Presentation on theme: "Decentralisation and accountable participatory governance Ciara Aucoin, Colm Moloney and Wahidullah Stanikzai Masters in Development Practice."— Presentation transcript:
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 Decentralisation Approach to decentralisation Institutional Legal Framework Key ActorsOpportunities for citizen engagement Example Country Deconcentrati on 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 DevolutionFormal ArrangementsKey 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 Leaders Motivations National Institutional Arrangements Local Government Space for Public Participation Power Relations Accountability Capacity Local Gov. Power Relations Local State- Society relations Outcomes Local Gov. Interests Local Gov. Capacity Civil Society Capacity Civil Society Power Relations 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 Leaders Motivations National Institutional Arrangements Power Relations Capacity 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 Space for Public Participation Accountability Local Gov. Power Relations Local State- Society Arrangements Local Gov. Interests Local Gov. Capacity Civil Society Capacity Civil Society Power Relations Civil Society Interests Shaping the outcomes of Decentralisation Outcomes
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 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 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 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). 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: 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 CRISE Policy Briefing no. 3 ‘Federalism, Decentralisation and Horizontal Inequalities’ - University of Oxford, Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity (CRISE). ‘Building for the Future, Speaking Out, Promgramme Insights, Oxfam GB, Nov World Bank 2000: