1.

0 Introduction

(World Bank, 2018) Describes Malawi economy in the first 30 years when the country was

under autocratic one-party rule of Dr Hastings Kamuzu Banda as “a frail economy”. In 1994

Malawi was transitioned to a democratic state and the new constitution was introduced

making the collapse of the autocratic one-party state machinery and adoption of a liberal

democratic constitution. 1995 was a year of full range of civil, cultural, political, social and

economic rights, democracy, good governance and rule of law. Since then Malawi

development plans had been guided by short to medium term plans, which included 10-year

statement of development policies during the one party state. Other five head of states after

Dr Hastings Kamuzu Banda were Dr Bakili Muluzi, Dr Bingu wa Mutharika, Dr Joyce

Banda, Professor Peter Mutharika and now is Dr Lazarus Chakwera. Each one of them has

championed specific development policies including decentralisation which was enacted in

1998 together with Local Government Act.

Therefore, the Case Study entitled “The Impact of Decentralisation and Local Governance in

Dowa District” seeks to examine and discuss much on economic development and poverty

eradication in Malawi with focusing in the rural areas of TAs Dzoole in the west and

Msakambewa in the east. The research will find out what are the impacts of decentralization

on local governance in Dowa district specifically TAs Dzoole and Msakambewa and what are

the causes. The discussion will also dwell much on the adjustments required if people from

Msakambewa and Dzoole in Dowa district are to benefit from programmes and activities

meant for poverty eradication. There are Institutions providing credits and grass root

structures for development at local level. A thorough understanding will be done on how

these operate to eradicate poverty. Best practices will be applied to ensure effective

implementation of programmes and activities meant for economic development in order to

eradicate poverty.
1.1 Background

Malawi is one of the landlocked countries in the world. Geographically situated in southern
Africa while politically is in central area. The economy is agri-based and ranked as one of
the poorest country on earth. It was a British protectorate formerly known as Nyasaland and
re-attained independence in 1964. The country is the smallest of the three territories which
previously comprised the Central African Federation (Zambia, Zimbabwe and Nyasaland) (
) The country is situated in the southern east hemisphere of Africa in sub-saharan region,
covering a land mass of 119,140 square kilometers, about 20% of which is covered by Lake
Malawi. Mozambique borders the country to the south, southwest and southeast, Tanzania to
the north and northeast and Zambia to the West and Northwest. Regardless of being small in
size, Malawi is overpopulated and the current estimated population is over 20 million (NSO)
of which over 40,000 are displaced people from Congo (DRC), Angola, Rwanda, Burundi,
Ethiopia and Nigeria ( ). Since independence Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda and the
Malawi Congress Party dominated the country until 1993.

1.1.2 Overview of Decentralisation and other Economic Growth Strategies in Malawi

After more than thirty years of centralization under Dr Kamuzu Hastings Kamuzu Banda

regime, Malawi reverted to decentralisation. A new decentralisation policy was adopted in

1998 following the enactment of a new Local Government Acts in the same year. There are

two schools of thought one which is pessimistic that poverty reduction aims can be achieved

through decentralisation (e.g. see: Katsiaouni, 2003:4, Manor, 1999) and another which is

optimistic on the effects of decentralisation on poverty reduction (Bongilifioli, 2003; OECD,

2004; Manor, 1999). The Local Government Act (1998) is the legal framework within which

the policy operates and the foundation document for the legal implementation of

decentralization in Malawi. This legal framework document enshrines key elements of the

Decentralization Policy including structure of government (District Assemblies), composition

of the Assemblies, and powers of the Assemblies, functions, and financing.

There are four fundamental objectives of the decentralization policy in Malawi which include
creating a democratic environment and institutions in Malawi for governance and
development at the local level in order to facilitate the participation of the grassroots in
decision-making; Elimination of dual administration (field administration and local
government) at the district level with the aim of making the Public Service more efficient,
more economical and cost effective; Promotion of accountability and good governance at
the local level in order to help government reduce poverty; and to mobilize the masses for
socio economic development at the local level.

