DECENTRALIZED GOVERNANCE PROGRAMME

Strengthening Capacity for

People-Centred Development
Management Development and Governance Division
Bureau for Development Policy
United Nations Development Programme
September 1997

CONTENTS
Executive Summary
I. Programme Context
a. Global Changes in Governance
b. Sustainable Human Development
c. Importance of Decentralized Governance for Sustainable Human Development
d. The Relationship between Good Governance and Decentralization
II.Programme Justification
a. Present Context
b. Problem to be Addressed
c. Programme Strategy
d. Justification for Assistance from UNDP
III. Development Objectives, Outputs and Activities
IV. Four Year Budget (1997-2000)
Annex One: Countries Involved in the Programme
Annex Two: Decentralized Governance Programme: Country-Level Activities
Annex Three: The Global Research Framework of the Decentralized Governance
Programme
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Decentralizing governance, from the centre to regions, districts, local
governments/authorities and local communities, can be an effective means of achieving
critical objectives of the sustainable human development (SHD) vision - improved access
to services and employment, increased people participation in decisions affecting their
lives, and enhanced government responsiveness. This document outlines the objectives,
strategy, and implementation arrangements for a new global advocacy programme for
decentralized governance.
UNDP has promoted a sustainable human development approach since 1990. This
approach has been greatly influenced by recent changes in the global perception of
governance providing for greater flexibility for involving elements of the civil society in
the context of development programmes.
Programme Justification
The success of many countries in sustaining democratic and equitable societies will
depend to a large extent on the effectiveness of governance practices in solving
development problems. Despite rapid and widespread economic growth during the past
decades, there is a broad-based perception that the benefits of growth have not been
equitably distributed. One means for a development programme to address this issue is
through employing a systemic approach to improving the quality of and access to public
goods and services in participating countries. In so doing, this programme adheres to
OECD/DAC and United Nations policies on technical cooperation and could serve as a
programmatic support modality for other development activities which also involve local
authorities and civil society.
Programme Strategy and Objectives
The Programme aims at creating the opportunity for a convergence of efforts resulting in
the generation of national policy environments supportive of efforts to build capacity in
decentralized governance.
The Programme will serve as a cost-effective catalyst in the process of building a strong
foundation for SHD by improving the capabilities of local and national institutions,
reducing the costs of governance, and encouraging an enabling environment for the
development of social capital among elements of the civil society. Programme activities
are divided into two sub-programmes, one at the global-level and one at the country-
level. The global level activities are focused on a process of knowledge development,
information sharing and dissemination, and encouraging the agencies for the UN system
and associated donors to move toward a collaborative approach to supporting
decentralized governance. The country-level sub-programme focuses on support to
programme design and evaluation.
I. PROGRAMME CONTEXT
a. Global Changes in Governance
The design of many recent development modalities has been influenced by the radical
changes taking place in the global political environment which are almost unprecedented
in history. Democratic governments and market-based economic systems have replaced
authoritarian, statist regimes in a significant number of countries during the past 10 years.
The present level of interest in decentralization is pervasive in that out of 75 developing
and transitional countries with populations greater than 5 million, all but 12 claim to have
embarked on some form of transfer of political power to local units of government.
Central governments are now allocating more substantial portions of the national budget
to local authorities and donor agencies are more willing to directly provide support to
local authorities. This trend is coupled with the magnified interest in the role of NGOs
and other elements of the civil society in providing improved mechanisms for targeting
disadvantaged groups. The private sector is also seen less as an institution antithetical to
public economies and more as a partner for governments seeking innovative ways to
improve service delivery. It can be argued that all these developments are likely to
considerably enlarge the scope for overcoming some of the major factors that undermined
earlier development efforts and to improve the prospects for sustaining development
initiatives once they have been established.
b. Sustainable Human Development
Since 1990, UNDP has promoted a development approach that focuses on people: an
approach which has been termed sustainable human development (SHD). SHD is a vision
that is defined as the enlargement of people's choices and capabilities through the
formation of social capital so as to meet as equitably as possible the needs of current
generations without compromising the needs of the future. In this regard, sustainability is
considered in economic, political, institutional, and inter-generational terms. To achieve
the objectives of SHD, UNDP has increasingly focused on four interrelated goals:
