UNCDF Working Paper
Policy & Institutional Analysis & Programming Strategies

---

Assessing the Context

---

1. The Formal Institutions of Local Government & Administration

Two Contrasting Stereotypes as Benchmarks:
Devolution: "Local Government"
Deconcentration: "Local Administrative Committees"

2. Political Impetus in Favour of Decentralisation

Decentralising Resources & Powers: Policies & Trends
Central-Local Relationships: Procedures & Practices
Identifying Allies & Stakeholders

3. Detailed Assessment of Local Government in the Programme Area

The purpose of the assessment should be to judge the overall scope for supporting a decentralised approach to infrastructure & service delivery, to identify the local and central partner institutions, to identify the broad policy constraints on more effective local governance, and to gauge the likely range of project objectives and activities. This then provides the basis for programme strategy and design.

Unfortunately, there is no useful and unambiguous one-dimensional index (2) of the degree of decentralisation in a given country. Similarly, the devolution/deconcentration distinction is too blunt to be helpful – almost every country exhibits some sort of "mix" at each level. While attempting to measure degrees of national "political commitment" to decentralisation is inherently subjective, and misses both the formal institutional setup as well as the policy differences between different parts of government

UNCDF experience is that there are several inter-related dimensions to the assessment:

• Overall Institutional & Policy Context for Decentralisation. This involves assessing:

(a) the overall Institutional Topography of state institutions at regional and local levels, and

(b) the state and direction of government policy and commitment to empowering these institutions.

• Local Government in the Project area. This entails a more detailed assessment of the capacity and viability of local government bodies in the designated programme area.

Although of course these various stages are to a large extent undertaken concurrently, for convenience they are considered below under three separate headings. (Return )

 

1. The Formal Institutions of Local Government & Administration

It is worthwhile to summarise the typical features of two contrasting stereotypes of "local state institution":

Devolution: "Local Government"

This represents a stereotype (or "ideal type") to which in reality no local government will ever fully correspond, even in Western liberal democracies, but which provide a useful framework for assessment and for comparison over time and between countries. Briefly these features are:

Deconcentration: "Local Administrative Committees"

By contrast, an institution of deconcentrated Local Administration is generally characterised as follows:

• An inter-departmental committee comprised of line department heads, usually chaired & controlled by an appointed generalist administrator (Governor, prefect, district commissioner)
• A mandate to plan and coordinate the activities of the constituent departments
• Status as Administrative body, without status as body corporate (thus with no powers to sue, be sued, to contract, hold a bank account, employ staff etc. – such functions undertaken by either the Committee Chair or by the respective line departments)
• Access to development funds, but with recurrent budgeting & expenditure undertaken by line departments
• No powers to raise revenues or make and enforce local by-laws.

Both sets of institution frequently co-exist at either the same or different levels.

A first task of assessment then is to map out the local institutional topography as defined by the Constitution, and by legal statutes, administrative decree, or simply by practice, to determine how close or how distant from this ideal type are the institutions at each level. Issues to be explored are:

1. the formally defined "levels" of government and administration from Region/Province, through District/Prefecture, County/Arrondissement, Commune/Ward, to village;
   
   
2. the existence of centrally appointed general administrators (Governors, Prefects, District commissioners, etc.) at these levels;
   
   
3. the existence of elected (or part elected/part appointed) policy-making or consultative assemblies (councils, assemblies, development committees, etc.), their legal/constitutional status, areas of jurisdiction, and their relationship with centrally appointed administrators (one supervising the other, or mere consultation between?);
   
   
4. the deployment and employment of executive or line dept. staff, their geographical area of operations, & their relationships (control, joint supervision, or simply coordination?) with general administrators, with representative assemblies, and with their own parent ministries;
   
   
5. Central Ministries responsible for local administration and government, and the nature of central-local relations ("tutelle" and supervision, inspection and audit, or monitoring & mentoring).

This assessment should therefore identify Administrative and Representative institutions at each level, their role, powers and functions, and the cross-relations of control across institutions at each level and between institutions at different levels

It may emerge that at any given level there are significant differences in constitutional or legal provisions for urban areas, which in many countries enjoy more autonomous representative government than do the rural areas. Indeed, in a number of countries rural areas enjoy no representative organs at all, except perhaps at the village level, or at least none with anything more than advisory or consultative functions. (Return)
 
 

2. Political Impetus in Favour of Decentralisation

But mapping the formal structures is of course not the whole story. There are cases of countries with a formal system which appears devolutionary, but where this has been emptied through political undermining of the formal/constitutional provisions, in favour of re-centralisation of control (e.g. Malawi under Banda, or Kenya until recently); and, conversely, there are cases where within a formal system which, for historical reasons, does not feature classic local government structures, but where the government may still be pressing a policy of greater democratic decentralisation (as in Mali). Ultimately, of course, such commitments may themselves in turn lead to reform of the constitutionally defined "formal structures" discussed above.