Rationale for decentralisation in Malawi is firstly to establish a single institution at district

level which will manage many of the functions currently performed by line ministries to
eliminate overlapping structures. The single unit it was envisaged would abolish the dual
administration of local government at the district level which has resulted in an intense
scramble for resources between the two systems. Furthermore, it resulted in unnecessary
duplication of efforts and very inefficient utilisation of human, financial and material
resources. Thus, decentralisation is aimed at facilitating the creation of a single unit of
administration at district level that will coordinate in a cost effective manner the delivery of
services, planning and implementation of development programmes (GOM: the
Decentralisation Policy, 1998: 3). Because decentralisation embraces democratic values and
ideals, it is also envisioned that local authorities will promote popular participation in the
development process. But this can only be achieved through an effective, well-coordinated
and comprehensive devolution of power.

Secondly, the main motivation for decentralising in Malawi is to deal with the deteriorating
socio-economic conditions. Therefore, government views decentralisation as a key strategy
for implementing its enunciated policy of Poverty Alleviation.

The framework of the policy emphasized on the need for a participatory process in which
government, the civil society and the private sector organise themselves to explore grassroots
solutions to poverty. The call was sanctioned by the evidence of extreme conditions of
pervasive poverty, especially in the rural areas coupled with the many competing needs,
which have resulted in an uncoordinated approach to development. This resulted in a plethora
of incoherent and disjointed activities in the various sectors, which have tended to perplex
rather than assist the beneficiaries (Dept of District and Local Administration, 2000: 4). As
such, an all-inclusive and integrated approach to development and poverty reduction was
therefore required. In this vein, the policy adopted decentralisation as an institutional
objective and strategy for implementing the poverty alleviation programme. And in a bid to
institutionalise poverty reduction interventions, the government developed the Poverty
Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) in 2002, which has replaced all previous poverty reduction
initiatives, including the Poverty Alleviation Programme. In accordance with the Local
Government Act, in November 1999, District Assemblies were established in all the districts
by merging the District Commissioner’s office with that of the Clerk of Council. This move
eliminated the dual local administration as required by the decentralisation policy. Interim
staffs were appointed to head the newly created Local Government Administration.
Permanent personnel were appointed in January 2003. The Management Unit for the Local
Assembly included a Chief Executive Officer /District Commissioner, Director of Planning
and Development, Director of Finance and Director of Administration. Under the LGA, all of
these were to be recruited positions by the assembly. However, in January 2001, following an
amendment of the LGA, the Local Authorities Service Commission became the institution
vested with the powers of recruiting management level staff for the assemblies. All lower
level staff would continue to be recruited by the assemblies. Nevertheless, it was in
December 2000 that the Assemblies were filled ‘debatably’4 with rightful members, after
local government elections were conducted. The Local Government Act stipulates that the
Assembly shall perform the following functions among others: to make policy and decisions
on local governance and development for the local government area; to consolidate and
promote local democratic institutions and democratic participation; to promote infrastructural
and economic development through the formulation, approval and execution of district
development plans. To mobilize resources within the local government area government and
development; to make by-laws for the good governance of the local government area. These
elections were marred by dismal turnout of 14% of the registered voters, which make other
scholars to question the legitimacy of the elected candidates. Therefore it is clear both in the
stipulations of the Local Government Act and the Decentralisation Policy that
decentralisation in Malawi was planned to facilitate good local governance (e.g., participation
and accountability are explicitly stated). In turn would promote local development through
infrastructure development and efficient service delivery; and it is in this framework that
steps towards poverty reduction were conceptualised. Malawi government is using
decentralization as a tool to accelerate development, since decentralization and good local
governance would assist to reverse the deteriorating socio-economic conditions in country,
especially to the people living in periphery. Good local governance through increased
participation in development planning and promotion of transparency, accountability and
efficiency and decentralization policy provides greater opportunities for the citizen to
participation in governance at the local level and hence a good policy option for poverty
eradication.

