DECENTRALIZATION: THE LATEST

FASHION IN DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATION?

Diana Conyers

There has been a resurgence of interest in decentralization, but decentrali-

zation is now somewhat differently conceived from the way it was in the
1960s. With somewhat different objectives, decentralization also takes
different forms and this calls into question the value of the well established
categories of devolution and deconcentration.

THE RECENT INTEREST IN DECENTRALIZATION

During the last decade, there has been a growing interest in decentralization
among the governments of a number of Third World countries, especially,
but not only, in Africa. Countries that have introduced significant organi-
zational reforms described as, or having elements of, ‘decentralization’ –
or are in the process of doing so – include Tanzania, Zambia, the Sudan,
Nigeria and Ghana in Africa (Adamolckun & Rowlands, 1979; Conyers,
1981a; Mawhood & Davcy, 1980; Rondinelli, 1981; Tordoff, 1980), Sri
Lanka (Craig, 1981) and a number of countries in the South Pacific, in-
cluding Papua New Guinea (Conyers, 1981a, 1981b; Ghai, 1981; Tordoff,
1981). Several other countries in Africa and Asia are attempting to achieve

Comparative Public Administration: The Essential Readings

Research in Public Policy Analysis and Management, Volume 15, 447–462
Copyright r 2006 by Elsevier Ltd.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 0732-1317/doi:10.1016/S0732-1317(06)15019-8
447
448 DIANA CONYERS

some degree of decentralization within the existing organizational structure.

In Latin America, government structures have generally remained more
centralized and there appears to be little prospect of any major change in
the near future; nevertheless, calls for decentralization recur periodically and
there have been a few attempts, albeit generally of limited duration and
success, to introduce some measure of decentralization (Graham, 1980).
The interest in decentralization in Third World countries has been par-
alleled by an even greater interest on the part of international develop-
ment agencies, bilateral aid donors and academic circles in Europe, North
America and Australia. The more obvious current examples of this interest
include the decentralization research programme of the United Nations’
Development Administration Division, which included an international
seminar in Khartoum in September 1981 (United Nations, 1981), a research
programme launched by the United Nations Centre for Regional Develop-
ment (UNCRD, 1981a) in Nagoya, Japan, at a seminar in July 1981
(UNCRD, 1981b), a study of decentralized planning by the International
Labour Organization (ILO, 1981) and a variety of activities funded by the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID), including
a major research programme (the Project of Managing Decentralization)
now drawing to conclusion at the Institute of International Studies in
the University of California at Berkeley (Institute of International Studies,
1981).
On a more modest scale, the Commonwealth Secretariat’s Division of
Applied Studies in Government has supported technical assistance and
workshops in the field of decentralization, including a workshop in Arusha,
Tanzania, in April 1982, and it has commissioned the preparation of a
bibliography on the subject, while the International Center for Law in De-
velopment (based in New York) has also supported dialogue on decentral-
ization, including a small workshop in Nottingham in May 1981 (Institute
of Planning Studies, University of Nottingham, and International Center
for Law in Development, 1981). Finally, the Development Studies Associ-
ation (DSA) of the United Kingdom and Ireland held a meeting of its
Regional Development and Planning study group on the topic of Decen-
tralization and Planning in March 1982 (DSA, 1982).
This is not the first time that decentralization has been advocated by those
concerned with the theory and practice of development administration. A
somewhat similar interest in the late 1950s and early 1960s was manifested
in the expansion and development of local government systems in many
countries and in publications such as the classic works by Maddick (1963)
and Hicks (1961) and handbooks produced by the United Nations (1962).
Decentralization: The Latest Fashion in Development Administration? 449

The current resurgence of interest could be interpreted in two ways. On the

one hand, it could be seen as just another temporary phase, likely to be
followed sooner or later by a swing in the other direction towards increasing
centralization. This would be understandable, since the relationship between
centralization and decentralization is, to some extent, similar to the move-
ment of a pendulum, in the sense that a strong movement in one direction
may well result in an opposite move as a reaction. On the other, it could be
interpreted as a more fundamental change, stimulated by different factors
and involving different forms of decentralization and, therefore, not nec-
essarily likely to be followed by a reversion to relative centralization.
In reality, both interpretations probably have some validity. The present
interest in decentralization is in part a reaction against an earlier period of
relative centralization but, at the same time, it has certain characteristics
that distinguish it from previous decentralization efforts and, therefore,
warrant special study. This paper examines the current decentralization
‘fashion’ in this context, with the aim, first, of identifying the extent and
form, of the differences between current and earlier approaches and, second,
of examining the implications of this for future trends in development ad-
ministration. With these intentions in mind, the next two sections of the
paper examine the objectives and the characteristics of recent decentraliza-
tion programmes, and the last section considers their achievements to date
and the possible future implications.

