Table of Contents

• Report from Workshop One: Fiscal Decentralization
• Report from Workshop Two: Local Economic Development and Poverty Alleviation
• Report from Workshop Three: Decentralized Natural Resource Management
• Report from Workshop Four: Sectoral Decentralization
• Report from Workshop Five: Local Political Processes
• Report from Workshop Six: Local Institutional Structures

---

Report from Workshop One: Fiscal Decentralization

Chair

Ms Jackie Manche, Deputy Director General. DPLG, South Africa

Rapporteurs

Mr Francois Yatta, Regional Advisor, MDP, Bénin.
Prof. Oliver Saasa, Institute of Economic and Social research, University of Zambia
Mr. Oumarou Yacouba, Secretary General for (HCARD), Niger.

Resource Person

Professor Remy Prud'homme, University of Paris XII, Paris

Terms of Reference

Background

Fiscal decentralization has become a trend in much of the developing world, and Africa is no exception. There is, however, inadequate knowledge of how to best approach this complex type of decentralization reform. In addition, most of the attention given to this topic has focused on urban areas, while Africa remains significantly rural. Rural local governments often lack the resources to meet their expenditure obligations due to inadequate and poorly administered local revenue sources. Central government transfers are often designed inadequately, and the proceeds of transfer programs are rarely sufficient to meet the basic needs of local governments. International donors are commonly relied upon to fill in the deficit gap by central governments.

Fiscal decentralization is seen as an opportunity to create an environment in which local governments have the capacity to participate in and to manage local finances. It involves not only improving local revenue sources, but also strengthening the planning and management capabilities of local government officials and making budgetary reforms. Fiscal decentralization is alleged to enhance efficiency, minimize the waste of scarce economic resources, and to encourage the mobilization of revenue at the local level. If these benefits are realized, it may be possible over time to achieve the type of long-term sustainable development that heavy local dependence on the central government and donors has been unable to bring about. On the other hand, there may be potential dangers of decentralization about which national governments should be aware in devising their strategies and programs.

Objectives of the Working Group

• To discuss concrete experiences with fiscal decentralization in Africa;
• To promote further understanding on major issues and questions regarding how to approach fiscal decentralization posed in the theme paper and the plenary session;
• To establish in particular what is known about fiscal decentralization in Africa; what remains to be understood: and what should be the main priorities for future applied policy research

Suggested Questions for Discussion

The following questions should be discussed, focusing in particular on positive experiences and the lessons that result from them. It is also important to ensure that there is adequate coverage and comparison of Francophone and Anglophone Africa, to pay specific attention to differences between urban and rural areas, and to briefly consider linkages across the working group themes as appropriate (for example, the need for adequate local political accountability if the benefits of fiscal decentralization are to be recognized).

• Has fiscal decentralization been or would it be likely to be productive for your country? What are likely to be the advantages and disadvantages?
• Who has/would most benefit/lose from decentralization in your country? How could possible negative redistributional impacts be avoided?
• What controls should the central government exert on local governments in tax and expenditures matters in your own country?
• Which taxes are decentralized in your country and to what extent? Are they good local taxes? How well are they performing in terms of administration and compliance? What could be done to improve them? Are there other taxes that could be decentralized in your country?
• What type of grant system (single type or mixed) exists or is most appropriate for your country? How is/should the pool of resources (be) determined? What is/should be the balance between conditional and unconditional grants? Are there/should there be differentiation between capital and recurrent grants?
• What block grant allocation formula exists for your country, if any? If one exists, how well is it working and what reforms are needed? If none, what formula would be most appropriate?
• What type of strategy has been/should be adopted in your own country for fiscal decentralization? Which agency or agencies (ministries, local government finance commissions, decentralization secretariats, etc.) are/should be managing the process? Which step(s)/measure(s) have been/should be taken first? How did/should the system evolve over time?
• What has/could international assistance done/do to contribute to the success of a decentralization strategy in your country? How has/should your country ensure coordination of donor support?

Working Group Report

Methodology

• Dialogue and debate of participants;
• Collation of information with respect to questions raised by the Terms of Reference on Fiscal Decentralization;
• Identification and classification of major themes emerging from discussion and the chairperson's guidance on key issues.

Topics discussed

1. Competency transfer:

   The participants wanted to look at the way competencies were distributed and shared within the different countries. Unfortunately, we haven't found any positive discrimination in terms of the allocation of resources between rural and urban communes.

2. Local taxes:

   The debate raised several issues. In general it appears that taxes are still levied on a very old fashioned basis. Another issue is the lack of information on taxable material. Finally, local governments have a low collection rate. In rural areas, these difficulties are even more intense because collection rates are very low.

3. Transfers from the State to Local Governments:

   The fact that very often resource transfers do not match the level of transfer of responsibility was emphasized.

4. Development banks:

   In most countries, a debate has started on the need for development banks, in order to determine whether local development can be funded in addition to classic funding like taxes.

5. Loans:

   are very common in states such as South Africa and Zimbabwe. In other countries, local governments have access to loans but in reality, the measures taken to check the financial situation of the local governments make access to markets very difficult.

A few successful examples:

• Improvement in the quality of local services:

  In Mauritania, the state has transferred the education responsibility to local governments. Helped by the state, local governments have improved the ratio of students attending school;

• The valuation of the economical and fiscal potential of local governments:

  the positive aspects of the property register in the case of French speaking countries was discussed;

• Reinforcement of local taxes:

  We looked at this from two angles. First, local governments have tried to simplify and reduce the number of taxes to increase the fiscal productivity. Secondly, new taxes were put under local governments' responsibility (environmental levies and taxes for example);

• A new generation of transfers to local governments:

  These rely on the redistribution of the national wealth. In Nigeria, the oil income is shared by local governments. In Tanzania, there is a tax on oil to subsidies local governments, especially the poorest ones. These successes show the need for further Africa dialogue and exchange on fiscal decentralization.

