Get documents about "Decentralization and HD Albania
Document Sample
[surf-hdr] CONSOLIDATED REPLY: Decentraliz...and HD (Albania and Ukraine NHDR outlines)
Subject: [surf-hdr] CONSOLIDATED REPLY: Decentralization and HD (Albania and Ukraine
NHDR outlines)
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 23:26:49 -0400
From: shahrbanou tadjbakhsh <shahrbanou.tadjbakhsh@undp.org>
Reply-To: "NHDR Network Group" <surf-hdr@groups.undp.org>
Organization: United Nations Development Programme
To: NHDR Network Group <surf-hdr@groups.undp.org>
====================================
CONSOLIDATED REPLY
NHDR Network
May 16, 2002
Decentralization and HD
Albania and Ukraine NHDR Outlines
====================================
Suggestions for NHDRs on Decentralization
We received two draft outlines on NHDRs on decentralization, one from Albania and one from Ukraine, both
attached. Although both reports will attempt to look at the HD indices (and the MDGs in the case of Ukraine) at
the local level and argue for the need for further and better decentralization, they adopt very different
approaches. The Ukrainian one tries to establish the linkages between decentralization and HD, look at patterns
and analyze experiences in Ukraine on sectoral and regional experiences, in order to draw lessons and make
recommendations on the quality of the decentralization process. The Albania outline also proposes to analyze
indices for the first time at the regional level, and looks at existing patterns, but may not be as clear in terms of
building the argument for why and what kind of decentralization is needed for human development. It introduces
an important element which is missing in the Ukrainian report, roles and responsibilities of different actors,
including of public participation in local governance. The last chapter of the Albania report does not sum up
lessons learned, and instead, introduces another new element, urban management, which may or may not fit in
the overall report, depending on what the ultimate objective of the Report is. It is recommended for both
Reports to tighten the thinking in order to have a flow for arguing the case for decentralization for HD under
specific conditions, and for specific purposes, and avoid being descriptive reports of experiences and patterns.
Here are some thoughts on analyzing decentralization from the HD point of view, taken from various sources at
HDRO (refer to HDR 93), some NHDRs, BDP etc. In no way should the following be seen as a directive on
how to treat the subject, but simply as a tool, for those who are interested, to see the theoretical linkages etc.
These issues should be of course analyzed in the national context and evidence presented, argued, pro or con,
etc. Time and human resource constraints did not allow me to dwell into the concrete analysis and experiences
in the NHDRs on this subject, hence, I hope that Network members are encouraged to pitch in their voices
during these on-line discussions. These are work-in-progress notes on research conducted for the Network, they
do not represent official views of HDRO. The next email will give resources on the subject. Shahrbanou
Decentralization is not an end in itself, but the means through which government interventions can more
effectively reach communities. The transfer of power from central to local governments is not merely a matter of
general consensus. Local authorities who claim a greater degree of autonomy, financial autonomy in particular,
must be able to demonstrate transparency, accountability, capacity and the political will to deliver local services
in a participatory manner. The question is not whether decentralization per se is 'good' or 'bad' for human
development. The questions are why decentralize, how to decentralize and what to decentralize and to whom, in
order to maximize the benefits for human development. What are the challenges, requirements and roles of
responsibilities of various actors? NHDRs on decentralization could, by analyzing lessons learned from case
studies, surveys, global experiences, etc attempt to answer these questions.
