Decentralization as a Post‐Conflict Stabilization Tool: The Case of Sierra Leone

Abstract

Summary Sierra Leone's experience with decentralization as a post‐conflict stabilization tool highlights both the value of making and keeping a promise to empower citizens through local government and the importance of fully implementing that promise over a longer time horizon. The emergence of the country from civil conflict into peace and stability is one of the greatest success stories of post‐conflict stabilization. Although the nation has enjoyed over a decade of peace (and peaceful transitions from party to party), many of the conditions that laid the groundwork for conflict remain, especially in rural areas, due to the partial implementation of the decentralization framework. Based on a post‐conflict perspective, we review the re‐emergence of local governments in Sierra Leone following the civil war, the institutional and legal framework within which they exist, and some of the remaining challenges the nation faces. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Decentralized governance and collective action dilemma: Sub‐national governments' responses to COVID‐19 in China

“…The first strand discussed the general impacts of decentralization in various country settings. While some suggested that decentralization could be an effective tool for enhancing local accountability and creating more responsive governance institutions (Crook, 2003; Edwards & Yilmaz, 2016; Yan and Xin, 2017), some others showed that decentralization had not enhanced subnational government responsiveness as expected, especially in weak states (Lewis, 2014; Wunsch, 2013; Xin et al, 2022). A mixed effect of decentralization on governance has also been evinced in empirical studies more broadly (Faguet, 2014; Treisman, 2007).…”

“…Second, our application and extension of the decentralized governance framework speak to the debate on the effects of decentralization on government performance (Crook, 2003; Edwards & Yilmaz, 2016; Erkoreka & Hernando‐Perez, 2022; Qian & Mok, 2016; Wunsch, 2013) by offering three novel observations on the Chinese local government responses to COVID‐19. It unveiled an inherent incentive‐information asymmetry between the central and local authorities that underlies the government's responses to the outbreak in its early stage.…”

“…Second, our application and extension of the decentralized governance framework speak to the debate on the effects of decentralization on government performance (Crook, 2003;Edwards & Yilmaz, 2016;Erkoreka & Hernando-Perez, 2022;Qian & Mok, 2016;Wunsch, 2013) The third contribution of the paper is its documentation of a distinct manifestation of institutional collective action dilemmas in the context of a decentralized governance system in coordinating pandemic responses and policies. This paper posits that the dilemmas can only be effectively resolved through re-centralization (Cai & Treisman, 2006;Li, 2010).…”

The Formation of the New Autonomous Region of Papua and Welfare Guarantees in the Decentralization Policy

“…Decentralization is one of the stabilization strategies. Studies showed that decentralization can prevent and reduce conflicts, especially those caused by ethnic problems (Edwards & Yilmaz, 2016). However, in the context of Papua, the decentralization implemented resulted in a different outcome because the decentralization failed to accommodate the interests of the Papuan people, both in terms of welfare and conflict resolution with separatist groups in Papua (Lele, 2021).…”

Transition to Federalism in Nepal

“…By summarizing the lessons learned from Nepal's transition to a federal system, the paper contributes to multidisciplinary literature on the relationship between conflict and decentralization; capacity and decentralization; sequencing of decentralization reforms and determinants of success in public service reforms. In terms of conflict and decentralization, despite the disagreement in the literature about the sustainability of peace and effectiveness of decentralization as a post-conflict stabilization tool, the consensus seems to be that a lot depends on the country context (Dickovick, 2014;Edwards & Yilmaz, 2016). This paper employs qualitative methods for better understanding of the country context in the implementation of federalism and asses the durability of new federal institutions to safeguard the peace dividends of the new system.…”