Topics for further Research

The relationship between fiscal decentralization and macro-economic stability requires more sustained analysis. It would be interesting to start with empirical studies;

• There is a need for further study on decentralization and redistribution. There is a threat that if we decentralize the State's levying and expenditure systems, we put an end to redistribution. Implicitly, considering that taxes are progressive, it seems that we take from the rich so that we spend a little more on the poor. However, it seems that decentralization might endanger redistribution. We need to analyze this more thoroughly;
• Transfer costs analyses are lacking. Very few countries know how to evaluate the cost of a service. They need to get this knowledge. Secondly, if we transfer too much money to local governments, we kill their motivation to generate resources by themselves;
• We need to examine the linkage between service quality and resource mobilization. Until recently, nobody has ever evaluated this linkage. responsibility (environmental levies and taxes for example);

Return to top

---

Report from Workshop Two: Local Economic Development and Poverty Alleviation

Chair

Mr Mamadou Diouf, Director of Local Government

Rapporteurs

Dr Pundy Pillay, Director, Research Triangle, South Africa
Mr Sory Diabité, Advisor to the Minister of Administration and Decentralisation, Guinea
Mr Edward Mugabi, Director, Decentralisation Secretariate, MoLG, Uganda

Resource Person

Professor Bert Helmsing, Institute for Social Studies, the Netherlands

Terms of Reference

Background

Economic development and poverty reduction are major policy goals for all African countries. While sustainable poverty reduction is inherently linked to local economic growth, it is also connected to the creation of responsive and accountable public institutions that bring marginalized populations into the governance process. Many development experts believe that promoting decentralization can have a major impact on local development and the fight to reduce poverty, if related policies are effective in providing infrastructure facilities that serve as production inputs and meet basic needs of local residents; in supporting the creation of local jobs; and in increasing and broadening the level of participation in public decision-making. Local institutions may also play a more direct role in promoting the private sector and improved equity, for example, through community micro-finance programs. These various elements of decentralization programs could collectively promote local economic development, more equitably distribute its benefits, and stimulate progress towards improving the quality of life of the weakest local populations.

Many decentralization policies are based on the development model inherent in the scenario described above, but empirical support for it is relatively limited. There is no clear consensus about whether decentralization does indeed support economic development and poverty reduction in Africa. Perhaps the central question for policy analysts and practitioners is how to identify the circumstances under which, and the forms in which, decentralization can in fact play a productive role in supporting economic development and reducing poverty.

Objectives of the Working Group

• To discuss concrete experiences with local economic development in Africa;
• To promote further understanding on major issues and questions regarding local economic development posed in the theme paper and the plenary session;
• To establish in particular what is known about how to approach local economic
• development in Africa; what remains to be understood: and what should be the main priorities for future applied policy research.

Suggested Questions for Discussion

The following questions should be discussed, focusing in particular on positive experiences and the lessons that result from them. It is also important to ensure that there is adequate coverage and comparison of Francophone and Anglophone Africa, to pay specific attention to differences between urban and rural areas, and to briefly consider linkages across the working group themes as appropriate (for example, the need for adequate fiscal decentralization if local economic development programs are to be sustained).

• Does the provision of conventional public services by local governments support local economic development? Do these services help to alleviate poverty? Under what circumstances and through what mechanisms do they genuinely benefit the poor? Do the benefits go beyond providing basic improvements in service coverage to increasing local incomes? Is there any empirical evidence on these questions from your countries?
• What do policy makers need to know about the economic behavior of local producers and households to design good local economic development programs? What are 'typical' barriers to overcoming the disadvantage of small scale and generating collective efficiency through joint action, and how can these be overcome? How can household economic activities be diversified without locking households into micro activities and exposing them to higher levels of insecurity?
• What are the main tools and mechanisms available to local governments, beyond providing basic public services, to promote local economic development and to reduce poverty (such as, investment stimulation packages, credit programs)? What are the circumstances under which each is appropriate? In particular, what can rural local governments to attract or stimulate private investment? What is the experience in your countries?
• What types of local institutions and actors beyond local governments, such as business associations, should play a role in local economic development and poverty reduction? Should these institutions work alone or in collaboration with local governments and/or each other? If local economic development action is about creating consensus about the direction of local development, convergence in programs of the various actors, and partnerships between (local) government, private sector and civil society, how can such cooperation be achieved in a local contexts often marked by hierarchy, conflict and low social trust? Has this been achieved in your countries, and if so, how?
• What is the role of higher levels of government in supporting local institutions in their efforts to support local economic development and poverty reduction? How can central governments (through regulatory, financial or other means) stimulate the emergence of local economic development networks? What role does/has the center played in your countries?
• What is the role of international donors? As they increasingly commit their aid allocations, through sector wide approaches, will area-based coordination and integration of programs get insufficient attention? How can donors contribute to better coordination of local economic development activities?
• How can the benefits of local economic development and poverty reduction programs be sustained over time? What evidence is there on the sustain ability of services provided by local governments as compared to those provided by other institutions or through partnerships?

Working Group Report

Two broad questions were addressed by the group:

• What is the role of local governments in local economic development (LED) and poverty alleviation? and;
• In pursuing LED and poverty alleviation what are the relationships with other actors/stakeholders such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the private business sector, local producer organizations, community based organizations (CBOs) and donors.

The Role of Local Governments in LED and Poverty Alleviation

There was general agreement amongst workshop participants that local government had an important role to play in LED and poverty alleviation but there were important differences about the nature of that role.

One view was that the role of local governments should consist primarily of providing an enabling environment through the provision of infrastructure to enable economic activities to be undertaken by other actors such as the private business sector and to a lesser extent other non-governmental organizations. In the past local governments had undertaken all kinds of economic activities such as farming and hotel ownership and management. However, the experience in many countries suggests that the role of local government in LED should be a facilitative one including playing a complementary role to the private sector in such activities as co-financing and the provision of start-up costs for a wide range of economic activities. Moreover, in this view, it was the role of local governments to co-ordinate investment and to provide information and knowledge about export markets, government regulations, quality standards, and so on to local producers. If this role was not carried out by local governments, local producers would be highly risk-averse with respect to entry into markets.

Local governments could support LED through the provision of public services but it was important that such strategies had certain key elements in place including participatory processes, the existence of a development fund and a bias towards local producers. It was vital to the success of LED efforts that local entrepreneurs were identified and given the capacity to form farmer and other producer organizations. Also, many successful LED projects were donor funded raising the issue of sustainability. Senegal and South Africa were cited as examples where national mechanisms exist for contracting out of basic services, in South Africa in the form of a regulatory framework for local level partnerships; in Senegal in the form of a non-profit agency assisting local authorities in local out-contracting.

There was a view also that the provision of services may provide a biased picture of poverty alleviation if based only on the analysis of economic statistics. What was needed also was an analysis of the perceptions of poor people themselves. It was felt also that in many poor African economies, based largely on subsistence agriculture (that is, demonetarised economies) conventional frameworks and analyses are not conducive to poverty analysis and the stimulation of economic activity.

