A new and progressive constitution approved by Zimbabwe in March 2013 is full of

democratic promises. It is important to note that before the 2013 constitution, local
government in Zimbabwe was largely state controlled, operating in a delegated capacity.
Functions of local government in Zimbabwe though well defined in law were open to central
government variation and re-assignment to other national agencies. The Zimbabwe policy
inherited at independence from colonial masters sustained centre-local relations that
undermined the emergence of strong and devolved local governance systems. Zimbabwe is a
resourceful country, which only needs to implement a development strategy that ensures
transparency and equitable distribution of resources and services. Zimbabwe is fortunately
armed with a tool that allows dissolving of local governance for dissolving local governance
requires a constitution rather than a policy or legislative amendment and directives. It is the
thrust of this paper to evaluate the possibility of adopting a multi-level government structure
as a strategy for development in Zimbabwe. In evaluating the possibility of devolution as a
development strategy, careful analysis and evaluation is put on issues of intergovernmental
co-ordination, management of expectations, accountability, autonomous, constitutional
provisions and case studies where possible.

It is paramount to first and foremost define the terms. Chandler (1962) defines a strategy as
determination of basic long term goals and objectives, and the adoption of courses of action
and allocation of resources necessary for carrying out the goals. Quinn (1980) also defines
strategy as a pattern or plan that integrates major goals, policies and action sequences into a
cohesive goal. Muia (2008a) defines strategy evaluation as a process through which program
and organisational strategies are developed, improved and refined. A conceptual definition of
devolution entails an understanding of the complex dynamics of decentralisation, from which
it is premised. Different scholars have different definitions for decentralization but all points
to the dispersion of decision making governance closer to the people. Muia (2008a) argues
that decentralisation refers to the transfer of public authority and resources including personal
from national to subnational jurisdictions. Conceptualising decentralisation, Swenson (1999)
asserts that the failure of centralised planning systems heralded the concept of
decentralisation in the 1970s and 1980s, especially in developing countries. Swenson (1999)
states that there was a consensus for the need to roll back the state to the frontiers of
development planning, major thrust being simply to reduce the role of the state in public
service provision and development process. The concept of decentralisation have four main
types which are devolution, delegation, deconcentration and privatisation. According to
Swenson(1999) unlike the other three types, devolution is the most complete form of
decentralisation in that functions as well as resources are transferred, central government
relinquishes Certain powers and conversely devolved spheres of government take over
delivery and management of previously centrally managed functions. According to Birger
(1984) devolution refers to the situation where central government transfers legislative,
executive, administrative and financial decision making authority to local government that
have clear and legally recognised jurisdictions within which they provide public services to
constituents to whom they are accountable.

A brief history of decentralisation in Zimbabwe states that at independence in 1980,

Zimbabwe inherited from the British colonial regime a dichotomous and tripartite local
government framework comprising of urban councils, ‘white’ rural councils and ‘black’ rural
local authorities fragmented along racial lines. Although the Zimbabwe government tried to
eliminate fragmentation and promote amalgamation of ‘white’ and ‘black’ rural local
authorities into rural district councils, in practise development planning agencies experienced
time and budgetary constraints, lacked personal and consequently continue to see central
government interference in local decision making and as a result became ineffectual. Birger
(1984) termed this “centrally created decentralisation”. The government of Zimbabwe later in
the 1990s introduced elective councils in trying to make villages and wards active in
governance. It is clear that besides government’s efforts, decentralisation ran into a number
of practical challenges. Chief among the challenges might be what Ndulo (2006) asserted as
‘political plays’ in decentralisation. Ndulo (2006) argues that decentralisation policies are
undertaken primarily for political reasons and how the policy works out in practice will
depend on similar political struggles. It is important the current Zimbabwe government is
operating in an environment where devolution is constitutional; hence it is responsibility of
the government of this day to consider implementing devolution as a development strategy.

The devolution of government power to provincial and local authorities is premised on a

variety of objectives. One of the major objectives is to give powers of local governance to the
people by enhancing their participation in the exercise of the powers of the state and in
making the decisions that affects them. The empowerment of local people makes sure that
they are active participants in policy making and implementation. In a devolved government
people have real concerns about issues that directly affects them and should be directly
involved in solving those issues. Local government through including participation of local
people from ward level will promote democratic, effective, transparent, accountable and
coherent government. A government of the people by the people. Communities’ full
participation in issues that affects their daily life enable local people to manage their own
affairs and to further their own development. Zimbabwe central government have been
carrying the heavy burden of provincial and local operations. Resource distribution have been
bureaucratic, that central government have been blamed for not so equitable sharing of local
and national resources. According to Yin (2013), devolution allows transfer of
responsibilities and resources from the national government to create sound financial base for
provincial and metropolitan councils and local authorities.

