Share this story!            

VIEW: Devolution and development —Syed Mohammad Ali

If power is not effectively utilised by the intended stakeholders, it can just as easily be captured by vested interest groups which are much more ruthless in exploiting the vulnerable than inefficient government structures. The Citizen Community Boards recently formed in Pakistan to ensure greater citizen involvement in the local government are a case in point

The drive towards devolution is a global trend pushing governments in both developing and developed countries to undertake political, administrative, fiscal, and market decentralisation since the past two decades. While decentralisation is justified on the basis of enhancing socio-economic and political empowerment, its results remain elusive and require careful scrutiny.

There is a convincing rationale for expecting decentralisation to benefit people. In principle, increased participation in governance processes could improve accountability, transparency and responsiveness of governance structures. It also makes sense that increased grassroots participation would better guide development efforts in addressing local needs. Yet, even the multilateral proponents of decentralisation, including the World Bank, concede that decentralisation does not necessary follow this sequence of events. Devolution may, conversely, cause the loss of economies of scale, erode control over scarce financial resources and complicate coordination of national policies. Transferring administrative responsibilities to local levels without adequate financial resources does little in terms of increasing efficiency. Weak administrative or technical capacity at local levels causes further disappointment in terms of improved performance. Due to such contingencies, decentralisation remains a complex phenomenon. Unless adequately planned decentralisation can cause distrust amongst various tiers of government and instead of making them more responsive to people’s needs disrupt their functioning.

According to research conducted by the London School of Economics, decentralisation apparently exacerbates disparities. The European Union as a whole, for example, has seen regional inequalities increase by 11.24 per cent alongside decentralisation between 1990 and 2000. It is hard to ascertain if devolution alone is responsible for this rise in disparities, but if it were, there would be even graver consequences in developing countries whose poor and marginalised majorities are less able to adapt to and benefit from changing governance structures. The vigour of the decentralisation process in Brazil, India, and Mexico during the 1990s has coincided with rising disparities and brought about much turmoil in its wake.

While it is too early to say what impact devolution will have on the lives of ordinary people in Pakistan, there are some important issues to bear in mind as the ongoing process unfolds. First of all, the very idea of devolving power is not a new concept for the country. President Ayub Khan had introduced a notion of ‘Basic Democracy’ in the 1960s to give limited power to local councillors who in turn elected him to power through indirect elections. In the 1980s, President Zia also constituted local government structures, which in effect merely increased the tiers in local administration. The Local Government Ordinance 2001 has taken power away from the bureaucracy and shifted it to local governments leading to visibly strained relations between Nazims and the bureaucrats. The relations between provincial and local governments are also not too smooth.

What is perhaps novel about the current devolution process is the tremendous support it has garnered from multilateral and bilateral development agencies. All major donors have endorsed the present government’s view that devolution can offer the best prospect for improving service delivery and access by the poor to public entitlements. The United Nations Development Programme supported the devolution process at its inception stage and remains engaged in providing technical support. The World Bank and the Asian Development Bank are also supporting the government agencies concerned with financial and technical assistance. Bilateral donors like the Canadians and the Japanese are facilitating the implementation of devolution in selected localities.

It is useful for the government to seek support in implementing an efficient, transparent and responsive administrative system capable of delivering high quality public services to common people. However, specific attention is required to rectify ambiguities in the system, like those concerning fiscal decentralisation, specifically revenue collection. There is ample confusion on ground concerning which tier of government is to benefit from which tax. While it will take several years to build the capacity required for the new political authorities and local government officials, those involved in the devolution process need to simultaneously emphasise gender-sensitive training, particularly at the grassroots level, in order to realise the enhanced role for women participation in governance. The local government system enabled more than 30,000 women to enter formal politics but has not yet been able to provide them the kind of backing needed to have their position readily acknowledged in male dominated institutional structures.

The above efforts to strengthen devolution need not be in vain. There are instances of devolution succeeding in securing major development goals by making government institutions more responsive to local needs. The leftist government of the Indian state of West Bengal, for example, undertook land reforms, launched impressive rural development and poverty alleviation schemes spurred by the devolution of authority to village-based panchayats. However, if power is not effectively utilised by the intended stakeholders, it can just as easily be captured by vested interest groups which are much more ruthless in exploiting the vulnerable than inefficient government structures. The Citizen Community Boards recently formed in Pakistan to ensure greater citizen involvement in the local government are a case in point. The apparent lack of enthusiasm to constitute or participate in these boards allows them to serve as a front for contractors, who are undertaking public works at inflated rates and pocketing the extra money to the detriment of their communities.

There is probably enough empirical evidence to counter a finding of the aforementioned LSE study and to instead demonstrate that greater participation in policymaking coincides with decreasing disparities and improved service delivery. Yet for such an aspiration to become a reality in Pakistan at least, it would be necessary to greatly extend the scope of ownership in governance processes, both in terms of securing greater participation and in terms of removing ceilings beyond which authority remains highly concentrated.

The writer is a researcher with diverse experience in the development sector. He can be reached at syedmohdali555@yahoo.com

Home | Editorial

Share this story!