May 29, 2006	Monday	Jumadi-ul-Awwal 1, 1427

Decentralisation is a complex concept. For a layman it simply means the transfer of authority and responsibility from the central government to a lower level of government but decentralization can be of different types and levels.

Transfer of authority can be either to a provincial / local government or to quasi-independent bodies or to corporations. Similarly, the type of authority, which is transferred, can be fiscal, political, administrative or a combination of all.

An apposite way to analyze decentralisation is to look at it in terms of two dimensions, the level of autonomy and the location of accountability. Autonomy can be high or low, depending on how much decision-making powers and resources the local governments possess.

Similarly, location of accountability can also be declared as local or central. Municipal governments can be answerable to central ministries or to the local population through elections. Based on these two dimensions we can divide decentralisation into four forms: de-concentration, delegation, de-responsibility and devolution. Accountability/Autonomy Low High Central De-concentration Delegation Local De-responsibility Devolution.

De-concentration (low autonomy, central accountability), usually attempted in unitary states, is sharing authority to lower levels of central government. Example of de-concentration will be transferring of hiring authority from the ministry of health of Bangladesh, a unitary state, to the local health region.

Delegation (high autonomy, central accountability) is transferring authority to corporation or state-owned enterprises that are controlled by government but are not bound by all rules of government. Delegation is done when it is discovered that the level of service provided by a government department can be improved if there are less rules and regulations.

By giving more autonomy, without losing control over service provision, it is hoped that these departments would perform better. Example of delegation can be transferring of water provision service in a city from a provincial government department to the Water and Sanitation Authority (WASA).

De-responsibility (low autonomy, local accountability) is an effort by central governments to set up local governments without giving these governments any powers. Central governments of many countries usually want decentralisation but don’t want to lose their powers.

The result of these opposite desires is de-responsibility. Example of de-responsibility will be setting up elected local governments without giving them financial resources to do their jobs. So, they are accountable to local populace but always dependent on centre to perform their functions.

Devolution (high autonomy, local accountability) is transferring authority to lower levels of government and making them accountable to their local constituents. Most of the people when they talk about decentralisation actually mean devolution. Example of devolution will be elected local governments with responsibility and with proper financial and human resources to do their job.

There have been more than 50 attempts at decentralization around the world but very few have been successful in achieving their objectives. Some of the countries have been forced to reverse their initial decision and re-centralise; others have made two or three attempts to decentralize and are still a long way from achieving their objectives.

The most important reason for the failure of decentralisation process is the lack of sincerity on the part of the central governments. Central governments decide to decentralise to please their own populace or donors but in reality they don’t want to lose control. So, they claim that they are devolving power but what is actually done is delegation or de-responsibility.

Local governments might be made locally accountable but autonomy is still concentrated at the centre. Pakistan’s current decentralisation exercise can be given as an example. On paper, district nazim, the most important person in the process, is accountable to the local populace. But since district nazim is indirectly elected and his election is usually managed by the military or central governments, he knows that his real boss is not his local electoral college but people sitting in the federal capital.

Like the deputy commissioner before him, district nazim is looking upward for advice, instructions and approval. This defeats the whole purpose of decentralisation, which was to shift power downward to the masses.

Ignoring of local context and dynamics is another source of failure. International donor agencies like the World Bank, Asian Development Bank (ADB) etc encourage, finance and support decentralization in developing countries. When a developing country agrees to decentralize, these agencies usually want to manage and control the decentralisation process, instead of allowing locals to have their way, due to two reasons.

First, as explained above, donors suspect that the centre has agreed to decentralize but as this process will decrease its power, it is not sincere to this process. Second, as donors provide the finances, they think it is their right to make important decisions. Control of the decentralization exercise is, therefore, usually with the donors.

This leads to problems since international donors don’t have indigenous knowledge. They apply a general model based on their decentralisation attempts —mostly failed —in tens of other developing countries and ignore local dynamics, which jeopardize the local ownership and sustainability of the decentralisation process.

An example of lack of sensitivity to the local context has been observed in Africa where in order to promote local autonomy, donors have forced centre to share tax-levying powers with the local governments. This has resulted in a dramatic increase in local taxes, endangering local businesses and trade.

Finally, decentralisation process also fails due to the lack of expertise at the local level. Central governments devolve powers and responsibility but local people don’t have expertise to manage the increased responsibility.

Lack of accountants, administrators, police officers, teachers, IT technicians and other experts can deride the best-planned decentralization process. In case of Pakistan, Balochistan is facing difficulties in its decentralisation exercise due to the deficiency of qualified personnel.

Decentralisation process in Pakistan has failed to enlist support of ordinary people despite spending of millions of dollars and more than five years of effort. A fresh look at various implications of devolution might help remove the cause of this anomaly.