Decentralising Resources & Powers: Policies & Trends

In other words, independently of the formal institutional patterns, government policies toward "decentralisation" of authority and resource control can be more or less committed – and more or less static - as regards the:

• extent of local democratic control (by representative bodies) allowed over the local administration;
• extent to which "institutional linkages" are being created between local authorities and the public;
• assignment of development functions (typically, rural roads, primary health, education, water, etc.) to the authority, and the extent to which the local authority is being made fully responsible rather than being merely consultative;
• assignment of revenue raising (& retaining) powers to the authority;
• establishing a mechanism for central-local fiscal transfers (revenue sharing, grants);
• extent of final discretionary authority allowed to the local political authority in:
• setting local planning/development objectives for their assigned functions,
• allocating budgetary resources for these functions,
• staffing control for these functions, etc. (Return)

Central-Local Relationships: Procedures & Practices

Finally, and critically, there is need to assess the more routine nature of the central-local relationship: does the centre empower or frustrate local government? Of course, this is a cross-cutting theme which runs through many of the issues highlighted in the preceding sections, and the conclusions will usually be ambiguous. Nonetheless, some key questions to consider in an overall assessment are:

• Are central representatives involved in local council activities or decisions?
• Is the centre involved in appointing or approving key local government civil servants?
• Does the centre insist on approving local authority plans and budgets at the beginning of the year?
• Are changes made to local plans and budgets and on what basis?
• Does the centre fully earmark use of funds transferred or allow some local discretion?

In summary here it must be said that there are few LDCs – indeed few countries anywhere - where the centre really empowers local government. What is probably most important is to identify changes and trends in the relationship, and to identify aspects where improvements are taking place, and to highlight inconsistencies between declared policy, formal legislation and practice.

A key aim of this stage in the assessment is therefore to identify trends or commitments to decentralising such powers or resources to the representative bodies identified under 1.. Specific attention should of course be given to any recent or pending legislation, or to any deliberative Commissions or Taskforces charged with formulating recommendations under any of the above heads.

Identifying Allies & Stakeholders

National governments are not monolithic. The assessment should therefore identify those parts of central government who are particularly interested to promote decentralisation of powers and resources to local bodies, while also identifying those departments which, for whatever reason, argue against. Rather paradoxically, the Ministries with formal responsibility for decentralised administration or local government are not always those most favourable to devolution of powers (e.g.. Nepal and Bhutan, where the lead is being taken by the National Planning authorities rather than the Home Affairs Ministries supervising local authorities).

There may also be other key allies: e.g. the National Association of Local Authorities, key NGOs, Parliamentary committees on Local Government. (Return)
 
 

3. Detailed Assessment of Local Government in the Programme Area

CDF policy is to focus primarily on those levels of the state most closely corresponding to local government, following the country analysis of the sort outlined above, noting that local government institutions vary enormously.
 
 

Illustrative contrast between two extremes of local government a Ugandan District Council, governing 500,000 persons or more, with several hundred employees (many at graduate level), a budget of several million dollars, clear statutory fiscal & legislative powers and responsibilities, etc., operating within a policy context highly conducive to local empowerment.  a Malian Commune or Bangladeshi Union Parishad, governing 10-25,000 persons, with one or two low grade employees, a budget of several thousand dollars, a loose mandate, operating within a very ambiguous policy context for decentralisation.

 

As this contrast suggests, there are very different institutions in LDCs passing as "local government," varying greatly in capacity, accountability, viability and legitimacy. CDF experience points to the need to assess a range of issues – both problems and opportunities - in preparation for project strategy and design.

The institutional assessment of local government should therefore examine a range of issues which can be summarised under the following headings:

• The Legal Basis of Local Bodies
• The Legitimacy of Representation
• The Functional Mandate
• The Size of Jurisdiction – area and population
• Access to and Control over technical and line department staff and resources
• Financing – own sources and central transfers
• Powers of local legislation and dispute resolution
• Internal Organisation
• Relations with other local bodies and civil society
• Relations with central government agencies and other tiers

[See Annexe 2 – Guidelines for an Institutional Assessment of Local Governments – for a more detailed framework for assessment of these issues.]

---

Return to top