The Concept of Decentralization

3.2 The Concept of Decentralization

Given the above highlights, the notion of decentralization and its different forms as they relate to this study will now be explored alongside their implications on national educational policy and implementation.

3.2.1 Meaning & Scope of Decentralization

Decentralization is an ambiguous concept which is used commonly, yet defined and interpreted variously (McGinn & Welsh, 1999). Some scholars have defined decentralization from a spatial perspective of transferring authority to geographically dispersed public institutions (Lauglo, 1995). From the education sector point of view, the most appealing aspect of local level financing therefore lies in the extent to which it is possible to relieve central government of its burden in financing public education. In this study decentralization is defined as, “the transfer or devolution of power to independent,

13 The analysis of decentralization here is mainly focusing on selected Sub Saharan countries; these are the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania, Senegal, Cameroon and Lesotho.

29 sub-national governments that are given the responsibilities to plan the level and quality of services to be provided, including the sources and types of funding necessary to deliver those services” (Saasa, Steffensen et al., 1999:7).

The definition by Saasa and Steffensen is narrow in scope, since devolution is not only about the transfer of authority, but encompasses other aspects not ideologically typical of decentralization. Whatever different usage of the term decentralization may be:

decentralization by provision can be contrasted from decentralization of authority, for which further differentiation is unavoidable. All in all, decentralization is a complex and multi-dimensional phenomena whose meaning can be understood by distinguishing it from centralization (Bray, 1996). In any education system, such a distinction can, for example, be looked at in terms of the differences in decision making approach for education delivery - i.e. bottom up vs. top down approach.

Figure 4: Decentralization versus Centralisation Approaches¹⁴

Source: (Author, 2011)

The study by De Grauwe and Lugaz (2010) in West Africa indicates that educational decentralization has achieved moderate success in some countries, moderate failure in

14 Figure shows two different scenarios of educational management systems. It depicts levels where decision-making power resides in a given education system. In essence, decision-making is about authority. However, a key question is whether authority should rest with top MoE officials at national level (centralised), or whether it should be delegated further down the hierarchy, away from the centre (decentralised). Arguably, the choice between centralised or decentralised in a given country is not an either/or choice. It all depends on the context. The model of centralisation which may work in one country may not in the other and that applies to educational decentralisation.

National Provincial

DEBs School

Decentralised Education System

Centralised Education System

Bottom-up-Approach Top-down-Approach

30

others, and a striking combination of both in many other countries. Reasons for these different success rates seem to be poorly understood, if not overly stressed and, in certain cases, not backed by conclusive evidence. Since the workings of decentralization remain largely a mystery, one finds it hard to evaluate whether or not specific decentralization programs succeed or fail due to strengths or weakness in design or implementation, and more difficult still to recommend improvements. The point here is that decentralization as a phenomenon is diverse and one can even differentiate the concept into different forms, for which the conditions for success or failure are context dependent.

Generally the lessons learned, particularly in SSA, suggest that decentralization can be successful if the central government is politically stable, solvent, and above all, committed to transferring clear responsibilities matched with sufficient financial resources when local authorities are not able but willing to assume those responsibilities. It can also be successful where there are well organized and vibrant civil society organizations and last but not the least where there are mechanisms for promoting effective community involvement (Naidoo, 2002; Rondenelli & Cheema, 1983). However, these scholars may not be an all wise oracle in all respects, since there can be exceptions to that too.

Decentralization, in the form of initiatives and efforts from below, may occur not only when government is non-effective, but also when government is not committed to service provision. For instance, community schools in rural parts of Zambia began way before decentralization was adopted in 2002, simply because government did not have enough resources to build classrooms where they never existed but were badly needed.

