SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT

GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRATISATION BDS 123 (BPIR 230)

MODULE IN GOVERNANCE

and

DEMOCRATISATION

DANIEL BOWASI

8/10/2013

Preface

The module is prepared primarily for students taking Governance and Democratisation. It is organised based on the course outline of the Governance and Democratisation

The course Governance and Democratisation BDS 123 (BBIR 230) provides a foundation in Governance and Democratisation for undergraduate students. The course has been designed to give a student insight into the basics of Governance and Democratisation. Topics include: theoretical basis of understating governance and democratisation; good governance; definitions and dimensions of decentralisation. Attempt has also been made to draw examples from some neighbouring countries.

Copyright

All rights are reserved. No part of this module may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means or stored in any retrieval system, electronic, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior permission of the university.

School of Business, Economics and ManagementPioneer Campus

Off Alick Nkhata Road Mass MediaP. o. Box 36711, Lusaka

ZAMBIA

Fax ++260 211 233409E-mail unilus @zamnet.zm

Website: www. Unilus. Ac. Zm

CONTENT

GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRATISATION- BDS 123 (BPIR 230)

Definitions and dimensions of decentralization.

Theories of decentralization in development economics.

A comparative study of decentralization

The social, political and economic underpinnings of decentralization

Decentralization at different levels of government

Decentralization and people participation

Decentralization policy in Zambia

UNIT 1INTRODUCTION TO GOVERNANCE AND

DEMOCRATISATIONIntroduction

Recently the terms "governance" and "good governance" are being increasingly used in

development literature. Bad governance is being increasingly regarded as one of the root

causes of all evil within our societies. Major donors and international financial institutions are

increasingly basing their aid and loans on the condition that reforms that ensure "good

governance" are undertaken. This unit tries to explain, what "governance" and "good

governance" means.

GOVERNANCE

The concept of "governance" is not new. It is as old as human civilization. Simply put

"governance" means: the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are

implemented (or not implemented). Governance can be used in several contexts such as:

Corporate governance;

International governance;

National governance; and

Local governance.

Since governance is the process of decision making and the process by which decisions are

implemented, an analysis of governance focuses on the formal and informal actors involved in

decision-making and implementing the decisions made and the formal and informal structures

that have been set in place to arrive at and implement the decision.

Government is one of the actors in governance. Other actors involved in governance vary

depending on the level of government that is under discussion. In rural areas, for example,

other actors may include influential land lords, associations of peasant farmers, cooperatives,

NGOs, research institutes, religious leaders, finance institutions political parties, the military

etc.

The situation in urban areas is much more complex. At the national level, in addition to the

above actors, media, lobbyists, international donors, multi-national corporations, etc. may play

a role in decision making or in influencing the decision-making process.

All actors other than government and the military are grouped together as part of the "civil

society." In some countries in addition to the civil society, organized crime syndicates also

influence decision-making, particularly in urban areas and at the national level. Similarly formal

government structures are one means by which decisions are arrived at and implemented. At

the national level, informal decision-making structures, such as "kitchen cabinets" or informal

advisors may exist. In urban areas, organized crime syndicates such as the "land Mafia" may

influence decision-making. In some rural areas locally powerful families may make or influence

decision-making. Such, informal decision-making is often the result of corrupt practices or leads

to corrupt practices.

Good Governance

The following are the 8 major characteristics of Good Governance:

It is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and

efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law. It assures that corruption is

minimized, the views of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the most

vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making. It is also responsive to the present and

future needs of society.

Participation

Participation by both men and women is a key cornerstone of good governance. Participation

could be either direct or through legitimate intermediate institutions or representatives. It is

important to point out that representative democracy does not necessarily mean that the

concerns of the most vulnerable in society would be taken into consideration in decision

making. Participation needs to be informed and organized. This means freedom of association

and expression on the one hand and an organized civil society on the other hand.

Rule of law

Good governance requires fair legal frameworks that are enforced impartially. It also requires

full protection of human rights, particularly those of minorities. Impartial enforcement of laws

requires an independent judiciary and an impartial and incorruptible police force.

Transparency

Transparency means that decisions taken and their enforcement are done in a manner that

follows rules and regulations. It also means that information is freely available and directly

accessible to those who will be affected by such decisions and their enforcement. It also means

that enough information is provided and that it is provided in easily understandable forms and

media.

Responsiveness

Good governance requires that institutions and processes try to serve all stakeholders within a

reasonable timeframe.

