Decentralization is common in both federal and unitary countries. The enthusiasm for decentralization that exists in the world today can be explained by the belief—common among donors, academics, and politicians of the left and right—that decentralization generates positive outcomes such as stability, democracy, and development.
The causal connection between decentralization and these outcomes is mediated by the four intervening variables: authority, autonomy, accountability, and capacity. Stability, democracy, and development are the three goals most leaders cite when they decide to decentralize. But an important asymmetry characterizes these three common goals: the pursuit of democracy and development both depend on the prior achievement of stability.
Consolidating democratic rule and making the right choices for long-term sustainable development are very difficult in an environment of chronic instability. If the primary objective of decentralization is to improve stability in politically fragile and crisis-plagued environments, then the provision of authority and autonomy including corresponding resources through deconcentration is, at least initially, the most critical requirement.
Decentralizing changes occur in three main dimensions. When decentralization is adopted in fragile states to enhance stability, it is the administrative dimension that will receive the most attention, commonly through the adoption of deconcentration.
In contrast, using decentralization to deepen democracy will bring the political dimension to the fore, including reforms that make subnational politics more competitive, subnational representative bodies more effective, and subnational civil servants more responsive to subnational elected officials. Since then, the Center commissioned additional research on decentralization. This edition…. This edition of the Handbook incorporates what we have learned about democratic decentralization since the last edition.
The current document conceives of decentralization as, above all else, a means to achieve democratization. In doing so, it responds to the mandates of the Center and prioritizes the needs of mission-based DRG Offcers. It is written by political scientists with the input of feld practitioners and prioritizes discussion of the politics of decentralization at the cost of not discussing administrative and fscal aspects to the same degree.
Though democratization is prioritized, the Handbook takes the position that countries pursue decentralization with various goals in mind. At a conceptual level, the Handbook does not focus on local governance, or on local public service delivery, to the degree that earlier editions did.
0コメント