OBJECTIVES OF DECENTRALIZATION

The decentralization programmes of the 1950s and 1960s were closely as-
sociated, especially in Anglophone Africa, with the transition from colonial
status to political independence. Local-level government, was seen as a
necessary part of the structure of an independent democratic government
and, more specifically, as a means of removing some of the burden of pro-
viding local services from the central government while, at the same time,
encouraging political education and involvement at the local level. These
objectives were not so very different in many respects from those of the
colonial powers when first establishing local-level governments (Hicks,
1961) and the continuing colonial influence was reflected in the characteris-
tics of the decentralization programmes, which tended to be modelled on
western systems of field administration and local government – a point
to which we shall return in the next section. However, the concern with
decentralization was also influenced by the desire of the newly independent
450 DIANA CONYERS

governments to demonstrate that they were more concerned with achieving

democracy and meeting local needs than their colonial predecessors.
In examining the reasons for the current interest in decentralization, it is
useful to recognize that there are some differences between the objectives of
the various governments actually involved in decentralization and those of
the international agencies, academics and others whose interest is somewhat
more detached. The objectives of the two groups are obviously very closely
related, but their different perspectives and forms of involvement inevitably
result in some differences in objectives and priorities. Moreover, it is also
important to recognize that, within each group, the reasons for encouraging
decentralization are usually complex and they are likely to include both
reasons that are clearly stated and openly debated and implicit reasons,
which are more difficult to identify and discuss.
The difference between the two groups – the governments of the countries
concerned on the one hand and international agencies and other more de-
tached parties on the other – is less in the case of the explicit objectives. One
of the most significant aspects of the current interest in decentralization is
that although decentralization is, as in the past, still seen as a way of en-
couraging local involvement in the provision of government services, it is
now considered by both groups to have a much wider role. Decentraliza-
tion is in particular seen as a means of, first, improving the planning and
implementation of national development – especially those concerned with
rural development – and, second, facilitating effective popular participation
in the process of development in a more profound way than envisaged in the
earlier decentralization programmes.
The role of decentralization in improving the planning and management
of rural development programmes, is part of a general concern, with rural
development which has characterized the policies of individual countries
and international agencies during the last decade or so, as a result of the
failure of earlier policies that focused more on industrial and urban devel-
opment. In recent years, this concern has been manifested not only in efforts
to increase the amount of resources devoted to rural development pro-
grammes but also in increasing dissatisfaction at the limited achievements of
such programmes. In this context, decentralization has been seen as a way of
increasing the effectiveness of rural development programmes by making
them more relevant and responsive to local needs and conditions, allowing
greater flexibility in their implementation and providing a means of co-
ordinating the various agencies involved at the regional or local level
(Rondinelli, 1981; Cohen et al., 1981; Conyers, l981a). This rationale is most
clearly stated by international agencies, academics and others less directly
Decentralization: The Latest Fashion in Development Administration? 451

