Updated February 1998
| Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations | United Nations Capital Development Fund | International Fund for Agricultural Development | German Agency for Technical Cooperation | Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation | World Bank |
Rome
16-18 December 1997
Technical Consultation on Decentralization
Documentation
DECENTRALIZATION is once again receiving favorable consideration by governmental and non-governmental agencies at least in part because efforts to achieve rural development through more centralized means continue to lag. But there is still much lack of clarity in both the advocacy and evaluation of decentralization.
One of the distinctions that should be made is between deconcentration and devolution can be better understood. The paper shows how the latter represents decentralization in two directions (or dimensions) rather than just one, though movement in one direction is more decentralization than none.
The paper also considers the difference between institutions and organizations, suggesting in what ways "institutional capacity" is more than "organizational capacity," analyzing some of the elements of institutional capacity. How the different sectors -- public, private and voluntary -- contribute to institutional capacity is then addressed.
Local institutional capacity is elaborated by identifying analytically the different the levels at which decision-making and activity can occur, ranging from the individual to the international level. Three levels of "local" institutional capacity are identified, based on opportunities they create for collective action.
With this analytical background, several issues relating to institutional capacity for decentralized rural development are discussed: the implications of how such capacity is initiated, what kinds of incentives are involved, how accountability can be maintained, and whether literacy is a prerequisite for effective decentralization.
The distinctions made concerning different kinds of decentralization, between institutions and organizations, among sectors and across levels, should not be reified. Real social, economic and political phenomena seldom fall neatly into rigorous categories. But such categories enable us to think more systematically and critically about the roles, functions and performance of different social, economic and political aggregations. Although some of the analysis in this paper may seem fairly abstract, being general, it grew directly out of efforts to understand very concrete problems of rural development planning and implementation.
Throughout our discussions in this Consultation, we should continually remind ourselves that decentralization is not a single thing. We should avoid making broad or gross generalizations about decentralization. It is best understood as a rubric under which are clustered many different, and even different kinds of, arrangements for making and implementing decisions.
Decentralization should be seen not simply in "division of labor" terms, where certain subjects are delegated to local decision-makers without any further involvement or interest "from above." The corollary of this view would be that local people should have no voice at all in matters decided at "higher" levels. Instead, different mixes of local knowledge and more generalized knowledge are needed at lower and higher levels.
Local decisions can benefit from generalized knowledge just as central decisions can be improved upon by considering local knowledge. The institutions and philosophy that should guide decentralized rural development are ones of partnership. Specialization and expertise can be valuable but not in isolation from the expression of needs, values, aspirations and solutions from the communities where development programs are supposed to make improvements.
|
