Decentralization in Tanzania: Design and Application in Planning Decisions

Abstract

Every state copes with the question of which level of government should bear responsibility for social services such as health care and education. Tanzania is no exception. The current government infrastructure of Tanzania is based on the principle of Decentralization by Devolution (DbyD) and can be seen as a reaction to previous structures based on centralized de-concentration. This article reviews the decentralization as designed in the DbyD policy and its application in planning decisions by assessing the involvement of local communities in decision making, based on a case study in two primary facilities. The conclusion is that even though policy states a strong decentralized government, in reality central preferences dominate the decision-making. Wishes expressed in local plans are ignored in the planning procedure. The article identifies the factors that contribute to this central influence and concludes with reviewing the value of decentralization policy in Tanzania and other developing countries.

Understanding the implementation of Direct Health Facility Financing and its effect on health system performance in Tanzania: a non-controlled before and after mixed method study protocol

“…Evaluations of fiscal decentralisation in the health sector in other countries have lacked emphasis regarding how such reforms have affected health system outcomes. Systematic assessment of the implementation processes of the reforms has also been lacking [16–21]. Moreover, in sub-Saharan African settings, there is limited evidence about process evaluations that combine both impact evaluation and assessment of the implementation processes, in particular considering the fact that DHFF is a new concept on trials within the region [22, 23].…”

The Implementation of Decentralization Reform Policy in Tanzania: The Case of Singida Municipality

“…The main aim was not only to scrap the British local government structures but also to strength local government and ensure local participation in local governance system. This decentralization reform policy re-established much stronger local authorities with more popular participation, meaning they were more representative of local population (Mollel and Tollenaar, 2013).…”

Forms of decentralization and their implications for educational accountability in Tanzania

“…Many governments worldwide tend to identify decentralization as a key focus of their efforts towards strengthening national unity, reconciliation, enhancing governments’ accountability to their citizens, and promoting service delivery ( World Bank, 2018 ; Kigume and Maluka, 2018 ). In every state system, government authorities are, to some extent, dispersed over several governmental bodies, and this spread of authorities seems to be inevitable ( Mollel and Tollenaar, 2013 ). Indeed, decentralization seems to be an appealing alternative to centralized states, given a range of benefits associated with it ( Demas and Arcia, 2015 ).…”

“…It is further argued that decentralization integrates and facilitates checks and balances concerning service provision in society ( Winkler, 1994 ; Gaynor, 1998 ; Brosio, 2000 ; World Bank, 2003 ; Galiani et al., 2008 ; Gropello, 2007 ; Muriisa, 2008 ; Massoi and Norman, 2010 ; Demas and Arcia, 2015 ; Kigume and Maluka, 2018 ). Even in the most centralized systems, such as France, China, and Japan, there is a push to decentralize governmental activities and decision-making power ( Mollel and Tollenaar, 2013 ). However, as observed by Mollel and Tollenaar (2013) , having a fully decentralized government system for the services provided to the citizens is quite impossible because the reallocation of public means and resources within a country requires a certain level of coordination from the central office.…”