involved in de-centralization programmes, but it also features in the stated

objectives of most of the programmes themselves, even though there may
also be other explicit and implicit motives.
The desire to increase popular participation in the planning and imple-
mentation of development programmes is sought partly as a means of
making plans more relevant to local needs and, in some cases, enlisting local
support in their implementation, thereby also helping to improve the quality
of rural development efforts. However, it is also seen as an end in itself. This
is, as such, nothing new, since it is a characteristic of all democratic states
and, as already noted, was particularly emphasized by the governments of
Third World nations during the period immediately following independ-
ence. What is significant about the current interest in popular participation
is a concern for more direct participation in decision making, particularly on
the part of the mass of the rural poor who have received little or no benefits
as a result of earlier approaches to development. This concern is reflected in
international agencies in policies such as those associated with the ‘basic
needs’ approach to development, which regards the right to such partici-
pation as a basic human need (Ghai, 1977). And in developing countries
themselves it is reflected in official policy statements justifying decentrali-
zation and other related programmes, which emphasize the need for ‘par-
ticipatory democracy’ (Kaunda, 1974), rather than democracy that merely
gives people the right to vote in elections. Whether or not the programmes
concerned actually meet this objective is, of course, another question – and
one that will be addressed below – but it is at least present in the rhetoric,
which accompanies the introduction of most decentralization programmes.
The implicit objectives of decentralization are more complex and it is
more difficult to identify them and assess their relative importance in any
particular situation. Discussion of the implicit motives of international
agencies, bilateral aid donors and academics involved in development
studies is beyond the scope of this paper. Two brief comments may, how-
ever, be made. First, there is no doubt that such motives exist, particularly
on the part of bilateral aid donors and academics. Second, there is a ten-
dency for such organizations and individuals to concentrate their attention
at any particular time on a few specific policies or approaches that, for one
reason or another, happen to be popular at the time, thereby creating what
can only be described as ‘fashions’ in development administration. It must,
therefore, be accepted that the current widespread interest in decentraliza-
tion is at least partially due to the fact that it has been promoted in this way.
The implicit motives of the individual governments of the countries ac-
tually involved in decentralization warrant more detailed discussion. At this
452 DIANA CONYERS

point, it is perhaps useful to distinguish between those decentralization

programmes initiated by the central government with little or no pressure
exerted from below, as in the cases of Tanzania, Zambia and Ghana, and
those resulting to a large extent from pressure from regional or local groups,
as in Papua New Guinea and the Sudan and, to a lesser extent, Nigeria,
Sri Lanka and the Solomon Islands. This distinction is particularly impor-
tant in terms of the extent and form of popular participation that is likely to
occur as a result of the decentralization programmes.
In both cases the governments concerned usually state that popular par-
ticipation is a major objective of their decentralization programmes, but
there is considerable variation in the degree and form of commitment un-
derlying such statements. In those cases where decentralization is initiated
from above, the commitment to participation is unlikely to go so far as to
threaten national interests and solidarity and decentralization programmes
may actually be seen – at least in part or by certain interested groups – as a
way of strengthening the role of the national government or ruling party at
the local level, as appears to be the case in Zambia. In those countries where
decentralization is initiated from below, the situation tends to be more
complex, since the regional or local groups which are pressing for decen-
tralization have very high expectations about the degree of participation
while the central government – or at least some interest groups within the
central government – may not really want to encourage any significant
participation at all. In such cases, the degree and form of decentralization –
and therefore participation – that results will depend on the relative bar-
gaining powers of the various central and local-interest groups.
There are, however, points of similarity between decentralization pro-
grammes initiated ‘from above’ and those initiated ‘from below.’ In both
cases there is – at least in intent – a genuine desire to achieve a relatively high
degree of popular participation, in the belief that such participation is not
inconsistent with national unity and development. This view has, for ex-
ample, been expressed both in Zambia, where the initiative for decentral-
ization has come from the centre, and in Papua New Guinea, where there
was strong pressure from below. Thus, President Kaunda has advocated
decentralization in Zambia as a means of achieving ‘unity based on a frank
and positive acceptance of the diversity of our peoples’ (Kaunda, 1974,
p. 40); while in Papua New Guinea Leo Hannett, a well-known local leader
who was instrumental in bringing about decentralization, has declared that
he sees decentralization as a positive step ‘towards building genuine unity
and nationalism based on the recognition and acceptance of our regional
cultural and ethnic diversities’ (Hannett, 1974).
Decentralization: The Latest Fashion in Development Administration? 453

This concept of ‘decentralization within centralization’ – or decentrali-

zation as a means of ‘recentralization’ (Apthorpe & Conyers, 1982) – is one
of the important features of the current interest in decentralization, parti-
cularly as seen by the countries concerned. Decentralization is regarded, at
least in part, as a means of harmonizing the interests of both national and
local development, through both the improved management of rural devel-
opment – which is essential for the well-being of the nation as a whole as
well as the inhabitants of individual rural areas – and the achievement of
popular participation combined with national unity. The extent to which it
is actually possible to reconcile these apparently conflicting objectives of
decentralization is examined in the last section of the paper. Meanwhile,
however, it is necessary to consider what effect these objectives have had on
the characteristics of the decentralization programmes.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DECENTRALIZATION

