Embedded Files
Page 2
Our analytical framework distinguishes between allocative, cognitive, and normative institutions to analyse the effects on four areas of service delivery: (1) prevention; (2) clinical services; (3) provision of drugs, vaccines, and other products; and (4) human health protection. The reforms were accompanied by substantial reductions in the allocation of both financial and human resources to public veterinary services; this in turn induced fragmentation in service supply, preferential service to progressive (or wealthy) farmers, and non-adherence to international protocols for livestock health reporting. A few communities self-organized to access veterinary services. Thus, the reforms triggered changes mostly in formal allocative institutions, but these triggered further changes in informal allocative, cognitive, and normative institutions that structured the impact of the reforms. The paper concludes that institutional change is not a one-off outcome of an intervention. Rather, such interventions trigger new dynamics that policy-makers and analysts need to take into account. This requires regular monitoring of anticipated and unanticipated effects of privatization and decentralization to enable policy adjustment. Assume responsibility, fiscal resources, and political authority from central government agencies to sub-national government entities, to non-governmental organizations, or to the private sector (Robin-son 2007). Privatization is the transfer of power, resources, and functions from government to the private sector, non-governmental organizations, and civil society (Rondinelli 1981). These reforms have affected a broad spectrum of rural development strategies and activities, including agricultural research, input supply, rural financial services, agricultural extension, veterinary services, and water resources management (Smith 2001).
Google Sites
Report abuse