There was a strong view that local governments could play a successful role in LED only if they were able to make a clear distinction between what constituted respectively public sector and private sector activities. A clear line needed to be drawn between enabling environment and facilitative roles and undertaking income-generating activities.

Road infrastructure provision was identified as a key to LED but often countries tended to fund adequate provision of urban roads to the detriment of rural roads provision. This resulted in the slowing down of rural development particularly in generating access to markets for local farmers.

The impact of prolonged economic political crises in LED was alluded to by some participants. In some countries there had been encouraging developments in the role of the state in LED through for example the creation and support of co-operatives. However, during periods of economic crisis the capacity local governments is often seriously weakened, other partnerships emerge and the process of effective decentralization is often derailed.In a similar vein, the lack of a democratic culture in many countries as well as the absence of a vibrant private sector was cited as a factor in inhibiting LED through ensuring that local governments are weakened and usually have limited human and financial capacity. In dictatorships and other centralized states the question was raised of how, if at all, it would be possible for integrated LED to be stimulated between local governments, communities and other actors.

An alternative view that was posed at the workshop was that of a more interventionist role for the central government in addressing issues of poverty and inequality. In situations where local governments were severely under-resourced in terms of financial and human capacity, the central government had to play a more active development role. Allowing the free-play of market forces would in fact exacerbate poverty and inequality under these circumstances.

According to this view, it is accepted that local governments should enter into partnerships to enable LED but it should be borne in mind that accountability for the success or otherwise of LED and poverty alleviation policies rested ultimately with the government in general and local governments in particular.

It was felt also that conservative macroeconomic policies often also exposed the limitations of local governments in LED. In many African countries, macroeconomic policy based on the dominant role of free markets had severely constrained LED and efforts at decentralization. Often central governments had abdicated their responsibility for development thorough allocating it to local governments but without the commensurate resources.

It was stated also by some that what was needed therefore was the development of appropriate intergovernmental structures for LED and poverty alleviation including defining clear "niches" for local governments and the private sector. A similar view was put forward relating to the fact that the role of the various actors had to be clearly defined, in particular that of the central government (usually a regulatory and supervisory one), the local governments (support role for economic activity, developing the LED strategy, regulating LED), and for the private business and non-governmental sector (implementation).

Planning of LED raised many questions and much debate. Better local planning and making it stick, for example, with NGOs, was raised as an issue. In Mali considerable success was reported on this point, where NGOs implemented local authorities defined projects rather than coming with their own. It was felt by many that there was often a complete lack of co-ordination between the national planning frameworks and LED plans in many countries. There was often an inability and/or unwillingness to ensure a coincidence of sectoral and local priorities. This increasing divergence between sectoral and regional planning situations was often due to the lack of appropriate institutions at the central level to foster planning co-ordination. Zambia was cited as an example of good practice in co-ordinated planning between communities, local governments, provinces and the center. Co-ordinated planning activities needed to take into account also that the nature of LED would vary by region within countries.

A Kenyan delegate stressed the failure of "administrative decentralization" to empower local governments to undertake LED especially in rural areas. Under this system rural councils had been completely marginalized by the center.

In summary, while differences were acknowledged amongst participants on the role of local governments, there were also substantial areas of agreement. Some of these points of agreement related to variations between countries and some to differences within countries. For example:

• The degree to which countries participated in the international economy;
• The extent to which central governments are pre-occupied with issues at the local government level (that is, poverty, inequality, redistribution, etc.);
• This in turn influences the influence that local governments have in the development of the framework for poverty alleviation and LED; and
• Arrangements with donors had to be made on the basis of each country's development priorities.

Within countries the issue of limited resources for local governments was constantly raised as well as the increasing disparities between urban and marginalized rural local governments.

Relationships between Local Governments and other Actors/Stakeholders

The following points were made:

• The role of the various actors had to be clearly defined, both within government (central versus local government) and between government and non-governmental actors (business, CBOs, NGOs, donors);
• The framework for co-ordinated planning could be expanded to include NGOs and development partners. Such partnerships needed to be formalized through contracts. The importance of national frameworks that are flexible, that is, taking into account the great variety in the scale and complexity in LED initiatives, was emphasized;
• Outsourcing of some "traditional" public sector activities could be effective. However, the role of the public and private sectors had to be clearly defined in both urban (where the private sector could be dominant) and rural areas (local governments and communities);
• The lack of skills was identified as a key constraint to the effective role of local governments in LED. An increased role for NGOs in education and skill provision was mooted by several delegates;
• Participatory processes are important for successful LED and poverty alleviation. However, one needed to find the correct mix of ingredients for such participation including appropriate group decision-making;
• Partnerships with the private sector must not mean the handing over to the private sector of state assets and the creation of private sector monopolies. In this context ownership was raised as an important concept. LED is not only about the provision of infrastructure by local governments, but important questions relate to what happens to infrastructure over time and how that infrastructure has contributed to development;
• Consultation: the nature and extent of consultation was raised by many delegates. The importance of real, effective consultation between the center and local governments, between local governments and non-governmental actors and between local governments and communities was stressed. Such consultation should take place within the context of institutional and human constraints within which many local governments find themselves. Often donors overestimate the capacity of local authorities to consult and their limits are invariably stretched.

Applied Policy Research Questions

These were not discussed fully because of a time constraint. What follows is a summary of the issues that were raised:

• How do we measure the impact of local economic development on national economic development and vice versa?
• Accountability: Local government actors do not know how to be accountable downwards and horizontally. What are the powers of local governments with respect to natural resources, for example?
• Planning: What are the respective roles in LED planning for government, local communities, NGOs? Who sets the priorities for LED? How do we reconcile sectoral and regional planning?
• Decentralization and development: the level of advancement of decentralization varies by country in Africa. How do we know that decentralization has contributed to development (poverty alleviation, economic growth, etc.)?
• Indicators of Poverty: We should develop a "kit" of indicators to inform LED planning;
• Decentralization and LED in Poor Subsistence Economies: What should be the framework for decentralization and LED in such economies?