poverty elimination; advancing the position of women in societies; creating opportunities
for productive employment; and protection and regenerating the environment.
Social capital formation is a significant aspect of the SHD vision. Social capital refers to
features of social organization, such as trust, norms, and networks, that can improve the
efficiency of institutions by facilitating coordinated and mutually supportive actions.
Social capital makes the achievement of productive activity possible that would not be
attainable without these mutually agreed upon rules and trust. Social capital is not a
formal legal framework created by government: it is best defined as voluntary forms of
social regulation and is only formed through the interaction among people (and with
government) in solving problems. Such local solutions lead to the creation of a
knowledge base that can be tapped to solve future problems.
SHD themes and approaches are not totally new to the partnership between the member
states and UNDP. They have been present in national development plans of the member
states and in the activities of member governments and civil societies and many such
activities benefited from past UNDP assistance. The present thematic and methodological
shift is rooted therefore in a tradition of cooperation between UNDP and the host
countries. At the same time, this shift benefits from a more holistic, redefined view of the
nature and objectives of development, from conscious use of modalities which put people
and their interests in the centre of economic activities.
Global conferences sponsored by the United Nations e.g., on population and development
(Cairo, September, 1994), on social development (Copenhagen, March, 1995), on women
(Beijing, September, 1995), and on human settlements (Istanbul, June, 1996) are
highlighting many important issues relevant to SHD in their respective agendas,
encouraging participating countries to focus on social aspects of development in their
preparations for these conferences.
c. Importance of Governance for Sustainable Human Development
It has become increasingly clear in recent years that the ability of donors to assist
developing countries achieve their human development goals hinges largely on the
quality of governance in developing countries and the extent to which government
interacts with commercial and civil society organizations to accomplish this goal. UNDP,
the central coordinating body of the operational activities of the UN system, has been at
the forefront of the growing international consensus that good governance and
sustainable human development are indivisible and that developing the capacity for good
governance can be - and should be - the primary means to eliminate poverty. The
challenge for all societies therefore is to create a system of governance that promotes,
supports and sustains human development to realize the highest potential of everyone and
the well-being of all, thus eliminating poverty and all other forms of exclusion.
Governance is defined by UNDP as the exercise of political, economic and administrative
authority to manage a society's affairs. While the economic, political and administrative
aspects of governance are often the focus, the summits and international conferences
sponsored by the UN over the last decade reflect a growing recognition of the need for a
more holistic concept. Governance comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions
through which collective decisions are made and implemented, citizens, groups and
communities pursue their visions, articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights,
meet their obligations and mediate their differences. Governance, as defined in this
manner, emphasizes the nature and quality of interactions among social actors and
between social actors and the state.
There is no single definition of good governance, but the same summits and conferences
have put growing emphasis on a number of characteristics that reflect values and
principles, norms and practices that derive from putting people first and at the centre.
These core characteristics of governance (see box 1) are clearly interrelated, mutually
reinforcing and cannot stand alone. For example, accessible information means more
transparency, broader participation and more effective decision-making. Broad
participation contributes both to the exchange of information needed for effective
decision-making and for the legitimacy of those decisions. Legitimacy, in turn, means
effective implementation and encourages further participation. And responsive
institutions must be transparent and function according to the rule of law if they are to be
equitable.
What is not so clear is what the order of causal relations is among these characteristics. It
could be hypothesized that those related to the broad participation of people on an
ongoing basis in the business of governance are instrumental in bringing about other key
elements. Thus participation, partnership, empowering and enabling and community
focus could be seen as fostering transparency, responsiveness, consensus orientation,
accountability and equity.
These core characteristics represent an ideal: no actual system of governance can be
expected to reflect all these characteristics. Even so, UNDP believes that societies should,
through broad-based consensus-building, develop their own visions of good governance
and aim to define which of the core features are most important to them and what the best
balance between the state, the market and society is for them.
BOX 1
UNDP defines the following as core characteristics of good governance:

