Decentralisation and

accountable participatory governance

Ciara Aucoin, Colm Moloney and Wahidullah Stanikzai

Masters in Development Practice

• Centralised state

• Developing states reform 1980s- pressure from IMF, UN, WB and donor countries

• Motivations for decentralisation:

Policies and programmes can be tailored to better reflect local needs The transparency and accountability of public affairs can be increased Democracy can broadened through increased participation by the population

But the motivations can be far from ideal …

Decentralisation

Types of DecentralisationApproach to decentralisation

Institutional Legal Framework

Key Actors Opportunities for citizen engagement

Example Country

Deconcentration

Transfer of the personnel from national level to local admin. offices

Government and  locally placed technical advisors

Relatively poor. Where central bureaucrats are relocated little space is created for increased public participation

Cambodia

Delegation Limited transfer of decision-making over funding and policy to local government, acting as agents to the central government

Local semi- autonomous representatives and agencies, eg. public forestry administrations

Dependent on whether the agents at the local level are publicly elected, or whether they are relocated from central government

Senegal

Devolution Transfer of resources, responsibility and decision-making to the local political level

Locally elected councillors, mayors and representatives, outside of direct control of central government

Most access created for pubic where autonomous representatives engaged in  decision-making work closely with local communities  

Uganda, Malawi

Devolution

Types of Devolution Formal Arrangements Key Actors

Administrative where the implementation of centrally-determined policy and programmes are put into the hands of the local agents

admin staff whose terms of employment are defined by local government

Constitutional where local authorities have a say in national policy-making

local authorities and/or elected representatives

Fiscal where sub-national tiers either have the autonomy to implement taxes for revenue and/or where they control a significant proportion of total government spending

Local authorities and/or elected representatives with the oversight of central government

The Risks of Decentralisation

• Decentralisation can enable clientelistic patterns of state-society relations

• Decentralisation can create opportunities for state capture

• Decentralisation can exacerbate disparities

• Decentralisation and Conflict: mixed perspectives

Shaping the outcomes of Decentralisation

National LeadersNational LeadersMotivationsMotivations

National Institutional Arrangements

National Institutional Arrangements

Local Government

Local Government

Space for Public

Participation

Space for Public

Participation

Power Relations

Power Relations

AccountabilityAccountability

CapacityCapacity

Local Gov. Power

Relations

Local Gov. Power

Relations

Local State-Society relations

Local State-Society relations

OutcomesOutcomes

Local Gov. Interests

Local Gov. Interests

Local Gov. Capacity

Local Gov. Capacity

Civil Society Capacity

Civil Society Capacity

Civil Society Power

Relations

Civil Society Power

Relations

Civil Society Interests

Civil Society Interests

The importance of Context

National Institutional Arrangements: The legal framework

• Define the responsibilities being transferred (e.g. fiscal, political, administrative)

• Define the legal status of sub-national governments (e.g. degree of autonomy, accountability channels, requirements for elections, requirements for public participation

National LeadersNational LeadersMotivationsMotivations

National Institutional Arrangements

National Institutional Arrangements

Power Relations

Power Relations

CapacityCapacity

Shaping the outcomes of Decentralisation

Local State-Society Arrangements

• Determined by interactions between Local Government and Civil Society

• Influence decentralisation outcomes at the local level

Local Government

Local Government

Space for Public

Participation

Space for Public

ParticipationAccountabilityAccountabilityLocal Gov.

Power Relations

Local Gov. Power

Relations

Local State-Society

Arrangements

Local State-Society

Arrangements

Local Gov. Interests

Local Gov. Interests

Local Gov. Capacity

Local Gov. Capacity

Civil Society Capacity

Civil Society Capacity

Civil Society Power

Relations

Civil Society Power

Relations

Civil Society Interests

Civil Society Interests

Shaping the outcomes of Decentralisation

OutcomesOutcomes

Decentralisation in Practice

How far the observed outcomes diverge?

• Does it increase public participation• Does it increase accountability• Does it reduce disparities

What can be learned?

Does it increase accountability?