Return to top

---

Report from Workshop Three: Decentralized Natural Resource Management

Chair

Professor Chris Tapscott

Rapporteurs

M. Hubert Ouédraogo, International Lawyer,
Jurist Burkino Faso Professor,
Henri Mathieu Lo, University of Dakar, Sénégal
Mr Lungise Ntsebeza, Research fellow, PLAAS, School of Government, South Africa

Resource Person

Dr Jesse Ribot, Senior Associate, World Resources Institute, USA

Terms of Reference

Background

Development agencies and NGOs around the world are promoting greater participation by local populations in the use, maintenance and restoration of forests, pasture lands, wildlife and fisheries in order to improve local development and environmental management. Under the rubric of decentralization, governments across the developing world are selectively transferring environmental management responsibilities and powers from central government to a variety of local institutions. These reforms aim to increase popular participation to promote more equitable and efficient forms of local environmental management. Decentralization programs across Africa are reshaping the local institutional environment in which natural resource management (NRM) takes place, promising to have profound effects on who manages, uses and benefits from nature.

Over-centralized environmental management has been widely observed to cause inefficient, inequitable and ecologically damaging outcomes. Community based and decentralized approaches are a widespread response to these perceived failures. But while central governments across Africa are downsizing and decentralizing, policy makers are paying insufficient attention to whether appropriate powers and responsibilities are being transferred to local actors and whether the necessary local institutional infrastructure is in place. Indeed, as the World Bank recently pointed out, decentralization is often implemented haphazardly. This is especially apparent in projects and reforms related to the environment, where poorly structured decentralization efforts are threatening both environmental management and equity.

Objectives of the Working Group

• To discuss concrete experiences with decentralized natural resource management in Africa;
• To promote further understanding on major issues and questions regarding decentralized natural resource management posed in the theme paper and the plenary session;
• To establish in particular what is known about decentralized natural resource management in Africa; what remains to be understood: and what should be the main priorities for future applied policy research.

Suggested Questions for Discussion

The following questions should be discussed, focusing in particular on positive experiences and the lessons that result from them. It is also important to ensure that there is adequate coverage and comparison of Francophone and Anglophone Africa, to pay specific attention to differences between urban and rural areas, and to briefly consider linkages across the working group themes as appropriate (for example, the need for local accountability mechanisms for decentralized natural resource management to be effective).

• Which powers over natural resources should be devolved and which should remain centralized? How should powers over natural resources be decided between central and local institutions? What criteria should be used in making these decisions?
• What constitutes the basic necessary local institutional infrastructure for decentralization of environmental management? Should institutions be environmental-specific or should general-purpose local institutions make environmental decisions? Should environmental management planning processes be separate from or integrated with broader decentralized development planning processes? If separate, what ensures that the institutions are sustainable? If integrated, how is this accomplished?
• How can local authorities develop political legitimacy within their own communities? What kinds of accountability measures should be taken to improve the downward accountability, i.e. the responsiveness of any local authorities to local people? What constraints must be overcome?
• What is the appropriate legal enabling environment for good environmental management? In addition to needing some form of responsive local representation, which other protections, freedoms, rights and recourse are necessary? What types of central controls and guidelines are appropriate?
• What is the relation between natural resource management and representative local government? Is decentralization being established in a manner that will increase public participation in natural resource management and use? What are the appropriate local institutional arrangements for increasing popular participation in decentralized natural resource management? What specific mechanisms and procedures would enhance community-based access to, and control of natural resources? How do different styles of community-based natural resource management strengthen or weaken broader national efforts at decentralization?
• What mechanisms can be put in place by local governments for the prevention and management of conflicts between competing resource users and/or between different forms of land uses and/or between users having different social structures?
• Which means of transfer are being used to devolve environmental management powers? Are they creating secure local rights, or creating dependency and patronage opportunities? Are the transferred powers revenue-neutral or revenue generating?
• How can local capacity be built in order to manage devolved natural resource management powers? Which actors should be involved in this process?
• What is the role of international agencies? How can they support decentralized natural resource management? What should they be careful to do and not do?

Working Group Report

Objectives and methodology

• The group discussed national experiences on the decentralized management of natural resources to try to identify fundamental questions on the topic;
• The group also tried to priorities a central subject emerging from the discussions for future research;
• The debate was guided by the questions raised in the terms of reference and additional questions raised by participants.

Thematic debate

Representativity.

The group decided to start with a general overview on representativity and more precisely on the institutions in charge of natural resources management. We ended up with two questions:

• Who should manage natural resources?
• What kind of decentralized management have led to a better management of natural resources?

Different examples were given on South Africa, Kenya, Uganda, Mali, Niger, Zimbabwe and Mauritania.

Central points

The authorities managing natural resources are very diverse. In South Africa, traditional authorities benefit from royalties on mines (and not local governments). In Kenya, there are different levels of ownership on land. In Madagascar, rural communities have created associations to deal with forest preservation.

• In several cases, the State makes demands on local governments with regard to natural resource management. The debate on this issue led us to insist on the distinction that has to be made between the legal status of natural resources and management mechanisms. These mechanisms don't lead to a decision-making transfer or to a resource-ownership transfer. These mechanisms are not really part of the decentralization process in the sense that we consider decentralization as a power sharing;
• Another element in the debate is that all natural resources are not always transferable;
• Some natural resources need special protection by the State, which functions as the "owner" and the institution in charge of the protection of these resources;
• An important issue would be to determine how after all local development and poverty reduction could benefit from these natural resources (national parks, reserves). We have talked about the efficiency of a local management compared to a national one. We often hear that local management leads to corruption; but in our groups, comments have proven the contrary (interesting results in Zimbabwe on the Campfire initiative, for example).

Other questions discussed were:

1. Natural resources ownership.

   The discussions have shown that in many cases, especially in West Africa, the state retains the ownership of natural resources. We speculated as to why but there were no definitive answers forthcoming. Common resources are generally associated to non-appropriation. If they become the property of the local government, there is a threat that the community will not be able to maintain the allocation of the resources to all stakeholders.

2. Globalization and decentralization in the management of natural resources.

   We have highlighted that today there are more and more international conventions that refer to the use of local knowledge. The burning question is: to what extent do conventions have an impact on decentralization processes?

3. Traditional institutions and local governments.

   This is a very controversial subject. Some people would immediately reject any kind of participation of local authorities, others wonder if they shouldn't be given a role to play. In most cases, the non-democratic character of these authorities was underlined. In addition, building the institutional capacities of local governments to provide key public services helps to promote local development. But national contexts are diverse, and traditional authorities remain influential in most cases, especially in relation to natural resources management. Effective management of natural resources involves all stakeholders whose activities pertain to the policy discussion in question. We need to clarify this and determine who does what. Local authorities have to be the sole agent for decision-making powers concerning natural resources; but traditional authorities should be involved in the decision-making process, and in management, as political actors and as citizens.