Participation: All men and women have a voice in decision-making, either directly or through legitimate inte
institutions that represent their interests. Such broad participation is built on freedom of association and speec
as capacities to participate constructively.

Rule of law: Legal frameworks are fair and enforced impartially, particularly the laws on human rights; publi
and safety are at a high level.

Transparency: Transparency is built on the free flow of information. Processes, institutions and information a
accessible to those concerned, and enough information is provided to understand and monitor them.

Responsiveness: Institutions and processes serve all stakeholders.

Consensus orientation: Differing interests are mediated to reach broad consensus on what is the common goo
best interests of the organization, community or country and, where possible, on policies and procedures.

Equity: All men and women have opportunities to improve or maintain their well-being and the vulnerable an
are targeted to provide security of well-being to all.
Effectiveness and efficiency: Processes and institutions produce results that meet needs while making the bes
resources.

Accountability: Decision-makers in government, the private sector and civil society organizations are accoun
public and specific constituencies,, as well as to institutional stakeholders.

Strategic Vision: Leaders and the public share a broad and long-term perspective on the good society, good g
and human development, along with a sense of what is needed for such development.

Legitimacy: Authority is legitimate in terms of the established legal and institutional framework and specific
in terms of the accepted institutional criteria, processes and procedures.

Resource Prudence: Resources are managed and used with a view to optimize the well-being of people over s
generations, ideally in perpetuity, without mortgaging the future.

Ecological Soundness: The environment is protected and regenerated to ensure sustainable self-reliance.

Empowering and Enabling: All actors in society are empowered to pursue legitimate goals and enabling envi
are created to optimize their success and the realization of the well-being of all.

Partnership: Governance is seen as a whole-system responsibility that cannot be discharged effectively by go

alone, but involves institutionalized mechanisms and processes for working in partnerships of public, private
actors in conducting the business of governance at all levels.