Provincial authorities in a devolved government have stated functions and powers. According
to the new constitution of Zimbabwe, provincial governance in Zimbabwe for the first time
will have ten members of each provincial council elected under a system of proportional
representation. Also the abolishment of presidentially appointed provincial governor with an
elected chair means that the council now have some autonomy from central government. Also
according to the constitution, all members of national parliament are now also members of
the provincial or metropolitan council in which their constituency is based. The inclusion of
members of parliament in provincial and metropolitan councils ensure better coherence in the
formulation and implementation of national, provincial and local development policies.
According to Lindbloom (1979) strategies and policies for development should be interactive
in nature; the approaches to development should be bottom-top rather than being hierarchal.
Devolution offers a chance to bridge the gap between the people and their legislators, also
between policy makers and implementers. In Zimbabwe, this have been a sticking point for a
long time now. Devolution will ensure Members of Parliament and ministers of state are
required not only to interact meaningfully with local people but to debate local issues. As
such, provincial councils have the potential to offer what scholars like Norris (2010)
described as Pluralism model, where accessible governance and decision making space is
made available for everyone elite or poor. This in Zimbabwe will be a move away from the
operations of central government where political, economic and social manifestos get
imposed on local people. Devolution provides a forum driven by evidence based
accountability linking rather than imposing manifestos with local implementation. To enjoy
all these kinds of development it is imperative that the government of Zimbabwe employ
devolution as a development strategy, making the provincial tier a well-functioning part of a
devolved governance structure.
The functions and powers of local authorities in a devolved state are also stated in the new
constitution of Zimbabwe. There are two types of local authorise in Zimbabwe namely urban
councils and rural district councils. The authorities are empowered by both the urban councils
act and rural district council’s act to perform a list of permissible functions. The functions
include among others, provision of safe and sound infrastructure, democratic representation
of service expectations of the local community and regulation of private activities that affect
community welfare and the health and safety of local people. The government of Zimbabwe
have been premised upon the principle of delegation for far too long. This have caused a lot
of tension and blame game between central government and local authorities. Local
authorities though accountable to communities have been blaming poor performance to
interference from the central government. Local authorities have been arguing that without
devolution they must not be misconstrued as autonomous centres of power. Former City of
Harare Mayor Ben Manyenyeni was once quoted in a local paper saying the central
government of Zimbabwe (“Zanu pf controlled”) can make Harare city council (“MDC run”)
do anything it wants done. In Zimbabwe since the emergence of a strong opposition, MDC in
1999 electioneering and politicking have invariably contaminated service delivery options
country wide. One example is the pre-elections debt write-off of July 2013 which was a grand
politicking gimmick with absolutely no regard for impact or compensation for the affeceted
councils. The councils argued that they lost over 2 years worth of money and the write-off
mentality got ratepayers reluctant to pay. According to Garatt (1999) although the aims of
local governance are to create participatory and democratically elected structures that identify
need and ensure provision of services, local government has not ever been an independent
sphere of the large central government structure. A complex matrix of legal systems and
frameworks has played a role in reducing provincial and local governance to agency of the
central government. Garatt (1999) asserts that devolution is the only strategic development
plan that totally reorganises central and local government functions.

The old constitution of Zimbabwe (The Lancaster House Constitution) provided for a unitary
form of government in which provincial and local governments did not have constitutional
recognition. However, the constitution through various acts of parliament delegated powers
to subnational governments. This shows that Zimbabwe have long indicated the wish to be
decentralised although devolution was not included as the main mode of diffusing
government powers. According to Barkan et al (1989) over centralisation and personalisation
of power blocks democracy and locally driven development. Zimbabwe’s local governments,
communities and the nation at large have been facing problems emanating from over
centralisation and when opportunity avails itself, devolution became a buzzword in the
constitutional review process from 2009 to 2013. According to Yin (2013) if well-oiled
devolution is a necessary vehicle to drive away over centralised system of government and
ensure deepening of democracy, promoting locally driven development, improving the
delivery of public services, promoting national integration and peace while recognizing
diversity. Ghai (2006) asserts that devolution is regarded as controversial subject as it is
regarded as by elitists as a tool for the masses to access state power and resources. In reality it
is about those with power and control over resources wanting to maintain the status quo,
whereas those who lacked power and resources sought to have more power, influence and a
greater share of resources. The Ministry of Local Governance have been blamed for always
having a hand in rate and tariff setting. In March 2013 the then Local Governance Minister,
Saviour Kasukuwere awarded council employees what councils management said was
unsustainable pay structure. Almost 80% of collection was being consumed by salaries
leaving a paltry 20% for councils’ development issues. If adopted as a development strategy,
devolution is a key subject to help the ‘second republic’ of Zimbabwe bury the past and adopt
a new local units autonomous and people centred development path.

