3.4.2.1 Inequity and marginalisation
Sayed and Soudien (2005) examined how the framework of decentralisation and factors of inclusion and exclusion in the South African context related to each other and how the focus on inclusion can exacerbate the problem of exclusion. Concentrating on governance, access and curriculum, they argue that
decentralisation reforms that have been adopted in post-apartheid South Africa, as administrative and legislative mechanisms to deal with the divisive effects of apartheid, have themselves produced new forms of exclusion (Sayed and Soudien, 2005, p. 116).
Administrative and legal decentralisation led to a state divided between the centre and the decentralised provinces with parallel responsibilities. The reasons for exclusion lie in the distribution of responsibilities and resources as well as in the process of juridification (codification of the legislation). Firstly, decentralisation means that funds from national level funds are distributed to the counties and other sites but is not involved in the management and control of schools within these sites. Secondly, the process of juridification constrains rather than controls because the interpretation of the law is often contested. As a consequence, the ‘process of juridification of the political process […] (re)sites conflict between the centre and provinces, from the political arena, to the judiciary’ (Sayed and Soudien, 2005, p. 118). The authors argue that the re-articulation and representation of the legislation emerged from the policy tension between choice and democracy.
Rasmussen (2011, 2013) analysed public service delivery and democratic decentralisation reform within the primary education sector in Benin. She argues that heterogeneity will always exist in conditions of access to public services, but variations are extreme in a context, like Benin, with a highly fragmented system of public authority. Consequently, decentralisation leaves room for the marginalisation of some groups at the local level and the abuse of public authority, e.g. in the unequal distribution of school materials. In the education sector, there seems to be a return to the centralised functioning of the state, whereby the role of the municipality is only minor in law and even more limited in practice. Despite the constitutional objective of free primary education for all children, varying costs remain for educational materials, teaching infrastructure and teachers. Increased state intervention in the sector of primary education can reduce parents' charges, but access to a high, or even reasonable, quality of education remains an unsolved problem (Rasmussen, 2011, 2013), as studies in other contexts have also demonstrated (Grauwe
et al., 2005; Gershberg, González and Meade, 2012).
Relevant to this study is how the legislation affects the enactment of education decentralisation, as shown by Sayed and Soudien (2005). In their case, they demonstrated how the focus on inclusion in the context of the decentralisation reform in post-apartheid South Africa had produced new forms of exclusion. Rasmussen explains that heterogeneity will continue to exist in service delivery, but it is more pronounced in fragmented settings like Benin. Even though more state interventions could respond to the problem of inequity, in terms of user fees, for example, it will not resolve the issue of quality. Besides questions of equity, the study of education decentralisation often questions whether the reform has improved or degraded the quality of education, as discussed subsequently.
3.4.2.2 Quality
Grauwe et al. (2005) also examined whether decentralisation can lead to school improvement. They particularly focused on the collaboration between actors at the institutional and the municipal level and the quality of education through monitoring the management of teachers and funds. They state that a key mission of local education offices is to monitor the quality of the teaching in its schools, but inspection was of poor quality in all four cases. One cause, among others, was the challenge to cover a large number of schools in a context of scarce resources. Municipal actors furthermore face the challenge of exercising control, on the one hand, and offering support, on the other. Further discrepancies are the inadequate profiles of district officials, the rather traditional format of school visits and the lack of strategic planning.
Channa (2016) studied the empirical evidence concerning the relationship between decentralisation and educational quality in Indonesia and Kenya. The case studies demonstrated that different approaches to decentralisation can result in significantly different outcomes in terms of educational quality. The author argues that that the design and implementation of education decentralisation influences quality outcomes, and the characteristics of design and implementation are shaped by economic conditions in development economies. Venkataraman and Keno (2015) analysed Ethiopia's post 1991 decentralisation reform. They evaluated the level of service delivery in two field sites in the education sector and discovered that there are quality constraints even though significant improvements has been made in extending educational service delivery. The concern for quality relates to existing challenges, e.g. the lack of adequate financial support, trained labour, increasing rates of teacher attrition, absence of adequate participation by the community and planning, among others. They conclude that the grass root level needs to be involved to tackle these challenges.
Grauwe et al. (2005) highlighted the challenge of delivering good quality education in the context of the education decentralisation reforms in West Africa because of the lack of resources for school inspections, but due to the conflation of support and control in the Beninese case. On the other hand, they highlighted good practice, such as networks between the local school authorities and schools to support issues of quality. Channa (2016) discussed how decentralisation reforms in the education sector have had different effects on the quality of education, shaped by the design and implementation of such reforms as well as the economic conditions, in which they take place. Similarly, Venkataraman and Keno (2015) demonstrated how educational outcomes depend on economic factors, such as the lack of adequate financial support.
This part of the literature review has discussed a selection of literature on education decentralisation with a particular focus on Benin and SSA, but has also referred to experiences in Latin and South America as well as Asia. The last section elaborates the conceptual framework for this study, bringing together the framework for policy trajectory studies, the main concepts of this study, and the analytical lenses.