Renewed emphasis on good governance and transparency has once again put the issue of decentralisation on the agenda. In theory, a decentralised government – whose representatives are in closer contact with their electorate – will be more transparent and responsive to the needs of the poor and this will naturally promote pro-poor development. But what does reality tell us? Are decentralised governments really more responsive? Does decentralisation actually lead to greater transparency and better provision of basic services? This week’s Guest Editor Lara Yocarini considers the evidence and answers offered by research along side her own experience working in Benin.

In Bolivia, the 1994 decentralisation reforms seem to be living up to their promise: public investment spending has seen some drastic restructuring, the poorest municipalities are receiving a bigger slice of the national cake, and local governments have become more accessible. Two research papers included in this week’s selection on Uganda – where decentralisation took off in 1986 – also cautiously point in a positive direction. But these examples prove to be the exception rather than the rule. A number of large comparative studies – using qualitative data - show that decentralisation and pro-poorness do not necessarily go hand in hand and that much depends on the form of decentralisation used, and on the central government’s commitment. Other potential pitfalls include the capturing of the process by local elites, the unwillingness of the central government to transfer power and money, resurging regionalism, and a lack of participation.

Some of these factors are also influencing the decentralisation process that is currently taking place in the small West-African state of Benin, the country I am writing from. In December 2002, after years of fruitless deliberation, the government finally organised local elections, and the country’s 77 municipalities came to exist in more than name. Now the newly elected mayors and councillors are struggling to turn promises into practice and to take on board their newly assigned responsibilities. Not an easy task, given the central government’s lack of commitment, and the limited human resources available.

Yet even more crucial, and even more lacking are the necessary financial resources. If Benin’s municipalities want to make a serious contribution to the development of their population, they cannot simply sit around and depend on the central government and international donors. They will need to mobilise internal resources, and that, unfortunately, is easier said than done. Local markets are small, and the population is not to keen on paying taxes. They first want to see their situation improved before they are willing to commit their scarce resources. Yet in order to deliver, local governments first need money. The result is a “catch-22 situation”, where no one side seems able to win. But there has been at least one positive side-effect: local authorities have no choice but to involve their population in the decentralisation process and be open about their activities and plans. This is already an important first step in the right direction.

Source(s):
Lara Yocarini is this week’s Guest Editor. Click here to view her editorial together with her critical selection of id21 Research Highlights on decentralisation Full document.

id21 Research Highlight: 27 May 2004

Further Information:
Lara Yocarini
Advisor Local Governance
SNV Benin
01 BP 1048
Cotonou
Benin

Tel: +229  84 81 13
Contact the contributor: lyocarini@yahoo.co.uk

Other related links:
Devolution in Uganda: living up to expectations?

Decentralisation in Bolivia: a success story for the poor

Decentralisation and poverty reduction: the reality in Africa

Measuring pro-poorness: does decentralisation help the poor

Decentralisation: not necessarily always a good thing?

Decentralisation in Uganda: is the jury still out?

Become an id21 Guest Editor yourself