con
diti
ons
• Jo
rge
Mar
tinez
-Vaz
quez
. 200
0. "
The
Ass
ignm
ent o
f E
xpen
ditu
re R
espo
nsib
ilitie
s."
• Jo
rge
Mar
tinez
-Vaz
quez
and
Jam
eson
Boe
x. 2
001.
"Fi
scal
Dec
entr
aliz
atio
n in
the
Rus
sian
Fed
erat
ion:
Mai
n T
rend
s an
d Is
sues
"•
Anw
ar S
hah.
199
9. "
Exp
endi
ture
Ass
ignm
ent."
8. R
even
ue A
ssig
nmen
tT
he d
iscu
ssio
ns b
egin
by
draw
ing
on th
e di
scus
sion
of
the
four
th w
eek
(mac
roec
onom
ic s
tabi
lity)
as
a w
ay o
f in
trod
ucin
g th
e co
nven
tiona
l sco
pe o
fin
quir
y (m
acro
, red
istr
ibut
ion,
allo
catio
n) a
nd it
s lim
itatio
ns a
s it
may
app
ly to
diff
eren
t sys
tem
s, a
nd p
roce
eds
to id
entif
y:•
com
petin
g po
licy
goal
s (e
.g.,
acco
unta
bilit
y, ta
x co
mpe
titio
n);
• ho
w c
once
ptua
l cri
teri
a fo
r ju
dgin
g re
venu
e as
sign
men
t app
ly to
var
ious
type
s of
taxe
s (p
erso
nal i
ncom
e, b
usin
ess
rece
ipts
/inco
me,
gen
eral
and
sele
cted
sal
es, n
atur
al r
esou
rces
);•
alte
rnat
ive
tool
s fo
r as
sign
men
t (e.
g., i
ndep
ende
nt le
gisl
atio
n,su
rcha
rges
, cen
tral
adm
inis
trat
ion/
loca
l rat
e se
tting
) an
d (i
v)ad
min
istr
ativ
e co
nsid
erat
ions
.
I. K
ey R
ead
ing:
• R
icha
rd B
ird.
200
0. "
Ret
hink
ing
Tax
Ass
ignm
ent:
The
Nee
d fo
r B
ette
r Su
bnat
iona
lT
axes
"
II. A
dd
itio
nal
Rea
din
gs:
• R
icha
rd M
. Bir
d. 1
999.
"Su
bnat
iona
l Rev
enue
s: R
ealit
ies
and
Pros
pect
s"•
Cha
rles
E. M
cLur
e. 2
000.
"T
he T
ax A
ssig
nmen
t Pro
blem
: Con
cept
ual a
ndA
dmin
istr
ativ
e C
onsi
dera
tions
in A
chie
ving
Sub
natio
nal F
isca
l Aut
onom
y"•
OE
CD
. 200
1. T
axin
g P
ower
s of
Sta
te a
nd L
ocal
Gov
ernm
ent.
OE
CD
Tax
Pol
icy
Stud
ies
No.
1.•
John
Nor
rega
ard.
199
7. “
Tax
Ass
ignm
ent”
III.
Cas
e St
udie
s9.
Loc
al R
even
ues
Thi
s m
odul
e di
scus
ses
issu
es s
uch
as:
• re
venu
e sh
arin
g ve
rsus
sur
char
ges
of in
com
e an
d re
ceip
ts le
vies
,•
loca
l pro
pert
y ta
xes
(and
its
vari
ants
),•
vehi
cle
taxe
s an
d bu
sine
ss r
ecei
pts/
prof
its ta
x.
I. K
ey R
ead
ing:
Ric
hard
M. B
ird.
199
9. "
Subn
atio
nal R
even
ues:
Rea
litie
s an
d Pr
ospe
cts.
"II
. Ad
dit
ion
al R
ead
ings
:•
Anw
ar S
hah.
199
9. "
Issu
es in
Tax
Ass
ignm
ent"
• R
icha
rd M
. Bir
d an
d Pi
erre
-Pas
cal G
endr
on. 2
001.
"V
AT
s in
Fed
eral
Sta
tes:
Inte
rnat
iona
l Exp
erie
nce
and
Em
ergi
ng P
ossi
bilit
ies"
• R
icha
rd M
. Bir
d. 2
000.
"Su
bnat
iona
l VA
Ts:
Exp
erie
nce
and
Pros
pect
s"•
Too
lkit
For
Tax
Adm
inis
trat
ion
Dia
gnos
is: S
ome
Ess
entia
l Que
stio
ns to
Ide
ntif
y T
axA
dmin
istr
atio
n W
eakn
esse
s, E
nvir
onm
enta
l Con
stra
ints
, and
Ref
orm
Pri
oriti
es.
141
10. I
nter
gove
rnm
enta
lG
rant
sT
he d
iscu
ssio
ns a
re b
ased
on
the
obje
ctiv
es o
f an
inte
rgov
ernm
enta
l gra
ntsy
stem
:•
corr
ectin
g or
adj
ustin
g fo
r ve
rtic
al im
bala
nce,
hor
izon
tal i
mba
lanc
e, a
ndex
tern
aliti
es,
• co
ordi
natin
g ce
ntra
l and
sub
natio
nal s
pend
ing;
and
pro
vidi
ng in
cent
ives
for
cert
ain
form
s of
loca
l beh
avio
r (t
ax e
ffor
t, in
ter-
gove
rnm
enta
lco
oper
atio
n, s
truc
ture
of
gove
rnm
ent)
.T
he d
ebat
e th
en p
roce
eds
to d
iscu
ss ty
pes
of g
rant
s an
d th
e ch
oice
s an
dtr
adeo
ffs
of a
ltern
ativ
e fo
rmul
a ap
proa
ches
(e.
g., p
opul
atio
n, r
even
ue e
ffor
t,ex
pend
iture
nee
d, f
isca
l cap
acity
).
I. K
ey R
ead
ing:
• Jo
rge
Mar
tinez
-Vaz
quez
and
Jam
eson
Boe
x. 2
001.
“T
he D
esig
n of
Equ
aliz
atio
n G
rant
s:T
heor
y an
d A
pplic
atio
ns”
II. A
dd
itio
nal
Rea
din
gs:
• R
oy B
ahl.
1998
. "In
terg
over
nmen
tal T
rans
fers
in D
evel
opin
g an
d T
rans
ition
Cou
ntri
es:
Prin
cipl
es a
nd P
ract
ice"
• R
icha
rd M
. Bir
d. 2
001.