1 of 11 1/8/2003 12:29 PM
[surf-hdr] CONSOLIDATED REPLY: Decentraliz...and HD (Albania and Ukraine NHDR outlines)
I) Why decentralize for HD: Efficiency, equity, participation, local economic development
We refer you first to the discussion in Chapter 4 of HDR 93, and to the HDRO Occastional Paper 13
“Decentralization: A Survey Of Literature >From A Human Development Perspective” by Jeni Klugman, 1994
Decentralization is seen as one of the means for promoting principles of HD, but why it has been adopted varies
by regional experience. Variously, it is seen as a way to increase efficiency and delivery of public services,
allow for greater local participation in decision making, increase equity, etc. In some countries, it is also
adopted as a way to quell regional discontent from provinces wanting greater autonomy, as part of the
democratization process from military regimes (Latin America), or as a necessity of the break down of central
government (transition countries, etc). There is also necessity to dwell further into the relationship between
decentralization as a counterpoint to globalization. As the Network-identified UNDP “Guru” on
Decentralization Robertson Work writes, http://magnet.undp.org/Docs/dec/DECEN923/Factors1.htm
“Globalization often removes decisions from the local and national stage to the global sphere of multi-national
or non-national interests. Decentralization on the other hand brings decision-making back to the sub-national
and local levels… In designing decentralization strategies it is necessary to view the interrelations of these
various dimensions – global, regional, national, sub-national, local. In this regard, the role of the nation-state
gains increased importance as a mediating force between the forces of globalization and localization.” (see a
paper in the bibliography on the relationship in China and Russia).
Why some countries do not decentralize can be related to a) nation-building processes and the inherited system,
b) weak democracies and lack of its structures, c) low levels of social spending, which can be easier
decentralized, than centralized military budgets, d) urban bias, and e) ties to foreign aid negotiated at the center,
etc.
Evidence is mixed on the results of what in theory, decentralization should improve and what in practice it
actually leads to.
A) Efficiency:
With regard to efficiency, decentralization can contribute to identifying local priorities, potentialities and
resources for the appropriate preparation, implementation and sustainable management of projects. In theory, it
should cut costs as projects and programmes better match local needs. The basic proposition is that local
governments are better able, given differing local circumstances and preferences, to satisfy varying local
demands for public goods and services. Efficiency, in this case, would refer to reduction of costs, better use of
local resources, technical quality, and avoiding “malfeasance” which is costly. The efficiency argument is also
built on the principle that decentralization will facilitate implementation of projects in a variety of local
circumstances, and in the long term, such investments may be more likely to be maintained and effectively
utilized where the responsibilities lies with local authorities. This is especially the case where decentralization
enhances local community participation. Ultimately, efficiency depends on technical and financial support given
to local governments and initiatives by local leadership.
Critiques of inefficiencies associated with centralization include: a) weakness in attaining and maintaining
beneficiary participation; b) underutilization and inadequate maintenance, c) irrelevance to local needs and
conditions; d) and lack of flexibility, adaptability and speed. If poorly planned and executed, decentralization
actually adds costs (losses in economy of scale, duplication, lower standards etc.)
On the issue of corruption, we found an interesting discussion in Klugman’s paper under “The comparative
Extent of Malfeasance”. If, under decentralization and the closer scrutiny of the people local government does
become more accountable for its actions, the relative incidence of malfeasance may be reduced. Malfeasance (at
any level of government) is a waste of resources. The question to be addressed here is its relative significance at
local, as opposed to central, levels of government. In principle, decentralization which brings decision-making
closer to the people, accompanied by established mechanisms of local accountability, can improve the
operations of government in this sense. Unfortunately there is little direct evidence on this point, nor any reliable
estimates of the comparative quantitative significance of malfeasance at different levels of government.
Problems of accountability do arise at the local level – where corruption has been described as "rampant".
Malfeasance would be less likely under a decentralized system where at least some of the following conditions
2 of 11 1/8/2003 12:29 PM
[surf-hdr] CONSOLIDATED REPLY: Decentraliz...and HD (Albania and Ukraine NHDR outlines)
are met: (i) active participation in, and discussion of, local government decision-making by the local
population; (ii) open, clear and simple routine accounting procedures and reports; (iii) at least a basic degree of
numeracy and literacy in the community; and (iv) some means by which malfeasance can be sanctioned -
through, for example, the electoral process and the access of local people to cheap and effective adjudicatory
systems to ensure due process and public accountability.