Spatially grounded in communities: The multi-level nature of human systems with the principles of self-deter
and self-organizing embodied at each level is recognized as the basis for governance that puts people at the c
empowers them to be self-reliant, self-organizing and self-managing, building on the autonomy of local comm
d. The Relationship between Good Governance and Decentralization
Decentralization, or decentralizing governance, refers to the restructuring or
reorganization of authority so that there is a system of co-responsibility between
institutions of governance at the central, regional and local levels according to the
principle of subsidiarity, thus increasing the overall quality and effectiveness of the
system of governance, while increasing the authority and capacities of sub-national
levels.
Decentralization thus relates to the role of, and the relationship between, central and sub-
national institutions, whether they are public, private or civic. Although experience
suggests that decentralization in itself is no guarantee of good governance, many believe
that decentralizing governance, from the centre to regions, districts, local
governments/authorities and local communities is more conducive to good governance. If
this is the case, decentralizing governance could be an effective means of achieving
critical objectives of the sustainable human development vision - improving access to
services, credit, employment, health, and education, eradicating poverty, achieving
greater socio-economic equity, especially between men and women and safeguarding the
environment. Decentralization could also be expected to contribute to key elements of
good governance, such as increasing people's opportunities for participation in economic,
social and political decisions; assisting in developing people's capacities; and enhancing
government responsiveness, transparency and accountability.
During the past three decades, governments in developing countries have attempted to
implement a variety of administrative decentralization policies (see box 2). These have
ranged from those that are more comprehensive in scope and designed to transfer
development planning and management responsibilities to local units of government.
Others have been more narrowly conceived, deconcentrating or reallocating
administrative tasks among the units of central government. But on an unprecedented
scale, central governments are allocating more substantial portions of the national budget
to local authorities, more administrative authority, more economic responsibility and
more political autonomy.
At the same time, it is recognized that improved governance will require not only
strengthened central and local governments but also the involvement of other actors from
civil society organizations and the private sector in partnerships with government at all
levels. This is a key message of UNDP's Policy on Governance: that building capacity in
all three domains of governance - state, civil society and the private sector - is critical for
sustaining human development. Civil society organizations, for example, are increasingly
seen as effective mechanisms for targeting disadvantaged groups and the private sector is
now more often seen as a natural partner for governments seeking innovative ways and
means of improving service quality and delivery. The role of the government becomes
that of a facilitator, a catalytic force for enabling the innovative sharing of responsibilities
and creating enabling environments for the effectiveness of people and partners in
pursuing their legitimate objectives. Within this context, civil society and the private
sector become key partners of national and sub-national governments in the transition
towards improved forms of local governance through decentralization.
Concerns regarding central administrative capacity, fiscal constraints, and limited
accountability at all levels of government has led governments and donors to place
increased emphasis on the importance of decentralization and developing local
governance capabilities. This has also been prompted by an increasing number of
arguments that promote decentralization to facilitate objectives such as improved
government effectiveness in the delivery of goods and services, the promotion of revenue
collection, and enhanced popular participation as a means for making the public sector
more accountable as well as empowering people previously excluded from decision-
making. Closer contact between government officials and local organisations and
communities can also encourage the exchange of information that can be used to
formulate development programmes that are tailored to local needs and priorities, and
thus are more effective and sustainable.
e. Types of Arrangements often included in Discussions on Decentralization
The effects of decentralization on good governance depend to a large extent on the form
and nature of the decentralization involved in the particular country. The type of unit with
which authority is shared or to which it is transferred in the decentralization process is
critical for understanding the implications for good governance. There are a variety of
different arrangements which are often included in discussions on decentralization:
The first type is autonomous lower-level units, such as provincial, district, local
authorities that are legally constituted as separate governance bodies. The transfer of
authorities to such units is often referred to as devolution and is the most common
understanding of genuine decentralization. Through devolution, the central government
relinquishes certain functions or creates new units of government that are outside its
direct control. Federal states are by definition devolved, though the extent of legally
defined and shared powers devolved by the federal government to lower level
governmental units can be quite limited. Devolution in its purest form has certain
fundamental characteristics. First, local units of government are autonomous,
independent and clearly perceived as separate levels of government over which central
authorities exercise little or no direct control. Second, the local governments have clear
and legally recognized geographical boundaries within which they exercise authority and
perform public functions. Third, local governments have corporate status and the power
to secure resources to perform their functions. Fourth, devolution implies the need to
"develop local governments as institutions" in the sense that they are perceived by local
citizens as organizations providing services that satisfy their needs and as governmental
units over which they have some influence. Finally, devolution is an arrangement in
which there are reciprocal, mutually beneficial, and coordinate relationships between
central and local governments.
The second type is semi-autonomous lower-level units, such as urban or regional
development corporations to whom aspects of governance are delegated through