Devolution demands separation and organisation of governments at different levels. The new
constitution of Zimbabwe, unlike its predecessor, the Lancaster House Constitution,
organises government at multiple levels namely national, provincial and local. It is the first to
recognise provincial and local governments as tiers of government. According to Burgess et
al (2001) tier of government is different from level of administration, a tier refers to the part
of hierarchy through which state power is employed. Burgess et al (2001) states that level of
administration refers to an institutional setting that supports administratively the
implementation of governmental policies. The level of administration unlike a tier of
government does not make policies but only implements them. The adoption of government
tiers in the new constitution means that the governing party cannot abolish subnational
government for political mileage. In policy making, the government is therefore expected to
proffer changes step by step. Scholars like Lindbloom (1979) described this as
Incrementalism model, where policies are advocated to be piecemeal rather than being
radical. The model also advocates that for development to take place various levels and social
interest groups should equally contribute. Adoption and implementation of devolution as a
development strategy and the consequent recognition of a three tier system will be a
significant indicator of the government’s commitment as well as depth of decentralisation,
and its ability to bring government close to the people it is supposed to serve.

It is paramount to note that devolution is recognised as one of the founding values and
principles to the constitution. This recognition, coinciding with the coming of the ‘second
republic’ offers the government a chance that should not be missed. The chance to practically
move away from the old regime and Lancaster house constitution. According Ouedraogo
(2003) authoritarian governments are scared of devolution because devolution is classified as
the most extensive form of decentralisation that diffuses substantial government powers.
Local government units have discretion in carrying out their duties and obligations to some
extent. It is important to note that in a devolved state subnational and local units exercising
devolved powers are not on a par with central government. The government of Zimbabwe
should embrace devolution for devolved units besides being autonomous do not occupy the
same sort of position in relation to central government. In demystifying devolution,
Ouedraogo (2003) asserts that although devolved units enjoy a certain level of autonomy,
they are always the recipients of authority. Devolution is therefore not a creature to be afraid
of committed and people centred government like the current Zimbabwe ‘second republic’
should implement devolution in its entirety and practically prove its commitment to
economic, political and social reforms at all levels. Ouedraogo (2003) asserts that it is
paramount for governments to understand that devolution is not an attempt to dismantle the
state rather it matches roles to the state’s capacities. Devolution is a strategy to remake the
state and foster people driven development. Burgess et al (2001) argues that in a congested
state devolution can serve as a policy and institutional decongestant.

The central government remains proactive in many areas. Although devolution can call for
shift in institutional and policy landscape in terms of governance structure, many of the
problems it seeks to address demand a more co-ordinated response by both central and local
governments (Burgess et al, 2001). The central government has a responsibility to establish
clear link between its array of regional and local authority, community strategies and
regeneration partnerships. According to Burgess et al (2001) it is the responsibility of central
government to take account of variations in local circumstances and understand the practical
problems encountered by those charged with implementing devolution as a strategy. In the
absence of devolution, centrally imposed solutions, rigid monitoring and evaluation
frameworks inhibit local innovations and sustainable development. Devolution encourages
national to community engagement, promotion and dissemination of good practices and new
approaches to human development and quality of life outcomes (Ouedraogo; 2003).
Implementing devolution as a strategy compels government to realise that modernising and
fostering partnerships, local community engagement and the risks attached to encouraging
diversification and innovation need to be addressed. According to Barkan and Chege (1989)
local authorities in a centralised state tend not to give attention to geographic variations in
service delivery and impacts at a micro level, but the multi-level and modernising agendas
challenge them to adapt their political and administrative structures to meet specific
community needs. Community radio stations in Zimbabwe are good example where
liberalisation of the airwaves have opened hidden opportunities in various communities.
Devolution is a great development strategy which can facilitate an industry, a radio station in
every community. The Zimbabwe government should contemplate devolving significant
decision making powers and resources.