"In
terg
over
nmen
tal F
isca
l Tra
nsfe
rs: S
ome
Les
sons
fro
mIn
tern
atio
nal E
xper
ienc
e"•
Fran
cois
Val
lianc
ourt
”Sim
ulat
ing
Inte
r-go
vern
men
tal E
qual
izat
ion
Tra
nsfe
rs W
ith I
mpe
rfec
t Dat
a”•
Serd
ar Y
ilmaz
, “Fi
scal
Cap
acity
”II
I. P
ower
Poi
nt P
rese
ntat
ion
IV. E
xerc
ises
• E
xcel
Sim
ulat
ion
(with
use
r gu
ide)
V. C
ase
Stud
ies
III. A
nal
ysis
of
Sp
ecif
ic Is
sues
11. F
inan
cing
Infr
astr
uctu
reT
his
mod
ule
disc
usse
s th
e ro
le o
f us
er c
harg
es in
pla
nnin
g, f
inan
cing
, and
impr
ovin
g th
e de
liver
y of
infr
astr
uctu
re s
ervi
ces
such
as
wat
er s
uppl
y, e
lect
ric
pow
er, a
nd u
rban
pub
lic tr
ansp
orta
tion.
Fin
anci
ng in
fras
truc
ture
mod
ule
has
thre
e co
mpo
nent
s: u
ser
fee
fina
nce,
impl
emen
tatio
n, a
nd ta
riff
rat
es:
• T
he th
eory
beh
ind
the
conc
ept o
f us
er f
ee f
inan
ce -
- th
e de
sign
opt
ions
for
the
user
fee
itse
lf a
nd th
e ta
riff
str
uctu
re f
or d
iffe
rent
cus
tom
erca
tego
ries
.•
Key
impl
emen
tatio
n is
sues
suc
h as
met
erin
g, th
e co
st v
ersu
s re
venu
estr
ade-
off,
and
col
lect
ions
, enf
orce
men
t and
bill
ings
.•
The
exp
erie
nce
with
the
intr
oduc
tion
of u
ser
char
ges
and
refo
rm o
f ta
riff
rate
s an
d st
ruct
ures
in d
evel
opin
g co
untr
ies.
I. K
ey R
ead
ing:
• Je
ssic
a D
eddo
n. 1
999.
“D
ecen
tral
izat
ion
of I
nfra
stru
ctur
e”•
Dec
entr
aliz
ing
Infr
astr
uctu
reby
Ser
dar
Yilm
az (
fort
hcom
ing
Febr
uary
200
2)II
. Ad
dit
ion
al R
ead
ings
:•
Ric
hard
Bir
d. 1
999.
"U
ser
Cha
rges
in L
ocal
Gov
ernm
ent F
inan
ce"
Wor
ld B
ank
Inst
itute
Urb
an a
nd C
ity M
anag
emen
t Pro
gram
, Was
hing
ton,
D.C
.•
Sum
ila G
ulya
ni. 1
999.
"D
eman
d-Si
de A
ppro
ache
s to
Pla
nnin
g W
ater
Sup
ply
Prov
isio
n"W
orld
Ban
k In
stitu
te U
rban
and
City
Man
agem
ent P
rogr
am, W
ashi
ngto
n, D
.C.
12. B
udge
ting
The
deb
ate
star
ts w
ith a
dis
cuss
ion
of th
e pu
rpos
e of
bud
gets
, est
ablis
hmen
t of
a fr
amew
ork
for
polic
y fo
rmat
ion
that
em
phas
izes
res
ourc
e al
loca
tion
base
don
out
puts
rat
her
than
inpu
ts, t
he r
elat
ions
hip
to m
acro
econ
omic
pla
nnin
g,bu
dget
cla
ssif
icat
ion
(and
aga
in, a
link
to e
arlie
r pr
esen
tatio
ns),
the
natu
re o
fm
ultiy
ear
fina
ncia
l pla
nnin
g, a
nd s
tage
s of
the
budg
et p
roce
ss. I
t is
then
expe
cted
to p
roce
ed o
n ho
w to
eva
luat
e fi
nanc
ial o
utco
mes
and
the
natu
re a
ndro
le o
f ca
pita
l bud
getin
g.
I. K
ey R
ead
ing:
• M
icha
el S
chae
ffer
. 200
0. “
Mun
icip
al B
udge
ting
Too
lkit”
II. A
dd
itio
nal
Rea
din
gs:
• E
mm
anue
l Abl
o an
d R
itva
Rei
nikk
a. 1
998.
"D
o B
udge
ts R
eally
Mat
ter?
" W
orld
Ban
kPo
licy
Res
earc
h W
orki
ng P
aper
# 1
926.
• A
. Foz
zard
, M. H
olm
es, J
. Klu
gman
, K. W
ither
s. 2
000.
"Pu
blic
Spe
ndin
g fo
r Po
vert
yR
educ
tion"
Wor
ld B
ank:
Pov
erty
Net
.•
R. F
orbe
s. 1
999.
"Fa
cilit
ator
's G
uide
For
A C
ase
Stud
y on
Mun
icip
al F
inan
cial
Pla
nnin
gFo
r A
Maj
or C
apita
l Pro
ject
" U
SAID
Sup
port
ed P
roje
ct.
• A
llen
Schi
ck. 2
001.
"D
oes
Bud
getin
g H
ave
a Fu
ture
?" O
EC
D.
• D
ana
Wei
st a
nd G
raha
m K
err.
199
9. "
Bud
get E
xecu
tion,
Mon
itori
ng a
nd C
apac
ityB
uild
ing"
III.
Pow
er P
oint
Pre
sent
atio
n
142
13. C
redi
t an
d D
ebt
The
deb
ate
firs
t foc
us o
n ho
w to
mea
sure
sub
natio
nal (
e.g.
, mun
icip
al)
cred
itwor
thin
ess,
then
the
impo
rtan
ce o
f cr
edit
mar
kets
for
sub
natio
nal
gove
rnm
ents
in f
inan
cing
inve
stm
ents
. The
dis
cuss
ions
foc
us o
n:•
The
gen
eral
fea
ture
s of
mun
icip
al c
redi
t mar
kets
and
the
issu
esun
derl
ying
thei
r re
leva
nce
in e
mer
ging
/dev
elop
ing
econ
omie
s;•
Impo
rtan
t ana
lytic
al p
aram
eter
s of
mun
icip
al f
ixed
inco
me
inst
rum
ents
(e.g
., du
ratio
n of
a s
ecur
ity a
s m
easu
re o
f in
tere
st r
ate
risk
, def
initi
onan
d m
easu
rem
ent o
f m
arke
t cre
dit)
.
I. K
ey R
ead
ing:
• A
ugus
to d
e la
Tor
re, M
ila F
reir
e, M
arce
la H
uert
as. 1
999.
Cre
dit R
atin
gs a
nd B
ond
Issu
ing
at th
e Su
bnat
iona
l Lev
el T
rain
ing
Man
ual
• Ju
naid
Ahm
ad. 1
999.
“D
ecen
tral
izin
g B
orro
win
g Po
wer
”II
. Ad
dit
ion
al R
ead
ings
:•
Will
iam
Dill
inge
r. 2
000.