4. Experiments in encouraging responsibility and involvement of civil society in decentralization processes.

   These usually concern regional management or participative ecological development. These approaches are becoming obsolete and decentralization is the key-policy. However, we should look at the linkages between these experiments and the decentralization process. We need to use the results of the experiments to enrich and adapt actual decentralization processes.

5. Inter-communal approach in natural resources management

   The question of an inter-communal approach appeared to be the most appropriate framework for decentralized resource management. It should be combined with an inter-sectional collaboration.

Remaining questions and suggestions for research

Information:

• We need to collect information on decentralization policies, legislation, strategies in the different countries, and to make them accessible to decentralization practitioners;
• We also need to take part in the creation of a database on experiments that worked out in areas such as: local legislation on natural resources, local communities' interest in natural resource management (forestry, wildlife), local prevention and management of conflicts link to the use of natural resources.

Networking:

• We should start with a research on the existing networks;
• We can also negotiate a co-operation agreement with existing networks;
• We can support the creation of focal national areas from the existing human resources of this workshop, in order to create an African network on decentralization;
• We can think about transversal themes in local development and natural resource management;
• We can support the reinforcement of research capacities in social sciences in the area of a decentralized management of local resources.

Research:

Finally, we propose the following themes of research;

• Decentralization and protection of local communities;
• Fural populations' perceptions on decentralization;
• Effectiveness of a communal management of natural resources;
• Interaction between decentralization processes and traditional authorities;
• Articulation of the different planning levels and decentralization.

Return to top

---

Report from Workshop Four: Sectoral Decentralization

Chair

Mr Ndiaye Kane, General Manager of Local Government, Mauritania

Rapporteurs

Dr Diana Conyers, International Consultant, Zimbabwe
Issa Moko, Director, House of Local Authorities, Bénin
Stephen Wetmore, Local Government Learning Network, South Africa

Resource person

Professor Larry Schroeder

Terms of Reference

Background

Sectoral decentralization refers to the reassignment of decision-making authority to sub-national government units on a sectoral basis (for example health, rural roads, water and education). The potential benefits of sectoral decentralization include improved service delivery, local fiscal and political accountability, and an increased ability to meet demand differences across local areas. economic development. Some elements of the international donor community have in recent years been promoting sector-wide approaches (SWAPs), pooled sector budget support for development, which may affect decentralization.

The challenges for sectoral decentralization include developing local governments' administrative and fiscal capacity to support and manage decentralized responsibilities, especially in rural areas. There are also potentially important differences across sectors that should be recognized. For example, health and road sectors, which are part of a network, may present special challenges that are less relevant for education and water. Health and education are "social" in nature and may have a greater chance of generating spatial spillover of benefits, whereas rural roads and local water supply are more capital intensive, but the bulk of the benefits is typically localized. These differences may create special challenges for sectoral decentralization.

Objectives of the Working Group

• To discuss concrete experiences with sectoral decentralization in Africa;
• To promote further understanding on major issues and questions regarding the practice of sectoral decentralization posed in the theme paper and the plenary session;
• To establish in particular what is known about sectoral decentralization in Africa; what remains to be understood: and what should be the main priorities for future applied policy research.

Questions for Discussion

The following questions should be discussed, focusing in particular on positive experiences and the lessons that result from them. It is also important to ensure that there is adequate coverage and comparison of Francophone and Anglophone Africa, to pay specific attention to differences between urban and rural areas, and to briefly consider linkages across the working group themes as appropriate (for example, the problems that could ensue if sectoral decentralization were being pursued in a way that was inconsistent with broader fiscal, institutional and political decentralization measures).

• What components of sectoral services are likely candidates for decentralization (given the various constraints that are acknowledged in the theoretical literature)? What management and provision responsibilities can and should be given to local government and what should be retained by the center to insure that adequate services are being provided?
• What institutional arrangements can be put into place to insure that technical information necessary to provide a sectoral service most efficiently can be combined with unique localized information that is necessary for successful production of that service? Likewise, what arrangements will insure coordination of the varied activities associated with a sector?
• What financing mechanisms can be used to successfully support the delivery of the decentralized services? How can these mechanisms provide sufficient resources to the specific services while still permitting autonomous local decision-making? What is the role of the central government in this regard?
• What practical mechanisms can be used to phase decentralization of a service responsibility to those jurisdictions capable of carrying out those responsibilities while not decentralizing the same services to other local jurisdictions?
• Multi-purpose local governments are likely to be the principal formal governmental organizations responsible for implementing decentralization of certain services within a sector. Are there, however, certain services that could more efficiently be provided through special, single-purpose districts and, if so, how can they be created? Likewise, what arrangements can be put into place to insure community involvement and participation in local government decision-making? Similarly, how can localized "user groups" be linked to formal local governments?
• What arrangements can be used to provide adequate incentives for the principal stakeholders to enable and support efficient implementation of a sectoral service?
• How do donor-supported sector-wide approaches (SWAPs) affect by design or default both local government decision-making and resource allocation to local government by the center and/or by donors for sectoral activities? How are they related to broader decentralization efforts?

Working Group Report

Objectives

The objective of the working group was defined as documenting experience on which services are being decentralized, why, how they are being decentralized, and what approaches appear to work, as well as those that do not.

Methodology

• Contributions by participants, most of whom presented their own country experience on the issues under discussion;
• Summary by the Chief Rapporteur;
• Following the session, the rapporteurs compiled a summary report of the discussion, in which the various points made were regrouped under the six main discussion topics. This is reproduced below.

1. What Sectors, or Components of sectors, are being decentralized?
• The number of sectors decentralized varies from a few basic services to all functions, which are not of strategic national importance. However, the four sectors discussed in Professor Schroeder's report (primary education, primary health care, rural roads and rural water supplies) are common targets of decentralization in all countries;
• Within each sector, it is seldom that all functions are decentralized. Some functions are normally retained by the center, because they are of strategic national importance;
• The objectives of sectoral decentralization vary. However, it was agreed that functions should not be decentralized unless there is agreement between the center and the local institutions to which they are being decentralized. The center should decentralize functions in order to improve service delivery, not as a means of 'passing the buck'. The needs of the poorest sectors of the population should be the starting point for deciding what to decentralize and how;
• Decentralisation can, if planned and implemented appropriately, reduce the burden on the central government.
• Sectoral decentralization may take place on a sector by sector basis or as part of an integrated programme of increasing the role of local institutions. The latter approach is preferable, since it enables coordination between the various sectors being decentralized.
• It is desirable to enshrine the functions decentralized to local institutions in legislation, including (where appropriate) in the national constitution.

