80 likes | 174 Views
OECD Decentralisation and Poverty Workshop. Reviewing the Sub-Saharan African Experience Nick Devas International Development Department University of Birmingham. Decentralisation: a necessary but not sufficient condition for poverty reduction. Poor people are “out there”
E N D
OECD Decentralisation and Poverty Workshop Reviewing the Sub-Saharan African Experience Nick Devas International Development Department University of Birmingham
Decentralisation: a necessary but not sufficient condition for poverty reduction • Poor people are “out there” • So not whether but how to decentralise • But many unrealistic assumptions • Cross-country analyses come to conflicting conclusions due to: • differing factors considered • inadequacy of data • decentralisation being recent and evolving • Need to examine mechanisms in detail
Mechanisms: Political (Voice) • Accountability of elected representatives and executive to the poor • Pro-poor programmatic political parties • Responsive and responsible civic leadership • Inclusion, exclusion, elite domination, corruption • Formal & informal political processes • Mechanisms of citizen participation • Access to information • Capacity (& representativeness) of civil society • Accessible, community level local government
Mechanisms: Economic • Does LG have the functions which address poverty? • Capacity of LGs to deliver services • Financial resources • Information (about the poor, about services) • Distributional arrangements: access, targeting, pricing • Impact of regulatory activities • Leadership and motivation
Ghana Case Issues identified in study of Kumasi (2000): • Disempowering role of appointed MCE • Low electoral turnout • Failure to operationalise lower tier units • Unresolved transfers of key functions • Resource flows: Common Fund plus central payment of key staff: ownership issue • Little attempt to address poverty • Repression of informal sector • Weak civil society • Countervailing power of traditional authorities
Guinea Case From case presented, there appears to be: • No real connection between decentralisation and poverty reduction • Ambivalence of leadership to both • Proximity of decision-making provides some opportunities for voice and accountability • But domination of old elites, limited accountability, weak civil society
Uganda • Extensive decentralisation of functions & resources • Multiple levels provide opportunities for participation • But high degree of central control through conditional transfers • Weak local capacity and management • Building local accountability through participation & information but still v.weak • Poverty addressed mainly through central transfers, eg LGDP
Kenya • LG reform rather than decentralisation • Limited political commitment to either decentralisation or poverty reduction • Weak local accountability • Weak local capacity and resources • Opportunistic behaviour of councillors • Control and interference from centre • But new transfer system aims at improved participation, accountability & service delivery through performance conditions • Growing civil society pressure