"A
Bri
efin
g N
ote
on M
easu
ring
Mun
icip
al C
redi
twor
thin
ess"
• Sa
mir
El D
aher
. 200
0. "
Spec
ializ
ed F
inan
cial
Int
erm
edia
ries
for
Loc
al G
over
nmen
ts A
Mar
ket-
base
d T
ool f
or L
ocal
Inf
rast
ruct
ure
Fina
nce"
Inf
rast
ruct
ure
Not
es F
M-8
d•
John
Pet
erso
n. 1
999.
"Su
bnat
iona
l Deb
t, B
orro
win
g Pr
oces
s, a
nd C
redi
twor
thin
ess"
• T
eres
a T
er-M
inas
sian
. 199
7. “
Con
trol
of
Subn
atio
nal G
over
nmen
t Bor
row
ing”
14. D
ecen
tral
izat
ion
ofE
duca
tion
Due
Dat
e: D
ecem
ber
2001
In p
repa
ratio
n w
ith W
BIH
D
15. D
ecen
tral
izat
ion
ofH
ealt
h C
are
Due
Dat
e: D
ecem
ber
2001
In p
repa
ratio
n w
ith W
BIH
D
16. D
ecen
tral
izat
ion
ofSo
cial
Ser
vice
sD
ue D
ate:
Dec
embe
r 20
01In
pre
para
tion
with
WB
IHD
IV. S
pec
ial T
op
ics
17. P
over
tyT
he m
odul
e fo
cuse
s on
the
need
for
pol
icym
aker
s an
d pr
actit
ione
rs to
unde
rsta
nd a
nd h
andl
e di
ffer
ent t
ypes
of
fisc
al r
isks
(ex
plic
it, im
plic
it, d
irec
tan
d co
ntin
gent
liab
ilitie
s) o
f fi
scal
dec
entr
aliz
atio
n fr
om a
cen
tral
gov
ernm
ent
pers
pect
ive.
I. K
ey R
ead
ing:
• G
ovin
da R
ao. 2
000.
“Po
vert
y A
llevi
atio
n U
nder
Fis
cal D
ecen
tral
izat
ion"
II. A
dd
itio
nal
Rea
din
gs:
• R
icha
rd M
. Bir
d, J
enni
e I.
Litv
ack,
and
M. G
ovin
da R
ao. "
Inte
rgov
ernm
enta
l Fis
cal
Rel
atio
ns a
nd P
over
ty A
llevi
atio
n in
Vie
t Nam
", W
orld
Ban
k Po
licy
Res
earc
h W
orki
ngPa
pers
, No.
143
0.•
N. L
. Ham
mer
gren
Gir
isha
nkar
, M. H
olm
es, S
. Kna
ck, B
. Lev
y, J
. Litv
ack,
N. M
anni
ng,
R. M
essi
ck, J
. Rin
ne, a
nd H
. Sut
ch. 2
000.
"G
over
nanc
e an
d Po
vert
y R
educ
tion"
III.
Pow
er P
oint
Pre
sent
atio
nsIV
. Cas
e St
udie
s18
. Am
alga
mat
ion
Due
Dat
e:D
ecem
ber
2001
Subn
atio
nal g
over
nmen
t am
alga
mat
ion
is a
n im
port
ant i
ssue
in c
ount
ries
like
Japa
n w
hich
is in
spir
ed b
y th
e de
sire
to e
nsur
e th
at m
unic
ipal
ities
hav
esu
ffic
ient
cap
acity
to d
eliv
er p
ublic
ser
vice
s. T
he r
atio
nale
beh
ind
amal
gam
atio
n re
sts
in th
e ar
gum
ent t
hat t
here
may
be
cost
-eff
icie
ncy
gain
sfr
om a
mal
gam
atio
n: s
ervi
ce d
eliv
ery
cost
s m
ay b
e lo
wer
for
larg
erju
risd
ictio
ns.
I. K
ey R
ead
ing:
Fis
cal A
spec
ts o
f Alt
erna
tive
Met
hods
of G
over
ning
Lar
ge M
etro
poli
tan
Are
asby
Eni
d Sl
ack
II. A
dd
itio
nal
Rea
din
gs:
• “M
unic
ipal
Am
alga
mat
ion
in J
apan
” by
Mas
aru
Mab
uchi
19. W
illin
gnes
s T
o Pa
y
Due
Dat
e:D
ecem
ber
2001
Thi
s m
odul
e w
ill c
onsi
der
the
shif
t fro
m g
over
nmen
t to
gove
rnan
ce, w
hich
isfu
ndam
enta
lly ti
ed to
the
issu
e of
mak
ing
serv
ices
mor
e re
spon
sive
to p
eopl
e's
need
s. F
isca
l pol
icy
mak
ing
can
use
a w
ide
vari
ety
of te
chni
ques
inde
term
inin
g pe
ople
's p
refe
renc
es a
nd h
avin
g th
em in
volv
ed in
dec
isio
n-m
akin
g an
d ap
plic
atio
n pr
oces
s. I
n th
is c
onte
xt, i
t is
ofte
n as
sum
ed th
at th
epo
or h
ave
neith
er a
cap
acity
nor
a w
illin
gnes
s to
pay
for
the
publ
ic s
ervi
ces
they
rec
eive
. In
fact
, thi
s is
oft
en n
ot th
e ca
se. R
athe
r th
e qu
estio
n is
at t
hehe
art o
f th
e po
vert
y al
levi
atio
n st
rate
gy f
or s
ome
very
poo
r co
untr
ies
(and
poor
pla
ces
in m
iddl
e-in
com
e co
untr
ies)
. Tha
t is,
whe
ther
ther
e is
will
ingn
ess
to p
ay w
hen
the
bene
fits
of
basi
c lif
e an
d hu
man
cap
ital e
nhan
cing
ser
vice
sar
e fa
irly
and
eff
icie
ntly
del
iver
ed. A
ccor
ding
ly, t
his
mod
ule
will
ana
lyze
I. K
ey R
ead
ing:
Wil
ling
ness
to P
ayby
Jam
es A
lm (
fort
hcom
ing
2002
)
143
serv
ice
prov
isio
n fr
om th
e de
man
d-si
de, w
hich
ref
ers
to p
rovi
ding
ser
vice
sth
at p
eopl
e w
ant a
nd f
or w
hich
they
are
will
ing
to p
ay. T
hree
com
pone
nts
will
be in
clud
ed: h
ow to
(i)
dete
rmin
e de
man
d an
d w
illin
gnes
s-to
-pay
, thr
ough
reve
aled
pre
fere
nces
and
sur
vey
desi
gn; (
ii)de
sign
of
user
cha
rges
; and
(iii)
achi
eve
fina
ncia
l via
bilit
y, th
roug
h co
st r
ecov
ery,
with
out j
eopa
rdiz
ing
the
qual
ity o
f se
rvic
e de
liver
y.20
. Tra
nspa
renc
y an
dA
ccou
ntab
ility
The
issu
e of
tran
spar
ency
and
acc
ount
abili
ty w
ill b
e re
view
ed a
s ho
w to
esta
blis
h th
e pr
inci
pal m
echa
nism
s fo
r ac
coun
tabi
lity
by lo
cal g
over
nmen
tsin
clud
ing
acco
unta
bilit
y up
war
d to
cen
tral
and
reg
iona
l gov
ernm
ent a
s w
ell a
sdo
wnw
ard
to c
itize
ns. T
he is
sues
that
will
be
cove
red
are:
• C
once
ptua
l fra
mew
ork
for
defi
ning
cur
ativ
e an
d pr
even
tativ
e in
itiat
ives
for
min
imiz
ing
corr
uptio
n as
wel
l as
esta
blis
hing
trus
t bet
wee
nco
nstit
uent
s an
d lo
cal g
over
nmen
t;•
The
str
ateg
ies
are
base
d on
dia
gnos
tic te
chni
ques
to e
valu
ate
the
caus
ean
d im
pact
of
brea
kdow
n in
acc
ount
abili
ty b
y lo
cal g
over
nmen
ts;
• T
he s
trat
egie
s an
d to
ols,
citi
zen
part
icip
atio
n te
chni
ques
(pa
rtic
ipat
ory
budg
etin
g) a
nd p
ublic
info
rmat
ion
syst
ems
in o
rder
to e
stab
lish
tran
spar
ency
and
acc
ount
abili
ty.