PROGRAMMES

The term ‘decentralization’ is used in this paper in a broad sense to refer to

any transfer of the ‘authority to plan, make decisions and manage public
functions’ (Rondinelli, 1981, p. 137) from the national level to any organi-
zation or agency at the sub-national level. This is consistent with the way in
which the term is used by those governments involved in the decentraliza-
tion programmes examined here that cover a very wide range of organi-
zational reform. Because the range is so great, some attempt to classify the
different types of decentralization programme is required.
It is not the intention of this chapter to enter into a lengthy debate on
alternative methods of classifying decentralized systems of government.
However, a brief discussion will be useful at this point, partly as a basis
for identifying the different types of decentralization programme currently
being introduced, but also in order to highlight some of the differences
between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ decentralization efforts. One of the argu-
ments in this chapter is that conventional methods of classification have
some limitations in the present context and that these limitations can best be
explained in the light of the objectives of the new decentralization pro-
grammes. This is why any attempt at classification has been left, until this
point, in the discussion level.
Conventional methods of classifying decentralized systems of govern-
ment have adopted a legal perspective. In countries influenced by the
British system of government – and therefore in much of the literature on
454 DIANA CONYERS

decentralization written in the English language – it has been usual to dis-

tinguish between two main types of decentralization: devolution to legally
established, locally elected political authorities and deconcentration of
administrative authority to representatives of central government agen-
cies (United Nations, 1962; Maddick, 1963; Wraith, 1972). In the former
case, the activities of central and local government authorities are clearly
differentiated, each having its own legal powers and responsibilities. The
ideal concept of local government in the British tradition involved semi-
autonomous bodies, employing their own staff and (as far as possible)
controlling their own financial affairs, although (except in a federal system)
the activities of the local-level authorities are subject to control and regu-
lation by the central government. Deconcentration, on the other hand, is
regarded as a much more limited form of decentralization, in which effec-
tive control – particularly over what Faltas (1982) has called ‘allocative’
decisions – remains at the centre, while only control over ‘decisions of
implementation’ is decentralized. It should, however, be noted that this
distinction has never been universally applicable. Thus in the French tra-
dition, for example, local authorities are not intended to be autonomous
bodies, a point which will be taken up at a later stage. The distinction
between devolution and deconcentration provided a useful framework for
analysing the decentralization programmes, which were introduced in Eng-
lish-speaking parts of the developing world in the 1950s and 1960s. This
does not mean either that all such programmes could be neatly classified
into one category or the other or that there was no variation in the degree
and form of decentralization within each category. Moreover, it should also
be noted that earlier attempts at decentralization introduced by the British
during the colonial period, involving the establishment of ‘native author-
ities’, bore more resemblance to the French than the British local-govern-
ment model (Wraith, 1972, p. 18). However, decisions about the degree and
form of decentralization in the 1950s and 1960s were frequently seen, at least
in part, as a choice between the establishment of semi-autonomous local-
level governments, modelled more or less on the British local government
system, and a much more limited deconcentration of the central government
machinery.
When considering the recent decentralization programmes, however, a
slightly different approach is required. Legal questions about the nature of
the authority to which decision-making powers are decentralized are as
important as ever, but it is often difficult to distinguish between the two
conventional models, devolution and deconcentration, not only in the way
in which the decentralization programmes are actually operating but also in
Decentralization: The Latest Fashion in Development Administration? 455

