Promoting African decentralization

Abstract

The decentralization efforts begun by many Sub‐Saharan African (SSA) countries in recent years have been undermined by a number of factors, including: (a) delegation of authority to field staff (deconcentration) rather than to locally elected leaders (devolution); (b) the impact of the one‐party system; (c) the financial weaknesses of local governments; and (d) inadequate monitoring of local government expenditures. The experiences of Kenya and Nigeria illustrate decentralization problems in countries of Sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA). Research and training are priorities that deserve more attention by SSA governments and by bilateral and multilateral donors.

Municipal politics and forest governance: Comparative analysis of decentralization in Bolivia and Guatemala

“…The literature that discusses the problems with an unfunded local government mandate includes Adamolekun (1991), Smoke (2003), Prud'homme (1994), Parry (1997), Mello (2000), Crook and Manor (1998), Agrawal and Ribot (1999), Blair (2000), Bird and Vaillancourt (1999), Bahl andLinn (1994), andBahl (1999). Some critics even warn that central governments can use the guise of decentralization to extend rather than diminish their authority (e.g., Gibson, 1999;Murombedzi, 2001).…”

Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective

“…Central governments may even use the guise of de jure decentralization policies to extend their de facto centralized authority (e.g., Gibson 1999;Murombedzi 2001), or to pass off a costly policy to subunits without the necessary administrative support (Adamolekun 1991;Agrawal and Ribot 1999;Bahl 1999;Bird and Vaillancourt 1999;Blair 2000;Crook and Manor 1998;Gibson 1999;de Mello 2000;Parry 1997;Prud'homme 1994). But many of these studies do not use subnational data to examine the variable effects of decentralization, even in places where such reforms have devolved extensive governance responsibilities and resources to local actors.…”

“…Previous research has suggested that a major constraint for effective decentralized decision making is that central governments rarely give up enough power or provide sufficient support to local authorities (Adamolekun 1991;Agrawal and Ribot 1999;Bahl 1999;Bird and Vaillancourt 1999;Blair 2000;Crook and Manor 1998;Gibson 1999;de Mello 2000;Parry 1997;Prud'homme 1994;Smoke 2003). Central governments may even use the guise of de jure decentralization policies to extend their de facto centralized authority (e.g., Gibson 1999;Murombedzi 2001), or to pass off a costly policy to subunits without the necessary administrative support (Adamolekun 1991;Agrawal and Ribot 1999;Bahl 1999;Bird and Vaillancourt 1999;Blair 2000;Crook and Manor 1998;Gibson 1999;de Mello 2000;Parry 1997;Prud'homme 1994).…”

Decentralisation And Privatisation Of Education In Africa: Which Option For Nigeria?

“…This policy rhetoric-versus-reality problem has been documented for Nigeria (Geo-JaJa and Mangum 2003) and for Kenya (Adamolekun 1991). It should come as no surprise that decentralisation has done little to give voice and empowerment to people or to build community capabilities, as these were not its intended objectives.…”