Consensus oriented

There are several actors and as many view points in a given society. Good governance requires

mediation of the different interests in society to reach a broad consensus in society on what is

in the best interest of the whole community and how this can be achieved. It also requires a

broad and long-term perspective on what is needed for sustainable human development and

how to achieve the goals of such development. This can only result from an understanding of

the historical, cultural and social contexts of a given society or community.

Equity and inclusiveness

A society’s well being depends on ensuring that all its members feel that they have a stake in it

and do not feel excluded from the mainstream of society. This requires all groups, but

particularly the most vulnerable, have opportunities to improve or maintain their well being.

Effectiveness and efficiency

Good governance means that processes and institutions produce results that meet the needs of

society while making the best use of resources at their disposal. The concept of efficiency in the

context of good governance also covers the sustainable use of natural resources and the

protection of the environment.

Accountability

Accountability is a key requirement of good governance. Not only governmental institutions but

also the private sector and civil society organizations must be accountable to the public and to

their institutional stakeholders. Who is accountable to whom varies depending on whether

decisions or actions taken are internal or external to an organization or institution. In general an

organization or an institution is accountable to those who will be affected by its decisions or

actions. Accountability cannot be enforced without transparency and the rule of law.

Conclusion

From the above discussion it should be clear that good governance is an ideal which is difficult

to achieve in its totality. Very few countries and societies have come close to achieving good

governance in its totality. However, to ensure sustainable human development, actions must be

taken to work towards this ideal with the aim of making it a reality.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

This unit examines the relationship between democratisation and governance on one hand,

and administrative reform on the other. It argues that administrative reform is an essential

prerequisite to democratisation and governance and that any attempt to delink the three

concepts will make democratisation and governance a farce (Ndue, 2005). In other words, any

political reform at democratizing institutions, in particular the founding of a pluralistic

democracy, will only be fully effective insofar as it is accompanied by far reaching

administrative reforms which effectively redistribute power. The unit also discusses the

implications of this link between democratisation, governance and administrative reform for

public administration in Africa.

Democratisation

Democratization can be understood in three different ways namely:

The introduction of democracy in a non-democratic regime.

Next, democratization can be understood as the deepening of the democratic qualities

of given democracies.

Finally, democratization involves the question of the survival of democracy.

Technically speaking, the emergence, the deepening, and the survival of democracy are strictly

distinct aspects of democratization. But they merge in the question of sustainable

democratization, that is, the emergence of democracies that develop and endure.

Democratization is sustainable to the extent to which it advances in response to pressures from

within a society.

UNIT 2 DEMOCRATISATION AND GOVERNANCE

WHAT IS DEMOCRATISATION?

The concept democratisation does not have a precise definition. In simple terms

democratisation has the criteria of regular electoral competitions, usually in a multiparty

political system, and has the characteristics of governmental succession by constitutional,

electoral procedures, guaranteed in the rule of law.

On the other hand, the maximalist “socio-economic” delineation of democratisation include the

criteria such as redistributive socio-economic reforms, broadened popular participation, social

justice and human rights (Qadir et. al., 193:416).

According to Elly Runierse (1993) three stages of the process of democratization may be

discerned:

First, is the political liberalization, which has been defined as the process “in which the

fear of repression is relaxed and there are constitutional guarantees of a range of

political freedoms (especially the recognition of the right of opposition groupings to

function and to express dissent) in which there is greater independence for legislative

assemblies where they still exist, and freedom of the press”. (Healey and Robinson,

1992:22).

To Qadir et. al. (1993:416), political liberalization is a process of political change

controlled from the top down, as means of preserving most of the status quo. They

seem to be cynical of political liberalization, which they regard as the “game the elites

play to manage the granting of very carefully selected concessions… a cosmetic exercise

and does not install the fundamentals of democratization”.

Qadir et al. (1993:416-417) however concede that political change escapes from elite

control to encompass broader social forces and its purpose is transformed from the

preservation to the status quo of interests to genuine reform. They conclude that the

processes of democratization and political liberalization are distinct, and only the “truly

deserving cases should be referred to as democratization, where ultimate outcome of

the process and its agency are almost the reverse of political liberalization” (Qadir,

1993:417). Anything short of this is to “trivialize the concept of democratization, and

worse still, to mislead people”. (Qadir et. al., 1993: 417) Adrain Ledtwich (1993:616)

takes their warning further by pointing that “faith in the economic and political

liberalism of the minimal state as the universally appropriate means of development is

deeply flawed”. Perhaps a more forceful and cynical attempt to press home the point

that democratization and political liberalization are not the same and are therefore

distinct has been made by lemarchand (1992:183-184): For, if by “liberalization” is

meant the dismantling of dictatorships, there are good reasons to assume that

liberalization can occur without democratization and that in some parts of Africa the

disintegration of authoritarian rule may be followed by anarchy or intensified corruption.