the intentions behind them. The main reason for this seems to be an
increasing tendency to see significant decentralization in terms not of the
establishment of semi-autonomous local governments but of the decentrali-
zation of the central government machinery. This results in considerably
more decentralization than is conventionally associated with deconcentra-
tion models, since powers are frequently devolved to local-level bodies
with a separate legal identity, and particular emphasis tends to be placed on
the decentralization of functions that play a central role in rural regional
development. However, the local-level bodies are frequently seen as arms of
the central government rather than semi-autonomous entities and so they
often differ significantly from conventional local governments modelled on
the British system.
It thus appears that, instead of trying to classify the new decentralization
programmes into broad categories such as devolution and deconcentration,
it is necessary to ask more detailed questions about the degree and form of
decentralization in each programme to make useful generalizations and
comparisons. It is, in particular, important to recognize that a number of
different criteria can be used to measure the degree of decentralization –
including the number and significance of the powers or functions decen-
tralized, the level in the political or administrative hierarchy to, which they
are decentralized and the type of individual or organization that exercises
power at this level – and that a system which is ‘more decentralized’ ac-
cording to one criterion may be ‘less decentralized’ according to another.
This approach is reflected in some of the more recent literature on decen-
tralization (Kochem & Deutsch, 1980; Landau & Eagle, 1981; Cohen et al.,
1981). A more detailed examination of some of the recent decentralization
programmes will demonstrate the need for this approach more clearly.
Three main types of decentralization programme will be described briefly
here. It should, however, be noted that these three types are intended merely
to illustrate the range of decentralization programmes currently being in-
troduced, not to provide a comprehensive classification of all such pro-
grammes. There are, for example, some programmes, such as the 1976 local
government reforms in Nigeria, which are still based on the conventional
British local government model. Moreover, it should also be recognized that
within each of the three types there is considerable variation from one
country to another, particularly in terms of the nature and extent of the
powers that are decentralized.
One of the most significant types of decentralization programme that
has emerged in recent years is that where powers are devolved to legal
bodies composed of a mixture of locally elected and centrally appointed
456 DIANA CONYERS

representatives, the latter sometimes including both political appointees and

administrative officials; This sort of programme was introduced in Ghana in
1971 (Tordoff, 1980), Tanzania in 1972 (Rondinelli, 1981; Conyers, 1981a)
and Sri Lanka in 1980, and the same sort of system is currently being
introduced in Zambia (Conyers, 198la). This approach differs from the
conventional British local government model in that the local authorities to
which powers are devolved cannot be described as, and are not intended to
be, autonomous bodies. They are composed only partially of locally elected
representatives, they usually use central government administrative person-
nel rather than employing their own staff and they tend to be heavily
dependent on the central government in financial matters. However, the
fact that they are legal entities to which wide-ranging formal powers are
decentralized suggests rather more decentralization than in conventional
deconcentration models, especially since these powers generally relate to
developmental functions and include allocative as well as implementation
powers. This form of decentralization is in many ways similar to the French
system of local government.
The second type of decentralization resembles the first in that powers are
decentralized to local-level bodies with a mixture of central and local rep-
resentatives. However, these bodies seldom have proper legal status, the
powers decentralized to them tend to be less significant and, in some cases,
they exist alongside conventional local governments and function as a
means of co-ordination between central and local government. These local-
level bodies are usually known as development committees or coordinating
committees, rather than local governments.
This form of decentralization, found in many countries, especially in
Africa, is not in itself new and its existence is of no special significance, since
this sort of local coordinating committee was first introduced in most of
these countries towards the end of the colonial period. What is significant is
that in a number of countries the current trend is to decentralize ‘increasing
powers to these committees, rather than to more autonomous local gov-
ernments, even where such governments already exist. The most obvious
example of this trend is perhaps Kenya (Rondinelli, 1981). It is also sig-
nificant that this sort of decentralization tends to precede the introduction of
the more radical reforms, characteristic of the first type of decentralization.
The third form of decentralization is in many ways very different from the
first two, since it has many of the characteristics of the conventional dev-
olution model. It involves the establishment of fully elected local govern-
ments with full legal rights and the decentralization of significant powers to
these bodies. This is the case in the decentralization programmes in some
Decentralization: The Latest Fashion in Development Administration? 457