B) Equity:
With regard to equity, decentralization could in principle address disparities between regions, urban/rural,
between income groups and ethnic groups. Local governments are often in a good position to administer
services that have important redistributive implications, such as primary health care, education, child care,
housing and public transportation. Klugman’s paper discusses the multi-dimensional nature of equity. One must
distinguish between inter - district (between different parts of the country), and intra - district (the position of
different socio-economic and gender groups within the locality vis-a-vis each other) aspects of equity.
Improvements or deterioration in these various elements of equity need not coincide. Indeed it appears that
while decentralization can promote equity among different groups within a region, through increased local
public expenditure and the wider provision of public goods and services, there is a risk that disparities between
districts may worsen due to, for example, different tax bases and inadequate fiscal equalization. The former
tendency points in the direction of greater decentralization, whilst the latter suggests that the central government
should at least retain a strong redistributive role.
In practice it is found that decentralization does tend to expand the provision of basic social and economic
infrastructure. Yet inequalities persist, and are sometimes
exacerbated. This may be due to disparities in resource allocation or in utilization patterns, or in the inability to
respond to incentives under a decentralized system.
On balance, evidence suggests that aggregate inequality is likely to be predominated by worsening
inter-regional equity, largely because of the absence of effective central redistributive policies.
Decentralization can create equity within individual regions, but it can also increase disparities among them.
Decentralization may enhance equity through increased public expenditure on those areas of most benefit to the
poor. Improved provision and utilization of basic social and economic services can follow. If decentralization
produces more effective government services, the effect will be more redistributive, since poor people make
more use of local public services than rich ones. However, passing more responsibilities for taxation and
expenditures to local government can benefit richer areas (who can lobby more). Strong central government
action is needed for curbing these tendencies, argues HDR 93.
Finally, one more point to consider for this issue of equity. Consider also the tension between centralization and
decentralization when it comes to protection of individual rights. On the question of protection of the vulnerable,
for example, there is a tension between decentralization and centralized decision making. Consider, for example,
government decisions on gender equality through quotas established not only in the national government, but
also in local structures (as in many countries of Asia and coming back in the Former Soviet space). For
protection of ingrained and traditional inequalities, there is a need for a combination of pressure from outside,
from the center and from below.
C) Local Participation in Decision-Making:
Community participation, as facilitated by decentralization, can be seen both as an end by itself (as an
empowering tool), and as a means, benefiting improved project design and implementation due to better match
with beneficiary needs and better appreciation of local constraints etc. The underlying belief is that local
decision making structures will facilitate the genuine involvement of all the people, in issues of direct concern to
their needs and interests. This in turn assumes both the desire of individuals to take part in local government,
and the existence of appropriate forums which allow and encourage the free expression of their interests.
Devolution is supposed to lead to fuller political participation, but not necessarily, if power is devolved to
non-democratic and non-participatory institutions. There is no necessary correlation between broad based local
participation and decentralization. The relationship depends basically upon the social, economic and political
setting, and the type of decentralization enacted.
3 of 11 1/8/2003 12:29 PM
[surf-hdr] CONSOLIDATED REPLY: Decentraliz...and HD (Albania and Ukraine NHDR outlines)
Klugman’s paper examines this relationship according to the modes, intensity and quality of participation.
Modes of participation differ according to the opportunities available, the interests and political resources of the
potential participants, and the attitudes prevalent in the society, and are enacted in different stages of policy
making (putting an item on the agenda, through technical advice, discussion of favored proposals, to
enforcement of the final decision). For example, local participants may be more effective in putting matters of
local concern on the agenda, and much less involved in the technical aspects of decision-making.
It has been argued that decentralization, by multiplying the available modes of participation and by establishing
institutional arrangements by which votes will be more closely linked with political consequences, improves the
effectiveness of participation. Local knowledge of, and a commitment to, the community is said to promote a
desire to participate in local government. However there are numerous examples of formal attempts at
decentralization which have failed to engage the effective participation of local people in decisions about local
development. Sometimes this is apparently because the national government never actually intended such a
result to follow. In other cases it may be in spite of the creation of structures ostensibly designed to facilitate
local participation, often because of the dominance of decision-making by official bureaucrats.