1.1.3 Decentralisation Initiatives in some parts of the world including East and
Central Africa
In African political and administrative history, decentralisation is not new. From the colonial
period until the last decades of the 20th century, decentralizations prevailed in the form of de-
concentration almost without exemption. According to de Valk (1990:4), a wave of such
‘decentralization’ hit Southern Africa in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Zambia, in the one
party rule, had decentralization reforms in 1969, 1971 and 1980 in which the party’s political
control over district administration gradually increased (Therkildsen, 1993:82). Equally,
Kenya decentralized in 1964, 1970, 1974 and 1982 reducing the importance of local
government (Therkildsen, 1993:82). Kenya’s last decentralization was in 1983 called ‘district
focus’, which according to Conyers (1993:28) was “intended to increase efficiency of central
government administration rather than promote local autonomy or popular participation.” In
Malawi decentralisation occurred in the early 1960s until the one party regime reversed the
process as from 1967. New attempts to decentralisation were made again in 1993 in form of
the ‘district focus’, which was based on the Kenyan model (Kaunda, 1999). A general
assessment of the previous wave of decentralisation reveals that African governments failed
dismally to engage the citizens in participatory politics and local development; instead, it
only entrenched central government control of the local government structures (UNCDF,
2000:2). This is not surprising as part of the ulterior motives of the nationalist governments to
decentralise, were to control local government apparatuses in order to curb irredentist
tendencies (Mawhood, 1983). A new wave of decentralisation emerged in the 1990s this time
the discussion on decentralization began to draw attention to “democratic decentralization” as
the favoured reform (Crook and Manor 1998; UNCDF 2000:1). Reasons for renewed
interests in 3 decentralisation are numerous and they vary from country to country. Olowu
(2001:53) and (Therkildsen 2001:1) maintain that the new interests in decentralization is a
product of pressure exerted by economic crises. It is a means for central governments to
relinquish some fiscal and administrative onus (Nsibambi 1998:2). It is due to failure of
central administration (Wunsch and Olowu 1995) and an imitation of reforms in other
developing countries (Therkildsen 2001:1). The renewed interest in decentralisation is also
attributed to the result of populist political success (Heller 1996; 31; Olowu, 2001: 53) and of
donor pressures and conditionalities of the structural adjustment and other programmes
imposed from the outside (World Bank 2000; Mutizwa-Mangiza 2000:24; Therkildsen 2001:
1; Cross and Kutengule 2000). Equally, it is a result of particular relations between central
and local authorities (Crook and Sverrisson, 2001: 2). However, there are other implied
reasons for decentralising which in most cases are not mentioned as the motivation for
countries to decentralise, for instance the aim of poverty reduction, which it is arguably2
thought would be achieved through decentralisation3. It is evident that countries look more
on the associated benefits of decentralisation, than the initial reasons for decentralizing. For
instance, in Malawi decentralisation was by default it was due to donor pressure that the
government was compelled to decentralise (De Muro, Salvatici & Comforti, 1998; Cross and
Kutengule 2000; OECD, 2004).

