Why is it that political leaders find it difficult to implement policies of devolution or

democratic decentralization and instead adopt deconcentration even though the former is

universally considered the better principle of governance and is imbued with several social,

economic and political benefits?

Introduction

Decentralization has become a buzzword for politicians, policy makers, political

scientists, journalists etc. all over the world. And its use in more cases has become synonymous

with good governance and development. This wave of approval is not unrelated to the conviction

that decentralization makes modern states developmental, prosperous, and democratic. It is a

strategy of reform and upgradei in statecraft especially in post colonial Africa. Some protagonists

view decentralization as an approach to achieving efficiency and effectiveness in the apparatus

of state, deepen democracy, and strengthen the developmental state.

However this accepted qualities of decentralization lead to pertinent questions due to the

assumptions that gird the concept. Decentralization is based on the assumption that local

community leaders will be benevolent and wise; that communities have available to themselves a

vision, and effective and managerial personnel; that local leaders will always choose policies that

are of economic and social benefit to the community; and that the objectives and activities of the

local administration will not counter those of the central government.

These assumptions raise issues: Regional and local identities could be projected to a point

of mobilization leading to ethnic conflicts; secessionist forces could be intensified; local elites

could hijack local authority for selfish interests? These questions have ramification for local

governance.

1
 Even though decentralization is hailed by both practitioners and political scientists as

pertinent to national development, in practice, politicians and policy makers find it prudent to

implement policies that increasingly keep the joystick of governmental power firmly in the hand

of the central government. In most post colonial African countries including Ghana, the practice

of decentralization belie the eulogy it receives at the hand of political leaders. Even though,

political leaders are aware of the benefits of democratic decentralization or devolution, they are

more comfortable implementing policies of administrative decentralization or deconcentration.

The reasons may be varied. But they broadly relate to political expediency on the part of

political leaders, or to reasons of systemic in-capabilities bordering on weak state and national

structures. Interestingly all political leaders who find it wise to substitute devolution policies for

deconcentration point to nation-building and weak state apparatuses as the driving forces. But

before I venture into the reasons why political leaders find it difficult to implement policies of

devolution or democratic decentralization and instead adopt deconcentration even though the

former is universally considered the better principle of governance and is imbued with several

social, economic and political benefits, I need to delineate for the purpose of this essay the

definitions of decentralization, deconcentration, devolution, and governance.

Decentralization

Decentralization defies any simplistic definition due to its complexity and varied

dimensions. In a generic sense, it refers to the transfer of authority and responsibility to do public

functions or services from central government to subordinate units.

In modern states, the exercise of governmental authority by political leaders involves

sharing power for managing public policy in a state. Governmental power, to be exercised needs

to be stretched and extended to the local and grassroots level through delegation. By delegating

2
and sharing authority, central government hopes to augment its relevance and to secure

compliance and legitimacy at the local level. The pursuit of, and implementation of central

government policy at the local level or the grassroots is referred to as local governance. In a

nutshell, the essence of decentralization is effective, efficient and legitimate local government.

In a more restrictive and technical sense, decentralization refers to the territorial

distribution of power. It is concerned with the extent to which authority is dispersed through the

geographical hierarchy of the state, and the institutions and processes through which such

dispersal occurs[ CITATION Jos08 \l 1033 ]. It is a political process which leads to a subdivision of a

state’s territory into smaller units and the creation of political and administrative institutions for

the exercise of authority.

The structures, institutions and processes that determine the relationships between the

central and local governments, on one side and that between the local government and the local

people on the other, establish the extent and manifestation of decentralization. Some cases may

be referred to as political or democratic decentralization (which is the classic kind of

decentralization advocated by development experts), whilst others are administrative

decentralization (preferred by political leaders especially in developing countries).

