Dilemmas of decentralisation
Ahmed Tareq Rashid | Tuesday, 26 August 2008
THERE has been a lot of debate about different forms of decentralization and their implications for developing countries. Particularly in unitary states, decentralization is considered as a key element of governance. The organs of unitary states are governed constitutionally as one single unit, with one constitutionally created legislature. While political power of government in such states may be transferred to regional or locally elected assemblies, the central government retains the right to control and abolish the delegated power.
Historically, most developing countries were unitary states and had a highly centralized system of governance. Two factors were vital for the push behind adopting decentralization policies. First, it was realized that decentralization improves governmental performance.
Transferring state responsibilities to lower level government authorities in geographically dispersed locations can improve service delivery and facilitate more prompt response to local needs. This form of decentralization is known as deconcentration or transfer within public administrative or parastatal structures.
The second major impetus behind decentralization is political. More specifically, it was recognized that socio-economic progress requires active participation of people in the decision-making processes-- decisions that affect them directly. This decentralization of power often takes the form of devolution.
Devolution is the transfer of resources, tasks, and decision-making to lower level authorities which are democratically elected and are largely independent of the central government.
In the context of unitary states, decentralization suffers from some inherent problems. One problem in terms of the administrative dimension is that bureaucratically decentralized units, often know as field administration, have no obligations to be accountable to the local residents.
Instead, they are accountable to the central government, to the respective ministries or departments. Moreover, local governments rely on central government for financial, human and technical resources. The absence of autonomy of field administration has been a major stumbling block for successful decentralization reforms.
The political dimension of decentralization is also a matter of much contestation. While the lack of accountability is not an issue for locally elected representatives who are mandated to represent the local population, the main concern here is politicization of local governments.
This politicization can take several forms. The distribution of goods and services at the local level can be monopolized by local and national elites. A greater concern is political consolidation through local governments.
Many authoritarian or military states have introduced expansive decentralization programmes to reinforce central control. The objective was not to create political space at the local level but rather to erect structures through which exertion of power is possible.
Even when there is a democratic system at the centre, many regimes have used decentralization to increase their power base in rural areas. In this case, decentralization policy was geared towards creating a vote-bank.
Therefore, the form decentralization takes is highly dependent the central political structure. When the democratic structures at the national level are weak, it is unlikely that a truly democratic system will emerge at the local level. In other words, a functional democratic system at the central level is a pre-condition for democratic governance at the local level.
Finally, the political and administrative dimensions of decentralization are not always happy bed-fellows.
Often, bureaucrats tend to dominate the local councils while elected representatives have to comply with bureaucratic decisions. On the other hand, partisan politics impede on smooth functioning of field administration.
Decentralization is no doubt an essential instrument for governance and development. Yet, there is a need for recognizing its complexities in different contexts, particularly in unitary states. When central-local relations are based on patronage and dependence, decentralization is less likely to succeed.
The writer is a PhD student in Sociology, McMaster University, Canada. He may be reached at e-mail: tareq.rashid@gmail.com
Historically, most developing countries were unitary states and had a highly centralized system of governance. Two factors were vital for the push behind adopting decentralization policies. First, it was realized that decentralization improves governmental performance.
Transferring state responsibilities to lower level government authorities in geographically dispersed locations can improve service delivery and facilitate more prompt response to local needs. This form of decentralization is known as deconcentration or transfer within public administrative or parastatal structures.
The second major impetus behind decentralization is political. More specifically, it was recognized that socio-economic progress requires active participation of people in the decision-making processes-- decisions that affect them directly. This decentralization of power often takes the form of devolution.
Devolution is the transfer of resources, tasks, and decision-making to lower level authorities which are democratically elected and are largely independent of the central government.
In the context of unitary states, decentralization suffers from some inherent problems. One problem in terms of the administrative dimension is that bureaucratically decentralized units, often know as field administration, have no obligations to be accountable to the local residents.
Instead, they are accountable to the central government, to the respective ministries or departments. Moreover, local governments rely on central government for financial, human and technical resources. The absence of autonomy of field administration has been a major stumbling block for successful decentralization reforms.
The political dimension of decentralization is also a matter of much contestation. While the lack of accountability is not an issue for locally elected representatives who are mandated to represent the local population, the main concern here is politicization of local governments.
This politicization can take several forms. The distribution of goods and services at the local level can be monopolized by local and national elites. A greater concern is political consolidation through local governments.
Many authoritarian or military states have introduced expansive decentralization programmes to reinforce central control. The objective was not to create political space at the local level but rather to erect structures through which exertion of power is possible.
Even when there is a democratic system at the centre, many regimes have used decentralization to increase their power base in rural areas. In this case, decentralization policy was geared towards creating a vote-bank.
Therefore, the form decentralization takes is highly dependent the central political structure. When the democratic structures at the national level are weak, it is unlikely that a truly democratic system will emerge at the local level. In other words, a functional democratic system at the central level is a pre-condition for democratic governance at the local level.
Finally, the political and administrative dimensions of decentralization are not always happy bed-fellows.
Often, bureaucrats tend to dominate the local councils while elected representatives have to comply with bureaucratic decisions. On the other hand, partisan politics impede on smooth functioning of field administration.
Decentralization is no doubt an essential instrument for governance and development. Yet, there is a need for recognizing its complexities in different contexts, particularly in unitary states. When central-local relations are based on patronage and dependence, decentralization is less likely to succeed.
The writer is a PhD student in Sociology, McMaster University, Canada. He may be reached at e-mail: tareq.rashid@gmail.com