Government Decentralization in Comparative Perspective: Theory and Practice in Developing Countries

International Review of Administrative Sciences

Volumn 47, Issue 2, 1981, Pages 133-145

  Rondinelli, Dennis A ^a  

^a SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84972593890     PISSN: 00208523     EISSN: 14617226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/002085238004700205     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. U.S. Agency for International Development, Office of Rural Development, Managing Decentralization, Project Paper (Washington : U.S. International Development Cooperation Agency, 1979), mimeo., p. 24
2. World Bank, The Assault on World Poverty (Baltimore : Johns Hopkins, 1975 ), pp. 90-98.
3. USAID, World Bank, The Assault on World Poverty (Baltimore : Johns Hopkins, 1975 ), pp. 90-98, p. 25.
4. United Nations Development Program, Rural Development : Issues and Approaches for Technical Cooperation, Evaluation Study No. 2 (New York : UNDP, 1979 ), p. 104.
5. For a detailed descussion see Dennis A. Rondinelli, Administrative Decentralization and Area Development Planning in East Africa : Implications for United States Aid Policy, Occasional Paper No. 1 (Madison, Wisconsin : Regional Planning and Area Development Project, University of Wisconsin, 1980), especially pages 21-54.
6. Republic of Kenya, Development Plan 1970-1974 (Nairobi : The Government Printer, 1969 ), p. 4.
7. A review of early experience can be found in John Howell (ed), Local Government and Politics in the Sudan (Khartoum University Press, 1974).
8. Louis Picard, “Socialism and the Field Administrator : Decentralization in Tanzania,” Comparative Politics, Vol. 12, No. 4 (July 1980 ), pp. 439-457; quote at p. 450
9. See Musa Mahgoub Hamad El-Nil, “The New System of Local Government,” The People's Local Government Journal, Vol. 4, No. 3 (December 1975 ), pp. 1-26.
10. The deficiencies in national planning are outlined in Dennis A. Rondinelli, “National Investment Planning and Equity Policy in Developing Countries : The Challenge of Decentralized Administration,” Policy Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 1 (August 1978 ), pp. 45-74;
11. and Dennis A. Rondinelli, “Administration of Integrated Rural Development : The Politics of Agrarian Reform in Developing Countries,” World Politics, Vol. XXI, No. 3 (April 1979 ), pp. 389-416.
12. Some of these problems in East Africa are discussed in Christopher Trapman, Changes in Administrative Structure : A Case Study of Kenyan Agricultural Development, London : Overseas Development Institute, 1974.
13. The concept of political penetration is described in most detail in L. Cliffe, J.S. Coleman and M.R. Doornbos (eds.), Government and Rural Development in East Africa (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1977).
14. This argument has been especially strong in the Sudan, where decentralization was used to satisfy dissident political and religious groups’ demands for administrative autonomy. See Omar El-Haq Musa, “Reconciliation, Rehabilitation and Development Efforts in Southern Sudan,” Middle East Journal, Vol. 27 (Winter 1973 ), pp. 1-6.
15. See USAID, Omar El-Haq Musa, “Reconciliation, Rehabilitation and Development Efforts in Southern Sudan,” Middle East Journal, Vol. 27 (Winter 1973 ), pp. 1-6, passim.
16. The advantages of a regional base for planning and administration are outlined in Albert Waterston, “An Operational Approach to Development Planning,” International Journal of Health Services, Vol. 1, No. 3 (1971 ), pp. 233-252, and John Friedmann, Urbanization, Planning and National Development (Beverly Hills : Sage, 1973), chapters 12-16.
17. The roles of participation in development are reviewed by John M. Cohen and Norman T. Uphoff, “Participation's Place in Rural Development : Seeking Clarity through Specificity,” World Development, Vol. 8, (1980 ), pp. 213-235.
18. See Uma Lele, The Design of Rural Development: Lessons from Africa, (Baltimore : Johns Hopkins, 1975), chapters VIII and IX for a discussion of alternative forms of organization for rural development and their implications for innovation and flexibility.
19. USAID, Uma Lele, The Design of Rural Development: Lessons from Africa, (Baltimore : Johns Hopkins, 1975), passim.
20. James W. Fesler, “Centralization and Decentralization,” in David L. Sills (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, (New York: Macmillan, 1968 ), p. 373.
21. Examples are discussed in Paul Collins, “Decentralization and Local Administration for Development in Tanzania,” Africa Today, Vol. 21, (Summer 1974 ), pp. 15-25.
22. Martin J. Boodhoo, “The Organization and Management of Development Agencies : A Comparative Perspective,” International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 42 (1976 ), pp. 221-236; quote at p. 222.
23. Frank P. Sherwood, “Devolution as a Problem of Organization Strategy,” in R.T. Daland (ed.), Comparative Urban Research (Beverly Hills : Sage, 1969 ), pp. 60-87.
