The Downside of Decentralization: Armed Clientelism in Colombia

Abstract

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution , reselling , loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations

“…Decentralisation may exacerbate the conflict in divided societies, as highlighted by Eaton (2006) for the Columbian case. However, there are examples in which decentralisation fosters democracy.…”

Decentralization as a conflict transformation tool: The challenge in Kosovo

“…Decentralization distributes power between the central and local levels of government, affording sub‐ordinate groups the opportunity to exercise a degree of political authority over themselves within local or regional jurisdictions. As a result, decentralization decreases the prospects for central government domination and increases the stake of less powerful groups in the political system (Eaton, 2006: 534). This political bargain accommodates splinter groups without compromising the boundaries or territorial claims of nation‐states.…”

“…Skeptics counter that decentralization does little to assuage conflict, and may actually increase volatility. Drawing on Colombia's experience, Eaton (2006: 537) argues that decentralization weakens the central state because it threatens the government's monopoly on the use of force and can create new bases for grievances. As the central government transfers power and resources to local levels, these assets can be used to finance further attacks on the national state or rival groups.…”

“…Particularly for territories close to international borders, secession is a likely outcome (Turner, 2006); the de facto partition of northern Kosovo is thus not surprising. In addition, the sequencing of reforms, with decentralization preceding the establishment of an independent central government in Kosovo, meant that local authorities had the upper hand in maintaining security in their territory, threatening the central government's monopoly on the legitimate means of violence (Eaton, 2006: 561).…”

“…Skeptics counter, however, that decentralization may exacerbate tensions if a shift in powers re‐inforces ethnic identity (Turner, 2006), strengthens regional political parties (Brancati, 2006), or threatens the central state's monopoly on force (Eaton, 2006). Greater concessions granted to minorities may set off further conflict with the majority population (Schou and Haug, 2005; Eaton, 2006; Siegle and O'Mahony, 2007).…”