Before entering into the substance of arguments for and against decentralization, it is important to review the various meanings which the word has been given by both authors and the governments that implement it. Because such a discussion becomes very quickly an exercise in taxonomy, it is useful to proceed as succinctly as is prudent. As alluded to above, the word "decentralization" is more a semantic umbrella beneath which are gathered many and different concepts than it is an analytically precise term. This study will concentrate on the more representative academic usages given "decentralization" by both political scientists and economists.
Perhaps the best general definition of decentralization is by Rondinelli, et. al.:
the transfer of responsibility for planning, management, and resource-raising and allocation from the central government to (a) field units of central government ministries or agencies; (b) subordinate units or levels of government; (c) semi-autonomous public authorities or corporations; (d) area-wide regional or functional authorities; or (e) NGOs/PVOs.[2]
If we add "and private firms" to (e), then we have a good general definition with which we can approach most theoretical and empirical issues. Bennet (1990) highlights a useful distinction between two general decentralizing thrusts: intergovernmental decentralization, which involves transfers of authority, responsibility, power and resources downward among different levels of government, and market-based decentralization, where these are transferred from governments to the market and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). Each category embraces numerous specific strategies for transferring functions. Wolman (in Bennet, 1990) delineates three types of decentralization: political decentralization, administrative decentralization, and economic decentralization (though admitting that there is no clear distinction between the first two).
An additional complicating factor is introduced by the question of the general class of regimes within which decentralization takes place. Aside from the issue of whether effective decentralization is more likely to occur under democratic, authoritarian, theocratic, or other regimes, the type of regime under which decentralization occurs is likely to have a great impact upon its effectiveness. For the sake of focus, this thesis will concentrate on decentralization under democratic regimes. We shall see that the presence and nature of democratic controls will play a large role in our ability to theorize about decentralization.
It is clear that the underlying concepts regarding the forms which decentralization takes are broadly similar, but also that the taxonomic exercise could continue through innumerable divisions, definitions and categorizations.[3] The reasonable course to take, then, is to choose one definition and proceed. This study elects the following:
Decentralization will be understood as the devolution by central (i.e. national) government of specific functions, with all of the administrative, political and economic attributes that these entail, to local (i.e. municipal) governments which are independent of the center and sovereign within a legally delimited geographic and functional domain.
It will be useful to keep in mind the definition of Rondinelli, et. al. during the theoretical discussion, as most authors have adopted a more general approach to the question of decentralization than that proposed above. The empirical work and theoretical proposals, however, will stick closely to the latter definition. The two reasons for choosing this usage are both powerful and fortuitous. First, the clarity of the proposition greatly simplifies analysis, allowing it to focus on discrete, well-defined decentralizing measures and exogenous variables in order to gauge the empirical effects of each on policy outputs. Second, the empirical case which will be used to test these relationships involves precisely this form of decentralization (see below), implemented uniquely and vigorously.
|
[2] "Government
Decentralization in Comparative Perspective: Developing Countries",
International Review of Administrative Science, 47(2), Rondinelli, et al.
(1981) [3] Some authors add a "Hybrid" category to the ones listed above. This would seem to be a futile gesture, as any categorization involves idealized forms abstracted from reality, and therefore most unlikely to be detected in their pure form, but which exist in order to facilitate exposition and understanding. |