24. Uphoff and Esman argue that “local institutions which are separated and isolated from other levels are likely to be impotent developmentally. Local autonomy by itself provides little leverage for development. What makes the most difference are systems or networks of organization that make local development more than an enclave phenomenon. Thus, we found linkage to be a more significant variable than autonomy when it comes to promoting rural development”. See Norman Uphoff and Milton J. Esman, Local Organization for Rural Development in Asia (Ithaca : Cornell University Center for International Studies, 1974 ), p. xii.
25. See Richard N. Blue and James H. Weaver, “A Critical Assessment of the Tanzanian Model of Development,” Agricultural Development Council Reprints, No. 30 (July 1977 ), pp 19;
26. Joel D. Barkan and John J. Okumu (eds.), Politics and Public Policy in Kenya and Tanzania, (New York : Praeger, 1979);
27. and Abdel Moneim al Rayah and Alfred Logune Taban, “Decentralization : Power to the Provinces,” Sudanow (March 1979 ), pp. 9-14.
28. See Joel D. Barkan, “Comparing Politics and Public Policy in Kenya and Tanzania,” in Barkan and Okumu, Sudanow (March 1979, pp. 3-40.
29. John Howell, “Administration of Rural Development Planning : A Sudanese Case,” Agricultural Administration, Vol. 4 (1977 ), pp. 99-120; quote at p. 109.
30. See P.R. Lawrence, P.L. Raikes, R.G. Saylor and D. Warner, “Regional Planning in Tanzania : Some Institutional Problems,” Eastern Africa Journal of Rural Development, Vol. V, Nos. 1-2 (1974 ), pp. 10-45;
31. and Diana Conyers, “Organization for Development : The Tanzanian Experience,” Journal of Administration Overseas, Vol. 13, No. 3 (July 1974 ), pp. 438-448.
32. Philip Mbithi and Carolyn Barnes, A Conceptual Analysis of Approaches to Rural Development, Discussion Paper No. 204 (Institute of Development Studies, University of Nairobi, 1975), mimeo., p. 21.
33. A detailed discussion of problems of administrative capacity can be found in Jon R. Moris, “The Transferability of Western Management Concepts and Programs : An East African Perspective,” in L.D. Stifel, J.S. Coleman, and J.E. Black (eds.), Education and Training for Public Sector Management in Developing Countries (New York : Rockefeller Foundation, 1976 ), pp. 73-83.
34. See J.R. Nellis, “Three Aspects of the Kenyan Administrative System,” Cultures et Développement, Vol. 5 (1973 ), pp. 541-570;
35. and O. Aguda, “The Sudan Civil Service 1964-1971,” Quarterly Journal of Administration, Vol. 6 (April 1972 ), pp. 333-347.
36. Trapman, “The Sudan Civil Service 1964-1971,” Quarterly Journal of Administration, Vol. 6 (April 1972 ), pp. 333-347;
37. and Moris, “The Sudan Civil Service 1964-1971,” Quarterly Journal of Administration, Vol. 6 (April 1972 ), pp. 333-347
38. Democratic Republic of The Sudan, The People's Assembly, Final Report of the Select Committee for Study and Revision of the People's Local Government, translation (Khartoum : People's Assembly, 1976), mimeo., p. 38.
39. See the World Bank's analysis of local revenue raising capacity, Sudan : Agricultural Sector Survey, Vol. III (Washington : World Bank, 1979), Annex 8
40. The problems of spatial structure in Third World countries are discussed in Dennis A. Rondinelli and Kenneth Ruddle, Urbanization and Rural Development : A Spatial Policy for Equitable Growth (New York : Praeger, 1978).
41. Sherwood, Urbanization and Rural Development : A Spatial Policy for Equitable Growth (New York : Praeger, 1978 ), p. 75.
42. Montgomery argues from his study of decentralization of land reform administration, for instance, that where it was successful “devolution seems to work because of a combination of certain factors that come with public participation in program implementation : (a) easier access to knowledge; (b) more powerful motivation; (c) better communication; and (d) increased community solidarity”. The question that remains is whether these factors must already be present to some degree before devolvement will work or if devolvement itself strengthens and builds these characteristics. See John D. Montgomery, “Allocation of Authority in Land Reform Programs : A Comparative Study of Administrative Processes and Outputs,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, (1972 ), pp. 62-75.
43. David Leonard, Reaching the Peasant Farmer : Organization Theory and Practice in Kenya (University of Chicago Press, 1977 ), p. 213.
44. Alternative forms of interaction are discussed in Charles E. Lindblom, The Intelligence of Democracy (New York : The Free Press, 1965) and Politics and Markets, (New York : Basic Books, 1977).
45. See Moris, The Intelligence of Democracy (New York : The Free Press, 1965), for a more detailed discussion.
46. One method of spatial analysis and planning has been developed for USAID and UN Agencies for application in countries with these spatial characteristics. See Dennis A. Rondinelli, Spatial Analysis for Regional Development : A Case Study in the Bicol River Basin of the Philippines, Resource Systems Theory and Methodology, Series No. 2 (Tokyo : United Nations University Press, 1980).