Possibilities for Social Transformation: As seen from the Activities of LORC Group 4 Fumihiko Saito Leader of Group 4, LORC

2 Background and Aims of Group 4‘s Activities: Participation The 1980s saw a significant shift from the top- down economic growth to the bottom-up human development - Emphasis on participation. Participatory development became a kind of “fashion” (and was often abused). But the importance of participation and social transformation came to be firmly recognized. However, it is not easy to sustain participation - “participation fatigue” to set in.

3 Background and Aims of Group 4‘s Activities: Decentralization Since the 1990s, after the end of Cold War, a world-wide trend toward democratization. Administration reforms to facilitate participation. Since the 1980s, through Structural Adjustment Lending, aid policy by international donor agencies has emphasized “small state”. Decentralization policy was initially considered “good in itself” and pursued uncritically by donors. Decentralization has been reconsidered and reevaluated empirically in recent years.

4 Research by Group 4 Asia: Indonesia, Kerala (India), Sri Lanka Africa: Uganda, Ghana, South Africa Comparative study with the actor perspective: To focus on actors and examine the dynamic relationships between different stakeholders.

5 Foundations for Local Governance: Decentralization in Comparative Perspective （ Springer, 2008 ）

6 Successful Example: Kerala, India  Social movements were led by civic leaders before the establishment of legal framework. One movement led to another. The background of high standard of education.  Public Administration also sought cooperation with the leaders of social movements. Establishment of partnerships became the must before the Constitution amended in 1993.

7 Uganda  In 1986, the current regime took power.  There was a institutional vacuum. A new broom theory.  The system of local council is firmly established. People recognize the role of village council.  However, the possibilities of transformation in localities may be declining due to the political change at the national level. Long-term dictatorship of the government. Reduction of foreign aid, due to the decline of confidence by the international community.  Decentralization came to be a tool of the government, and not intended for the good of society.

8 Conclusions of Foundations for Local Governance: Decentralization in Comparative Perspective  Decentralization is a redefinition of center and local relations, and a reconsidering of the roles of state, government, and administration in the process of “social transformation”. It does not mean that the smaller state is the better state.  Decentralization is in principle a political issue, and the success of one country cannot be simply transplanted/imported into another country.  Where does the motivation for decentralization come from? “Reforms” led by donors (outsider) is not successful.  What is decentralization for? Is it for the central interests? Or for localities?

9 Three Sectors Discourse Government Market Civil Society Public Sector Reform NPM Privatization, Expansion of Market Empowerment of the Poor

10 Necessity of Overall Coordination for Local Transformation  So far, reform and aid have been practiced separately in the following three sectors, without coordination. Decentralization for the public administration. Privatization and opening of markets. Grass-roots empowerment for citizens.  Locality is now expected to coordinate these three.  Decentralization is not an end in itself. The ultimate objective is to build a sustainable society in a society at large.

11 Limits of Three Sector Approach  Developmental Dictatorship in Asia The government is dominant, and private sector (markets) is dependent. Civil society is deactivated. The appropriate relationship between the three sectors cannot be maintained, and society as a whole is difficult to be sustained. This form of government played a certain role in history but cannot be legitimate in the contemporary world.  Neo-Patrimonial State in Africa Exploitation by the leader for his/her personal profit, and ruler-subordinate relation connected primarily by “rent”. The three sector approach itself is “modern” and does not fit for Africa.

12 Developmental Dictatorship in Asia  The government is dominating. The markets are dependent, and the civil society is curtailed by the govt. Govm’t Markets Civil Society The state determines the scope of civil society Crony Capitalism? There are unresolved issues such as the relations between decentralization and local economic development

13 Simplified Situation in Africa Government Market Civil Society Paradox of CivilSociety The state defines the scope of civil society. No “private” entrepreneurs even if privatized, and market is dominated by multi-national corporations based in Europe. Shift of the Forms : From the oligopoly by African government to the oligopoly byforeign multi-national corporations. Modern aspects: More dependence on the aid by overseas NGO etc. Traditional aspects: clan etc are active. The “private” andthe “civic” notdifferentiated. Paradox ： The government is “significantly authoritarian” and this is another side of its being “malfunctioning”. The government yet is “the most modern organization”.

14 Implication from Asia and Africa  Developmental Dictatorship in Asia: Similar to the old paradigm in Japan, which needs to be changed.  The current situation in Africa depicts difficulties of cross-sectoral partnerships.  The patron-client relations through rent is a perverted social capital.  Both Asia and Africa display the need for change.

15 Implication of the Conclusion  Vision for local transformation must be figured out.  A structure within which this vision is shared by stakeholders must be constructed.  Motivation for transformation must be sustained.  Those involved in transformation processes must not become those who has “ vested interests ” in the transformation itself. Bebbington and McCourt 2007

16 Overall Conclusion  It is essential to see government, markets and civil society not individually but in cross- cutting ways.  For partnerships/collaborations to work Both visions and supporting frameworks are needed A need to redefine “public interests” from a much broader cross-cutting perspective.  Japan, like other countries, is now facing a historic turning point in creating new form(s) of governance.  Usefulness of comparative discussions.