According to Kothari (2004) in many instances devolution strategy seeks to address the
critical issues that will assist local government to address problems related to poor devolution
of resources. The challenges include marginalisation of resource rich areas, insufficient
infrastructure and the general poor living conditions for the general populace. Devolution
strategy aims to address the shortcomings of previous strategic plans that had not been fully
implemented to no avail. In Zimbabwe there are a number of cases of poor devolution of
resources. The community share ownership trusts is one good example, these were
community scheme where foreign companies were asked to cede certain taxes to the local
chiefs, and this has failed to develop communities (where resources are extracted) because
there were no clear local autonomous mechanisms put in place to guard against looting and
political power plays. The centralisation of activities led to poor and unclear tax collection
management systems and companies did not fully adhere to tax releases. In Zimbabwe,
Harare have been the centre for everything. This centralisation failed to develop communities
where resources come from. The Marange communities still languish in poverty besides
being home to vast fields of diamonds. Zvishavane communities, Mazvihwa and
Mhondongori still have poor infrastructural development besides having thriving diamond
and platinum companies respectively. Chiredzi people and infrastructure still very poor yet
the area has the best conservancy and the only successful sugar plantation story in Southern
Africa which supplies the European Union market. In the absence of devolution, the millions
of dollars launched as community shares by the former President in all these communities
vanished without trace. If devolution was already implemented, the provincial and local tiers
would have retained substantial amount of money to use in developing self, simultaneously
creating local employment and stop rural to urban migration. It is important the ‘new
dispensation’ government avoid repeat of this by implementing devolution as a development
strategy.

Devolution as a development strategy involves the contributions of key stakeholders.

According to Dix and Mathews (2010) a stakeholder is anybody who can affect or is affected
by an entity’s strategy or policy. According to Dix and Mathews (2010) the key stakeholders
in implementation of development strategy are the citizenry or the people. Kothari (2004)
defines citizenry as the residency of a particular province or community, the rate payers of a
particular locality, any resident civic organisation or non-governmental, private sector or
labour organisation with interests in the governance of a particular authority. The people are
important stakeholders in the devolution strategy since all the multi-level plans are aimed at
improving thriving conditions. The residents determine the nature and magnitude of the
devolution strategies the government develops and implement. The 2013 Zimbabwe
constitution clearly states that national, provincial and local tiers are obligated to consult their
respective residents in decisi0ns that directly affect them through public participation. These
consultative forums help the residents to understand the plans at the initial planning stages
and helps the authorities to convince residents to buy in their proposals and win their support.
When the residents become key stakeholders that means even political powerful people like
members of assembly remain accountable to the people. Other stakeholders in the
implementation of the devolution strategy include international development aid agencies.
Devolution is therefore a strategic plan to attract resources and assistance from international
organisations through public/private partnerships. The agencies will fund clear and
straightforward provincial and local strategic plans. Also the agencies’ offices will not only
be available in Harare but will have branches in provinces and local areas, thereby becoming
more accessible to previously marginalised people and communities. According to Ghai
(2006) devolution strategy supports the emergence of strong residents associations and
community organisations that lessen government burden in monitoring and evaluation of
projects at local levels.

It is important to note that there are some African countries that have adopted devolution as a
strategy for development. It is helpful to use these countries as case studies assessing the
appropriateness of the strategy in the African context as well as the ever changing dynamics
of governance today. According to Barkan and Chege (1989) devolution in Kenya was done
in three phases. The first phase involves Majimbo system immediately after the country’s
independence, local authorities system and the current County governance system. The
current County government system consists of 47 county governments and each county
consists of an integrated development plan. Just like Zimbabwe, Kenya has a vision 2030
agenda of attaining upper middle income by the year 2030 (www.nairobi.go.ke). In pursuit of
its vision, the government of Kenya through its devolved county governments is
implementing and monitoring the impact of the devolution strategy. According to Barkan and
Chege (1989) the outcomes of the devolution strategy in Kenya are encouraging besides other
challenges like inadequate resources and funding. This shows that other countries have taken
the bold steps of implementing the devolution strategy and Zimbabwe can take a leaf by
understanding how devolution is positively impacting development and supporting long term
national targets like vision 2030.