legislation or under contract. This is a fairly common variant of decentralization that
stops short of devolution, but involves significant delegation of authorities and
responsibilities. Delegation refers to the transfer of government decision-making and
administrative authority and/or responsibility for carefully spelled out tasks to institutions
and organizations that are either under government indirect control or semi-independent.
Most typically, delegation is by the central government to semi-autonomous
organizations not wholly controlled by the government but legally accountable to it, such
as state owned enterprises and urban or regional development corporations.
The third type is sub-ordinate lower-level units or sub-units, such as regional, district or
local offices of the central administration or service delivery organization. These units
usually have delegated authority in policy, financial and administrative matters without
any significant independent local inputs. This type of arrangement is most often referred
to as deconcentration and involves very limited transfer of authority. It involves the
transfer of authority for specific decision-making, financial and management functions by
administrative means to different levels under the same jurisdictional authority of the
central government. This is the least extensive type of administrative decentralization and
the most common found in developing countries. General deconcentration occurs to the
extent that a variety of tasks are deconcentrated to a horizontally integrated
administrative system. Functional deconcentration occurs to the extent that specific tasks
are deconcentrated to the field units of a particular ministry or agency.
The fourth type refers to units external to the formal governmental structure (non-
governmental or private), such as NGOs, corporations and companies. While sometimes
included in discussions of decentralization, the nature of these transfers is not level-
specific, i.e., transfers could occur at the same level, which is often the central one. These
phenomena are best not treated as forms of decentralization, but of divestment.
Divestment occurs when planning and administrative responsibility or other public
functions are transferred from government to voluntary, private, or non-government
institutions. In some cases, governments may transfer to "parallel organizations" such as
national industrial and trade associations, professional or ecclesiastical organizations,
political parties, or cooperatives - the right to license, regulate or supervise their members
in performing functions that were previously controlled by the government. In other
cases, governments may shift responsibility for producing goods or supplying services to
private organizations, a process often called privatization.
II. PROGRAMME JUSTIFICATION
a. Present Context
Much has still to be learned with regard to the impact the different arrangements
subsumed under decentralization has on sustainable human development, especially
poverty eradication and equity building. The current practice of decentralization has
produced mixed results in terms of the degree to which power and responsibility for the
planning and management of development activities has actually been transferred from
central government agencies to sub-national organizations.
For example, there are many instances where innovative decentralization programmes
have been centrally created but not linked to established local organisations or sources of
political and financial support. In many cases authority is delegated to local organisations
but they are not given the resources to perform their new functions. As a result, they
continue to act as bureaucratic instruments of the centre rather than as generators of
alternative values, preferences and aspirations. Local leaders are often seen by central
government officials as merely communicators and solicitors for support for national
policies. They are not seen as channels through which the conditions and needs of the
local communities can be articulated to central and sub-national planners and policy
makers or as mobilisers of local resources for promoting development from the "bottom-
up". Even in cases where devolution of central government activities has been attempted,
additional problems can arise such as reinforcing provincial inequalities and disparities in
levels of development.
Decentralization can be impeded by the inability of local governments in developing
countries to significantly increase their local revenue. In many cases central governments
have kept the most buoyant sources of revenue for themselves and local governments
have lacked adequate capacity for tax collection and other forms of revenue generation.
The collection of user charges at the local level, especially in low-income urban
settlements, is extremely difficult, often because of the view that some services such as
basic education and primary health care should be free. On the other hand, the poor often
pay higher prices for services such as water supply.
In addition, decentralization efforts are often hampered by bureaucracy at the centre
resulting in the inadequate release of allocated funds. This leads to frequent delays in the
delivery of services or the completion of local projects. Staff shortages, or inadequately
trained staff, often impedes the implementation of decentralization efforts at the local
level. Local government positions are often considered of low status leading to high staff
turnover and lack of commitment to innovate or deal with local problems creatively.
There are, however, many cases where steps towards systemic level decentralization are
being implemented with some degree of success. These include: Nepal, India and the
Philippines in Asia; Venezuela, Chile and Colombia in Latin American; Zimbabwe,
Uganda and Tanzania in Africa. In many countries area/regional based decentralization
has also been attempted: provincial development in Indonesia, devolution to local
government in India, district authority development in Tanzania, regional development in
Malaysia, and municipal decentralization in Colombia.
Among the lessons learned from these and other decentralization efforts are the
following:
One of the most crucial prerequisites for decentralization is the existence of strong
political will and leadership.
The success of decentralization requires the creation of a powerful lower level
constituency to pressure for it.
*In most developing countries, local governments have failed to establish themselves as
credible institutions for the articulation of local interests due largely to "supply-driven
development" promoted by central bureaucracy. They are often considered local agents
of the state.
*Decentralization is not a universal prescription. It is a principle of placing the
responsibility for decisions and actions as near to those affected as possible.
*Developing countries have focused more on deconcentration and delegation and less on