2. How can the Various Actors involved in Decentralized Sectoral Activities be Coordinated?

• There is again a need to, as far as possible, entrench roles and responsibilities in appropriate legislation, in order to avoid confusion and ensure that each actor plays its part;
• There is a need for integrated planning at local level, to coordinate the various sectoral activities;
• It is inevitable that professional/technical staff involved in decentralized functions will have dual loyalties. The general opinion was that the mechanisms adopted for dealing with this problem should ensure that their prime loyalty is to the local institution but that they are able to maintain relevant professional linkages and move within the wider public service system;
• Provision should be made for appropriate institutions to collaborate where necessary for purposes of achieving economies of scale ( Collaboration between local institutions);
• Ministries of local government have an important coordinating role to play at the center. However, sectoral decentralization must also have the full commitment and participation of all relevant line ministries;
• It must be recognized that sectoral decentralization entails a major restructuring of public sector institutions.
• Similarly, it must be recognized by all those involved (including central government, local institutions, and relevant external funding/support agencies) that decentralization is a long and complex process that cannot and should not be rushed.

3. Questions Three: How should decentralized functions be financed?

• The decentralization of a function must be accompanied by provision of the financial resources (or access to such resources) necessary to perform that function effectively;
• Transfers of funds from the center for the execution of decentralized functions should, as far as possible, be guaranteed, so that the center is committed to provide funding and local institutions therefore know where they stand;
• The provision of conditional (as opposed to unconditional) grants has both advantages and disadvantages. See Question Six for further discussion;
• When several sectors are decentralized, it is often advisable to begin by providing sector-specific grants and then, as experience is gained and local capacity increased, to move towards block grants (i.e. grants which can be allocated between sectors in line with local priorities);
• Grants should normally be channeled straight to local institutions, not via line ministries;
• Inadequate funding (including central government financial constraints and local authority revenue gaps) are prevalent, and are a major obstacle to the implementation of decentralization policies.

4. How can decentralization be phased to take account of capacity problems?

It was agreed that:

• Phasing is generally necessary because of the major restructuring involved in decentralization and the implications in terms of capacity;
• There are generally capacity deficiencies in some or all of the following areas:
  • Financial resources
  • Human resources (quantity and quality)
  • Caliber of local politicians
  • Extent of civil society organization and participation.
• Phasing can be by sector (i.e. decentralization of some sectors, or parts of sectors, before others) and/or by local institution (i.e. decentralization to some localities before others);
• Phasing by sector appears to be more common and (by implication) easier;
• The center should not use phasing by sector as a means of getting rid of 'problem sectors' quickly and hanging on to other sectors as long as possible.

5. To what different types of institutions are functions decentralized?

The main conclusions were as follows:

• There are major differences between decentralization to democratic local authorities (i.e. democratic devolution) and decentralization to agencies of the central government (i.e. deconcentration). The general opinion was that, in order to achieve the objectives of decentralization, the former is preferable;
• There are many 'levels' to which functions can be decentralized, ranging from (in some countries, such as Ethiopia) regional or state governments, through 'district' (or equivalent) types of institution, to local 'user groups'. These institutions may also be single-purpose (most common in the case of user groups) or multi-purpose (usually the case with higher level authorities);
• There are also decisions to be made as to whether local institutions will perform functions themselves or contract them out - for example, to the private sector or community based organizations.

6. What Incentives can be used to ensure effective delivery of Decentralized Services

The following points were made:

• Various mechanisms can be used to encourage effective service delivery. These are of two main types:
  • Positive incentives ('carrots'): for example, increased funding if the local institution operates efficiently, adheres to national policy, etc.
  • Negative incentives ('sticks'): for example, funding only provided for certain purposes or under certain conditions. There is a risk that 'sticks' can, if used too much or inappropriately, disempower local institutions and therefore negate the potential benefits of decentralization;
• 'Sticks' are only appropriate if the center has the capacity to monitor or enforce them (e.g. To scrutinize budgets if funding is conditional on the preparation of an adequate budget);
• In cases where local authorities are controlled by opposition parties, the use of incentives can be complicated, since there may be conflicts over national policy objectives.

7. What Role do External Support Agencies Play?

The main conclusions were as follows:

• External support is almost inevitably required because of the funding deficiencies noted under Question Three;
• External agencies should not dictate or impose policies or force governments to move faster than they are able or willing to do;
• External agencies are often reluctant to abandon their conventional approach of working with line ministries and supporting local institutions directly;
• Externally-supported 'sector wide approaches' (SWAPs) are currently fashionable. Where they exist in conjunction with sectoral decentralization, there is a need to ensure that the two are compatible. In other words, SWAPs must be implemented within the context of decentralization policy;
• External agencies should not establish parallel structures to implement programs, since this reduces the capacity of the existing institutions, which one is attempting to develop;
• Where external agencies are in support of decentralization, they have played a valuable role, especially in capacity building; UNCDF is an important example;
• There is a need to coordinate the role of the various external agencies involved; this can be done by the government and/or by the donor agencies themselves.

Areas for Future Research and Discussion

The group did not have time for a systematic discussion of the areas where further research is required. However, the following topics were raised in the course of the general discussion:

• How to overcome the resource gaps (financial and human) which exist at the local level;
• How to deal with the problem of excess staff at local level, which arises (for example) in cases where central and local government institutions are amalgamated;
• The appropriate levels and forms of remuneration for local politicians (e.g. Councilors) and the financial implications thereof;
• The feasibility and implications of phasing sectoral decentralization by local institution (i.e. decentralizing to some institutions before others);
• The implications of a situation where some local authorities are controlled by opposition parties;
• How to get external support agencies to support local institutions directly.

Return to top

---

Report from Workshop Five: Local Political Processes

Chair

Professor Walter Oyugi, School of Government, University of Nairobi, Kenya

Rapporteurs

Prof. Louis Rajanoera, University of Antanarive, Madagascar
Professor Sulemiman Ngware, University of Dar Es Salaam,
Mr Lassine Bouaré, Technical Advisor, Mali

Resource Person

Professor Claudius Olowu, Institute of Social Studies, the Netherlands

Terms of Reference

Background

Decentralization requires policies and programs for developing, reforming, and revitalizing appropriate local institutions in order to deepen local participation in public affairs. Such participation must be structured, along with other reforms, to improve the accountability and performance of local representatives and officials. The number, nature, and form of local political institutions, however, should be expected to vary across countries with disparate political, institutional and cultural contexts. There are many different types of institutions that could potentially promote public participation and improved accountability. In some countries, elected local governments exist together with non governmental organizations (NGOs), citizens groups, and an active civil society. Particularly in some rural areas, traditional authorities can also play an important role.