South Pacific countries, such as Papua New Guinea, where the provincial
government system established in the latter part of the 1970s bears some
resemblance to a federal system (Ghai, 1978).
However, closer examination of systems such as that in Papua New
Guinea reveals that they also differ from the conventional British local gov-
ernment model in some significant ways. Thus, although Papua New
Guinea’s provincial governments are semi-autonomous bodies, with clearly
defined legal powers, in many respects they function – and are regarded – as
arms of the central government rather than as separate entities, This is
reflected particularly in the administrative arrangements; the provincial gov-
ernments are serviced by decentralized departments of the central govern-
ment in the same sort of way as the much less autonomous local authorities
in countries like Ghana, Tanzania, Zambia and Sri Lanka (Conyers, 1981a,
1981b). In fact, it is particularly significant that Tanzania is now moving
towards this model of decentralization, since it is replacing the district de-
velopment councils, which were composed of a mixture of central and local
representatives, with fully elected local authorities.
What factors have led to the emergence of these various types of decen-
tralization and, in particular, to the common characteristics that can be
identified in all three types despite the existence of significant differences?
The fact that there seems to be a movement towards the French rather than
the British concept of local government cannot apparently be explained
by any conscious attempt to adopt the French model as such. Part of the
explanation probably lies in the political systems of the countries concerned.
Thus, the most obvious examples of the first type of decentralization are
the products of one-party or (in the case of Ghana) military governments,
where the conventional division between political and administrative
systems tends to become blurred, and this is reflected in the composition
of the local decision-making bodies. Even in those countries with a multi-
party system, such as Sri Lanka and the countries of the South Pacific,
there is – as in most developing nations – a tendency for the political and
administrative systems to be less clearly differentiated than in conventional
‘western’ systems of government. However, this does not by itself provide
adequate explanation.
To fully explain the characteristics of the recent decentralization pro-
grammes, it is necessary to look back at the objectives of the programmes,
which were discussed in the previous section. In the first place, it must be
remembered that decentralization is frequently seen as a tool for improving
the management of rural development. ‘This means that, in designing the
decentralization programmes, the desire to rationalize the overall structure
458 DIANA CONYERS

of government in the rural areas has been at least as important as the desire
to divide responsibilities between different levels of government.’ There
has, in particular, been a concern to improve co-ordination and eliminate
duplication between the various agencies involved in rural development
within an area, including both central and local government agencies, and
this is reflected in the establishment of councils or committees with mixed
central and local government representation and the tendency to amalga-
mate central and local government personnel. This aim is explicitly stated
in Zambia’s decentralization, which involves the amalgamation of local
governments and the field administration of the central government in
order to reduce duplication and make better use of scarce financial and
manpower resources (Zambia, 1978), and it is implicit in many of the other
programmes.
Equally significant is the more general feeling that ‘decentralization need
not be inconsistent with the achievement of national unity and can,’ in fact,
enhance it – the belief in ‘decentralization within centralism.’ This charac-
teristic, present to varying degrees in the objectives of most of the decen-
tralization programmes, helps to explain the tendency for the distinction
between central and local government to be blurred – and, therefore, the
difficulty of classifying the programmes into conventional categories. The
majority of the decentralization programmes are seen as attempts to decen-
tralize the national government, rather than to establish a second tier of
government – a subtle but significant distinction.
Finally, it is interesting to note that the recent decentralization pro-
grammes have attracted the attention of a much wider range of disciplinary
interests than their predecessors of the 1950s and 1960s. In the past, interest
in the decentralization of government structures was generally confined to
those in the fields of political science and public administration (including
lawyers concerned with these fields); but today it has been extended to
include a variety of other specialists, including regional planners (whose
main interest is in the co-ordination of activities within an area or region), a
much wider range of lawyers (who are increasingly concerned with the role
of law in development and, therefore, the role of decentralization in meeting
basic human needs), organization and management specialists (who are in-
terested in decentralization as a way of improving organizational efficiency)
and many people from a variety of disciplines who share a general concern
with either rural development or popular participation – or both. This
increase in the disciplinary scope of interest in decentralization can be
explained in terms of the objectives of the current decentralization pro-
grammes. It reflects the fact that, in short, such programmes are part of a
Decentralization: The Latest Fashion in Development Administration? 459

wider concern to improve the allocation of functions within the whole sys-
tem of government in order to meet the developmental needs of the majority
of a country’s population. Moreover, this multi-disciplinary interest can
itself help to explain not only the rather loose way in which the term de-
centralization is now used but also the greater variety of decentralized sys-
tems of government which is emerging.