I. K
ey R
ead
ing:
• A
nwar
Sha
h. 2
000.
"B
alan
ce, A
ccou
ntab
ility
, and
Res
pons
iven
ess:
Les
sons
abo
utD
ecen
tral
izat
ion"
II. A
dd
itio
nal
Rea
din
gs:
• R
onie
Das
-Gup
ta, M
icha
el E
ngel
scha
nk, a
nd W
illia
m M
ayvi
lle, 1
999.
"A
n A
nti
Cor
rupt
ion
Stra
tegy
for
Rev
enue
Adm
inis
trat
ion"
Wor
ld B
ank
PRE
M N
otes
33.
• R
aym
ond
Fism
an a
nd R
ober
ta G
atti.
199
9. "
Dec
entr
aliz
atio
n an
d C
orru
ptio
n: C
ross
-C
ount
ry a
nd C
ross
-Sta
te E
vide
nce"
• M
aria
Gon
zale
z de
Asi
s. 1
999.
"R
educ
ing
Cor
rupt
ion:
A S
earc
h fo
r L
esso
ns o
fE
xper
ienc
e”•
Che
ryl W
. Gra
y an
d D
anie
l Kau
fman
. 199
8. "
Cor
rupt
ion
and
Dev
elop
men
t." F
inan
cean
d D
evel
opm
ent 3
5(1)
. •
J. H
uthe
r an
d A
. Sha
h. 1
998.
"A
pply
ing
a Si
mpl
e M
easu
re o
f G
ood
Gov
erna
nce
to th
eD
ebat
e of
Fis
cal D
ecen
tral
izat
ion"
Wor
ld B
ank
Polic
y R
esea
rch
Wor
king
Pap
er 1
894.
21. F
orec
asti
ng R
even
ues
and
Exp
endi
ture
sT
ax a
naly
sis
and
reve
nue
fore
cast
ing
have
bec
ome
incr
easi
ngly
impo
rtan
tfu
nctio
ns a
s go
vern
men
ts u
nder
take
ref
orm
s of
thei
r ta
x sy
stem
s to
enh
ance
reve
nues
, im
prov
e th
e eq
uity
and
eff
icie
ncy
of ta
xes,
and
pro
mot
e in
vest
men
tan
d ex
port
s. I
n ad
ditio
n, f
isca
l sta
bilit
y an
d ta
x po
licy
stab
ility
are
incr
easi
ngly
rec
ogni
zed
as k
ey to
pro
mot
ing
priv
ate
sect
or in
vest
men
t. T
heim
port
ance
of
havi
ng th
e ca
paci
ty to
dea
l with
thes
e ke
y ta
x po
licy
issu
es h
aspr
ompt
ed g
over
nmen
ts in
an
incr
easi
ng n
umbe
r of
cou
ntri
es to
see
k th
ede
velo
pmen
t of
in-h
ouse
ski
lls a
nd a
ptitu
des
in ta
x an
alys
is a
nd r
even
uefo
reca
stin
g. T
he m
odul
e co
vers
the
econ
omic
fou
ndat
ions
of
tax
polic
y,re
venu
e an
d ex
pend
iture
for
ecas
ting,
sta
tistic
al te
chni
ques
, and
com
pute
r-ba
sed
reve
nue
estim
atio
n m
odel
s fo
r th
e va
lue
adde
d ta
x, p
erso
nal a
ndco
rpor
ate
inco
me
tax,
exc
ises
, pro
pert
y ta
x an
d tr
ade
taxe
s. T
he a
pplic
atio
n of
mac
roec
onom
ic m
odel
s, m
icro
-sim
ulat
ion
mod
els,
and
typi
cal t
axpa
yer
mod
els
are
also
cov
ered
. The
issu
es c
over
ed in
the
mod
ule
goal
s ar
e (i
) th
eth
eore
tical
fou
ndat
ions
for
ana
lyzi
ng ta
x sy
stem
s (i
i) te
chni
ques
for
eval
uatin
g re
venu
e pe
rfor
man
ce (
iii)
asse
ssin
g an
d qu
antif
ying
the
econ
omic
impa
cts
of a
ltern
ativ
e fi
scal
pol
icie
s.22
. Urb
an a
nd C
ity
Man
agem
ent
Thi
s m
odul
es d
raw
s, a
s ne
eded
, fro
m th
e ro
bust
cor
e co
urse
on
Urb
an a
nd C
ity M
anag
emen
t.
23. L
ocal
Eco
nom
icD
evel
opm
ent
Due
Dat
e:M
ay 2
002
Loc
al e
cono
mic
dev
elop
men
t enc
ompa
sses
man
y di
ffer
ent d
isci
plin
es, s
uch
aspl
anni
ng, e
cono
mic
s, a
nd m
arke
ting.
It a
lso
enco
mpa
sses
man
y lo
cal
gove
rnm
ent a
nd p
riva
te s
ecto
r fu
nctio
ns in
clud
ing
plan
ning
, inf
rast
ruct
ure
prov
isio
n, r
eal e
stat
e de
velo
pmen
t and
fin
ance
. The
incr
ease
d ef
fort
s to
infl
uenc
e th
e st
ruct
ure
and
perf
orm
ance
of
regi
onal
eco
nom
ies
are
resp
onse
sto
the
loca
l eff
ects
of
glob
al a
nd n
atio
nal e
cono
mic
res
truc
turi
ng. T
hech
alle
nge
in d
esig
ning
eco
nom
ic d
evel
opm
ent s
trat
egie
s is
to id
entif
y
I. K
ey R
eadi
ng•
Rob
ert J
. Ben
nett.
