DEALING WITH PROBLEMS

There are a number of advantages associated with the transfer of greater powers and responsibilities from the central government to lower units of administration or organizations for development planning and management in developing countries.

Firstly, decentralization has become a strategy of overcoming some of the deficiencies of centralized national planning. The transfer of greater responsibilities to field staff, local government and/or local administration and other grassrootorganizations, allows them freedom to tailor development plans and programmes to the needs of heterogeneous regions and groups within the country.

Secondly, decentralization of responsibilities to government officials at the local levels provides then the opportunities to have closer contact with the local population, enhances their knowledge of and sensitivity to local problems and needs.

Decentralization also promotes equity in the allocation of government resources and investment by allowing greater representation for various groups-political, religious, ethnic-in development decision-making. A good example is Sudan,

55

where decentralization was used to satisfy dissident political and religious groups demand for administrative autonomy (see Musa, 1973: 1-6).

Another advantage of decentralization is that it could lead to capacity building among officials of local government and other local institutions, and thus enhance their capacities to assume functions that are not usually performed well by the central ministries. Such functions include the maintenance of roads and infrastructure and investment in areas remote form the national capital (Rondinelli, 1981:135).

Decentralization enhances the efficiency of central or federal government. This is because, it relieves top management officials of routine tasks that could be more effectively performed by field staff or local officials. The top management staff would, therefore, have more time to plan more carefully and supervise more effectively the implementation of development policies and projects (Rondinelli, 1981:135-136).

Decentralization is equally capable of enhancing political stability and national unity by providing opportunities for diverse groups in different parts of the country to participate more directly in development decision-making, thereby increasing their

“stake” and commitment to the unity of the country.

Again by transferring greater responsibilities to field staff, local officials and organizations, decentralization would facilitate greater “penetration” of national government policies and programmes to remote and/or rural areas whose inhabitants are sometimes insensitive and ignorant of national government plans, and where support for these plans are weak.

Another merit of decentralization is that by granting some measure of autonomy and independence to local unit officials, it can promote flexibility, innovation and creative administration. This is because the local officials would now have the opportunity or freedom to experiment with new programmes and projects which if successful can be replicated in other areas of the country (see Lele, 1975, Chapter VIII and IX).

Furthermore, decentralization is capable of providing “a structure through which activities of various central government ministries and agencies involved in development could be co-ordinated more effectively with each other and with those of

56

local leaders and non-governmental organizations within various regions” (Rondinelli, 1981: L 136).

Institutionalization of citizens participation in development planning and management can be realized through a decentralized administrative structure, which can facilitate the exchange of information about local needs and channel political demands from the local community to national ministries (see Rondinelli, 1981:136, Cohen and Uphoff 1980: 233-235).

Decentralization also would lead to greater mobilization of local resources for development. This is because

“citizens within self-governing sub-national governments are likely to be more willing to contribute financially in support of development activities that are identified and implemented at the local level than they would contribute to central government”

(Adamolekun, 2002:50).

Finally, decentralization, according to the public choice school, promotes competitions and choice. By promoting competition among decentralized government units, decentralization will lead both to improvement in the quality of goods and services they provide and reduction of costs.

Arguments against Decentralization

Inspite of the advantages of decentralization discussed above, the following arguments which Prod’ home, (1995) summarized as the “dangers of decentralization,” have often been put forward. Firstly, pertaining to the argument of the public choice school, critics contend that competition among decentralized government units does not always result to reduction in the cost of providing goods and services. In addition, they argue that “the idea that citizens have a choice between jurisdictions is only practicable in certain socio-cultural and political contexts (for example, the United States)” (Adamolekun, 2002:51).

On the issue of resource mobilization, allocation and utilization, critics of decentralization argue that the central or federal government in developing countries is better equipped to mobilize national resources and deliver results than the local levels due to the high caliber of manpower in its employ. It is also in a better position to tackle inter-jurisdictional inequalities.

57

Finally, critics of decentralization argue “that weak states cannot afford to decentralize, especially in the sense of devolution, because of the danger of further weakening the state” (Adamolekun, 2002:51). This argument is weak because autonomy for distinct communities or ethnic groups could actually contribute to the stability of the nation state. A good example is Switzerland which has remained stable despite its autonomous ethnic/linguistic cantons.