Decentralization and Local

Governance in Fragile Contexts

Seth Kaplan

15.05.2017 Page 1

The big picture

Sources of fragility (societal fragmentation

and lack of institutionalization)

Change in balance of power between state

and non-state actors

Why transitions are much harder now than

in the past

Why institution building works better than

state building

15.05.2017 Page 2

Advantages

Highly rated as a tool to manage conflict in

socially fragmented countries

Greater legitimacy of the state; produces

fewer grievances and less polarization

More scope to leverage social cohesion (if

greater locally than nationally) More scope

to leverage institutions that already work

(work with the grain; go hybrid)

15.05.2017 Page 3

Advantages cont.

Formal institutions more likely to extend

across territory

Potentially more accountability of political

leaders

15.05.2017 Page 4

Disadvantages

Same problems that exist nationally can

exist locally (social fragmentation, state

capture, corruption, etc.)

If economy weak, a lack of local revenue

source

Potential for regional imbalances

Need to strengthen institutions in more

places

Potential to encourage secessionism

15.05.2017 Page 5

Conclusions

Understanding context very important to

any strategy; need to move away from

templates (importance of assessments)

Decentralization can help in many places,

but implementation formula (e.g., mix

between central and local institutions)

needs to vary across contexts

More likely to succeed when local groups

are already cohesive

15.05.2017 Page 6

Conclusions cont. Ideally, efforts to help local institutions

needs to be done in parallel with national

institutions so they work together in a

virtuous cycle

Efforts to work on local institutions need to

build in processes that can counter the

disadvantages (e.g., strengthen

accountability mechanisms when these are

weak; seek ways to handle issues such as

migration that disrupts cohesion locally)

15.05.2017 Page 7

Conclusions cont.

Local institutions may be better entry

points than national in some cases (e.g.,

Nigeria, Libya)

Efforts need to be sustained over long

time horizon yet balance short, medium,

and long term goals

15.05.2017 Page 8

The role of non-state actors

In some cases, these will be more capable

than state actors; in such cases, work with

Need to find inexpensive ways to catalyze

local efforts, but without necessarily having

blueprints determining end results

Need to be flexible; set minimum standards

for performance around ideas such as

inclusiveness, justice, and delivery of goods,

not liberal ideas such as electoral politics;

use carrots and sticks where possible15.05.2017 Page 9

The role of non-state actors cont.

Need to bring in 3D at times (diplomacy,

defense, development) to assist; conflict

management, security; economic

opportunity

In some cases, hybrid institutions that

leverage best working local institutions in

local governance offer the best way forward

Relationship between the state and various

actors can be fluid; policies need to take into

account the changing dynamic15.05.2017 Page 10

The role of non-state actors cont.

All of this points to the need for much

more sustained investment in local

knowledge and mechanisms to ensure this

is fed back into policy decisions

15.05.2017 Page 11