199
0. “
Dec
entr
aliz
atio
n an
d L
ocal
Eco
nom
ic D
evel
opm
ent”
144
effe
ctiv
e w
ays
of a
ddre
ssin
g th
e is
sues
of
pove
rty,
sus
tain
able
gro
wth
, and
job
crea
tion.
Thi
s m
odul
e co
vers
bas
ic e
cono
mic
dev
elop
men
t the
orie
s an
dm
etho
dolo
gies
in d
esig
ning
pol
icie
s th
at e
mph
asiz
e th
e pr
omot
ion
of g
row
thas
wel
l as
the
crea
tion
of e
cono
mic
ben
efits
for
poo
r.24
. Cor
rupt
ion
and
Acc
ount
abili
ty25
. Par
tici
pato
ry B
udge
ting
V. T
ech
nic
al Is
sues
26. M
easu
ring
Dec
entr
aliz
atio
nC
ompa
ring
the
degr
ee o
f fi
scal
dec
entr
aliz
atio
n ac
ross
cou
ntri
es is
a c
ompl
exan
d m
ultif
acet
ed ta
sk th
at r
equi
res
iden
tific
atio
n of
sub
natio
nal a
uton
omy
and
disc
retio
n on
exp
endi
ture
and
rev
enue
arr
ange
men
ts. T
his
mod
ule
disc
usse
sth
e ne
ed f
or u
nifo
rm n
otio
n of
mea
suri
ng f
isca
l dec
entr
aliz
atio
n an
d pr
esen
tsst
udie
s th
at a
naly
ze in
terg
over
nmen
tal f
isca
l des
ign
acro
ss c
ount
ries
.
I. K
ey R
ead
ing:
• R
. Ebe
l and
S. Y
ilmaz
. 200
1. “
On
the
Mea
sure
men
t and
Im
pact
of
Fisc
alD
ecen
tral
izat
ion”
II. A
dd
itio
nal
Rea
din
gs:
• B
. Ach
ikba
che,
M. B
elki
ndas
, M. D
inc,
G. E
ele
and
E. S
wan
son.
200
1. "
Stre
ngth
enin
gSt
atis
tical
Sys
tem
s fo
r Po
vert
y R
educ
tion
Stra
tegi
es"
• T
. H. H
ull.
2001
. "C
ount
ing
for
Dem
ocra
cy: D
evel
opm
ent o
f N
atio
nal S
tatis
tical
Syst
ems
in a
Dec
entr
aliz
ed I
ndon
esia
" B
ulle
tin
of I
ndon
esia
n E
cono
mic
Stu
dies
37(2
):25
7-62
.II
I. C
ase
Stud
ies
27. E
xpen
ditu
re T
rack
ing
Due
Dat
e:D
ecem
ber
2001
The
pur
pose
of
this
mod
ule
is to
pre
sent
a n
ew q
uant
itativ
e ap
proa
ch to
eval
uatin
g pu
blic
ser
vice
del
iver
y in
dev
elop
ing
coun
trie
s w
here
dat
a on
fron
tline
ser
vice
del
iver
y ar
e sc
arce
. Thi
s m
odul
e co
mbi
nes
a ge
nera
ldi
scus
sion
of
the
mai
n fe
atur
es, s
tren
gths
, lim
itatio
ns, a
nd p
oten
tial u
ses
ofth
e Q
uant
itativ
e Se
rvic
e D
eliv
ery
Surv
eys
(QSD
S) a
nd s
timul
ates
dis
cuss
ions
on p
ract
ical
way
s of
ass
essi
ng s
ervi
ce d
eliv
ery.
I. K
ey R
ead
ing:
Bas
ic S
ervi
ce D
eliv
ery:
A Q
uant
itat
ive
App
roac
hby
Ritv
a R
eini
kka
(for
thco
min
g 20
02)
28. I
ntro
duct
ion
to S
tati
stic
san
d F
isca
l Ana
lysi
sT
he o
bjec
tive
of th
is m
odul
e is
to p
rovi
de a
n ov
ervi
ew o
f th
e m
ost c
omm
onan
alys
is te
chni
ques
use
d fo
r an
alyz
ing
inte
rgov
ernm
enta
l fis
cal r
elat
ions
.T
his
mod
ule
pres
ents
the
unde
rlyi
ng th
eory
for
the
stat
istic
al a
nd r
egre
ssio
nan
alys
es. I
t ser
ves
both
as
the
theo
retic
al a
nd p
ract
ical
fou
ndat
ion
for
anal
yzin
g an
d si
mul
atin
g in
terg
over
nmen
tal f
isca
l rel
atio
ns in
cou
ntri
esar
ound
the
wor
ld. T
he m
odul
e is
org
aniz
ed in
to s
ix s
ectio
ns:
• Se
ctio
n 1
pres
ents
an
over
view
of
stat
istic
s an
d re
gres
sion
ana
lysi
ste
chni
ques
;•
Sect
ion
2 co
ntai
ns a
rev
iew
of
intr
oduc
tory
sta
tistic
s, in
clud
ing
desc
ript
ive
stat
istic
s an
d hy
poth
esis
test
ing;
• Se
ctio
n 3
desc
ribe
s ho
w to
per
form
bas
ic s
tatis
tical
fun
ctio
ns in
MS
Exc
el;
• Se
ctio
n 4
cont
ains
an
intr
oduc
tion
to th
e us
e an
d in
terp
reta
tion
ofre
gres
sion
ana
lysi
s•
Sect
ion
5 de
scri
bes
how
to p
erfo
rm r
egre
ssio
ns in
MS
Exc
el;
• Se
ctio
n 6
disc
usse
s ho
w to
mea
sure
the
impa
ct o
f de
cent
raliz
atio
npo
licie
s on
hor
izon
tal a
nd v
ertic
al b
alan
ce a
nd c
onsi
ders
the
use
ofre
gres
sion
tech
niqu
es f
or in
cide
nce
anal
ysis
.
I. K
ey R
ead
ing:
• Ja
mes
on B
oex,
Rob
ert M
cNab
and
Mar
y B
eth
Wal
ker.
200
1. “
The
Ana
lysi
s of
Fis
cal
Dec
entr
aliz
atio
n Po
licie
s: A
Rev
iew
of
Stat
istic
s an
d R
egre
ssio
n T
echn
ique
s”II
. Exe
rcis
es•
Exc
el S
prea
dshe
et a
nd E
view
s W
orkf
iles
29. P
rope
rty
Tax
Pol
icy
and
Man
agem
ent
The
pow
er to
tax
is e
ssen
tial t
o su
stai
nabl
e, a
ccou
ntab
le lo
cal g
over
nmen
t.T
he p
rope
rty
tax
is th
e si
ngle
mos
t im
port
ant l
ocal
tax
in d
evel
opin
gI.