Second, it is the process of growing political accountability which has been viewed as a

“move towards more inclusive politics, even within a single party system, through the

introduction of measures to extend societal participation in political decision-making”

(Healey and Robinson, 1992:151).

Third, is to regard democratization as a historical process rather than an end state that

seems to involve “the introduction of universal suffrage and genuine political

competition with free and fair elections to decide who will take power” (Healey and

Robinson, 1992:151). should be referred to as democratization, where ultimate

outcome of the process and its agency are almost the reverse of political liberalization”

(Qadir, 1993:417). Anything short of this is to “trivialize the concept of democratization,

and worse still, to mislead people”. (Qadir et. al., 1993: 417).

Adrain Ledtwich (1993:616) takes their warning further by pointing that “faith in the

economic and political liberalism of the minimal state as the universally appropriate

means of development is deeply flawed”. Perhaps a more forceful and cynical attempt

to press home the point that democratization and political liberalization are not the

same and are therefore distinct has been made by lemarchand (1992:183-184): For, if by

“liberalization” is meant the dismantling of dictatorships, there are good reasons to

assume that liberalization can occur without democratization and that in some parts of

Africa the disintegration of authoritarian rule may be followed by anarchy or intensified

corruption.

Democratisation is also viewed as the process of growing political accountability which has

been viewed as a “move towards more inclusive politics, even within a single party system,

through the introduction of measures to extend societal participation in political decision-

making” (Healey and Robinson, 1992:151).

Third, is to regard democratization as a historical process rather than an end state that seems

to involve “the introduction of universal suffrage and genuine political competition with free

and fair elections to decide who will take power” (Healey and Robinson, 1992:151).

UNIT 3THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

DEMOCRATISATION AND GOVERNANCE 1.0 THE RELATIONSHIONSHIP BETWEEN DEMOCRATIZATION AND GOOD GOVERNANCE

Democratization has been linked to good governance, which the World Bank defines as, “… the

exercise of political power to manage a nation’s affairs” (World Bank, 1989:60) and also regards

it as being synonymous with sound development (World Bank, 1992-1).

The relationship between democratization and good governance, supported and promoted by

institutions such as the World Bank, United States, British and French governments, the

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United Nations

Development Programme (UNDP), the European Council and the Commonwealth Secretariat, is

based on the fact that the latter (good governance) has the ingredients, features, the functional

and institutional prerequisites as well as the building blocks of democratization. These include:

An efficient public service;

An independent judicial system and legal framework;

The accountable administration of public funds ;

An independent public auditor, representative legislature;

Respect for the law and human rights at all levels of government;

A pluralistic institutional structure; and

A free press (World Bank, 1989:6, 15, 60-61, 192).

According to Leftwich (1993; 1994) the concept of “democratic good governance” has the three

main levels of meaning which can be classified into:

Systemic;

Political; and

Administrative.

SYSTEMIC: In this sense, good governance denotes the structures of political and crucially,

economic relationships and rules by which the productive and distributive life of a society is

governed (Leftwich, 1993:611; Leftwich, 1994:371). In short, good governance means a

“democratic capitalist” regime presided over by a minimal state which forms part of the wider

governance of the New World Order (World Bank, 1989; World Bank, 1992; Healey and

Robinson; Leftwich 1994).

Second, from a political sense, good governance presupposes a regime or state which enjoys

legitimacy and authority, derived from a democratic mandate and built on the traditional liberal

notion of a clear separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers. Whether in a

presidential or parliamentary system, this presupposes a pluralist polity with a freely and

regularly elected representative legislature, with the capacity at least to influence and check

executive power (Leftwich, 1993: Leftwich, 1994).

Third, from an administrative point of view, good governance means an efficient, independent,

accountable and open audited public service which has the bureaucratic competence to help

design and implement appropriate policies and manage whatever public sector there is. It also

entails an independent judicial system to uphold the law and resolve disputes arising in a

largely free market economy. The administrative aspect of good governance focuses on four

main areas of public administration in general and public sector management in particular.