Even where there is a substantial measure of devolution, participation on the part of those people previously
excluded from decision-making structures need not follow. The poor may still be effectively excluded from
decision making by the elite. The phenomenon of elite domination is not unique to local governments, nor to
developing countries, but the issue of “representation” begs for more examination. Are local spokespersons,
albeit members of the local elite, more appropriate and/or beneficial than the alternative of central control? …
Some questions to ask while analyzing participation:
Actors: what are the perceptions, values and practices which the actors involved bring to their
participation in the process of decentralization?
Structure and content: which are the entry points to get into the decision-making process? who has access
to these entry points? to what levels of participation do they have access? what is the content of the
participation?
Mechanisms for participation: how does one participate? what are the steps that guide to entry
participation and exit of the decision-making process?
Instruments: what are the legal, administrative, political and technological procedures for participation?
Results: which are the indicators that are used to measure the results of the participation? what is the
relation between these results and other results produced by decentralization? how does feedback operate
within the process? how is information about the results disseminated?
d) Local Economic Development:
Economic participation can be enhanced by decentralization, as it encourages local economic activities through
increased infrastructure, better quality of services and more support to local entrepreneurs. But when
decentralization is not carried out with conviction or sufficient resources, it falls short of this objective as well.
The expansion of income earning opportunities is a crucial dimension of human development. Yet the impact of
governmental structure upon economic activity is difficult to pinpoint, especially given the multitude of
associated variables such as macro economic policy, development strategies and ideology. Ultimately, there is
little direct evidence as to whether the decentralized provision of economic infrastructure has actually promoted
local economic activity either way.
e) Better Prioritization:
The degree of financial autonomy has a substantial impact on the way money is spent on human development
concerns. Financial decentralization in HDR 93 is examined through a set of four ratios related to expenditures
and revenues ratio as well as social spending. What must be studied is the overall relationship between
decentralization and expenditure allocation by sector - that is, whether or not local governments are associated
with relatively higher expenditures on areas of priority for human development.
Klugman’s paper examines the priorities of local communities, local governments, the poor, women, etc. and
4 of 11 1/8/2003 12:29 PM
[surf-hdr] CONSOLIDATED REPLY: Decentraliz...and HD (Albania and Ukraine NHDR outlines)
argues, among other things, that a) the priorities of the local community may well differ from those considered
to be important by the national government or donors, b) the poor may be more preoccupied with satisfying
immediate consumption needs than with the provision of services such as education and health, etc. On the
priorities of local governments, many complex factors will affect their priorities, including the socio-economic
environment; the extent to which local public authorities represent the interests of their constituents; the political
climate, which facilitates or restricts the free expression of popular feeling; and the functional responsibilities
and financial resources available, or the extent to which local representatives are able to make decisions relating
to the planning and implementation of human development projects and programmes. Nevertheless, local
governments often have significant expenditure responsibilities in the areas of basic social services. It has been
argued that political and administrative decision-makers, particularly in democratic systems, prefer short term
projects with immediate returns. There is said to be a bias of local government in favor of highly visible projects
such as new municipal buildings, rather than infrastructure development and recurrent expenditures such as road
repair and school maintenance.
In principle, it would appear likely that local governments would focus more upon primary and lower secondary
levels of schooling, rather than tertiary education -
given the largely localized effects and lower costs involved… (Klugman for more…)
II) What Decentralization Forms
Chapter 4 “People and Governance” of HDR 1993 has laid the definitions of the various forms of
decentralization. Horizontal decentralization is spreading of power among institutions of the same standing
instead of one area, such as decision making on budget, and vertical decentralization is where power is delegated
to lower tiers of authority.
There are three forms of vertical decentralization of government.
Deconcentration - the most limited form of decentralization, refers to the shift of responsibilities to field or local
administration who are closely supervised by central government. It results in some dispersal of power, but few
decisions can be made without reference to the center.
Delegation - refers to the transferring of specific decision making authority and administration of managerial
responsibility for specifically defined functions to public organizations (e.g. regional bodies or public
corporations) but central government retains the right to overturn local decisions and can take these powers back
at any time. Financial autonomy is not normally a feature of delegation.
