Files
Abstract
Since the 1950s, a large body of literature has emerged that reviews various dimensions of decentralization. It is comprised of theoretical exercises, comparative studies of selected cases, individual country studies, focused inquiries into particular aspects of the intervention, teaching materials, and government or aid agency design and implementation manuals. This body of writing is now so wide-ranging, diverse, and substantial that it merits consolidation in a state-of-the-art paper. Such an exercise was carried out by the authors for the United Nations and issued as "Administrative Decentralization Strategies for the 1990s and Beyond" (Research Study Prepared for the Governance and Public Administration Branch, Division for Public Administration and Management Development, Department for Development Support and Management Services, United Nations Secretariat, November 1995). A version of this report will be published by Kumarian Press in 1997 as Administrative Decentralization in Late Developing Countries. This Discussion Paper consolidates some of the background research undertaken by the authors while preparing the United Nations study. The methodological issues reviewed will not be published in the Kumarian Press book. Hence, this paper seeks to preserve issues identified during the research process for academics and aid agency professionals. The paper begins by describing the range and scope of the numerous books, monogaphs, journal articles, governmental studies, and consulting reports that describe and analyze various forms and types of decentralization. Then it reviews several methodological problems marking this literature that limit its utility to governments and aid agencies seeking to use decentralization strategies to promote development processes. These include careless use of conceptual definitions and terms, misconceptions and unrealistic expectations, unsystematic presentations, an overemphasis on cases of failure, lack of comparability among diverse case studies, neglect of historical patterns that generate complexity, inappropriate linear assumptions, and naive arguments that bureaucracies should be dramatically reduced and power and responsibility for public sector tasks be transferred to local communities, private sector firms, and organizations.