Key
Rea
din
g:A
Pri
mer
on
the
Prop
erty
Tax
145
Due
Dat
e:Ju
ne 2
002
coun
trie
s. I
nter
natio
nally
, ove
r 13
0 co
untr
ies
have
som
e fo
rm o
f ta
x on
prop
erty
, alb
eit t
he r
elat
ive
impo
rtan
ce v
arie
s su
bsta
ntia
l acr
oss
coun
trie
s.T
he p
urpo
se o
f th
is m
odul
e is
to d
iscu
ss th
e co
ncep
ts a
nd is
sues
ass
ocia
ted
with
des
igni
ng a
nd im
plem
entin
g an
opt
imal
pro
pert
y ta
x sy
stem
. The
issu
esdi
scus
sed
incl
ude
both
pol
icy
issu
es a
nd a
dmin
istr
ativ
e is
sues
. The
mod
ule
star
ts w
ith d
efin
ing
the
prop
erty
tax
base
and
det
erm
inin
g th
e pr
oper
ty ta
xra
te a
nd m
oves
on
the
issu
e of
tech
nica
l pro
fici
ency
in p
rope
rty
tax
adm
inis
trat
ion.
In
the
fina
l sec
tion,
the
mod
ule
cove
rs p
ro-p
oor
prop
erty
tax
man
agem
ent i
ssue
s (s
uch
as r
egre
ssiv
e va
luat
ion
bias
, pro
pert
y ta
x re
lief
tool
s an
d po
licie
s).
by G
ary
Cor
nia,
Jan
e M
alm
e, L
awre
nce
Wal
ter,
and
Joa
n Y
oung
man
(fo
rthc
omin
gJu
ne 2
002)
II. A
dd
itio
nal
Rea
din
gs:
• M
icha
el B
ell.
1999
. “A
n O
ptim
al P
rope
rty
Tax
: Con
cept
s an
d Pr
actic
es”
• Ja
ne H
. Mal
me
and
Joan
M. Y
oung
man
. 200
1. T
he D
evel
opm
ent o
f Pro
pert
yT
axat
ion
in E
cono
mie
s in
Tra
nsit
ion
30. P
ublic
Uti
lity
and
Loc
alE
nter
pris
e M
anag
emen
t
Due
Dat
e:M
arch
200
2
Incr
easi
ngly
, loc
al g
over
nmen
ts a
re r
ecog
nizi
ng th
at c
ivil
serv
ants
rec
ruite
dto
sta
ff p
ublic
util
ities
do
not h
ave
nece
ssar
y te
chni
cal s
kills
to tr
ansf
orm
them
into
eff
ectiv
e m
anag
ers.
The
aim
of
loca
l gov
ernm
ents
is to
hav
e pu
blic
utili
ties
man
aged
in a
way
that
the
com
pany
rem
ains
via
ble
and
has
ince
ntiv
es to
ope
rate
eff
icie
ntly
and
pro
vide
ser
vice
s to
con
sum
ers
effe
ctiv
ely.
The
mod
ule
will
hav
e tw
o pa
rts.
The
fir
st p
art w
ill p
rovi
de a
nov
ervi
ew o
f w
hat e
cono
mic
theo
ry h
as to
say
abo
ut w
hy c
erta
in s
ervi
ces
have
to b
e pr
ovid
ed b
y pu
blic
sec
tor.
Its
obj
ectiv
e is
to in
trod
uce
the
key
unde
rlyi
ng c
once
pts
in p
ublic
dec
isio
n-m
akin
g an
d m
anag
emen
t. T
he s
econ
dpa
rt c
over
s ut
ility
pri
cing
.
I. K
ey R
ead
ing:
Loc
al G
over
nmen
t Ent
erpr
ise
and
Loc
al P
ublic
Fin
ance
by H
arry
Kitc
hen
II. A
dd
itio
nal
Rea
din
gs:
• K
atal
in P
alla
i. 19
99. “
The
Pri
vatiz
atio
n in
Hun
gary
”II
I. P
ower
Poi
nt P
rese
ntat
ion
31. S
usta
inab
ility
of
Fis
cal
Pol
icy
Due
Dat
e:M
arch
200
2
The
typi
cal a
ppro
ach
to a
naly
sing
and
com
pari
ng th
e fi
scal
sta
nces
of
gove
rnm
ents
is to
pre
sent
fig
ures
on
reve
nues
, pro
gram
exp
endi
ture
s, n
etde
bt, e
tc.,
all e
xpre
ssed
as
a pr
opor
tion
of G
DP,
or
perh
aps
on a
rea
l per
capi
ta b
asis
. Whi
le s
uch
com
pari
sons
are
use
ful,
they
are
lack
ing
in a
nim
port
ant r
espe
ct -
- th
ey s
ay li
ttle
abou
t the
sus
tain
abil
ity
of a
gov
ernm
ent’
sfi
scal
sta
nce.
Com
pari
sons
that
igno
re w
heth
er o
r no
t a c
urre
nt f
isca
l sta
nce
issu
stai
nabl
e sa
y no
thin
g ab
out w
heth
er o
r no
t gov
ernm
ents
will
be
forc
ed to
chan
ge th
eir
stan
ces
in th
e fu
ture
. Thi
s m
odul
e ad
dres
ses
this
issu
e by
desc
ribi
ng a
sim
ple
and
intu
itive
mea
sure
of
the
sust
aina
bilit
y of
the
fisc
alst
ance
s ad
opte
d by
sub
-nat
iona
l gov
ernm
ents
.
I. K
ey R
eadi
ng:
A N
ote
on th
e Su
stai
nabi
lity
of F
isca
l Pol
icy
in S
ub-n
atio
nal G
over
nmen
tsby
Ken
neth
J. M
cKen
zie
II. E
xerc
ises
32. C
ivil
Serv
ice
Ref
orm
Due
dat
e:M
arch
200
2
To
be d
evel
oped
with
Bar
bara
Nun
berg
, EA
SPR
.
33. N
atur
al R
esou
rce
Tax
atio
n
Due
dat
e:M
arch
200
2
Ope
ratin
g ef
fici
ently
and
sel
ling
at w
orld
pri
ces,
nat
ural
res
ourc
es s
ecto
rco
uld
prod
uce
sign
ific
ant v
alue
add
ed, e
arn
fore
ign
exch
ange
, and
gen
erat
esu
bsta
ntia
l wea
lth. M
uch,
how
ever
, dep
ends
on
the
tax
polic
y an
d th
ein
terg
over
nmen
tal f
isca
l reg
ime.
Nat
ural
res
ourc
es, o
f w
hich
oil
and
natu
ral
gas
are
the
mos
t im
port
ant,
mus
t be
taxe
d in
a w
ay th
at d
oes
not d
isto
rtec
onom
ic c
hoic
es a
nd in
duce
was
tefu
l exp
loita
tion.
The
div
isio
n of
rev
enue
sfr
om n
atur
al r
esou
rce
taxe
s be
twee
n th
e ce
ntra
l gov
ernm
ent a
nd s
ubna
tiona
lgo
vern
men
ts h
as im
port
ant i
mpl
icat
ion
on in
terg
over
nmen
tal d
esig
n in
natu
ral r
esou
rce
rich
cou
ntri
es. I
f re
venu
es f
rom
nat
ural
res
ourc
es a
re le
ft to
regi
ons,
the
geog
raph
ic c
once
ntra
tion
of r
esou
rces
wou
ld c
reat
e en
orm
ous
fisc
al d
ispa
ritie
s am
ong
subn
atio
nal g
over
nmen
ts.