Devolution - of authority for decision making, finance and management to autonomous local units of
government is most commonly understood to be genuine decentralization. Under devolution, local units of
government are autonomous, independent, and have responsibilities to select own leaders, raise own revenues
and make own investment decisions. Central authorities exercise little or no direct control over these local units.
III) The Umpact of Decentralization Experiences (Vertical and Horizontal)
We found a very good discussion on decentralization in the Indonesia NHDR 2001 (Towards a New
Consensus), on page 45. Box 5.2 examines the outcomes of decentralization around the world in terms of a)
participation by, and responsiveness to the poor, and b) Impact on Social and Economic Poverty. Klugman’s
article also has much evidence on the impact on equity in decentralization on social services, health services,
education opportunities, taxation effects, water and sanitation, housing, infrastructure, etc.
Sectoral and regional experiences can be examined through the prism of HD principles.
IV) Lessons Learned:
a) The Requirements:
For decentralization to lead to increased opportunities, actors (state, local governments, elites, public, donors
etc) have specific responsibilities. Decentralization for HD depends on, as the Albania report puts it, need, will
and capacity: It requires, for lack of better words, an “enabling environment” and is not automatic. The question
5 of 11 1/8/2003 12:29 PM
[surf-hdr] CONSOLIDATED REPLY: Decentraliz...and HD (Albania and Ukraine NHDR outlines)
of capacity is crucial for the transition countries. Most difficulties are related to the inability of districts to raise
their own taxes, hence the tendency to borrow. This is also a problem of the national government vis-à-vis
external funding, mirrored at the local level, and requires much better trust and cooperation between
governments and the people.
Ultimately, decentralization for HD requires an enlightened central authority and policy makers who would
extract the main benefits from this process while minimizing negative influences, partnership building and
cooperation between NGOs/CBOs and local authorities, and understanding, cooperation and initiatives by local
leaders. Some of the main requirements could be:
The commitment of the central government to strengthening local governments and encouraging
community participation. This commitment should be demonstrated through the definition of a vision, and
its realization through putting in place policies and programmes, as well as calibrating priorities to realize
the vision
Existence of strong local entities, both government and non-government, to effectively implement the
representational responsibilities associated with local government as well as the technical and managerial
responsibilities related to local planning. A vigorous local governance system is essential to the creation
and maintenance of a robust and active civil society, and a strong civil society is equally important for
vibrant, democratic, and innovative local governments.
Financial support and access to technical assistance for local authorities also remain critically important.
Powers should not be passed from central government to local communities without financial resources
and control. Off-loading the responsibilities for local government without the accompanying resources
cannot achieve decentralized governance.
The importance of the concept of ownership cannot be underestimated. Ownership of the decentralization
process at both the central and local levels can be used to create a constituency of support and stimulate
resource mobilization efforts in support of decentralization.
Efforts directed at the local level can influence the decision-making process at the central government
level. As local authorities and organizations increase their technical and management skills, their
advocacy role becomes more credible and local development priorities are less likely to be passed over in
central planning processes.
Decentralization of financial and decision-making authority must be coupled with support for the
development of participatory processes at the local level. Participatory processes at the local level
challenge traditional power structures at the central government level, empowering civil society and
strengthening democratic processes in general.
Decentralization in multi-ethnic societies can be much more difficult to achieve than in heterogeneous
ones. Nevertheless, by providing for inclusive participatory approaches which can address the concerns of
local groups and minorities, decentralization may contribute to strengthening the cohesiveness of the state
at the national level.
A multi-level approach is a distinct advantage in achieving decentralized governance. Working with the
legislature and judiciary at the same time as strengthening local agencies can ensure the appropriate
enabling environment for decentralization to take place.
The use of the media and public meetings to advocate concepts of decentralization are important in
creating a national consensus on reform.
The identification of appropriate national counterparts for project implementation requires flexibility and
sensitivity as the decentralization process often involves changing power structures. Counterparts should
not be limited to central government contacts and project design must take account of the dynamics of the
decentralization process.