DECENTRALIZATION: ACHIEVEMENTS
AND PROSPECTS

In comment on the decentralization efforts of the last decade there does

seem to be an increasing feeling – both, within the countries concerned and
among international agencies, academic’s and other interested ‘outsiders’ –
that many of the programmes are not living up to the initial expectations
(Rondinelli, 1981; United Nations, 1981; UNCRD, 1981b). The problems
vary, but they can be divided into three broad categories. First, in many
cases the actual degree of decentralization seems to have been very limited,
either because the proposed reforms have not been implemented as intended
or because the initial proposals did not provide for significant decentrali-
zation. Second, there are claims that decentralization has done little to im-
prove the planning and implementation of local development programmes
and, therefore, to contribute to rural – and national – development. Third,
there are complaints that powers have been decentralized to the ‘wrong’
people – either central government appointees or a local elite – and so there
has been no meaningful increase in the participation of the mass of the
people (Rondinelli, 1981).
Recognition of these problems is resulting in some scepticism about the
sincerity of the governments of the countries concerned and about the value
of ‘decentralization’ as a means of either improving rural development
management or encouraging popular participation. This is, perhaps, an
overreaction, based on inadequate understanding of the nature of the de-
centralization programmes. It is necessary to recognize the complexity of the
motives behind the decentralization programmes and, in particular, the fact
that in many cases they are trying to achieve both ‘centralization’ and ‘de-
centralization.’ Added to this is the complexity of the reforms themselves,
which generally involve a major restructuring of the whole political and
administrative system – literally the decentralization of the national gov-
ernment. This requires a great deal of organizational ability, which is not
always readily available, and it inevitably arouses considerable opposition,
460 DIANA CONYERS

frustration and confusion (Iglesias, 1981). And finally, even if a decentrali-

zation programme is introduced successfully with relatively few problems or
undesirable side-effects, it cannot be expected to solve all a country’s prob-
lems. A significant improvement either in the management of rural devel-
opment or in effective popular participation will not be achieved easily or
quickly – and certainly not only by a decentralization of government.
This does suggest the need for a more realistic view of both the potential
and the limitations of decentralization but it does not suggest, at least so far,
that it should be totally abandoned as a strategy for development. This
paper has suggested that, although current decentralization programmes are
in many ways similar to their predecessors in the 1950s and 1960s, there are
some significant differences in both their objectives and their characteristics.
In particular, decentralization appears to be receiving widespread attention
at present because it is seen as a means of achieving certain objectives – rural
development and popular participation – which occupy a focal position in
mainstream thinking at this time. In view of this concern, there is a need for
more information on appropriate legal systems, the design and management
of a decentralized national public service, alternative forms of, financial
decentralization and methods of achieving meaningful popular participa-
tion through representative local institutions (Institute of Planning Studies,
University of Nottingham, and International Center for Law in Develop-
ment 1981). It is encouraging that a number of international agencies –
including the ILO, the Development Administration Division of the UN
and the UNCRD – are currently engaged in much studies, although, there is
perhaps a need for closer communication and a more systematic division of
labour between them, in order to make maximum use of the information
and resources available. In the International Handbook on Local Government
Reorganization (Rowat, 1980), Subramaniam concludes his summary of the
experiences of developing countries as follows:

Local government in developing countries has been judged too long by the artificial
standards derived from exceptional developments in nineteenth and twentieth century
Britain, Puritan New England, the expanding United States, and the free cities of
Europe. It is time ‘that its ‘‘limited’’ development in the new nations is set against the
similar history of Western Europe, particularly France, and against the historical com-
pulsions of colonialism, nationalism, and economic development (Subramanian, 1980,
p. 591).

The nature of the decentralization programmes described in this paper

supports the need for such an approach – and the widespread interest in
decentralization now being shown by international agencies, academics and
Decentralization: The Latest Fashion in Development Administration? 461

others concerned with development studies suggests that it is, in fact,

already emerging.

