Decentralised governance and health workforce resilience lessons from the COVID 19 pandemic in Nepal
This study examines Nepal's health workforce response to the COVID-19 pandemic amidst ongoing decentralization, revealing that while structural reorganization and resource shortages initially hindered service delivery, the adaptive resilience of local managers and frontline workers helped mitigate challenges through flexible hiring and informal support networks.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
When a sudden crisis strikes a health system, the most critical resource is not a new machine or a special drug, but the people who deliver care. For a health system to survive a shock like a pandemic, it needs three things: enough workers to handle the surge in patients, the ability for those workers to shift quickly into new roles, and strong support to keep them safe and motivated. These elements form the backbone of what experts call "resilience." In many countries, the government manages these workers from a central office, but in some places, the responsibility is shared with local leaders closer to the community. This shift, known as decentralization, is meant to allow faster, more tailored responses to local needs. However, when a massive emergency hits while a country is still learning how to share power, the system can become confused. The question becomes whether local leaders have the freedom and resources to act, or if they are left waiting for instructions that never arrive.
A team of researchers set out to understand how this played out in Nepal during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time, Nepal was in the middle of a major structural change, moving from a single central government to a three-tiered system with federal, provincial, and local levels. This transition was still new and untested when the virus arrived. The researchers, working across the capital, a provincial capital, and two local towns, reviewed government documents from 2020 and interviewed twenty-two key people involved in health management. They wanted to see if the new system helped or hindered the response, specifically looking at how health workers were hired, moved around, and supported. Their findings reveal a story of a system strained by confusion but saved by the sheer determination of local managers and frontline staff who stepped up when the official machinery stalled.
The central challenge was a severe shortage of staff, a problem made worse by the ongoing reorganization. Before the pandemic, thousands of government jobs were in limbo as employees were shuffled between the new levels of government. When the virus hit, the national government quickly created plans to hire thousands of new workers for tasks like contact tracing and running quarantine centers. However, these plans largely remained on paper. The local and provincial governments, who were supposed to manage these hires, found themselves without clear guidance on how to recruit or pay for the extra staff. In many places, the positions that were supposed to be filled were still empty. The researchers found that while the national government had the authority to manage salaries, the local governments had the power to hire temporary workers, but they often lacked the budget or the clear rules to do so effectively. As a result, health facilities operated with far fewer people than needed, leaving routine services and pandemic responses understaffed.
Despite these structural gaps, the system did not collapse, largely because of the flexibility shown by the people on the ground. Frontline health workers, already stretched thin, took on multiple roles without complaint. They worked long hours, skipped their annual leave, and even covered shifts for colleagues who were sick or in isolation. Local managers also showed remarkable adaptability. When they could not wait for federal instructions, they used the limited freedom they had to move staff from hospitals with plenty of workers to those that were short-handed. They created temporary job posts and found ways to keep services running. This flexibility was not a result of a perfect plan, but rather a reactive effort to cope with a situation where the official rules were unclear. The workers essentially filled the void left by the slow-moving bureaucracy, demonstrating that human commitment can sometimes compensate for systemic weaknesses.
However, the lack of a smooth, well-connected system meant that support for these workers was often delayed or missing entirely. The national government issued guidelines for personal protective equipment, risk allowances, and mental health support, but these rarely reached the local level in time. In the early months, many health workers reported having no masks or sanitizers, and some were forced to buy their own supplies because local governments did not have the budget to purchase them quickly. Similarly, while policies existed to pay extra money to those working with the virus, many workers never received it, or it arrived so late that it felt like an afterthought. The researchers noted that community members sometimes treated health workers with fear and discrimination, viewing them as carriers of the disease, and while the government eventually took steps to stop this, the initial isolation took a heavy toll on morale.
Perhaps the most striking finding was how health workers educated themselves when official training failed to reach them. The national training center had the materials to teach thousands of workers how to handle the virus, but it could only train a tiny fraction of them in time. Instead of waiting for a formal class, many workers turned to the internet, watching videos and reading social media posts to learn how to use protective gear or trace contacts. This self-reliance filled a critical gap, but it also highlighted a dangerous reliance on informal networks rather than a robust, official system. The researchers observed that while the local teams managed to keep the lights on, they were doing so by improvising, often without the full picture of what the national government intended.
The study concludes that Nepal's experience offers a clear lesson for the future: a decentralized system has great potential to respond quickly to local needs, but only if the connections between the different levels of government are strong and clear. During the pandemic, the new structure created confusion and delays that left local leaders and workers struggling to find their footing. The resilience shown by the health workforce was impressive, but it was a resilience born of necessity rather than preparation. The researchers suggest that for a system to be truly ready for the next crisis, it must ensure that local managers have not just the authority to act, but also the clear guidance, funding, and support to do so effectively. Without these foundations, the burden will always fall on the individuals at the front, who, despite their best efforts, cannot be expected to fix a broken system on their own.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.