Different Forms of Decentralization

Decentralization can take a variety of forms depending on the nature of the government, local institutions and local context as well. The degree of authority to be transferred from the centre to the periphery also determines the selection of the forms of decentralization. Different forms of decentralization are found in the contemporary public administration literature. However, the most popularly used and known forms of decentralization have been given by Cheema and Rondinelli. They have given four major forms of decentralization: deconcentration, devolution, delegation and privatization (Cheema and Rondinelli 1983).

48

Deconcentration

Deceoncentration refers to the handing over of administrative or managerial responsibility to the field level civil servants of sub-national units within the line ministries or other sector specific national agencies (Martinussen 1997, Turner and Hulme 1997, Adamolekun 1991).

Simply, it can be defined as the transfer of authority and responsibility from the central level government organizations to their respective field level agencies. This form involves the redistribution of administrative responsibilities among the different levels of central government. It is often regarded as the shifting of the workload from the headquarters to the field staff, without transferring the final discretion. Under this arrangement, the local governance, that acts as the central government agent at the local level, enjoys and exercises a position of conferred authority. In fact, less significant powers are transferred to the local arms of the central government by administrative means, rather than by a legal arrangement (Conyers 1981).

Therefore, deconcentration units enjoy only limited discretion. Turner and Hulme argue that deconcentration can pursue the objective of technical efficiency leading to greater effectiveness, but not to popular participation (Turner and Hulme 1997). Mawhood (1987) has given the same argument. To him, “the hope of cracking open the blockages of central bureaucracy curing managerial constipation and stimulating the whole nation to participate in national development plans ends in chaos and bankruptcy.” Therefore, it is often considered to be the weakest form of decentralization. However, the basic features of deconcentration can be summarized (Shrestha 2000:66-67) as follows:

1. the deconcentrated agencies are located at the field level as agents of central government without autonomous status;

2. the relationship between the central government and deconcentrated agencies is based on the theory of the hierarchical pattern of power relationships;

3. the deconcentrated agencies are not free from the government’s central command system; and

4. the deconcentrated agencies have an intra-organizational pattern in their power relationship with the central government agencies.

Devolution

Devolution is recognized as one of the most important forms of decentralization. It is seen as the ideal form of decentralization, as it combines the promise of local democracy with technical efficiency (Turner and Hulme 1997). Devolution initiates the transfer of power to locally constituted political bodies (Siddiqui 2005, Wahhab 1996) with their own discretionary authority (Martinussen 1997). Riggs (1964) highlighted devolution as an alternative form of decentralization. To him, devolution is the full responsibility for policy determination in regard to specified subjects transferred to the recipient of authority (Riggs 1964:342).

Maddick (1963) defined devolution as “the legal conferring of powers to discharge specified or residual functions upon formally constituted local authorities.” Smith (1985) called this a democratic form of decentralization. Rondinelli, McCullough and Johnson (1989) recognized it as an organizational form of local government, which should be given autonomy and independence and be clearly perceived from a separate level, over which central authorities exercise little or no direct control (cited from Rahman and Khan 1997). Devolution uses legal means to create or strengthen sub-national units of governments outside the direct control of central government (Rondinelli and Neills 1986). Conyers (1987) defined devolution as the legal transfer of significant power, including law-making and revenue-raising, to the locally elected bodies. Cheema and Rondinelli (1983) identified the following five fundamental characteristics in explaining the pure form of devolution:

1. powers are transferred to autonomous units governed independently and separately without the direct control of the central government;

2. the units maintain control over a recognized geographical area;

3. each unit enjoys corporate status and power, enabling it to secure its own resources and to perform its functions;

4. devolution implies the need to develop local government institutions; and

5. it is an arrangement of a reciprocal, mutually beneficial and coordinative relationship between central and local government.

It can be said from the above characteristics that the local governments have recognized geographical boundaries, corporate status and are considered as separate levels of government. Thus, devolution is politically the most significant form of decentralization, as it

50

provides an opportunity for effective participation of the local people in the local level decision-making process, through the local government institutions elected by them. The effectiveness of devolution does not only strengthen the local government system as a whole, but it also promotes people’s participation in local development, which finally paves the way for good governance in developing countries.