They are:

accountability, which in essence means holding officials responsible for their actions;

a legal framework for development, which means a structure of rules and laws which

provide clarity, predictability and stability for the private sector, which are impartially

and fairly applied to all, and which provide the basis for conflict resolution through an

independent judicial system;

information, by which is meant that information about economic conditions, budgets,

markets and government intentions is reliable and accessible to all, something which is

crucial for private sector calculations;

insistence on transparency, which is basically a call for open government, to enhance

accountability, limit corruption and stimulate consultative processes between

government and private interests over policy development (World Bank, 1992; Leftwich,

1993; Leftwich, 1993).

Viewed from the foregoing connotations of good governance, it is no wonder that the concept

is inseparable from the process of democratization.

2.0. WHAT IS ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM?

Like democratization, the concept of administrative reform does not lend itself to a clear-cut

definition. However, the definition, which is commonly used because of its comprehensiveness

and scope, is the one offered by Gerald Caiden (1969). According to Caiden (1960:65)

administrative reform is the “artificial inducement of administrative need to improve on the

status), artificial transformation (departure from existing arrangements and natural change

processes), and administrative resistance (opposition is assumed). Administrative reform is

political rather than merely organizational. It is “a political process designed to adjust the

relationship between a bureaucracy and other elements in society or within the bureaucracy

itself” (Montgomery, 1967:17). Succinctly put, administrative reform is:

Power politics in action; it contains ideological rationalization, fights for control of areas,

services, and people, political participants and institutions… (Caiden, 1969:9).

Administrative reform has a “moral content” in that it seeks to create a “better” system by

removing faults and imperfections. It is usually undertaken to change the status quo for the

better. It aims at making the administrative and political structures and procedures compatible

with broader goals. Administrative reform sets additional political values to be used as

yardsticks against which administrative performance may be judged. The crux of administrative

reform, therefore, is innovation and wealth creation that is, injection of new ideas and new

people in a new combination of tasks and relationships into the policy and administrative

process. Administrative reform may occur where two conditions are met.

A set value with which the existing bureaucratic arrangements, public personnel and

values are seen to be in conflict.

The concern by politicians and the general public that the existing bureaucratic

structures cannot realize new goals set for them.

Consequently, administrative reform may involve centralizing or decentralizing initiatives or

both: the denominators are “away from” or “towards” the centre (Caiden, 1969; United

Nations, 1973; Dror, 1976; Leemans, 1976).

Administrative reform involves system diagnosis, that is, examination of administrative systems

to detect what is wrong and what can be improved. Given that all systems are imperfect,

system diagnosis is not difficult. Getting the right solution is something else. As in medicine, the

same symptoms may have several possible causes, some of little consequence, others serious.

A wrong diagnosis may prove quite harmful. Every system, like patient, needs careful

examination and the selection of those remedies that best fit in peculiar circumstances, not a

superficial examination, acceptance of the client’s own diagnosis, and hasty reference to

standard texts (Caiden, 1978: 114; Caiden, 1988).

UNIT 3DEFINITIONS AND DIMENTIONS OF

DECENTRALISATION INTRODUCTION

One of the most critical prerequisites for students to appreciate decentralisation is a clear

understanding of the concept. To be able to better envision what decentralization means, how

best it can be planned and implemented, what its intricacies are, and how its challenges can be

overcome, students taking this course should be equipped with appropriate tools which could

provide an analytical knowledge of decentralization from a conceptual viewpoint accompanied

by real and field-tested examples of the concept in practice. Emphasis will be put on the

decentralisation process in Zambia.

Students are encouraged to use this unit as a basis for their research on issues of

decentralisation. The literature and sources on decentralization are vast. Simple Web-site

searches uncover references in the thousands (e.g. Yahoo uncovered over 5,000 references).

Selected Meanings of Decentralization

Decentralization, or decentralizing governance, refers to the restructuring or reorganization of

authority so that there is a system of co-responsibility between institutions of governance at

the central, regional and local levels. Decentralization could also be expected to contribute to

key elements of good governance, such as:

Increasing people's opportunities for participation in economic, social and political

decisions;

Assisting in developing people's capacities; and

Enhancing government responsiveness, transparency and accountability.

Decentralization or decentralizing governance should not be seen as an end in itself, it can be a

means for creating more open, responsive, and effective local government and for enhancing

representational systems of community-level decision making. By allowing local communities

and regional entities to manage their own affairs, and through facilitating closer contact

between central and local authorities, effective systems of local governance enable responses

to people's needs and priorities to be heard, thereby ensuring that government interventions

meet a variety of social needs. This may lead to ensuring increased decentralisation, local,

participatory processes to identify and address priority objectives for poverty reduction,

employment creation, gender equity, and environmental regeneration.

