Centralised versus decentralised monitoring in developing countries:a survey of recent research

We consider the effectiveness of centralised and decentralised monitoring using a theoretical framework of factors affecting each approach. Centralised monitoring is more costly, yet more professional. However, the monitors themselves are not directly affected by the activity they are monitoring, so they may have less at stake in policies or services working well. By contrast, in community monitoring local people and civil society have high stakes in improving local outcomes. In the political economy literature, top-down audits have been seen as more effective in certain types of activities (like procurement) where detailed documentation exists, and where corruption can be more clearly defined as compared to mismanagement. Community monitoring has had higher efficacy when collective action problems can be solved, when monitoring teams have a sense of agency, and when the composition of teams is more homogeneous. Community monitors have deeper knowledge of local agents, so that (ceteris paribus) this approach should be less costly for the government because monitoring resources can be targeted better. However, both local monitoring and local agents may suffer from problems of elite capture.