I. K
ey R
eadi
ng:
Nat
ural
Res
ourc
e R
even
ues
in I
nter
gove
rnm
enta
l Con
text
by K
enne
th J
. McK
enzi
e
146
34.
Loc
al a
nd R
egio
nal
Eco
nom
ic D
evel
opm
ent
Mod
els
Thi
s m
odul
e be
gins
with
a d
iscu
ssio
n of
the
impo
rtan
ce o
f re
lativ
ely
sim
ple
mod
els
in lo
cal a
nd r
egio
nal d
evel
opm
ent p
olic
ymak
ing
part
icul
arly
in lo
w-
inco
me
deve
lopi
ng c
ount
ries
whe
re d
ata
avai
labi
lity
and
anal
ytic
al c
apac
ityar
e lim
ited.
The
mod
ule
disc
usse
s th
ree
of th
e m
ost w
idel
y us
ed m
odel
s,na
mel
y sh
ift-
shar
e an
alys
is, l
ocat
ion
quot
ient
and
eco
nom
ic b
ase
mod
els,
inde
tail,
incl
udin
g th
eir
theo
retic
al g
roun
ds, d
ata
requ
irem
ents
and
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
res
ults
. In
the
fina
l sec
tion,
it d
escr
ibes
the
use
of th
e m
odel
sin
evi
denc
e ba
sed
deci
sion
mak
ing
proc
ess
at th
e lo
cal l
evel
.
I. K
ey R
eadi
ng:
• D
inc,
Mus
tafa
. 200
2. "
Reg
iona
l and
Loc
al E
cono
mic
Ana
lysi
s T
ools
"II
. Exe
rcis
e
• "L
ocal
and
Reg
iona
l Eco
nom
ic A
naly
sis
Too
ls E
xerc
ise
Use
r G
uide
"II
I. P
ower
Poi
nt P
rese
ntat
ion
• D
inc,
Mus
tafa
. 200
2. "
Reg
iona
l and
Loc
al E
cono
mic
Ana
lysi
s T
ools
"
147
ANNEX 9: BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF IFRLFM CORECOURSES1998
Vienna, Austria. The first course, taught in English, took place at the OECD Multilateral Tax Centre inVienna, Austria, from March 16-27, 1998. Its objectives were threefold: (i) provide an operationalframework to raise the level of fiscal policy debate; (ii) build long-term capacity through the training oftrainers; and (iii) develop a network for cross-country sharing of experiences with best (and failed)practices. The target audience of was comprised of 32 senior and mid-level participants who were involvedwith training activities as heads of research institutes, university professors, subnational and centralgovernment training officials. Participants came from 17 client countries and represented all major regionsof the world, particularly from Central and Eastern Europe, Near East, Africa and Latin America. Therewere approximately 10 observers in addition to the registered participants.
Budapest, Hungary. The first offering in FY98 was a one week course from September 13-19, 1998. Itwas offered at the request of the Council of Europe (CoE), which also shared costs of the course.Responsibilities were divided between WBI and CoE. WBI developed the agenda and teaching materialswhile CoE selected and paid for the participants fees in addition to managing the course’s evaluationprocess. Of the 28 participants, most were elected officials and their staffs. Most participants came fromthe Former Soviet Union and Central and Eastern Europe. The course was conducted in English.
Brasilia, Brazil. The first of four annual offerings in Brazil (1998-2001) was held from November 3-13,1998. It was attended by 46 participants from South American (36 from Brazil and one from Paraguay)and Africa (five from Angola and four from Cape Verde). Brazilian participants included the following:staff from the Ministry of Finance who were responsible for the design and implementation ofintergovernmental fiscal relations between the federal and state governments in Brazil; representatives from19 Brazilian states who were responsible for defining state and municipal fiscal relations; key personnelfrom the Brazilian National Development Bank (BNDES); and representatives from parliament. In order toprovide outreach to Lusophone African countries, the course was attended by five senior officials from theMinistry of Finance and the Ministry of the Presidency from Angola as well as four senior officials fromthe Ministry of Finance of Cape Verde. The course was organized and sponsored by the Escola deAdministracao Fazendaria (ESAF-School of Financial Management) of the Ministry of Finance; theUniversity of Sao Paulo; OECD and WBI. The course was conducted in Portuguese (and in some cases,Spanish) and presentation materials used at the Vienna course were translated into Portuguese. Thesetranslated materials were incorporated into WBI’s FD web site.
Harare, Zimbabwe. The course in Harare was held from November 30 to December 6, 1998, at theOrganizational Training Center. It was attended by 22 participants from seven East African countries(Ethiopia, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe). Given the pilot nature of thecourse, participants included representatives from the ministries of finance and local governments, localgovernment associations, and national chambers of commerce. In addition, specialized finance andeconomic journalists participated. The logic behind having broad representation in this pilot African coursewas to understand the perspective of key stakeholders as an essential input into the design of future courses.The intent after this course was for future courses to bring together central and regional governmentofficials and trainers, but structured in a manner not to exclude the perspectives of other stakeholders suchas local government officials, parliamentarians and local World Bank staff. This course includedpresentations from external and regional experts. At least two presentations (from Frankfurt, Germany, andWashington, DC, USA) were made via videoconference. Partners included the Municipal DevelopmentProgram, which provided logistical and substantive support, and the Institute for Social Studies, whichsupported the delivery of modules. The course was conducted in English.
148
1999
Chiang Mai, Thailand. This course was organized by WBI with local logistics assistance provided by theNational Economic and Social Development Board of the Royal Thai Government. The dates of the coursewere February 24 – March 5, 1999, with 27 participants. The course was delivered in English.
Caracas, Venezuela. The Institute for Advanced Management Studies (Instituto De Estudios SuperioresEn Administracion IESA) hosted the course that was held in Caracas that ran from June 7-16, 1999. Thiscourse included presentations from external specialists as well as regional experts. Presentations weremade on site as well as through videoconference. At least two presentations were made viavideoconference in order to reduce the travel costs while permitting the inclusion of experts who wereunable to travel to Caracas. The course attracted 27 participants and was delivered in Spanish.
Budapest, Hungary. This course, taught in English, was offered in partnership with the Open SocietyInstitute of the Soros Foundation (OSI) and the Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative ofthe Open Society Institute. It was held at the Central European University (CEU) Summer University(SUN) from July 26 – August 6, 1999, and 32 persons participated. The objectives were to (i) provideparticipants with the analytical framework for understanding intergovernmental fiscal economics andvarious modules of the central--subnational (e.g., local) relationship, and (ii) enhance participants’ capacityfor successful implementation of public sector resource management reform by analyzing mechanisms forthe transfer of resources among governments and identifying ways to address the issue of regionaldisparities and local resource mobilization. The course was aimed at (i) public officials with an importantsay in the reform of intergovernmental relations or hold teaching positions in addition to the public office,(ii) faculty of CEE and FSU universities with a background in economics, finance, public policy, law, etc.,who wanted to improve their current courses or introduce elements of intergovernmental relations into thecurricula, and (iii) other professionals in a position to apply the concepts of the course.