Devolution and Deconcentration

Devolution and deconcentration are both manifestations of decentralization, but they

exhibit essential differences which have repercussions for local governance. Devolution refers to

a state system which necessitates the transfer of authority, responsibility to decide on specified

functions and duties, instruments to garner resources (fiscal and human), and accountability from

central to local government units. This transfer of authority and responsibility is effected by a

constitutional mandate or necessary instruments for the mobilization of financial, human and

3
logistical wherewithal needed by the local authority. Inherent in devolution is the transfer of

accountability from the central to the local government. Political decentralization is effected by

constitutional provisions that detail what power and functions are reserved for central

government, and those allocated to the local government. Ayee [ CITATION Jos08 \n \t \l 1033 ]

points out that the relationship between central government and peripheral institutions in a

democratic decentralization model is of partnership and cooperation, not of principal-agent or

master-servant. Similarly a properly devolved authority situation in the statecraft results in a self-

governing local authority that gravitates toward good governance and democracy. These

attributes include responsiveness, accountability, representativeness and enhanced participation

by locals, and autonomy and pro-activeness of local authority.

Political decentralization also refers to opening up of the political arena to actors in the

society (i.e. civil society agencies) who hitherto lacked the opportunity to be part of the authority

structure in a country. It entails a shift from narrow based and restrictive political structures

(single party or military rule) to a notion of political pluralism evidenced by a multi party

democracy. The proximity and relevance of local authority to the locality engenders interaction

and increases participation by community members. This goes a long way to enhance democracy

and development at the local level. Local self governance which is the key embodiment of

decentralization refers to a system of rule which allows residents or the people of a defined micro

area to become the key decision makers for determining what their priority concerns are and how

to address these concerns.

A classic model of decentralization should establish a local authority body which is

constitutionally separate from central government and should be responsible for a significant

range of activities. It needs to have the capabilities of raising its own revenue, draw a budget,

4
hire and fire its staff, and constitute an assembly of councilors elected by the local community in

a democratic way.

Deconcentration on the other hand refers to a central administration strategy that aims at

reducing congestion at central bureaucracies. It is a process whereby the administrative

structures which are concentrated in the central government delegate some responsibility to do

certain functions within the lower territories. Ayee [ CITATION Jos08 \n \t \l 1033 ] describes

deconcentration thus; ‘…it is an internal form of delegation of responsibilities among officials of

the same organization, and involves the strengthening of field administrative organizations

within the public service of a country’. It usually requires the transfer or redeployment of

personnel referred to as field officers to the subordinate units which are regarded as outstations

of the central office. They (field officers) embark on their mission with a catalogue of

instructions detailing what is to be done, how it should be done, and with what resources.

Usually the resources are provided by the central government and tied to a lofty list of

conditionality and caveats. For functions deconcentrated or delegated, the central government

still retained absolute responsibility and accountability. The field officers only carry out

instructions and habitual clerical tasks, but have no power, enterprise or capital. It is important to

note that the decision by central government to implement devolution or deconcentration policies

have repercussions for local governance.

Governance and Local Governance

Governance refers to the interactive processes through which state and societal actors

reciprocate and probe for consensus on the rules of the political game [ CITATION Gor92 \p 30 \l

1033 ]. It also involves the conscious management of regime structures with a view to enhancing

the legitimacy of the public realm[ CITATION Gor921 \p 7 \l 1033 ] . Governance according to the

5
United Nations Development Program UNDP is the ‘…exercise of economic, political, and

administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels. It comprises the mechanisms,

processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise

their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences’[ CITATION UND97 \p 12

\n \t \l 1033 ] . It is a process engendered by the needs of society and the response by the

members of the society to these needs in a fashion that determines the proper management of the

society. It involves a series of reiterative activities that engage both the governed and the

government in perpetual encounter, acquiescence, and compromise to ensure the development of

society. Governance is an approach to the administration of society. It is distinct from that kind

of administration associated with the military or primordial societies for instance, where

commands are issued from a higher authority and all that is expected of the subordinate is

obedience; a unilateral asymmetrical power relationship. But a conscious management of regime

structures with a view to enhancing the legitimacy of the public realm is a hallmark of

governance.

Local Government refers to an agency organized to provide and supervise administrative,

fiscal, and other services to the people who reside within its territorial boundaries. It is the level

of government most directly accountable to the public [ CITATION Mic07 \l 1033 ] . In Ghana local

government consist of metropolitan, municipal and district assemblies.

The process of governance at the lowest levels is what is meant by local governance.