Globalization is creating new and different roles for cities, forcing them to become more important
economic and social actors. Stronger cooperation with the international community is needed to prepare
cities to deal with these new realities and to ensure that globalization benefits the urban poor.
Multi-stakeholder partnerships that promote shared responsibility among citizens, governments, NGO’s
and the private sector are important for strengthening urban governance. The city-to-city cooperation
model and "city consultation" methodologies being used by UNDP seem to provide good alternatives to
the traditional master planning approaches to ensure more participatory urban development.
6 of 11 1/8/2003 12:29 PM
[surf-hdr] CONSOLIDATED REPLY: Decentraliz...and HD (Albania and Ukraine NHDR outlines)
There is an increasing demand to strengthen the capacity of local administrations to work with the private
sector and civil society to improve the self-reliance of urban administrations.
Some Challenges:
Misguided or incomplete decentralization process, with ensuing negative results, as when local authorities
are authorized to make decisions, and are bound to do so, without having the means to carry out those
duties (see discussion in Poland NHDR 1998)
Resources: Especially in the countries of transition, Sharp reductions in available resources have left
decentralization without the financial support required if it is really to work. Central government
structures in the region have been so weakened that they are unable to build up the capacity of local
government.
Weakened state: Even when national governments decentralize responsibilities, they retain important
policy and supervisory roles. They must create or maintain the "enabling conditions" that allow local
government units or non-governmental organizations to take on more responsibilities, while allowing
them large areas of real control. For the transition countries, as the RBEC Regional publications show,
economic policies have been based on minimizing the role of the state, although it is now clear that the
responsibilities of the state need to increase rather than decrease. In the rush to dismantle "socialist"
systems many countries have undermined the ability of their states to underpin market economies. The
state should be activist and intervene in critical areas where market forces cannot ensure an efficient
allocation of resources or where access to basic assets and opportunities for people's livelihoods is
inequitable. (See Robert McIntyre, Human development and social policy in transition (Reformed
World, volume 51 number 3 (September 2001) http://www.warc.ch/pc/rw13/04.html
Political constraints: change will be resisted by those who perceive their vested interests threatened by a
new structure of governmental arrangements. This, coupled with bureaucratic inertia, can constitute
formidable obstacles to the implementation of decentralization reforms. Political will at the highest level
may not, per se, be sufficient to overcome such obstacles. (Klugman)
Bureaucratic obstacles: Beyond the political tensions involved in decentralization attempts, there often
arise significant problems related to the nature of the bureaucracy - its structure, technical competence and
resource base. In a number of cases, the central government has retained effective control over local
personnel through recruitment, promotion, payment and so on. Although this may help to alleviate skill
and resource shortages at the local level, it leads to accountability and loyalties which lead upward to the
capital, rather than to local constituents. This may undermine local autonomy, and create an obstacle to
the implementation of decentralizing reforms (Klugman)
ORIGINAL QUERIES
==>Query I: from Arkady Toritsyn (at@un.kiev.ua), UNDP Ukraine
Dear Colleagues,
Ukraine NHDR 2001 on Governance and Human Development has been sucessfully launched during the Model
of UN last Friday. We distributed NHDRs to MUN participants and conducted a press conference where the
young MUN participants had an opportunity not only to listen to the questions and answers but come up with
their own questions. That was a real spirit of participation that, as our Report argues, would lead to Good
Governance and Human Development. I was impressed with the high quality of questions high school students
raised as well as with their interest in NHDR. I realized that the best and brightest MUN participants, as the
future leaders of Ukraine, saw this Report as a tremendous opportunity to develop their skills as leaders in the
country and influence ultimately the decisionmaking process.
Presently we are working very hard on the next NHDR which will be on decentralization and its impact on
human development. More specifically, we will analyze the trends in decentralization and identify those policy
instruments and best practices in decentralization that lead to human development. I attach to this message a
7 of 11 1/8/2003 12:29 PM
[surf-hdr] CONSOLIDATED REPLY: Decentraliz...and HD (Albania and Ukraine NHDR outlines)
draft outline of NHDR 2002 for your comments and suggestions. We will appreciate your feedback.
