Theories and Concepts of Local Government Presented by Dr. AMM Shawkat Ali

Local government is one of the means to achieve the ends of decentralization. It is thus linked to the broad concept and practice of decentralization. The concept is also based on devolution of legal authority on territorial basis. It may also include exercise of administrative functions. The above is rooted in the premise that not everything can or should be done from the centre. The rationale for such a belief appears to be, apart from practical difficulties of governance in far flung areas, it is necessary and desirable to ensure participation of local people through institutions in the process of governance.

Typologies of territorial sharing of power in most countries depends on the structure of central government. Broadly, the structure may either be federal or unitary or a mixture of both. USA and India are examples of federal structure. Under this structure, the constituent states form part of the federal or central government. At the same time, the states have separate legislatures that form the centre of governance. These are not called local governments but are known as state governments. The sharing of responsibilities and authority for local governance are broadly defined in the constitutions of a given country. Below the state governments lie the local government. They are generally elected councils that perform wide range of functions. The degree of autonomy enjoyed by the local governments depends on the country’s heritage, administrative and political development. Generally, it can be said that in developed countries local governments enjoy lot of autonomy. The local governments also enjoy powers of taxation in specific fields.

Theories of decentralization The interpretations of decentralization discussed are those of Fesler, Conyers and Rondinelli. Fesler views decentralization as a complex issue, both as a concept and in practice; he looks at it from four perspectives: decentralization as a doctrine, as political process in a given political setting, as an administrative problem, and finally as an administrative process involving forced choices and changes in the function and area-based administration, and between the regulatory (law and order) and development functions of appointed and elected officials.

Conyers, like Fesler, notes that discussion on decentralization can easily become confused because of analytical problems surrounding the concept of decentralization. Conyers accepts the definition of decentralization by Rondinelli, that is, as the transfer of “authority to plan, make decisions and manage public functions” from the national level to any individual, organization, or agency at the sub-national level. It is at the same time pointed out by Conyers that the definition limits attention to “territorial” as opposed to “functional” decentralization. It excludes the question of transfer of authority from central to peripheral organizations at the national level, for example from a government department to a parastatal agency.

On the question of the relationship between centralization and decentralization, Conyers, Rondinelli, Faltas, and others appear to echo the views of Fesler in asserting that both “centralization” and “decentralization” should be regarded as processes of change, rather than as fixed poles. It is further argued that it is not possible to envisage a totally decentralized system of government, and finally that centralization and decentralization can take place simultaneously.

Rondinelli, Nellis, and Cheema have reviewed the recent experiences of decentralization in developing countries, finding that objectives of decentralization may be broadly categorized into (a) administrative and management, and (b) political. The political objective assumes that local government or administrative units can provide an effective channel of communication between the national government and local communities. It further assumes that “greater participation in development planning and management supposedly promotes national unity by giving groups in different regions in a country a greater ability to participate in planning and decision making, and thus increases their stake in maintaining political stability.” Rondinelli, Nellis, and Cheema have reviewed the recent experiences of decentralization in developing countries, finding that objectives of decentralization may be broadly categorized into (a) administrative and management, and (b) political. The political objective assumes that local government or administrative units can provide an effective channel of communication between the national government and local communities. It further assumes that “greater participation in development planning and management supposedly promotes national unity by giving groups in different regions in a country a greater ability to participate in planning and decision making, and thus increases their stake in maintaining political stability.”

Administrative and management objectives mainly rely on the deconcentration of authority to appointed officials to quickly react to unanticipated problems. It is important, however, to point out that the line of difference between political and management and administrative objectives is often, in the real world of government, very thin indeed.

Rondinelli, Nellis, and Cheema view decentralization as an “ideological principle associated with objectives of self- reliance, democratic decision making, popular participation in government, and accountability of public officials to citizens.” In this they appear to differ from the line reasoning advanced by Fesler, who cautions against a doctrinal approach and in fact rejects it. He also does not accept the argument that decentralization contributes to democratic decision making. He finds that in the doctrinal approach “there is a tendency to link, then merge and confuse, decentralization and democracy.”

It is argued that insofar as developing countries are concerned the typologies of devolution, deconcentration, delegation, and privatization may not truly reflect the underlying objectives of decentralization that a give country adopts. This has been shown by Conyers in the case of Zambia. Rondinelli has accepted the fact there can be one or a combination of objectives and forms of decentralization. He has further argued that ultimately decentralization is a political decision, “and its implementation a reflection of a country’s political process.” Conyer’s arguments, centering on the objectives of decentralization, also support the overwhelmingly political connotation inherent in any effort at decentralization. It is argued that insofar as developing countries are concerned the typologies of devolution, deconcentration, delegation, and privatization may not truly reflect the underlying objectives of decentralization that a give country adopts. This has been shown by Conyers in the case of Zambia. Rondinelli has accepted the fact there can be one or a combination of objectives and forms of decentralization. He has further argued that ultimately decentralization is a political decision, “and its implementation a reflection of a country’s political process.” Conyer’s arguments, centering on the objectives of decentralization, also support the overwhelmingly political connotation inherent in any effort at decentralization.

Thank you