In this environment of multiple institutions and consultative processes, the challenge is to preserve and build on their sustainable strengths while developing a formal local government system. Effective local governments require well-designed local electoral processes, and two types of accountability must be gradually developed. Vertical accountability refers to the relationship between elected councils and their constituents. Horizontal accountability refers to the relationship between elected councils and local civil servants, who in decentralizing countries are often accustomed to being accountable to higher levels of government.

Objectives of the Working Group

• To discuss concrete experiences with the development of local political processes in Africa;
• To promote further understanding on major issues and questions regarding how to structure and develop local political processes posed in the theme paper and the plenary session;
• To establish in particular what is known about local political processes in Africa; what remains to be understood: and what should be the main priorities for future applied policy research

Suggested Questions for Discussion

The following questions should be discussed, focusing in particular on positive experiences and the lessons that result from them. It is also important to ensure that there is adequate coverage and comparison of Francophone and Anglophone Africa, to pay specific attention to differences between urban and rural areas, and to briefly consider linkages across the working group themes as appropriate (for example, the need for adequate fiscal decentralization and local autonomy if genuine local political accountability is to be established).

• Local governments are theoretically expected to be more transparent than central or regional governments. In many countries they are not. What factors foster opaque local governments and, broadly speaking, what can be done to tackle these problems?
• Has democratic decentralization resolved or aggravated differences between different parts or groups within the same country? What policy/institutional instruments are available to tackle this problem where it exists?
• What types of structures and processes best ensure downward accountability of local authorities to citizens/communities? How do indirect and direct accountability compareê? What factors explain the differences in the effectiveness of indirect vs. direct forms of accountability?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of different electoral mechanisms for councillors (e.g. ward-based vs. party list)?
• What controls should the central government exert on local political processes;
• How is it possible to maximize full and informed electoral participation? What types of communication and feedback mechanisms are needed between elections? What structures need to be put in place to allow citizens to effectively participate in the running of their own affairs at the local government levels?
• How do accountability challenges vary between types/sizes of local government (urban/rural; small commune/big district, etc.)?
• What structures/processes best ensure horizontal accountability of local civil servants to elected councils (and to citizens)?
• What are advantages and disadvantages of direct employment of civil servants (e.g., Uganda) vs. local government cadre or dual supervision arrangements?
• What sorts of local council committee system are effective at ensuring accountability?
• How close to local "communities" should formal structures be put in place and what are the mechanisms to keep them operational?
• What are the linkages between effective local political participation and the provision and existence of development resources? How should resources be provided and structured to stimulate meaningful citizen participation?
• How can we measure effective participation in democratic decentralization? Who are the key stakeholders in the process?
• What has/could international assistance done/do to contribute to the success of political decentralization in your country?

Working Group Report

Methodology

• Participants discussed and debated the questions outlined below;
• The Rapporteur's summary draws together the main points of consensus and recommendations;
• Suggestions for research were tabled, but not discussed in detail.

1. Local Political Processes and the construction of decentralization:

Decentralization is not only a means of administrative organization or a tool for provision of a service, it is also linked to democratization. What is more difficult to generalize is what kind of institution, what incentive measures and what structures, are able to ensure a democratic decentralization within an auditing framework.

2. The emergence and predominance of a political leadership at the local level:

Today, the control of power is ruled by political parties. This is not surprising because candidates need structures and means of action. It is difficult to imagine that central political leadership would relinquish total power over local governance structures. The predominance of political parties on a local level thus often show contradictions between national strategies and local aspirations. We recommend that political competition should be widened, that all the actors should have the same rights, and means to participate, and that this should be written in a constitutional law.

3. The need for a pragmatic approach of decentralization processes:

In all countries, decentralization is a long process. If we rush, local governance will proceed badly, or with too much predominance of the center's aspirations and agenda on local governments. We suggest that structures should be put in place and be adapted as appropriate over time.

Six potential areas of research

• Examination of the emergence and predominance of a political leadership at the local level;
• Further examination of the nature of the relationship between central and local levels;
• Better definitions of ownership and control of local institutions, and analyses on the need for auditing;
• Analysis on the necessity of reinforcing the capacity of local governments, and civil societies;
• A focus on the need for a pragmatic approach to decentralization processes;
• There is also a need for further research to be done on the need for research itself:
1. we should give or more concrete content to our research proposals offered here;
2. we should get further statistics and indicators from all participating countries;
3. we should create particular models of decentralization corresponding to different national contexts;
4. we should move forward in the creation of networking regions.

Return to top

---

Report from Workshop Six: Local Institutional Structures

Chair

Mrs. Mariama Salifou, High Commissioner for Administrative Reform and Decentralisation, Niger

Rapporteurs

Mr Martin Onyach-Olaa, Consultant, Coordinator, Decentralisation Secretariate, MoLG, Uganda
Mr Oumarou Mohammad Ibrahim, President of the Regional Assembly of Timbuktu, Mali
Dr Ramson Mbetu, Regional consultant, Zimbabwe

Resource Person

Mr Roger Shotton, Technical Coordinator, UNCDF, New York

Terms of Reference

Background

Decentralization requires policies and programs for developing, reforming, and revitalizing appropriate local institutions in order to deepen local participation in public affairs and to ensure that elected local governments will be accountable to their constituents. Such policies and programs must be structured, along with other reforms, to fit in with the broader institutional structure of government and the multiplicity of local institutions that often exist at the local level. The intergovernmental institutional structure, as well as the number, nature, and form of local institutions, however, should be expected to vary across countries with disparate political, institutional and cultural contexts.

The challenge of effective decentralization is typically how to build on existing institutions that already have some power and legitimacy, reforming them as needed and supplementing them with new institutions as required to improve the probability that the objectives of decentralization can be reached. Some decentralization policies in Africa have focused largely on creating new institutions and structures, and the need to change the roles of higher levels of government during decentralization has often not been taken into adequate account. Even where African governments have made provisions for the existence of multiple local authorities and institutions in their national institutions and legislation, many problems remain in practice. Decentralization must be able to define appropriate roles for higher levels of government and various types of local institutions in decentralizing systems. These various actors must be well coordinated in order to bring about the goals of decentralization and to realize a better quality of life for local communities.