devolution to local governments.
*Implementation of decentralization programmes requires technical support from the
centre.
*The success of decentralization will depend on the degree to which adequate financial,
human and physical resources are made available to the organisations to which
responsibilities are transferred.
*Decentralization is not likely to work unless it is accompanied by concerted efforts to
build local capacity to plan, manage and evaluate development programmes.
The success of decentralization can be constrained by the degree to which the dominant
behaviour, attitudes, and culture are conducive to decentralized decision-making and
administration.
b. Problem to be Addressed
The Decentralized Governance Programme addresses the fact that, despite the
considerable advances in human development and significant economic growth in many
countries, there has not been commensurate progress in the development of good
governance. As a result, certain policies and practices of many governments continue to
impede the opportunities available to their citizens to mobilize the necessary resources
(human, financial, physical) for achieving sustainable human development. UNDP sees
good governance, or people-centred governance, as an integral element of human
development that needs to be developed as much as any other element of SHD. In fact, no
other aspect of human development is so profoundly shaped by institutional culture,
patterns of traditional authority and domination, such as patriarchy and systems of
communal governance. The development of institutional patterns of governance that
display the characteristics of good governance is not only necessary for the achievement
of the rest of SHD, but the systemic source of sustainable achievement of higher levels of
human development and well-being.
It is clear that the reassessment of the role of government has enabled many developing
countries to make significant economic and social gains in the latter part of the twentieth
century. Average life expectancies have increased markedly, health and sanitation
services have improved, and the number of countries able to meet daily per capita calorie
requirements has doubled. Rates of economic development have been particularly
impressive in South and South East Asia, where GNP growth averaged more than 7
percent in the 1980s.
However, despite the rapid economic growth globally over the past several decades, the
world has become more polarised, and the gulf between the poor and rich of the world
has widened even further. We are living on a planet which increasingly represents not
one world but two worlds: economic stagnation has affected 100 countries, reducing the
incomes of 1.6 billion people - more than a quarter of the worlds population - over the
past 15 years. Around 800 million people still do not have food to eat. One billion people
are illiterate. A quarter of the population of developing countries lack access to a basic
necessity like safe drinking water. And the destruction of tropical forests and the loss of
biological and associated cultural diversity continues at an alarming rate.
The trend towards globalisation of the world's economy also has potentially negative
implications for the future viability of community-based economies. The economic
response to globalisation appears to lower the stability of many societies by weakening
the role of governments and civil society organisations as intermediaries between
transnational producers and their customers. Trade-offs between general economic
prosperity and social equity are becoming increasingly apparent. Women in particular are
being affected by this trend: as their unpaid workload increases, their ability to participate
in governance related activities is diminished. Many developed societies are already
becoming fragmented and income groups polarized. As pointed out in the 1996 UNDP
Human Development Report, both industrial and developing countries are affected by
growing human distress - rising crime rates, increasing threats to human security, and a
growing sense of individual isolation.
Continued or diminishing inequity in the distribution of development benefits within
individual societies has been one factor contributing to the recent increase calls for
ethnically based regions and independent states. In the areas formerly under Soviet
influence this has been most dramatic in former Yugoslavia, Georgia, and Russia itself.
Reduced civil harmony can also be seen in a number of areas that were not influenced by
the former Soviet empire. These include: Somalia, Rwanda, Uganda, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Sri
Lanka, India/Pakistan, Mexico, Canada, Spain, and Burma among others. Some of these
reflect ancient animosities which have recently become more openly hostile. Among
these, Yugoslavia has disintegrated, Eritrea has split from Ethiopia, Ethiopia is steadily
pursuing a devolved federal system, Sri Lanka has recently proposed a similar model, and
Canada is seeking a constitutional resolution to its ethno-linguistic differences. It remains
unclear whether the creation of ethnically based regions improves the condition of the
disenfranchised or simply introduces rigidities that further reduce the potential for the
formation of social capital. Many of the truly disadvantaged remaining in these regions
are not just economically poor, but they also continue to be excluded socially as
'foreigners' by virtue of race, nationality, or other reasons.
There are obviously both positive and negative feedback linkages among all these issues.
Despite the (re)establishment of democracy and a new market orientation, there is still a
lack of a totally consistent policy framework that aids the efforts of people and their own
organizations to work together (and with their governments) to address critical
development issues of their own choosing. The same trends that are leading to
atomisation of culture are also responsible for creating more opportunities for individuals
to direct their own lives. The tendency for ethnic groups to seek a separate polity also
engenders heightened social capital within those groups.
The key question is how to promote ways to build on the positive feedback linkages. One
way is through the judicious selection of surrogates that serve to converge seemingly
disparate forces on a single issue. For example, one surrogate issue is quality control in
and equitable access to the delivery of public goods and services. Considerable foreign
aid is spent directly on the production of public goods and services and indirectly on
building capacity in public sector organizations to produce such goods and services.
However, throughout the developing world, the poor quality of and inequitable access to
education, health, transportation infrastructure, water supply, and other utilities, continues
to be a major problem. Social capital is only productive when it can be used in
