Theories and Concepts of Local Government
Dr. AMM Shawkat Ali
Local government is one of the means to achieve the ends of decentralization.
It is thus linked to the broad concept and practice of decentralization.
The concept is also based on devolution of legal authority on territorial basis. It may also include
exercise of administrative functions.
The above is rooted in the premise that not everything can or should be done from the centre. The
rationale for such a belief appears to be, apart from practical difficulties of governance in far flung areas,
it is necessary and desirable to ensure participation of local people through institutions in the process of
governance.
Typologies of territorial sharing of power in most countries depends on the structure of central
government. Broadly, the structure may either be federal or unitary or a mixture of both. USA and India
are examples of federal structure.
Under this structure, the constituent states form part of the federal or central government. At the same
time, the states have separate legislatures that form the centre of governance. These are not called local
governments but are known as state governments.
The sharing of responsibilities and authority for local governance are broadly defined in the
constitutions of a given country.
Below the state governments lie the local government. They are generally elected councils that perform
wide range of functions. The degree of autonomy enjoyed by the local governments depends on the
country’s heritage, administrative and political development. Generally, it can be said that in developed
countries local governments enjoy lot of autonomy. The local governments also enjoy powers of
taxation in specific fields.
Theories of decentralization
The interpretations of decentralization discussed are those of Fesler, Conyers and Rondinelli. Fesler
views decentralization as a complex issue, both as a concept and in practice; he looks at it from four
perspectives: decentralization as a doctrine, as political process in a given political setting, as an
administrative problem, and finally as an administrative process involving forced choices and changes in
the function and area-based administration, and between the regulatory (law and order) and
development functions of appointed and elected officials.
Conyers, like Fesler, notes that discussion on decentralization can easily become confused because of
analytical problems surrounding the concept of decentralization. Conyers accepts the definition of
decentralization by Rondinelli, that is, as the transfer of “authority to plan, make decisions and manage
public functions” from the national level to any individual, organization, or agency at the sub-national
D:\106750785.doc
Page 1 of 2
level. It is at the same time pointed out by Conyers that the definition limits attention to “territorial” as
opposed to “functional” decentralization. It excludes the question of transfer of authority from central
to peripheral organizations at the national level, for example from a government department to a
parastatal agency.
On the question of the relationship between centralization and decentralization, Conyers, Rondinelli,
Faltas, and others appear to echo the views of Fesler in asserting that both “centralization” and
“decentralization” should be regarded as processes of change, rather than as fixed poles. It is further
argued that it is not possible to envisage a totally decentralized system of government, and finally that
centralization and decentralization can take place simultaneously.
Rondinelli, Nellis, and Cheema have reviewed the recent experiences of decentralization in developing
countries, finding that objectives of decentralization may be broadly categorized into (a) administrative
and management, and (b) political. The political objective assumes that local government or
administrative units can provide an effective channel of communication between the national
government and local communities. It further assumes that “greater participation in development
planning and management supposedly promotes national unity by giving groups in different regions in a
country a greater ability to participate in planning and decision making, and thus increases their stake in
maintaining political stability.”
Administrative and management objectives mainly rely on the deconcentration of authority to
appointed officials to quickly react to unanticipated problems. It is important, however, to point out that
the line of difference between political and management and administrative objectives is often, in the
real world of government, very thin indeed.
Rondinelli, Nellis, and Cheema view decentralization as an “ideological principle associated with
objectives of self-reliance, democratic decision making, popular participation in government, and
accountability of public officials to citizens.” In this they appear to differ from the line reasoning
advanced by Fesler, who cautions against a doctrinal approach and in fact rejects it. He also does not
accept the argument that decentralization contributes to democratic decision making. He finds that in
the doctrinal approach “there is a tendency to link, then merge and confuse, decentralization and
democracy.”
It is argued that insofar as developing countries are concerned the typologies of devolution,
deconcentration, delegation, and privatization may not truly reflect the underlying objectives of
decentralization that a give country adopts. This has been shown by Conyers in the case of Zambia.
Rondinelli has accepted the fact there can be one or a combination of objectives and forms of
decentralization. He has further argued that ultimately decentralization is a political decision, “and its
implementation a reflection of a country’s political process.” Conyer’s arguments, centering on the
objectives of decentralization, also support the overwhelmingly political connotation inherent in any
effort at decentralization.
Thank you
D:\106750785.doc
Page 2 of 2