26 JOHAN POST
central states who were no longer able to perform their social functions nor, for that
matter, to award their major supporters the fruits of holding government office. This
situation eroded state power and evoked questions, among others, on what institution
instead of central government is best suited to deliver public goods and services. In
many countries, for example Brazil, Columbia, Ghana, and recently Indonesia, strong
domestic pressures were exercised on governments to decentralise and democratise
government structures.
The plea for decentralisation was further strengthened by the rise to prominence of the
neo-liberal doctrine and the collapse of state-communism. Decentralisation was seen
to be instrumental to the desire to roll back the state and create a slim and efficient type
of government that would make optimal use of private sector and community poten-
tials (Leftwich, 1994). It became more closely associated with the strive for ‘good
governance’, interpreted as greater accountability (better opportunities for participa-
tion and subjecting public officials to popular control), transparency (i.e. a clear
demarcation of tasks and responsibilities and more insight into the allocation of
resources) and responsiveness (i.e. acknowledging the diversity of needs among the
population in terms of policy responses) within a liberal-democratic framework. By
bringing government closer to the people, decentralisation is expected to lead to more
efficient, realistic and locally adapted development strategies. It will help to mobilise
valuable local energies and resources and thereby enhance productivity (Olowu and
Smoke, 1992). Finally, devolution was increasingly considered indispensable in an era
of globalisation in which the role of the nation state (as a protecting or mediating
force) is losing significance and local governments attempt to respond to the restruc-
turing of the global economy (Schuurman, 1997)^2. In order to maximise their ability
to capitalise on their specific locational advantages and compete with other places all
over the world, local governments have to be empowered.
Although the overall political-economic climate is evidently pro-decentralisation,
there is nevertheless nothing inherently ‘good’ about the process. Admittedly, it can
help to empower lower echelons of government or even disenfranchised groups, but
at the same time it can work to extend central authority or strengthen mechanisms of
political patronage and corruption at local level (Samoff, 1990). Furthermore,
although decentralisation can diminish the gap between the state and civil society, it
can also produce greater regional disparities because of the unequal distribution of
competitive advantages and institutional capacities (Burgess et al., 1997). Finally, the
- There is some discussion on whether decentralisation is indeed an appropriate regulatory fix for most
developing countries. According to Schuurman most of these countries have never experienced a tran-
sition to the Fordist regime of accumulation (mass-production) and the concomitant welfarist mode of
social regulation. Therefore, ‘....it is premature to hollow out the state in Third World countries just
because current Post-Fordist neo-liberal logic upholds this recipe for the North’ (Schuurman, 1997:
156).