REFERENCES
Adamolckun, L., & Rowlands, L. (Eds). (1979). The new local government system in Nigeria:
Problems and prospects for implementation. Ibadan: Heinemann.
Apthorpe. R., & Conyers, D. (1982). Decentralization, recentralization and popular participation
towards a framework for analysis. Paper presented to programme in Communication
Policy and Planning, for Development. Institute of Social Studies. The Hague. June 1982.
Conyers, D. (1981a). Decentralization for regional development: A comparative study of
Tanzania, Zambia and Papua New Guinea. Public Administration and Development, 1,
107–120.
Conyers, D. (1981b). Papua New Guinea: Decentralization and development from the middle.
In: W. B. Stöhr & D. R. Fraser Taylor (Eds), Development from above or below? The
dialectics of regional planning in developing countries. Chichester: Wiley.
Craig, J. (1981). Continuity and change in Sri Lanka’s district administration: A politi-
cal perspective. Studies in decentralization: Manchester papers on development (No. 3).
University of Manchester, Manchester.
DSA (Development Studies Association). (1982). Report of regional development and planning
study group. DSA Newsletter, 13.
Faltas, M. (1982). Decentralization and the design of planning systems. Meeting of DSA
regional development and planning study group on decentralization and planning. Univer-
sity of Nottingham, March.
Ghai, D. P. (Ed.). (1977). The basic needs approach to development. Geneva: International
Labour Organization.
Ghai, Y. (1978). Classification of the Papua New Guinea system of government. Mimeo. Work-
shop on Constitutional and Legal Aspects of Decentralization, Department of Decen-
tralization. Papua New Guinea.
Ghai, Y. (1981). Decentralization in the Pacific. (draft, unpublished).
Graham, L. S. (1980). Latin America. In: D. C. Rowat (Ed.), International handbook on local
government reorganization. London: Aldwych, Chapter 40.
Hannett, L. (1974). Getting closer to the people. Post-Courier (Papua New Guinea). Arawa
House Feature, 5 December. p. 2.
Hicks, U. (1961). Development from below: Local government and finance in developing countries
of the commonwealth. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Iglesias, G. U. (1981). Local and regional development in Southeast Asia. Focus on ASEAN:
Experience, main issues and perspectives, International conference on local and regional
development in the 1980s, UNCRD, Nagoya. Japan, November.
ILO (International Labour Organization). (1981). Series of reports on decentralized planning
published as part of World Employment Programme Research. Working Paper series. (The
first such report was WP 99 published in 1981.)
Institute of International Studies. (1981). The Project on Managing Decentralization: Proposed
Plan of Work 1981–1982 (University of California, Berkeley). (The Project also produced
a newsletter entitled Decentralization and Development Review, The project is, however,
now being terminated earlier than expected.)
462 DIANA CONYERS

Institute of Planning Studies. University of Nottingham and International Center for Law in
Development. (1981). Report of Workshop on Decentralization. Mimeo. Institute of
Planning Studies. Nottingham.
Kaunda, K. (1974). Humanism in Zambia and a guide to its implementation. Part II. Lusaka:
Government Printer.
Kochem, M., & Deutsch, K. W. (1980). Decentralization: Sketches toward a rational theory.
Cambridge, Mass: Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain.
Landau, M., & Eagle (1981). On the Concept of Decentralization. Project on Managing De-
centralization, Institute of International Affairs. University of California, Berkeley.
Maddick, H. (1963). Democracy, decentralization and development. Bombay: Asia Publishing
House.
Mawhood, P., & Davcy, K. (1980). Anglophone Africa. In: D. C. Rowat (Ed.), International
handbook on local government reorganization. London: Aldwych, Chapter 34.
Project on Managing Decentralization. Cohen, S. S., Dyckman, J., Schoenberger, E., & Downs,
C. R. (1981). Decentralization: A framework for policy analysis. Institute of International
Studies. University of California, Berkeley.
Rondinelli, D. A. (1981). Government decentralization in comparative perspective: Theory and
practice in developing countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 67,
133–145.
Rowat, D. C. (Ed.). (1980). International handbook on local government reorganization. London:
Aldwych.
Subramanian, V. (1980). Developing countries. In: D. C. Rowat (Ed.), International handbook
on local government reorganization. London: Aldwych.
Tordoff, W. (1980). Ghana. In: D. C. Rowat (Ed.), International handbook on local government
reorganization. London: Aldwych, Chapter 32.
Tordoff, W. (1981). Decentralization in Papua New Guinea in Studies in Decentralization. Man-
chester Papers in Development (University of Manchester, Department of Administra-
tive Studies), no. 3.
UNCRD (United Nations Centre for Regional Development). (1981a). Implementing Decen-
tralization Policies and Programmes. Report of UNCRD Workshop. Nagoya, Japan,
July.
UNCRD (United Nations Centre for Regional Development). (1981b). Implementing Decen-
tralization Policies and Programmes. Report of UNCRD Seminar. Nagoya, Japan, Au-
gust 24–30.
United Nations. (1962). Decentralization for national and local development. New York: United
Nations.
United Nations. (1981). Report of the interregional seminar on Decentralization for Development.
Mimeo. Khartoum, September 1981, United Nations, New York.
Wraith, R. (1972). Local administration in West Africa. London: George Allen and Urwin.
Zambia. (1978). Decentralized government. Lusaka: Government Printer.