Local governance therefore refers to decentralizing government and its functions from the center

to the local or grassroots level.

Deconcentration versus devolution

6
 The distinction between devolution and deconcentration is based on the British and the

United States systems of government where there is identifiable difference between the two. In

Africa including Ghana the distinction is less lucid. Decentralization policies introduced in the

early 1970s in Tanzania, and Ghana left analysts guessing what model was being

implemented[ CITATION Dia89 \l 1033 ].

Even though political decentralization is imbued with a lot of social, economic and

political benefits, it has been shortchanged and in its place deconcentration policies have held

sway in most developing countries including Ghana. One of the positive returns of devolution

includes the promotion of democracy. In the democratic realm decentralization is seen as the

surest way for widening the political space or providing opportunities for the citizens to

participate in local decision making process. Diana Conyers [ CITATION Dia89 \n \t \l 1033 ]

credits decentralization with three potential benefits that help in deepening democracy;

Participation, speed and flexibility, and co-ordination. She emphasizes that decentralization can

facilitate popular planning both in the planning and implementation of development activities,

thereby not only creating a more democratic society but also making projects and programs more

relevant to local needs and demands. This engenders local commitment and in some cases,

contributions in the form of money and man power.

Whereas democracy is enhanced under devolution, under deconcentration, the democratic

arena is contracted and more power concentrated at the center. Several reasons abound to explain

this. Much as decentralization enhances democracy it also provides fertile ground for the

festering of centrifugal forces in the form of sectional conflict which can escalate into full-blown

ethnic conflict or civil war. So most African leaders after independence preferred not to

relinquish authority to plan, make decisions, and manage public functions and affairs at the local

7
level to people they cannot keep close. The structures were created for local governance after

independence through several reform measures including decentralization. But government after

government, regime after regime all reserved the real powers to decide and implement policy at

the center.

At the local level, where policies of devolution are implemented by the central

government, political learning which translates into enhanced state capacity at the local and

national levels is aided. Alexis de Tocqueville commented on American democracy over a

century ago that the United States local government system is critical in the training of both

leaders and citizens in democracy. He continues that the local government system is to national

government what the primary school is to the university. This means that local governance

serves as training ground for future national leaders. But the situation has been different in the

third world including Ghana. The agitation for regional autonomy advocated by the National

Liberation Movement (NLM); the irredentist tendencies of the Togoland Congress (TC), and the

parochial interests sort by the Northern Peoples Party (NPP) and the Ga Shifimo Kpeh (Ga Stand

Fast Party), in the twilight years colonial rule fed into CPP decision to retain all powers at the

center and employ deconcentration policies to keep a united new nation after independence.

It is also safe to presuppose that devolution enhances social cohesion as all members of

the state have a role to play in the decision making process. Again decisions taken at the local

level are more relevant to the community as it gives opportunity to people who are familiar with

the problems of the community to shape development projects. However the realities have been

different form the ideal. This departure from the ideal or classic decentralization could not be

decoupled from the fear of presiding over a system of government that could lead to

disintegration. To forestall a breakup of the fledgling independent Ghana for instance, Kwame

8
Nkrumah and the Convention Peoples Party (CPP) implemented policies that reined in all power

and authority to central government. The project of nation building (getting all citizens to be

loyal to the republic rather than to their ethnic or clan affiliations) informed most of the

centralization of government authority that took place immediately after independence.

Deconcentration came in handy for government as a way of establishing a presence in the local

communities. All the officials were appointed from party of the central government and were

responsible to central government.

Apart from nation building, the nascent governments faced serious manpower and

technical problems and as such could not rely on material from the local community. Local

authority systems inherited at independence proved not amenable to decentralization due to poor

institutional design. To add to that challenges came from actors with vested interest in the status

quo who were determined to keep their privileges intact. To ensure that central government’s

programs get implemented at the local level, the political leadership at the center deconcentrates

rather than devolve authority.

F.M. Agbenu, (University of Ghana, Legon)

28/09/09

9
i
Decentralization is one of the strategies of reform adopted by most post independence African countries in a move to
make the central bureaucracy more relevant and attuned to the developmental needs of the fledgling nations.