According to Ghai (2006) devolution brings autonomy in various key aspects of provincial
and local units such as administration, political and fiscal. Ghai (2006) argues that autonomy
is the key feature of a devolved government system. A devolved unit enjoys political
autonomy and political autonomy is perhaps the most important element of subnational and
local units exercise devolved powers. It means, among other things, that the constitution or
legislation guarantees the existence of local units as a level of government, how they are
established, the scope of their authority and their jurisdiction over a defined geographical
area. Devolved units are characterised by minimum level of democratic content to promote
and sustain representative, accountable, participatory and inclusive government. The method
of electing local political officials is significant for some form of self-government which
enables the lower levels of government to participate actively in the country’s political
processes and institutions. According to Ghai (2006) political autonomy also means that local
governments have distinct powers and functions including the power to adopt and implement
by-laws, laws and policies which can be exercised independently of the centre. It is through
such laws and policies that local interests find expression. A devolved unit enjoys fiscal
autonomy. According to Ouedraogo (2003) political autonomy is meaningless if it is not
accompanied by fiscal autonomy, which entails the ability to raise and spent revenue. This is
the reason why devolved provincial or local unit enjoy fiscal economy. A government
whether at national, provincial or local should be able to raise atleast a portion of revenue
required to fund its expenditure priorities. This ensures self-sustenance and reduces the
spending discretion of subnational or local units. A body or entity exercing devolved powers
usually enjoy some form of administrative autonomy. This form of autonomy entails that a
local unit can appoint and dismiss its staff, as well as determine remuneration levels hence
the unit has some discretion to determine its internal administrative structures and
procedures. Administrative autonomy enables a devolved unit to adapt its administrative
establishments to the requirements of its locality to ensure effective governance. It also
fosters accountability between locals and politicians thereby enhancing effective policy
making and implementation. Administrative autonomy is important for devolved units as it
frees them from reliance on the national government and its bureaucracies to implement local
policy decisions. In giving local units administrative, political and fiscal autonomy
devolution redirects national government focus to bigger issues like trade, bilateral
engagements and other national interests.

It must be noted that adopting and implementing devolution as a development strategy is a

complicated and very delicate task. The strategy have its own share of challenges and if not
properly handled the strategy can be a threat to national peace, unity and development.
According to Swenson (1999) devolution is one of delicate strategies which if not handled
properly can threaten national security and development through regionalism, tribalism and
secessionist tendencies. In Zimbabwe the delay in the implementation of the devolution as a
development strategy have seen the emergence of extreme and radical movements that
threatens to create own states. Mtwakazi movement is one example. The Matabeleland
movement argues that besides being the major supply of electricity through the Kariba hydro-
electrical project and Hwange power stations, the region do not get much of the electricity as
compared to the capital, Harare. The movement also argues that Matebeleland province lags
behind in terms of almost everything from production to services sectors. Devolving the
Matebeleland provincial and local units might give some autonomy to its subnational units
but at the same time might lead to the breakaway from the central state of the region. The
movements already in place might use devolution as a tool in their quest to create
regionalism, tribalism and secessionist ideologies. According to Dix and Mathews (2010)
Devolution just like democracy gives power, voice and agency to the local people and this
call for proper mechanisms in monitoring and evaluation of the devolution strategy. The
government must allow channelling of voices of the people through their organised
associations, organisations and civil societies; this will build critical public space and help in
the maintenance and sustenance of peace. According to Peters (1992) if the people’s
participation is thwarted and their interests not articulated in national policy making
processes, the result is resentment and civil unrest. The central government must make sure
devolution’s multi-level tier system bring people close rather than separating them from
national policy making. Zimbabwe must change its policy making strategies from being
elitist to plural, guide against corruption in public infrastructure entities and gave people local
sense of project ownership, to fight for the survival and success of the devolution strategy.
According to Ouedraogo (2003) central governments in adopting and implementing the
devolution strategy must be ready to have a national programme for compiling data for small
area analysis and promote the use of new technologies for training and information exchange
and democratic engagement. Other scholars like Garatt (1999) argues that devolution strategy
implementation requires better planning and resource mobilisation in order to ensure success
is achieved according to the vision and mission of a particular state. According to Garatt
(1999) developing countries lack adequate resources central to the implementation of the
devolution strategy. Major resources include financial resources that the central and its
devolved local units will expected to provide in supporting projects. Human resource is
another key resource needed for successful implementation of the devolution strategy.
However, some scholars like Yin (2013) argues that developing countries have the capacity
to implement devolution, for it is lack of devolution that portrays these countries as resource
less. This is true taking examples from Zimbabwe, a human resource, mineral, sugar and land
rich country which over centralisation and resource personalisation robbed all its
development prospects. Devolution will allow autonomy to devolved units, clear and
transparent revenue collection and resource use.