Objectives of the Working Group

• To discuss concrete experiences with local and intergovernmental institutional reform in Africa;
• To promote further understanding on major issues and questions regarding local and higher-level institutional structures posed in the theme paper and the plenary session;
• To establish in particular what is known about local and intergovernmental institutional structures in Africa; what remains to be understood: and what should be the main priorities for future applied policy research

Suggested Questions for Discussion

The following questions should be discussed, focusing in particular on positive experiences and the lessons that result from them. It is also important to ensure that there is adequate coverage and comparison of Francophone and Anglophone Africa, to pay specific attention to differences between urban and rural areas, and to briefly consider linkages across the working group themes as appropriate (for example, the need adequate local authority).

• How effective are available central mechanisms in establishing and promoting effective decentralization and intergovernmental relations, (for example, constitutions, legislation, administrative decrees, and so on)? What are the factors that influence effectiveness?
• What role do agencies of higher levels of government play in promoting decentralization, for example, Ministries of Local Government, Finance and Planning, sectoral ministries, audit commissions, local government service commissions and local government finance commissions? Are specific ministries entirely devoted to the management of local government necessary at all? What are key factors that influence effectiveness?
• What is the experience with decentralization coordinating agencies, such as decentralization secretariats? How should they be structured? What are the factors that allow them to be effective?
• Is there a role for national associations of local governments? What role can they play in promoting decentralization and effective local governments?
• How effective are local institutional mechanisms in enhancing the goals of democratic decentralization, (local legislative processes, local courts, traditional chiefs, community development organizations, non-governmental organizations, parent-teacher or other service specific organizations)?
• What types of mechanisms exist to coordinate institutional actors at the local level in a way that promotes improved local governance?

Working Group Report

Methodology

• The group relied on country experiences as expressed by participants, and compared historical and cultural differences and similarities with regard to local institutional structures;
• In particular, the different stages of decentralization were discussed in terms of legislation, electoral procedures and institutional arrangements.

Discussion Focus Areas

The discussion on local institutional structures (LIS) proceeded by examining three sub themes:

• The legal and regulatory framework within which local institutional structures function;
• Different institutional arrangements at central level and at local level;
• Experiences of successes and failures of local institutional arrangements.

Legal and Regulatory Frameworks

Differences

Some frameworks are constitutionally enshrined and others are entrenched in policy legislation.

The example of states such as Malawi seem to suggest the need to enshrine the framework in the constitution to ensure central government accountability.

It is clear that frameworks are also not always fully developed, especially with regard to funding arrangements between central and local government, but also with regard to both central and local government on the one hand, and NGOs, communities and other civil society organizations and development committees.

Some states have approved the legal and regulatory framework for local government institutions in the absence of clearly formulated policies, which poses a serious decentralization dilemma.

In general, it appears that there is a common problem in the area of the legal and regulatory frameworks for central and local governmental institutional arrangements. There is insufficient consultation between central governments and local governments, NGOs and civil society.

Institutional Arrangements at the Center

Experiences discussed showed extreme levels of variation at the national level with regard to participants experiences. For example some states have fully fledged Ministries for Local Government and Decentralization, while others have departments of different sizes, capacities and power located within Ministries, and where for example there is a federal arrangement, as in Ethiopia the relation between central government and local government institutional arrangements becomes more complex.

Participants identified that with regard to varying institutional arrangements and central level and between central and local levels, more dialogue and exchange could take place with respect to institutional set-ups and their relation to decentralization and good governance.

The need for greater involvement of local authority associations was also emphasized by the group, particularly with regard to the setting up of inter-Ministerial and Technical Committees on local government, and relatedly some felt that local authorities should play a greater facilitative role in balancing the interests of the central and local spheres.

The role of civil society in influencing policies as well as the local central nexus was also stressed as in need of greater analysis.

Institutional arrangements at the Local Level

The feedback from the working group's participants showed that most participants states have local government as the institutional set-up for local governance, although in some cases this might consist of elected tribal leaders or appointed authorities in rural areas.

In almost all cases, local governments were better established and had more power if they were located in or near urban areas. In fact rural local government is virtually non-existent in some states. Thus local government in these contexts refers to urban councils and not rural areas.

Common institutional problems experienced at this level are:

• Financial difficulties;
• Human Resources inadequacies;
• Dependence (politically and economically) on Central Government.

The relationship of local government to line departments was also found to vary from state to state. For example, sometimes local government personnel are hired and fired by local government, and in some cases by central government. Experience seemed to indicate that personnel showed less commitment and responsibility to the local government set-up, than in the case where personnel are hired directly by local government.

In terms of Upward Accountability it was found that central governments' oversight function in this regard was very varied, and that further exchange should take place on the efficacy of different oversight functions in Africa. Financial responsibility mechanisms were also debated extensively, showing that they too are an area requiring more exchange and analysis.

In relation to Downward Accountability it was found that many participants states experienced problems with downward accountability to local populations, and because of lack of policy follow-through and delivery, community participation was sometimes lacking. In general, local committee involvement seemed also to identify more with local government interventions than with those of central government.

Areas for Future Research

Two areas were highlighted:

• The position of Traditional Leaders with respect to their role and function in decentralization and good governance; and
• A more in-depth survey and analysis of downward accountability mechanisms.

Summary of Comments on Working Group Reports

• There is a need for the collation of existing research on the themes covered by the working groups, as there is verbal evidence of an extensive amount of "grey literature", that is consultancy reports for governments, government reports, research conducted for donors, NGOs and CBOs as well as academic analysis and policy advocacy work;
• Capacity-building as a cross-cutting thematic issue requires more detailed exposition, especially with regard to the issue of inter and intra-sectoral competencies;
• More effective networking is clearly an issue which requires more attention on the part of both governments as well as donors and civil society organizations;
• The question of local government fiscal arrangements is a key area affecting all decentralized functions and responsibilities, its importance in terms of further analysis and exchange of ideas cannot be overstressed;
• There is need for further research on the question of linking incentives to enhanced local government capacity and performance;
• There is evidently a need for ongoing local government skills enhancement a training to meet the demands of a rapidly global sing state-system;
• There is an urgent need for further research into central and local government auditing systems;
• The is a need for further research on the how, why, when and where of local government elections, especially in comparative perspective;
• Theoretical assumptions built into aspects of for example, local government taxation, should be investigated more thoroughly to ensure that contextual aspects, such cultural user pattern norms, are not ignored;
• Relatedly, there is a need for greater theoretical clarity on recommendations made for restructuring local government, as well as on the use of concepts such as participation.

Return to top