The People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) fiscal system is characterized by very high expenditure decentralization and heavy reliance on transfers to finance public services. The government’s embrace of inclusiveness and equalization as national goals has raised questions about whether transfers can deliver equalization. This paper seeks to answer this question by analyzing newly available fiscal data compiled from government websites. We find the allocation of central transfers remains strongly region based, resulting in high intra-regional inequality among provinces. Poorer provinces also tend to retain more central transfers at their own (provincial) level. Those provinces with greater pretransfer inequality tend to exert greater equalization efforts, but these are not necessarily proportional to their pretransfer inequality. As a result, some localities are left out of the PRC’s countrywide equalization program. These equalization patterns remained highly persistent during the coronavirus disease shock in 2020. Collectively, the findings highlight that the PRC’s complex intergovernmental fiscal system still poses challenges for equalization.
Financing is a major challenge and concern for the future of family planning (FP) programs. As countries commit to increasing access to and quality of FP services and to universal health care (UHC), it is crucial that UHC schemes include FP and other reproductive health services. This brief aims to: 1) document trends in UHC and health financing, drawing out implications for policymakers and programmers; and 2) identify opportunities for the FP community of practice to advocate for the inclusion of quality FP services within UHC and health financing discussions. With this brief, we aim to highlight experiences in Kenya, given that there is a body of experience with health financing reforms and UHC schemes and a relatively strong national FP program. The Kenya case study is instructive for other countries with decentralized and mixed health systems as they seek to integrate FP within their own UHC initiatives and health financing reforms.
A multiplicity of spatial plans in a planning system can have different ways of co-existing under different institutional organizations. Having a highly centralized government like China, the phenomenon of a multitude of national-level plans dominating at the same time has its own unique characteristics. Much literature emphasizes only the lacking of coordination between governmental institutes. However, this research finds that the current constitution of the Chinese planning system profoundly reflects the relations between central and local governments. This paper first examines the characteristics of the Chinese political system, briefly reviewing the iterative process of "centralization-decentralization-selective centralization", showing the rise and fall of spatial planning as an administrative tool of local governments. Especially since the 1990s, the central government has raised revenue from the local level, which leads to local governments depending more on selling land for quick money. But as the urban expansion accelerates, the state asserts its control on local development by the National Mainfunction Plan and National Land-use Plan, which seriously impedes the coordination of spatial plans at different levels. Therefore, this study argues that spatial planning reform in China requires not only generating integrated information platforms and technical standards, but more importantly, establishing new relations between central and local government. In the end, some suggestions are made on central authorities reducing the constraints of a planning censorship system and rebalancing the responsibility and the public finance of local government on planning matters.