See attached: Ukraine2002.outline (long version) and svUkraine2002.outline (short version)
==> Query II: from Eno Ngjela eno.ngjela@undp.org, UNDP Albania
Dear network members,
I would like to share with you the work towards the preparation of NHDR Albania for 2002 which is well under
way now. The NHDR for Albania 2002 is concentrating on the Local Governance and Decentralization theme.
Given Albania’s range of development environments within the country, as well as an ongoing focus on issues
of decentralization and local governance, the Report will offer an objective, general overview of the activities,
development patterns, and major issues and challenges
in the country leading up through the present year within the context of human security - broken down, where
possible, by region. The NHDR Albania 2002 will address the local governance issues through establishing for
the first time the regional HD indices, including the HDI, HPI, GDI and GEM. The end result will be the
creation of comprehensive regional databases that will help the government and the donor community to
elaborate well thought strategies in addressing the local development issues. Since this is the first ever attempt of
towards the calculation of this indices and the national capacities are somehow constrained due to the lack of
reliable data and a proven methodology, UNDP Albania linked the statistics team within the NGO with the
Bulgarian National Institute of Statistics whose experience and methodological approach is assisting our efforts
towards the calculation of indices.
The NHDR Albania 2002 is making use of national expertise building on previous experience. It is being
produced through a broad participation of representatives from civil society and academia, hence ensuring the
editorial independence. The Human Development Promotion Centre (HDPC) has been sub-contracted for the
overall preparation of the report under the close supervision of UNDP and with the technical assistance of
UNDESA.
At this stage the leading NGO has concluded with a table of contents and a broad outline and is currently in the
process of assembling the research papers towards the first draft of the report. I am forwarding to you the outline
of the report so you can share with us any comments and suggestions that would be most useful in our work in
shaping up a comprehensive and well written report. This is a short version of the outline. I am attaching also the
full version of the outline at the end of this message also. The report is expected to be published in September
2002.
See attached: Albania2002.outline (long version) and svAlbania2002.outline (short version)
==> REPLIES IN FULL
Message from Tony Verheijen (tony.verheijen@undp.org), Governance Regional Programme CTA,
RBEC Regional Support Center, Bratislava
Here are some comments on the Albanian HDR outline:
General points:
Developing an HDR on decentralization in the Albanian context is very much a challenging task, with the
mixture of externally driven policies and still relatively fragile indigenous local and central institutions, as well
as a very peculiar (for Europe) brand of community tradition. The authors of the proposal have certainly
captured the main issues, but I have some suggestions regarding the structure of the text, in particular its
sequencing and internal logic
8 of 11 1/8/2003 12:29 PM
[surf-hdr] CONSOLIDATED REPLY: Decentraliz...and HD (Albania and Ukraine NHDR outlines)
1. I have the feeling that the HDR wants to cover too many issues in a limited space and may thus remain on a
general level, it may be better to be more selective as to the issues to be discussed and take a more specific line
of argument. In the more specific comments I will outline a possible way of
doing this.
2. There is a problem with the sequencing of the different sections, one gets the feeling that the discussion
‘jumps’ from one subject to the other, the topics proposed could be put in a more logical line of sequencing,
which would certainly strengthen the HDR as an advocacy document
3. There is a conceptual issue, I have the feeling that the distinction between local government and local
governance is not always clearly made. This is one of the reasons why the two above issues arise as well. I think
the authors would do well to spell out the difference between these two in the
introduction of the text. When we did the regional advocacy publication on decentralization (re-building
effective government, local level initiatives in transition), we introduced tables with an explanation of
definitions and terms, this may be useful here too, and added to that one could define the difference between
local state government, local self-government and local governance
Specific suggestions:
1. It would be good if in the national context section two questions could be posed (and answered), which would
give the reader a better understanding of the context:
a. why was decentralization chosen as the way forward, what problems is it expected to solve and how does
this relate to the HD area
b. related to the previous, is the choice to decentralize externally or internally driven and what are the
consequences of this for the process
c. How does decentralization fit in the overall pattern of development of the institutional system, how does it
link to institution building for EU accession (even if this is not an immediate issue) and PAR in general?