Decentralization stimulates the search for program and policy innovation, first of all because it

is, per se, an innovative practice of governance. Second, because through its implementation,

local governments are required to assume new and broader responsibilities in order to provide

public services for all. The assumption of new responsibilities through decentralization often

requires improved planning, budgeting and management techniques and practices; the

adoption of new tools; and the development of improved human resources to operate the

decentralized programmes.

Decentralization is a complex phenomenon involving many geographic entities, societal actors

and social sectors. The geographic entities include the:

International;

National;

Sub-national; and

Local.

The societal actors include:

Government;

The private sector; and

Civil society.

The social sectors include all development themes:

Political;

Social;

Cultural; and

Environmental.

In designing decentralization policies and programmes it is essential to use a systems-approach

encompassing these overlapping social sectors and the different requirements which each

makes.

Decentralization is a mixture of administrative, fiscal and political functions and relationships. In

the design of decentralization systems all three must be included.

WHAT DECENTRALIZATION IS NOT

An alternative to centralization: Decentralization is not an alternative to centralization. Both

are needed. The complementary roles of national and sub-national actors should be

determined by analyzing the most effective ways and means of achieving a desired objective.

For example, a national road system should be designed with both local input and national

coordination. Foreign policy should be a national function based on the views of the citizenry.

Solid waste management should primarily be dealt with through local mechanisms. And so

forth. In designing a decentralization strategy it is imperative that such an analysis be done.

Exclusively public sector reform: Decentralization is much more than public sector, civil service

or administrative reform. It involves the roles and relationships of all of the societal actors,

whether governmental, private sector or civil society. The design of decentralization

programmes must take this into account. This is why UNDP prefers the use of the term

"decentralized governance" rather than the term decentralization.

2.2 FORMS OF DECENTRALIZATION

A recent work carried out by Cohen and Peterson (1999:16-19), contains a major section on the

evolution of decentralization as both a concept and as a means for development. The authors

identify six major forms of decentralization (which they also refer to as ‘classification systems’

and ‘approaches’. They state: “Several different ways of classifying forms of decentralization

have been promoted over the past few decades by those making a clear distinction between

centralization and decentralization. What is common to these classification systems is that they

recognize the need for a definition that is grounded on more than legal concerns. Six approaches

to identifying forms of decentralization can be identified in the literature.”

The following forms of decentralization are quoted directly from their text (pp. 16 – 19):

Forms According to Historical Origins

The first approach classifies forms on the basis of historical origins. A focus on history has led

one specialist to assert there were four basic decentralization patterns: French, English, Soviet,

and Traditional. Today this system of classification is viewed as both too simplistic and

analytically weak.” (p. 16)

Territorial and Functional Decentralization

A second approach distinguishes the forms of decentralization by hierarchy and function.

According to this new "territorial decentralization" refers to the transfer of centrally produced

and provided public goods and services to local-level units in the government hierarchy of

jurisdictions. "Functional decentralization" refers to the transfer of such central responsibilities

to either parastatals under the control of the government or to units outside governmental

control, such as NGOs or private firms. The problem with this classification is that it is too

rudimentary to facilitate clarity over design and implementation issues, such as legal basis,

structural organization, division of powers, or administrative, financial, and budgetary

procedures. Further, the emphasis on territory highlights a major misconception about

decentralization: that decentralization is largely focused on the process of transferring public

sector tasks out of the capital city and into the hinterland. This spatial view of decentralization

is naive and obscures the complexities of the concept. The notion of functional decentralization

is more useful, for it underlies the current view … that administrative decentralization is the

expansion of the array of institutions and organizations carrying out collective public sector

tasks and that this can happen in the capital city as well as in other urban areas and the

countryside.” (pp. 16-17)

Problem and Valued-Centred Forms

The third approach identifies forms of decentralization by the problem being addressed and the

values of the investigators. This approach is best illustrated by the work of the Berkeley