Beijing, China. This course, taught with simultaneous interpretation in English and Chinese, was heldfrom November 15-19, 1999. It was organized with the World Bank Country Office in Beijing and theChina Ministry of Finance. Ninety-one participants attended. The materials are posted in Chinese on theFD website (in a link to the World Bank’s China Country Office).
Brasilia, Brazil. This November 16-26, 1999, course was the second annual offering organized andsponsored by ESAF and the University of Sao Paulo. It attracted 45 participants and was again taught inPortuguese. Joining these two partners this year was the Brazilian government’s Institute for AppliedEconomic Research (IPEA).
Jinja, Uganda. The program’s second offering in Africa was held in Jinja, Uganda, from December 6-10,1999. Partners responsible for organization and delivery were the Municipal Development Program forEastern and Southern Africa, the Local Government Finance Commission (Uganda), and the Institute forSocial Studies. The course was taught in English and 27 participants attended it.
2000
Budapest, Hungary. Held from April 10-15, 2000, this course brought together 33 participants from theBalkans. It was offered jointly by WBI, USAID and CoE. An adult training specialist accompanied theprocess; the question of how to transfer knowledge gained during the course into participants’ activitieswas addressed in workshops. Many discussions concerned municipal autonomy, service delivery andcreditworthiness.
Almaty, Kazakhstan. The Eurasia Foundation, in cooperation with the Swiss Agency for Developmentand Cooperation and the Kazakh State Academy, organized and delivered this course from April 17-21,2000. The course and materials were presented in Russian. Twenty-nine participants attended the course.
149
Santiago, Chile. This course used materials developed for the 1998 Vienna pilot and the 1999 course inVenezuela. It was delivered from June 5-16, 2000, and was organized by and taught from the headquartersof the United Nations Regional Office for Latin America (CEPAL) in Santiago, Chile. Additional partnerson this course were the Inter-American Development Bank and Deutsche Gesellschaft für TechnischeZusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH. The course was delivered in Spanish and attracted 42 participants.
Beijing, China. This June 12-15, 2000, offering was organized in cooperation with the Ministry ofFinance and the China National School of Administration. The course was delivered in Chinese andattracted 66 participants.
Budapest, Hungary. This second offering held at the Central European University (CEU) from July 10-28, 2000, was again organized with OSI/LGI. The objectives of the course were to (i) provide participantswith the analytical framework for understanding intergovernmental fiscal economics and various modulesof the central-subnational (e.g., local) relationship, (ii) enhance participants' capacity for successfulimplementation of public sector resource management reform by analysing mechanisms for the transfer ofresources among governments and identifying ways to address the issue of regional disparities and localresource mobilisation, (iii) and increase participants’ understanding in the issues of fast restructuring publiceconomy in countries of transition, (iv) enhance the participants’ capacity to understand and use thepractical simulation methods on public finance issues (transfers, local taxes). The course was designed forthe practitioners, researchers/academics and trainers in the area of public finance related to localgovernment issues and intergovernmental fiscal relations. Twenty-nine participants attended the coursethat was taught in English.
Atlanta, Georgia, USA. This course was held from July 24-August 18, 2000. It was hosted by theInternational Studies Program at the Andrew Young School of Georgia State University. It was taught inEnglish and attended by 19 participants from Bulgaria, Eritrea, Republic of Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala,Indonesia, Kenya, Pakistan, South Africa and the USA.
Brasilia, Brazil. Held from October 16 –27, 2000, this was the third offering of the core course. Againorganized by ESAF, University of Sao Paulo and IPEA, 44 Brazilian participants attended this Portuguese-language course.
Kampala, Uganda. This was the third course organized by MDP. It was held from November 13-17,2000, and 32 participants attended. Participants came from Gambia, Kenya, Malawi, South Africa,Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe. The course was taught in English.
Monterrey, Mexico. This Distance Learning (DL) course was broadcast (in Spanish) from the VirtualUniversity of the Monterrey Institute of Technology in Mexico, and from WBI’s Distance Learning Studiosin Washington, DC, USA. The course was delivered in 10 four-hour presentations held on Saturdays fromApril 1 to June 24, 2000, to 870 participants. There were 50 registered learning centers in nine LatinAmerican countries (Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaraguaand Peru). Each learning center had a local facilitator who assured the smooth delivery of modules. Alllearning centers were linked to the broadcast studios through a specialized Internet network as well as withfaxes and telephones in order to permit interaction between presenters and participants. In addition,selected sites had two-way videoconferencing to enable direct dialog with presenters. To supplement thelive interaction, a web site was set up to disseminate – on a weekly basis – all questions and answers fromeach module as well as the results of evaluations. The web site address is,http:\\ruv\itesm.mx\programas\seminario. This course was also broadcast over the Internet through videostreaming.
150
2001
Atlanta, Georgia, USA. The Summer 2001 GSU program consisted of two two-week courses: FiscalDecentralization in Developing and Transition Economies (held from July 23 - August 3, 2001, with 19participants) and Budgeting, Fiscal Management and Revenue Forecasting (held from August 6-16, 2001,with nine participants). The summer 2001 training program included participants from countries manyaround the world, including several donor agencies, including officials from Albania, Bahrain, Macedonia,Pakistan, the Palestinian territories and the Republic of South Africa. Nine public sector specialists fromIndonesia attended the training program through a special arrangement with Center for Institutional Reformand the Informal Sector (IRIS) and USAID/Jakarta. The group further included donor agency officials fromthe British Department for International Development (DFID) and the Atlanta-based Carter Center.
Budapest, Hungary. Held from July 9-July 27, 2001, this was the third offering organized byOSI/LGI/CEU with WBI. Its objectives and participants were similar to the previous courses. It was againtaught in English and attracted 28 participants.
Dakar, Senegal. This first French-language offering was developed as a result of demand from theMunicipal Development Programme for Western and Central Africa (MDPWCA) and partners whoattended the Budapest Experts’ Workshop. It benefitted from the financial support of the BelgianAdministration for Development Cooperation, the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs Minister forDevelopment Cooperation, and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. The course was heldfrom October 8-12, 2001 and attracted 29 participants.
Brasilia, Brazil. The fourth offering of the course was held from November 12-23, 2001. It was againorganized by ESAF, University of Sao Paulo and IPEA. Thirty participants attended this Portuguese-language course.
Kampala, Uganda. This was the fourth course organized by MDP, held from December 10-14, 2001. TheUganda Management Institute joined MDP in organizing this event, taught in English with 24 participants.
