Variations in Governmental Responses to and the Diffusion of COVID-19: The Role of Political Decentralization

Policymakers have implemented a wide range of non-pharmaceutical interventions to fight the spread of COVID-19. Such policies vary substantially across regions or countries and, therefore, lead to variations in the diffusion patterns and fatality rates associated with this virus. We show that political decentralization is closely related to both the spread of COVID-19 and government responses to this spread. Specifically, we find that the disease tends to spread at higher speeds and result in more confirmed cases and deaths in countries that are more decentralized. We further show that it takes longer for more decentralized countries to implement any non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 and that more decentralized countries tend to adopt policies that are more targeted as opposed to being more generalized.

Decentralization, legitimacy, and democracy in post-Soviet Central Asia

During the 1990s, a conventional wisdom emerged, based on literature going back decades, that political decentralization might be among the most effective forces for democratization. If ordinary people could participate in autonomous local governments, democracy would be built from the ground up, ultimately shaping the entire political system. Once decentralization reforms were implemented across the world, however, the results were disappointing. Authoritarianism not only thrived at the local level, it could also undermine democratization at the national level. Thus, local-national transference still held, but sometimes as a poison. In this context, the case of post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan is an anomaly. Here, the relative success of political decentralization—rather than its failure—nevertheless failed to spur democratization at the national level. I argue that this is because decentralization allowed national authorities to appease international donors while they consolidated their own power. Moreover, while decentralization empowered local communities, it did so in ways that personalized local authority and pitted local and national authorities against one another, resulting in intense localism and antagonistic center-local relations that undermined any democratic transference. The case study findings are based on ten months of field research, which includes interviews with local and national officials, ordinary villagers, and representatives of NGOs and international organizations.

IMPACT OF POLITICAL AND FISCAL DECENTRALIZATION ON THE GOVERNMENT QUALITY IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

Since the 1970s, the process of decentralization has spread throughout the world, and today more than 95% of democratic countries are decentralized. Decentralization should lead to a well-organized and more efficient local government. Nevertheless, the empirical results are rather vague. The motivation for this paper is to examine the impact of political and fiscal decentralization on the quality of government in seventeen countries in Central and Eastern Europe for the period 1998 - 2012. The main objective of the paper is to explore whether fiscal decentralization positively influences the quality of government and whether political decentralization reduces its positive influence. An additional contribution of the paper comes from the introduction of a decentralization interaction variable. Our results have shown that fiscal decentralization has a positive impact on governance, while political decentralization was found to be statistically insignificant. Our results also showed that richer countries have higher government quality, that government size increases the level of corruption and decreases government quality, and that in more democratic countries politicians behave more responsibly and accountably, which decreases the level of corruption and increases government quality. We conclude that political decentralization cancels out the positive effects of fiscal decentralization on the quality of government, which can be explained by less developed institutions at the local level in Central and Eastern European countries.

Decentralization vs Centralization: Scenarios of Regional Development of Ukraine in the Context of Internal Stability Establishment

The work aims to analyze scenarios for the development of regional policy in Ukraine in conditions of decentralization and centralization trends confrontation in the country. The main problem is the establishment of structural completeness of the decentralization reform in Ukraine, which should involve the implementation of administrative-territorial, budgetary and political decentralization. An important task is also to determine the effectiveness of devolution, delegation, deconcentration, deregulation, and divestment, which are manifestations of the decentralization process and collectively determine the quality of reform. Based on the methodology of system analysis and the concept of “balance of relations,” as well as using a historical and comparative method in investigating the improvement of approaches to leading public policy, and a structural-functional method for analysis of territorial-political system as a decentralized and multi-level, the paper proposes an analysis of the balance of inter-level relations in the country, the effectiveness of reforms, decentralization and trends for further development. The work indicates that since 2014, administrative and territorial optimization and enlargement of communities have become the main result of the decentralization reform. The discussion of political decentralization remains extremely disturbing and is blocked as “separatism,” as well as attempts to resolve the conflict in the Donbas by political means through the adoption of the Steinmeier Formula are demurred as “capitulation.” The economic crisis, which coincided with the pandemic, can aggravate the negative perception of reform, the development of which remains possible within the framework of three development scenarios: “Euro-optimistic,” “inertial” and “blocking.”

Provincial Silver Coins and the Fragmenting Chinese Monetary System, 1887–1900

This chapter mentions Qing officials in the 1880s who believed the influx of foreign silver coins was a negative development that had to be opposed as it represented a violation of the dynasty's economic rights. It argues that strengthening the dynasty with more revenue was not the same as creating a unified national monetary system, which was an emerging goal for figures in the late Qing. It also introduces and analyzes disagreements within China about how to reform the coinage and monetary system in the context of political decentralization, including the role of silver. The chapter focuses on the intellectual and economic impetus to mint coins, as well as the problems of mint administration. It examines the tension between the power of provincial officials and the Qing central government, which acted as a constraint on the currency reform and state-building activities of the dynasty.