• Yes for...South Africa, IDP forums

• Not in.....Indonesia, Susceptible to clientelism & capture

• On balance... In Malawi, CCJP and MENJ

• Constituency Development Funds (CDFs)

Does it reduce disparity?

• Poverty, not very positive in Uganda

• Gender, very positive in Cambodia, Uganda, Rwanda, ---- but not in the case of South Africa

• Ethnic, yes for Nigeria, not really in Indonesia

• It is not one size fit all approach

• NGO’s and Civil Societies can play a significant role

• Effective decentralisation requires effective state

Conclusion: What can we learn?

• It is not one size fit all approach

•NGO’s and Civil Societies can play a significant role

• Effective decentralisation requires effective state

Thank you for your attention, questions welcome

Conclusion: What can we learn?

References • Antlov, Brinkerhoff and Rapp (2008) ‘Civil Society Organizations and Democratic Reform: Progress, Capacities, and Challenges in Indonesia’  RTI International’ Paper presented

at: 37th Annual Conference Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action, Philadelphia PA  November 20-22, 2008

• Cammack, Diana, Golooba-Mutebi, Fred, Kanyongolo, Fidelis and O’Neil, Tam  (2007) ‘Neopatrimonial Politics, Decentralisation and Local Government: Uganda and Malawi in 2006’ Good Governance, Aid Modalities and Poverty Reduction: Linkages to the Millennium Development Goals and Implications for Irish Aid,  Research project (RP-05-GG) of  the Advisory Board for Irish Aid

• http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/4746.pdf

• Chhoeun, Sok and  Byrne (2008) ‘Citadel of Women’: strengthening female leadership in rural Cambodia’ in Gender & Development Vol. 16, No. 3, November 2008, Oxfam GB 2008

• Duncan, Christopher R. (2007) ‘Mixed Outcomes: The Impact of Regional Autonomy and Decentralization on Indigenous Ethnic Minorities in Indonesia’ in Development and Change 38(4): 711–733 (2007). Institute of Social Studies 2007 Blackwell Publishing, UK

• Eckardt, Sebastian (2007) ‘Political Accountability, Fiscal Conditions and Local Governance Performance- Cross- Sectional Evidence from Indonesia’ Institute of Local Public Finance Working Paper 02-2007  

• Fritzen, Scott A.  and Lim, Patrick W. O. (2006) ‘Problems and Prospects of Decentralization in Developing Countries’ LKY School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore

• Hadiz Vedi R. (2004) Decentralization and Democracy in Indonesia: A Critique of Neo-Institutionalist Perspectives in Development and Change 35(4): 697–718 (2004). # Institute of Social Studies 2004. Blackwell Publishing  UK

• Kauzya, John- Mary (2007) ‘Political Decentralization In Africa: Experiences of Uganda, Rwanda and South Africa’ Department of Economic and Social Affairs• United Nations

• Kiyaga-Nsubuga, John (2001) ‘Strengthening Democracy at the Local Level: A Survey of Some Critical Issues’, for the United Nations Public Administration Network (UNPAN).• http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN010201.pdf

• Selee, Tulehin and Oxhorn (2004) ed. ‘Decentralisation, Democratic Governance, and Civil Society in Comparative Perspective: Africa, Asia and Latin America’ Woodrow Wilson Centre Press, Washington D.C.

References (Cont.)

• Internal publications:• ‘Decentralisation Key Sheet’- Pro-poor Infrastructure Provision, Overseas Development Institute, on behald of DFID, UK. April

2002 found at:• http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/2327.pdf

• The Politics of Poverty: Elites, Citizens and States, A Synthesis Paper: Findings from ten years of DFID-funded research on Governance and Fragile States 2001–2010

• http://www.research4development.info/politicsofpoverty.asp

• CRISE Policy Briefing no. 3 ‘Federalism, Decentralisation and Horizontal Inequalities’  - University of Oxford, Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity (CRISE).

• http://www.research4development.info/PDF/Outputs/Inequality/policybriefing3.pdf

• ‘Building for the Future, Speaking Out, Promgramme Insights, Oxfam GB, Nov. 2008

• World Bank 2000: http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/decentralization/political.htm

•