Posing and answering these questions would clarify much better the national context
2. The local mosaic and local governance section could really be called local mosaic and local government,
which could narrow its scope. The focus could be on the local government structure and its reflection in plans to
transfer state functions to regional and local self-government. Questions here are what will be transferred to
what level (focusing on HD related policy areas in particular) and what are the capacities of the local
governments at these levels to absorb these functions, and if
not adequate, what are the possible implications for HD and what to do about this?
The questions on community based services, NGO involvement in decision-making etc. could be better treated
in the chapter on local governance (now called public participation)
3. The issues treated now in section 4 (centralised decentralization), are better treated before going into the
mosaic and the admin. Structure. Placing this chapter where it is not interrupts the line of argument which would
be more persuasive if it moved from macro-process to local issues. Therefore I would suggest to put this chapter
before the one on local government
4. The last two chapter could then deal with issues of local governance, first dealing as proposed with issues of
public participation (traditions and community infrastructure, can these be used to be effective and democratic
local governance, if not, what should be done, recent trends in developing participatory approaches, etc., are
communities ready to take responsibility, what is the scope for partnership between local (and regional)
self-government, NGOs, community groups and business
etc.). In that respect the issues treated in the next proposed chapter on urban management are also highly
9 of 11 1/8/2003 12:29 PM
[surf-hdr] CONSOLIDATED REPLY: Decentraliz...and HD (Albania and Ukraine NHDR outlines)
relevant, but it would be important to treat these also comparatively with a discussion on rural areas and the
main differences in Albania between these two forms of local governance
Stephen Browne (stephen.browne@undp.org), BDP, New York
(FOR UKRAINE)
Arkady,
As a former resident of Ukraine, I am pleased to share with you some thoughts on your interesting outline!
The subject of decentralisation is of great importance and I applaud this choice of focus as part of your
governance series. (It has special
significance for Ukraine, especially when you consider that the country was reborn as part of a "devolution"
process.) However, in the context
of a long tradition of authoritarian administration, decentralisation can have more or less beneficial
consequences, depending on its nature.
Is decentralisation only a de-concentration of functions? Or does it include a devolution of authority and
resources as well (the capacity to
raise and spend them)? Is decentralisation uni-directional or multi-directional? In other words, does it merely
mean a hierarchy of
administrative levels, designed and determined from the top (e.g. the President's representatives) or are local
administrations elected by and
answerable to local constituents?
I strongly recommend that you look at Chapters 5 and 6 of UNDP's Poverty Report 2000
(www.undp.org/povertyreport) which examines these issues in
more depth. This report draws on country experiences and I think that it would be essential to incorporate some
global experience with
decentralisation into the report. Our resident Guru on the subject here is BDP's own Robertson Work, and I am
drawing this discussion to his
attention also.
***
END
Thanks for your contributions
Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh
Name: AGF-V CONCEPT
PAPER-FINAL 10 JANUARY
20021.doc
AGF-V CONCEPT PAPER-FINAL 10 JANUARY 20021.doc
Type: WINWORD File
(application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Name: AGF AIDE Memoire One1.doc
AGF AIDE Memoire One1.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Name: Albania2002.Outline.doc
Albania2002.Outline.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
10 of 11 1/8/2003 12:29 PM
[surf-hdr] CONSOLIDATED REPLY: Decentraliz...and HD (Albania and Ukraine NHDR outlines)
Name: Ukraine2002.outline.doc
Ukraine2002.outline.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Name: svUkraine2002.outline.doc
svUkraine2002.outline.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Name: svALBANIA.2002.Outline.doc
svALBANIA.2002.Outline.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
11 of 11 1/8/2003 12:29 PM
Related docs