The year 1994 marked a beginning in Malawi’s efforts to deal with poverty by the
introduction of Poverty Alleviation Policy (PAP) which was launched in August, 1994 and
finalized in 1995, October. The policy defined various categories of poor in Malawi, the
constraints they face, and the strategies that government was going to adopt in order to
alleviate their poverty. However the document did not go far enough in articulating the
various poverty alleviation strategies. It only provided a general framework for implementing
a poverty alleviation programme. Another policy on poverty was the Malawi Poverty
Alleviations Strategy Paper (MPRSP) published in April 2002 represented a major advance in
efforts to reduce poverty in Malawi. The MPRSP contained a detailed, prioritised and costed
set of activities that stakeholders agreed will maximise poverty reduction given the available
resources. It also has an action plan that clearly allocates responsibility over the undertaking
of the various activities to lead institution as well as supporting institutions. the MPRSP has a
framework for monitoring and evaluation. The MPRSP itself was organised into pillars,
which represent a grouping of various goals, objectives, strategies and activities that represent
a specific facet in efforts to reduce poverty. The central philosophy of the MPRSP is
economic empowerment. Pillar one focused on pro-poor growth. Although the MPRSP
outlined the various activities and strategies for achieving pro-poor growth, it did not
articulate in detail how this growth will be brought about. This marked the development of a
Growth Strategy Paper (GSP). The GSP identifies those sectors and sub-sectors with growth
potential. Unless there is a deliberate policy and action programme, Malawians may not be
active participants and beneficiaries of this growth. Micro Finance Institutions (MFIs) have
been used as a tool for poverty alleviation in many developing economies globally, including
Malawi. It is for this reason that despite various initiatives by government, donors and
NGOs, most Malawians especially in the rural areas under study Malawians are still involved
in low-return, small scale enterprises while large-scale, high-value businesses in area under
study are owned by either foreigners or a minority of Malawians.
1.2 Problem Statement

Malawi being one of the least developed countries, the country is characterized by
widespread poverty. (HIS, 1998) nationwide Integrated Household Survey reveals that 65.3%
of Malawi’s population lives below the poverty line. Attainment of multiparty democracy
helped the country to consider the importance of long term development framework upon
which short and medium-term plans would be based. The Vision 2020, which was the
national long-term development plan for the country was, hence, developed in 1998 and
launched in 2000 to guide sustainable development in Malawi. The aspiration of Malawians
defined in 2000 as articulated in the Vision 2020 is that: “by the year 2020 Malawi as a God
fearing nation will be secure, democratically mature, environmentally sustainable, self-reliant
with equal opportunities for and active participation by all, having social services, vibrant
cultural and religious values and being a technologically- driven middle income country
(Malawi Government 2017:30).” This national vision has been pursued through the
implementation of 5-year medium term development strategies. Since 2000, the country has
used the Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2001-2004), and then moved on to the
Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS) I (2005-2010), then MGDS II (2011-
2016). Despite that decentralisation policy and local government act 1998 are overarching
development guide for Malawi as a country because each and every government institution
after the enactment in 1998 refer to the policy and the legal framework when planning
development programmes and activities. That the policy and local governance creates
practices and processes that are more effective and efficient in service delivery and therefore,
an achievement of local needs and preferences ( ) Malawi is still one of the
poorest with a per capita GNI of just US$320 in 2016, and ranked one of the lowest in the
world” (International Monetary Fund, 2017:1). The country is still one of the least developed
countries which largely depend on agriculture for its social and economic development. Over
the years the country has witnessed significant negative indicators; for instance “shortage of
energy still stands out with about 10% of the population having access to electricity.
Infrastructure development, the manufacturing base, and adoption of technology are low”.
Based on Transparency International ranking, corruption levels have over the past two years
worsened; from 112 in 2016 to 120/175 economies in 2017.

However, poverty remains a growing concern in Malawi despite government programmes

and activities which subsidies livelihoods through Affordable input Programme (AIP)
formerly known as FISP and Social Cash Transfers. Regardless of institutions such as

FINCA, MARDEF and NEEF providing credit facilities and the grass root structures meant

for coordination of development agendas at local level which are Area Development

Committee (ADCs) and Village Development Committees (VDCs), effectiveness of such

institutions, structures and proper implementation and programmes of poverty eradication is

still a dilemma. The research will therefore find out various causes of what is impacting

decentralization and local governance on the achievement of poverty eradication on rural

people living in Dowa district in TAs Msakambewa in the east and Dzoole in the west. Since

decentralization and good locala governance promote the socio-economic transformation of

the poor, the paper will dwell much in areas requiring adjustments in areas of study for

meaningful participation in the economy. As a way of improving access to finance for the

poor people in TAs Dzoole and Msakambewa, the findings from the study will help much in

identifying and filling the gap which is enabling unsuccessful implementation of poverty

eradication.