In conclusion, devolution is a strategy that integrates societies, fosters peace, development

and transparency. A devolved government creates opportunities to devise governance
arrangements tailor-made to respond to individual economic and social issues. Devolution as
a development strategy makes public debates about policy making and allows people a voice
in deciding the course of action to take. Public confidence and trust in the state increase,
incidences of violence and instability decreases. However, it is important to note that the
strategy of devolution is a bit complex and delicate, hence need careful
implementation,monotring and evaluation. For decades in Zimbabwe, most government
directed infrastructure programmes have been suffering premature death, mostly because of
the gap between government and subnational or local units. The evidence is everywhere,
dysfunctional boreholes, unused gardens, collapsing fowl runs, abandoned irrigation schemes
and deteriorating pigsties. All these being manifestations of over centralisation and central
government’s failure to embrace local participation, devolve administrative, political and
fiscal functions to subnational and local units. Devolution is a strategy that fosters local,
provincial and national development. It is infact a root and branch development strategy
which the current ‘new dispensation’ government of Zimbabwe cannot afford to ignore.
Bibliography

Barkan, J.D. and Chege, M., (1989). Decentralising the state: District focus and the politics of
reallocation in Kenya. Journal of modern African Studies, pp.27 (3), 431-453.

Besley, T. and Burgess.(2002). Land Reform, Poverty Reduction and growth: Evidence from India.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, pp.171.

Birger, W. (1984). A Resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, pp.171.

Burgess et al. (2001). Devolved approaches to local governance policy and practise in Neighbourhood
Management, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Chandler. A.D. (1962). Strategy and Structure, Mass, MIT Press.

Dix, F. and Mathews, H. (2010), The process of Strategic Planning. Business Development Index, ltd.
And the Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio.

Garatt, N. (199). Effective Directors and Building Dynamic Boards. Long Range Planning 32 (1).

Ghai, Y.P. (2006). Law in the Establishment and Management of Decentralisation. Hong Kong:
University of Hong Kong.

Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Age International.

Lindbloom, C.E. and Cohen, D.K (1979). Usable Knowledge. Social Science and Social problem
solving. London: Yale University Press.

Muia, D.M. (2008a). Devolution of governance to Districts in Kenya: A Case Study in Kibua, T.n and
Mwabu, G. Decentralisation and Devolution in Kenya: New approaches. Nairobi: University of
Nairobi Press. Pp. 77-133.

Ndulo, M. (2006a). Decentralisation: Challenges of Inclusion and Equity in Governance. In: Ndulo
ed. 2006. Democratic Reform in Africa: It’s Impact on Governance and Poverty Alleviation. United
Kingdom. James Currey ltd. Pp. 79-98.

Ouedraogo,H.M.G. (2003). Decentralisation and Local Governance: experiences from Francophone

West Africa. Journal of Public Administration and Development Special Issue: Decentralisation and
Local Governance in Africa. Volume 23, Issue 1, pages 97-103, February 2003.

Quinn, J. (1980). Strategies for change: Logical Incrementalism. R.D. Irwin (Homewood, 111).

Peters, B.G. (1992). “The Policy Process: An Institutionalist perspective”. Canadian Public
Adminstration.

Swenson, D. (1999). “Federal Aid to State government and its Impact on state revenues and state
spending: Devolution or Convolution?” Paper presented at the Southern Regional Science Association
meetings, Richmond, Virginia, April 17, 1999.

The Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013)

Yin, R. (2013), Applied Social Research Methods, Fifth edition, Sage Publications Incorporation.
NAME: EMMANUEL HOVE

REG NO.: R0644703

PROGRAM: MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE IN DEVELOPMENT

STUDIES

MODE OF ENTRY: BLOCK

LEVEL: 1.1

MODULE: THEORIES AND STRATEGIES IN DEVELOPMENT

AND CHANGE

MODULE CODE: MADS 701

LECTURER: Mr R. Sillah

QUESTION: As an Advisor to the government of Zimbabwe, what evaluation would

you give of devolution as a possible strategy for Development in Zimbabwe.