Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. Introduction
The 1980s and the early ’90s have witnessed major political and economic upheavals in most
regions in the world. The perceived success of market economies, the failures of central command
and control systems, and inefficiencies of state enterprises have overturned the strong, controlling
role of the state in previously publicly dominated economies. Concurrently, the abuses of
authoritarian regimes have led to a search for more responsive forms of government. These two
fundamental transformations which characterize much of the world have been described as “the
establishment of open markets and the movement toward more accountable democratic
governance.”1
This paper reviews definitions of "governance" and those characteristics that can be ascribed to
“good” governance. We then present a governance paradigm that recognizes the importance of a
national enabling environment as well actions at the local level where much of governance
practice plays out. A key element of the enabling environment is decentralization policy by which
responsibilities are transferred from the central government to the local level where citizens can
more readily participate in decisions that affect them. However, citizen participation in local
government decision making does not come automatically. It requires specific strategies to
establish communication channels and build capacities of both citizens (and organizations that
represent them) and local governments to engage in a constructive dialogue.
2. Governance Concepts
In democratic or democratizing systems, government exists to fulfill functions such as maintaining
security, providing public services, and ensuring equal treatment under the law. The specific
nature of these functions may vary over time, but in western systems it forms a contract between
government and citizens. The contract exists at a number of levels: the constitution defines the
broadest principles of the contract, national and sub-national laws and regulations provide a more
specific framework, and the contract becomes largely operational at the local level. Citizens
participate in government to define the contract and to manage and monitor it. The concept of
“governance” has been applied to the processes through which public decisions are made.
Landell-Mills and Serageldin have defined governance as:
1
Near East Bureau. Democratic Institution Support Project (USAID, Washington, D.C., l990) p. l.
2
Pierre Landell-Mills and Ismael Serageldin, Governance and the External Factor (Washington, D.C., World Bank,
l99l) p. 3.
3
Charlick, Robert, The Concept of Governance and its Implications for AID's Development Assistance Program in
Africa (Associates in Rural Development, Burlington, 1992) p. 3.
3. Decentralization Programs
While much of the early debate about strengthening governance addressed the national
environment, increasing attention is now paid to local governance issues for several reasons.
Various sectors of society, particularly marginalized groups, can most easily participate in
decision making at the local level because local decisions most directly affect them. Also, they can
readily have access to local decision makers, in contrast to national decision makers who may be
located in a distant city. Information about the workings of government can be more easily
communicated to citizens at the local level, establishing a clearer link between participation and
outcome. Indeed, many governments have embarked on decentralization programs to foster
democratic processes. Even where formal mechanisms for informing citizens are weak, the effects
of local government actions remain highly visible.
In the 1980s the government of Côte d’Ivoire embarked on an ambitious program of
decentralization, creating 35 municipal governments in 1980 and over 60 more in 1987 because,
paraphrasing the Minister of Interior, local governments could become incubators of democracy.
Cynically, one must also recognize that these programs were created to focus citizen attention and
energy on local problems to distract them or to deflect discontent about the national government.
Regardless of the reasons, however, there is clearly a trend toward creating or strengthening local
governments through policy and/or constitutional reformulation. For example, in the Philippine
constitution of 1987 and the Haitian constitution in 1987, both formulated in the wake of the
overthrow of dictators by democratic movements, local governments were created by specific
constitutional articles, reflecting the importance attached to the role of local governments in
democratic society. Similarly, an amendment to the Indian constitution in 1991 gave formal,
constitutional status for the first time to local governments.
4
Rondinelli, Dennis, John Nethis, Shabbin Chemma, Decentralization in Developing Countries: A Review of
Current Experience (World Bank, Washington, DC, 1984).
Dimensions of Decentralization
Political
Functional Access to Autonomy/
Responsibilities Revenues Accountability
l Small scale fees,
l Minimal urban licenses, permits, user l Officials selected by
services (small public charges set by central central government,
works maintenance) l Salaries set and
government
Decentralization
5
Johnson, Ronald W., Dennis Rondinelli, Decentralization Strategy Design: Complementary Perspectives on a
Common Theme (Research Triangle Institute, 1995), p. 15.
6
Johnson, Ibid, p. 27.
7
Minis, Henry P., Jr., Jacques Gagnon, Building Participation in Local Governments, presented at the USAID/
NENA regional conference on “Open Cities: Building Participation in Urban Projects,” Cairo, 1994.
5. Conclusions
Decentralization is not a new concept, and, indeed, it has been present as a policy in many
developing countries for decades. Many countries have longstanding arrangements of subnational
or local government as part public governing structures. However, in many cases, the relevant
issues is not the formal existence of decentralized structures but rather the degree to which
decentralization has been made an effective policy: to what extent have resources and functional
authority been transferred to the local level, and to what extent has decentralization become a tool
for democratization? Experience has shown that where meaningful resources are transferred,
functional responsibilities are clarified, and accountability mechanisms are established at the local
level, decentralization may effectively produce the economic and social benefits that policy
makers intend. Accountability measures include an electoral process, local authority for personnel
decisions to make staff accountable to the local, rather than central government, a minimum of
legislated mechanisms that ensure public access to decision making, and information flow that
permits monitoring and performance measurement.
Anecdotal experience indicates that within this basic framework, local leaders are willing to
undertake innovative participatory approaches, understanding the potential benefits of open
process. Indeed, the most fertile ground for experimentation with good governance practices is
probably at the local level where the public can easily participate and leaders can most directly feel
results of successful partnerships with the community. At the same time, experience has
demonstrated that successful local innovation with which national policy makers are associated
are productive means to introducing broader policy change.