3.2.2 Forms of Decentralization

Since inception, the notion of decentralization has increasingly evolved with on-going disagreements and debates regarding its different forms. Decentralization is a

“multifaceted concept¹⁵”, and its different forms should therefore be distinguished as having different characteristics, policy implications and success conditions (Karlsen, 2000). In theory, the different forms of decentralization differ, depending on what sort of values are of significance. Rather than dwelling on the meaning of decentralization,

15 The term “decentralization” embraces a variety of terminologies which needs to be carefully analyzed in any given setting before determining whether program interventions should focus on reorganization of financial, administrative, or service delivery mechanisms. Types of decentralization include political, administrative, fiscal, and market decentralization. Drawing distinctions between these various concepts is useful for highlighting the many dimensions to successful decentralization and the need for coordination among them.

31 emphasis should be placed on how its forms relate to each other and the significance of their differences in service delivery. Using Rondinelli & Cheema’s typology of 1983, the three main degrees of authority, often categorized as deconcentration, delegation and devolution, will be discussed.

3.2.2.1 Deconcentration

Deconcentration is the process through which a central authority establishes field units which are staffed with its own officers. According to Namukas & Buye (2009), deconcentration is regarded as the weakest form of decentralization. It is considered the weakest because the central governments merely shift responsibilities to officials at the regional, provincial, district and local level without addressing issues of administrative and technical capacities. The measures are critical in ensuring effective service delivery. It is for this reason that some education experts from the center tend to disfavor deconcentration, on grounds that it is unlikely to lead to potential benefits in education because authority is hardly transferred to sub national structures (Bray & Mukundan, 2004). Perhaps Bray and Mukundani are too negative about deconcentration as their assertions paint a poor picture about it. The fact, however, is that deconcentration can be equally beneficial for centralized state bureaucracies, provided that certain issues are left to be decided upon by officials closer to the ground than those sitting in MoE headquarters.

3.2.2.2 Delegation

Compared to deconcentration, where authority is more limited to the top, delegation can be seen as a wider form of decentralization. Nevertheless, delegation can apply in everyday life to all kinds of easily revocable transfer, of authority to positions or persons who remain accountable to whoever has the authority to delegate. However, it is not entirely about formal or informal organizational functioning. Through delegation, central governments transfer responsibilities and authority for decision-making and administration of public functions to semi-autonomous institutions not wholly controlled by central government, but ultimately accountable to it (Florestal & Cooper, 1997). The Examination Council of Zambia, which independently coordinates all national examinations on behalf of the MoE, is one such an example. According to Hanson (1997), a key feature of delegation is the idea that authority transferred to lower hierarchical structures can be withdrawn at the

32

discretion of the delegating unit. The problem, however, is that the established usage of this concept is much wider than what Florestal, Cooper and Hanson have in mind.

Arguably, delegation can succeed where precise instructions and clear procedures are given on how responsibilities should be executed. Often, however, this is not the case, particularly among modern decentralization advocates in developing countries such as Zambia or Malawi.

3.2.2.3 Devolution

Devolution can be understood as the distribution of authority to local governments or communities to enable them make decisions and take actions independently from central government. As opposed to deconcentration and delegation, devolution enables local government institutions to operate without government interference in dealing with matters such as personnel management and utilization of allocated funding (Rondinelli & Cheema, 1983). On the other hand, local authorities in a devolved system have clearly and legally recognized geographical spheres, over which they exercise their power and authority, and within which they deliver public services. It has also been reiterated that, because of the nature of the administrative and legal setup in a devolved system, units do not often seek for permission from central government when making decisions regarding public service provision (Hanson, 1997 & 1998).

Although devolution can be perceived as the best form of decentralization (Florestal &

Cooper, 1997), it is not risk free since problems such as arbitrary abuse of power and authority can be detrimental to equitable service delivery at the local level. The question therefore is: Are there no such risks regardless of whether authority is concentrated or decentralized? This question is hard to answer, but one possible answer might be that this problematic issue is strongly influenced by country specific ideologies about the political rationale for decentralization, but again, this raises another critical question. Who should have the right to make decisions, regardless of whether such decisions are right or wrong?

No straight jacket approach applies, here but probably the best option lies in striking a tricotomy balance between or among these three forms, but also taking into account challenges that are associated with each one of them.