Proponents of devolution often claim that the decentralization of policymaking authority to sub-national governments generates better outcomes because decision-making takes place “closer to the people”. Yet, the theoretical rationale for why devolution might improve outcomes often remains unspecified. We unpack this argument by formally stating one causal relationship that is often left implicit-devolution leads to experimentation, learning by administrators, and better policy outcomes. We then offer an exploratory empirical examination of this argument. We utilize data collected after the decentralization of welfare-related policymaking authority to local leaders in one American state, North Carolina. We employ case studies, survey research, and budgetary data from 1998 to 2003. Our findings suggest that while some experimentation did occur as a result of devolution, local officials in North Carolina rarely replicated policy decisions that led to improved outcomes in their communities. We conclude that a key argument used to advance policy devolution across a number of countries and political regimes is in need of reevaluation and, potentially, revision.
