Decentralization: A Conceptual Framework

Despite its growing popularity, the concept of decentralization is still dubiously used not only in the field of bureaucracy, but also in the academic world of both developed and developing nations. The various interpretations given to ‘decentralization’ during the last three decades are now fairly familiar to scholars and public administration practitioners. It is also widely accepted that these interpretations are closely linked to the context in which they are considered a public policy (Hye 1985:1, Shrestha 2000:58, Conyers 1985:22). In fact, the issue of decentralization lies at the very heart of the dominant contemporary theories of public administration and management (Pollitt et al. 1998). Fesler (1965) described that

It appears that decentralization is a simple term. Yet the appearance is deceiving and often leads to simplistic treatments that generalize too broadly, starting from a doctrinaire position of predetermining answers to concrete problems, or concentrating on a single phase of decentralization to the exclusion of others. Decentralization is a term of rich conceptual and empirical meanings; it can designate static fact and dynamic process; and it can also refer to pure ideal-type and to moderate incremental change. (in Lundquist 1972:1)

Parsons (1961) defines decentralization as sharing part of the governmental power of a central ruling group with other groups, each having authority within a specific area of the state. Mawhood (1987) defines decentralization oppositely, as the devolution of power from the central to the local government. To him, deconcentration as administrative decentralization, which is the transfer of responsibility from central to local government.

Mawhood further expresses his view that decentralization must be distinguished from

deconcentration. He claims that in the implementation of a deconcentration policy, the local government does not control its own budget, and a separate legal existence is granted authority to allocate substantial material resources for a range of different functions.

Smith (1985) clearly defines decentralization as the delegation of power, from top level to lower level, in a territorial hierarchy, which could be from the government within the state, or offices within a large organization. Smith further emphasizes the ‘transfer of power’

as a central issue of decentralization, although this transfer of power is not necessarily limited to within the governmental structure, but also to within other organizations, possibly private ones. Cheema and Rondinelli (1983) criticize Smith’s view, and they have more clearly stated that decentralization is the transfer of planning, decision-making or administrative authority from central government to its field organizations, local administrative units, semi-autonomous and parastatal organizations, local government or non-governmental organizations.

Cheema and Rondinelli’s definition of decentralization seems to be more comprehensive than others. This is because it does not only include government organizations, but also non-government organizations. Rondinelli himself has made it clear that he has paid more attention primarily to the technical, spatial and administrative aspects of decentralization. He believes that improvement in these aspects will immediately lead to the organizational development needed to provide a foundation for the participation in complex economies and policies (Rondinelli 1990). However, Rondinelli’s view of decentralization seems to undermine the territorial dimension of state power. The main constraint of Rondinelli’s definition is that it tends to exclude the transfer of power from the central to the peripheral state (Conyers 1986). Its attention is limited to territorial, as opposed to functional decentralization, thus excluding the transfer of authority from central to peripheral organizations at the national level, as for example, from a government department to a parastatal agency (Conyers 1985:22-23). Additionally, Rondinelli and others quietly ignore the other important dimension of decentralization, specifically that of people’s participation in state decision-making (Mohan and Stokke 2000).

The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) describes decentralization as one of the best means of promoting and enhancing local participatory development and as the best art of good governance. According to the DAC report, decentralization might promote efficiency, equity and political participation (OECD 1997). The UNDP also sees decentralization as a

46

way of enabling people to participate more directly in the governance system and can help empower people who were previously excluded from decision-making (UNDP 1997). These statements are basically related to the devolutionary⁷ form of decentralization that promotes direct participation and accountability, autonomy and periodic free elections. Since devolution involves the transfer of power to civil society, the subject is highly political and therefore, contextual aspects need to be taken into account before implementation.

Decentralization does not always meet the expectations concerning increased participation for all. This is greatly reflected in perceptions and its uses in different states and institutions. The World Bank Report (1997) states that the clearest and most important principle of decentralization is that the lowest level of government should provide public goods and services. Furthermore, it is claimed that decentralization should ensure the high quality of services (World Bank 1997). In this perspective, decentralization is administrative, rather than political.

However, it is insufficient to focus only on the technical and administrative aspects of decentralization. There is a lot of diversity that exists within a country in relation to wealth, gender, caste or class, ethnicity et cetera, something that influences the country’s power structure. Any kind of decentralization of the responsibility for planning and/or implementation alters the balance of power; it changes the extent to which particular individuals, groups or organizations influence both what is planned and what actually happens, and therefore the extent to which they benefit from development (Conyers 1990). Due to this, a transfer of the points of power to lower levels will have political consequences on civil society.

From the above notes, it can be said that the theoretical debate of the concept of decentralization discussed here can be broadly classified into two approaches; which are democratic decentralization⁸ and the liberal developmentalist approach. Smith can be regarded as one of the pioneers in the democratic decentralization approach. According to this approach, decentralization policies highlight local government as the institutional vehicle for promoting local democracy through political education, training in leadership, political

7 Devolution is another form of decentralization, which has also been discussed in the second section of this part.

8 Democratic decentralization means a meaningful authority devolved to local units of governance that are accessible and accountable to the local citizenry, who enjoy full political rights and liberty. It helps building popular participation into local governance, and thus the local government becomes more responsive to citizens’

desires and more effective in service delivery (see for details Blair 2000:21).

stability, local consultation and more effective public accountability (Siddiquee 1997, Smith 1985). The proponents of the liberal developmentalist approach are Maddick, Cheema and Rondinelli, Uphoff and Esmam, Conyers, Mawhood and UN agencies. This approach highlights the importance of decentralization for better organizational performance in providing goods and services effectively and efficiently, and in fostering rural development through direct participation of the people at the grassroots level.

Finally, in view of the above discussion, two major fundamental dimensions can be identified as pillars to define decentralization. They are: decentralization as a means, and decentralization as a philosophy. As a means, decentralization is a process of transferring functions and powers from central to local government units considering the socio-economic and political context of the localities. As a philosophy, it signifies the sharing of powers and functions between and among various levels of government and other public and private organizations as per the legal constitutional provision and other legal conditions. Therefore, in this study, the concept of decentralization has been considered both as a means and as a philosophy. The degree of authority and power that is transferred by the central government to the local institutions depends on the various types of decentralization, which are commonly known in the literature of public administration as forms of decentralization. Different forms of decentralization are discussed in the following text.