Delegation

Delegation is another form of decentralization, which implies the transfer or creation of local authority to plan and implement decisions concerning specific activities or a variety of activities, within special boundaries of an organization that is technically and administratively capable of carrying them out without direct supervision by a higher administrative unit (Cheema and Rondinelli 1983). Some major characteristics of such delegation can be identified as follows (Shrestha 2000:67-68);

1. the delegation organizations are autonomous bodies with operational freedom;

2. delegation is used as a means of removing some important functions such as providing goods and services to the people, from normally inefficient government bureaucracies;

3. delegation is occasionally used as an instrument for maintaining public control over some highly profitable or valuable resources; and

4. it is the entrustment of powers and authority to be exercised by subordinate staff.

Thus, compared to deconcentration, delegation involves a transfer of power, although ultimate power remains in the hands of the central government. For example, many developing countries utilize this practice in the creation of boards, authorities, specific functions like water supply, power generation and distribution, agricultural development, rural development and road transport. Therefore, allowing the operational authority to be exercised by semi-autonomous agencies outside the normal ministerial structure is considered decentralization in the form of delegation. Hyden (1983) has described the expansion of parastatals in post-independence Africa. He holds the view that the combination of a strong desire to gain control of the national economy and the absence of strong pressure for extension of the private sectors from an indigenous capitalist class, have paved the way for an inordinate

expansion of parastatals, particularly in commercial and manufacturing sectors in many African countries (Siddiquee 1997:28).

Privatization

In many countries, the process of decentralization has been facilitated by the transfer of some planning and administrative responsibilities of public function from the government to private or voluntary agencies. Parallel organizations of the state, such as trade associations, professional organizations, civil society, political parties, cooperative and other voluntary agencies, shoulder responsibilities, normally performed exclusively by the government. Thus, privatization is the shift of certain responsibilities from the public sector to the profit and non-profit oriented private sectors, commonly known as NGOs, and the greater interaction between the private and public sectors (Siddiqui 2000:6). From the macro perspective, it implies a wide range of policies and actions to encourage private sector participation in public service provision and to eliminate or modify the monopoly status of public enterprises (Rondinelli and Kasarda 1993, Vickers and Yarrow 1988 in Sarker 2003:527).

It has already mentioned that the private sector and NGOs play a significant role in the rural and local development of many developing countries in Asia and Africa (Hossain 2001, Wamai 2004, Dhakal 2002, Orjuela 2003). They operate schools, health clinics, et cetera, and also provide production facilities to small-scale farmers. In fact, foreign and local NGOs of various types are now in operation in the third world on a much larger scale than ever before.

Aid agencies strongly argued that private sector enterprises can play a crucial role in fostering economic growth. They also argue that non-government organizations have a potentially important role in achieving equitable development, and thus many governments in developing countries have pursued a privatization and deregulation policy (Asaduzzaman 1999, Cook and Kirkpatrick 1988 in Siddiquee 1997). As a form of decentralization, privatization can take place on two levels: the central and the local level. The functions and responsibilities of the state can be transferred by the central government or by the local government institutions to the private sector or other parallel organizations (Shrestha 2000:69).

These four types of decentralization have different effects on the organizational structure, the degree of transferred power, the amount of people’s participation and the preconditions for successful implementation. Devolution seems to be the most acceptable form

52

of decentralization, as long as one is concerned with the notions of ‘democratization’,

‘debureaucratization’ ‘participation’ and ‘partnership’ in the development process (Rahman 1997:517). In fact, the devolutionary type of decentralization has been placed in immense priority, with the advent of the new paradigm of governance in both developed and developing nations. Good governance proponents state that devolution promises a more effective, efficient and accountable government system, it ensures people’s participation in the local development process, and it improves the quality of services delivered (Sarker 2006:525). However, it is found that most of the developing countries in Asia and Africa apply a combination of these four forms of decentralization in their state policy (Cheema and Rondinelli 1983). Their government structure is a combination of all these four forms, with an emphasis put on the difference in the degree of authority transferred to the decentralized units depending on the country, region and society. However, Conyers has identified five basic factors⁹ that should be considered during the selection of a decentralization policy. These factors are important because they are more local, cultural and contextual in nature. They might help the state policy makers in selecting the right form, for the right place, at the right time.

The above presents the overall critical view of the concept of decentralization, and its different forms are presented. However, the discussion of decentralization will remain incomplete without discussing its rationale, importance and drawbacks. So the following texts deal with its justifications and limitations in the light of developing countries.