U-Form vs. M-Form: How to Understand Decision Autonomy Under Healthcare Decentralization?; Comment on “Decentralisation of Health Services in Fiji: A Decision Space Analysis”

Document Type : Commentary


Department of Health Policy and Management, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA


For more than three decades healthcare decentralization has been promoted in developing countries as a way of improving the financing and delivery of public healthcare. Decision autonomy under healthcare decentralization would determine the role and scope of responsibility of local authorities. Jalal Mohammed, Nicola North, and Toni Ashton analyze decision autonomy within decentralized services in Fiji. They conclude that the narrow decision space allowed to local entities might have limited the benefits of decentralization on users and providers. To discuss the costs and benefits of healthcare decentralization this paper uses the U-form and M-form typology to further illustrate the role of decision autonomy under healthcare decentralization. This paper argues that when evaluating healthcare decentralization, it is important to determine whether the benefits from decentralization are greater than its costs. The U-form and M-form framework is proposed as a useful typology to evaluate different types of institutional arrangements under healthcare decentralization. Under this model, the more decentralized organizational form (M-form) is superior if the benefits from flexibility exceed the costs of duplication and the more centralized organizational form (U-form) is superior if the savings from economies of scale outweigh the costly decision-making process from the center to the regions. Budgetary and financial autonomy and effective mechanisms to maintain local governments accountable for their spending behavior are key decision autonomy variables that could sway the cost-benefit analysis of healthcare decentralization.


Main Subjects


    1. Qian YY, Roland G, Xu CG. Coordination and experimentation in M-form and U-form organizations. J Polit Econ. 2006;114(2):366-402. doi:10.1086/501170
    2. Smith BC. The decentralization of health care in developing countries: organizational options. Public Adm Deve. 1997;17(4):399-412. doi:10.1002/(Sici)1099-162x(199710)17:43.3.Co;2-G
    3. Bossert T. Analyzing the decentralization of health systems in developing countries: Decision space, innovation and performance. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47(10):1513-1527. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00234-2
    4. Mohammed J, North N, Ashton T. Decentralisation of health services in Fiji: a decision space analysis. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;5(3):173-181. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2015.199
    5. Prudhomme R. The dangers of decentralization. World Bank Res Obs. 1995;10(2):201-220. doi:10.1093/wbro/10.2.201
    6. Birn AE. Federalist flirtations: The politics and execution of health services decentralization for the uninsured population in Mexico, 1985-1995. J Public Health Policy. 1999;20(1):81-108. doi:10.2307/3343260
    7. Collins P. Special issue - Decentralisation and local governance in Africa. Public Adm Dev. 2003;23(1):1-3. doi:10.1002/pad.266
    8. Homedes N, Ugalde A. Why neoliberal health reforms have failed in Latin America. Health Policy. 2005;71(1):83-96. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2004.01.011
    9. Castaneda T, Beeharry G, Griffin C. Decentralization of health services in Latin American countries: Issues and some lessons. Annual World Bank Conference on Development in Latin America and the Caribbean 1999, Proceedings. 2000:249-269.
    10. Vargas Bustamante A. The tradeoff between centralized and decentralized health services: evidence from rural areas in Mexico. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(5):925-934. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.05.022
    11. Bustamante AV. Comparing federal and state healthcare provider performance in villages targeted by the conditional cash transfer programme of Mexico. Trop Med Int Health. 2011;16(10):1251-1259. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3156.2011.02826.x
    12. Rondinelli DA. Government decentralization and economic development: the evolution of concepts and practices. Comparative Public Administration. 2006;15:433-445. doi:10.1016/S0732-1317(06)15018-6
    13. Williamson OE. Markets, Hierarchies, and the Modern Corporation - an Unfolding Perspective. J Econ Behav Organ. 1992;17(3):335-352. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(95)90012-8
    14. Chandler J. Strategy and Structure of Japanese Enterprises - Kono,T. Long Range Plann. 1986;19(6):145. doi:10.1016/0024-6301(86)90111-1
    15. Roland A. Transition and Economics: Potitics, Markets and Firms. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press; 2000.