Decentralization Course March The Politics of Decentralization: Some Lessons from Africa Stephen N. Ndegwa PRMPS March 29, 2004

Decentralization Course March Purpose Try to understand different pathways to decentralization, especially the political dynamics of the process Address imbalance between technical and political analysis Narrow pre-occupation with ‘big bang’ vs. incremental reform –universe of cases too broad & varied, ‘catch-all’ –closer attention and differentiation based on the state-society context that reform confronts

Decentralization Course March Background Significant decentralization reform since ‘80s 2002 World Bank study, 13 of 30 African countries showed high/moderate decentralization 13 showed at least some decentralization, with several in the process of change Yet, reform process and results varied & underlying processes not fully understood

Decentralization Course March Framework Framework for Assessing the Politics of Decentralization

Decentralization Course March Findings from Uganda, Senegal, and Malawi Uganda as advanced case (1986) Senegal as least advanced (1960/66/72/96) Malawi as middle (‘at threshold’) case (1993/4)

Decentralization Course March

7 Three Themes & Five Concluding Propositions The enabling environment for decentralization reform The design of decentralization for efficiency and stability The dynamics of decentralization and empowerment for accountability

Decentralization Course March Proposition I The enabling environment for decentralization 3 enabling political conditions are necessary:  sufficient fluidity in the macro-political discourse for agenda of state restructuring  powerful political coalition with incentive and authority to push through policies  community/stakeholders engaged, supportive, responsive to devolution First conclusion: in most settings, most of the time, movement towards decentralization will, at most, be incremental

Decentralization Course March Proposition II The design of decentralization Uganda and most of Latin America: political momentum led, with technocratic fine- tuning catching up = more effective outcome Malawi, Senegal and possibly Philippines: technical dimensions, modest political dynamics => ineffective reform Second conclusion: efforts to support movement towards decentralization should focus at least as much on the process of building coalitions of support, as on the details of technical design; technical designs cannot overcome political dynamics that over-ride institutions

Decentralization Course March Proposition III Decentralization is the result of the give- and-take among political elites this give-and-take engages diverse interests, visions, and strategies for taking advantage of ‘windows of opportunity’ Third conclusion: the process invariably will be a messy one, with uneven movement across different dimensions of decentralization, and an uneven, stop-start rhythm; once installed decentralization becomes part of political landscape…like other institutions

Decentralization Course March Proposition IV Dynamics of decentralization and empowerment Broader perspective: decentralization/systematic reforms of intergovernmental systems is one way Countries embarking on a process of deepening democracy vary in relative feasibility and efficacy of these alternatives Fourth conclusion: reformers should not presume decentralization always the preferred alternative in the short- and medium-term

Decentralization Course March Proposition V Short/medium-term accountability options vary in institutional sustainability Institutional coherence and ‘lock-in’ potential make decentralization advantageous/possibly more sustainable Fifth conclusion: reformers should ensure vision of a democratically decentralized polity comprises the long-run backdrop – guiding ‘north star’– on which pragmatic short- and medium-term strategies/accommodations should converge over the longer-term

Decentralization Course March Two Implications: Political Accountability Re-Aligning the Center

Decentralization Course March Political Accountability Contested elections Open budget process with formalized citizen participation (all levels) Citizens committees or boards monitor service providers Formal participation in development planning National support –Capacity building to empower these processes –Monitoring shows deviations from norms

Decentralization Course March Re-Aligning the Center Transform from administrator to support Disengage from direct service delivery Set Standards, Oversight Equalization and equal development Coordination (e.g. HIV AIDS, crises) True National Public Goods Macro-political environment must be conducive Overall: Reforming Role of the State

Decentralization Course March Thank You!