Decentralization Project, which was primarily interested in finding ways of bringing more

effective development programs and projects to the rural poor. . . . the Berkeley group

identified eight forms of decentralization: (1) devolution, (2) functional devolution, (3) interest

organization, (4) prefectoral deconcentration, (5) ministerial deconcentration, (6) delegation to

autonomous agencies, (7) philanthropy, and (8) marketization. In formulating this set of forms,

most of the Berkeley group was not interested in addressing larger generic issues related to the

concept of ‘decentralization’. Rather, it focused on studying the linkages of the center and the

periphery on a sector-by-sector basis. In studying these linkages it formulated an idiosyncratic

set of forms that ensured, on a project-by-project basis, that development interventions

addressed the vulnerability of the rural poor and the threat to them by central and local elites

seeking their own interests. The problem with this approach to addressing particular

weaknesses of over centralization is that it is eclectic and dependent on the administrative,

political, economic, and value rationale of the analysts addressing the problem.” (p. 17)

Service Delivery Forms

A fourth approach focuses on patterns of administrative structures and functions that are

responsible for the production and provision of collective goods and services. One of the first of

these was presented in 1962 by the United Nations. It identified four forms of decentralization:

local-level governmental systems, partnership systems, dual systems, and integrated

administrative systems. The problem with this approach is that it is not analytical enough to

deal with the increasing diversity of structural and functional designs that marks the last three

decades.” (pp. 17-18)

Single Country Experience Form

A fifth approach takes a narrow definition of decentralization, typically based on the experience

of a single country. Under this view, transferring responsibility, manpower, and resources to

central government field offices is not decentralization. Rather, decentralization only occurs

when local-level government units are: (1) established by legislation, typically in the form of a

charter that gives the unit legal personality, defined as established by law with the right to sue

and be sued; (2) located within clearly demarcated jurisdictional boundaries within which there

is a sense of community, consciousness, and solidarity; (3) governed by locally elected officials

and representatives; (4) authorized to make and enforce local ordinances related to devolved

public sector tasks; (5) authorized to collect legally earmarked taxes and revenues; and (6)

empowered to manage their budget, expenditure, and accounting systems, and to hire their

own employees, including those responsible for security.” (p. 18)

Objectives Based Forms

The sixth approach … classifies forms of decentralization on the basis of objectives: political,

spatial, market, and administrative. Then it gives specific attention to three types of

administrative decentralization: deconcentration, devolution, and delegation. ‘Political’

decentralization typically identifies the transfer of decision making power to citizens or their

elected representatives. ‘Spatial’ decentralization is a term used by regional planners involved

in formulating policies and programs that aim at reducing excessive urban concentration in a

few large cities by promoting regional growth poles that have potential to become centers of

manufacturing and agricultural marketing. ‘Market’ decentralization focuses on creating

conditions that allow goods and services to be produced and provided by market mechanisms

sensitive to the revealed preferences of individuals. This form of decentralization has become

more prevalent due to recent trends toward economic liberalization, privatization, and the

demise of command economies. Under it, public goods and services are produced and provided

by small and large firms, community groups, cooperatives, private voluntary associations, and

NGOS. Finally, ‘administrative' decentralization is focused on the hierarchical and functional

distribution of powers . . . between central and non-central governmental units.” (p. 18)

Summary Assessment by Cohen and Peterson

Cohen and Peterson (pp. 18-19) provide a brief summary assessment of these six forms of

decentralization. The state: “It is important to note that forms affect each other. Decisions

made about spatial decentralization will affect the efforts of governments to pursue a particular

type of administrative decentralization. Or, for example, a decision by a government to pursue

a particular type of administrative decentralization will affect patterns of political forms of

decentralization. That is, in the real world, as opposed to the analytical world, it is difficult to

fully separate these four forms of decentralization. The analytical forms are useful in that they

define a perspective but they are difficult to separate out because each affects the others in

subtle ways that vary greatly from among task environments.

The failure to distinguish forms is one of the major reasons for the confusion in the literature on

decentralization. Clarity is difficult to achieve, even when efforts are made to distinguish forms.

Several examples might help clarify the complexities found in relationships among forms. First,

effective spatial decentralization generally leads to a demand for administrative

decentralization. As urban and rural areas grow and diversify it becomes more difficult and

costly for central government to control, produce, and provide collective goods and services

throughout a country. This is a very common problem, since most regions in late developing

countries have populations and demands equal to those that characterized their entire country

at independence. Second, market decentralization tends to emerge in situations where central

delivery is difficult to achieve and sustain, and private firms or non-public organizations can

deliver them better. Third, while administrative decentralization is not the same as political

decentralization, it can, under enlightened central leadership, lead to democratization and

greater political participation. But for this to happen, central leadership must be committed to

tolerating the emergence of civil society, devolving decision-making authority, and promoting

the democratic election of low.”