conjunction with other forms of productive capital such as human and physical capital.
Part of the blame for this situation is that many national governments have failed to
understand that sharing control of development with local institutions can be of benefit to
both governments and people. This continual failure to build sound partnerships between
government, markets, and civil society to improve the efficient. effectiveness and
sustainability of development projects, particularly the production of public goods and
services, is the fundamental problem to be addressed by this Programme. These linkages
are necessary for sustainable human development and form the basis of UNDPs Policy
on Governance for SHD. Community-oriented programmes work well on a small-scale
but community organisations and local networks are not enough to overcome large-scale
problems. Spontaneous community action is, and will remain for the foreseeable future,
only a partial means of addressing the broad issues that influence the potential for
sustainable human development. External agents are needed as catalysts for change to
channel ideas and resources to the community and to serve as intermediaries to the
outside world. Those outside catalysts can be in the form of local governments, non-
government organisations, or enlightened central authorities. What is important is that
they function in a manner that is conducive to enabling people to seek development
solutions on their own rather than acting in a paternalistic and controlling manner.
To respond to this challenge of fostering the development of good governance, the
overall objective of the Programme is to contribute to the learning process of UNDP,
governments and other donors on how the capacities for good governance of the various
actors - public, private and civic - at the appropriate levels - national, provincial, district,
municipal, village or community - can be strengthened in the areas of policy formulation,
resource management, and service delivery/access in order to achieve poverty eradication
and other SHD goals.
c. Programme Strategy
The strategic aim of the Programme is to create an opportunity for a convergence of
efforts resulting in the generation of national, sub-national and local policy environments
supportive of decentralized governance. Not all activities can or will be carried out
exclusively with internal programme resources. There are numerous UN and other donor
projects currently under implementation or in the planning stages that directly relate to
the issues addressed by the global programme. It would be wasteful and inappropriate for
MDGD to plan this programme in isolation of these supportive activities. For this reason.
the Programme seeks to establish national and global collaborative implementation
strategies.
To facilitate this collaboration, the Decentralized Governance Programme has been
divided into two sub-programmes, one at the global-level and one at the country-level.
These two sub-programmes will operate in a complementary manner and in complete
coordination with each other.
Global level activities will focus on a process of knowledge development, information
sharing, and encouraging the agencies of the UN system and associated donors to move
toward a collaborative approach to supporting decentralized governance. Activities are
designed to ensure that the lessons and experiences of past and ongoing country level
projects, supported by governments, UNDP and other international agencies, are
analysed, documented and disseminated to ensure that ongoing efforts guide the design
and implementation of future efforts to promote national policy environments supportive
of decentralised governance.
The country-level sub-programme will provide support to the design of decentralized
governance initiatives, aiming to promote a holistic approach to sustainably improving
national policy formulation, resource management and the equitable delivery of public
goods and services. Where appropriate, programme design will promote the following
five country-level capacity building objectives:
i. Systemic institutional analysis and decentralization policy generation which
strengthensthenational capability to assess, and alter if necessary, the existing
institutional policy framework,
ii. Strengthening local authorities to build their ability to apply these policies and
principles to the task of local development, particularly resource management and public
service delivery,
iii. Direct support to organizations of the civil society as a means of ensuring equitable
and sustainable development outcomes,
iv. Direct support to the institutionalisation of "local-local" interaction at the sub-national
level, and
v. Implementation of local pilot projects to improve service delivery and access which
would be used to ensure comprehension and institutionalisation of national development
policies and principles at the local level.
The feedback loops among the above five objectives reinforce the potential for
sustainability of the intended decentralized institutional reform.
d. Justification for Assistance from UNDP
Agencies of the UN system have accumulated considerable experience in the design and
implementation of governance capacity building projects over the past several years. This
Programme intends to benefit from and build on this experience. In particular, this
Programme strategy is built on lessons learned from the following on-going projects and
programmes:
The Management Development Programme (MDP)
MDP was set up in 1988 to strengthen UNDP's work in the field of public sector
management improvement. MDP has particularly focused on countries undertaking major
economic and political reforms, where there is need for a long-term systemic
development of the institutions for public management. MDP was required to be
comprehensive in its analysis of capacities and needs. On that basis, it has tried to give its
programming a focus on strategic issues of central relevance to the operations of the
public sector. It was also challenged to explore innovative approaches to technical
cooperation to ensure the internationalization of changes and their sustainability.
In the experience of MDP, the goals of internationalization of change and of
sustainability can best be promoted by experts fully realizing that the host country must
be the owner of the reform. Process consulting would, in many situations, be the way to
accomplish this. MDP is therefore advocating this approach as the desirable mode of
work for international consultants involved in long-term capacity building.
MDP was also instrumental in using this process approach in initiating and guiding
internal discussions among the Headquarters operational units and Country Offices of
UNDP dealing with critical issues in public sector management and alternative technical
assistance modalities. One means by which MDP has been able to influence these units is
through the implementation of policy experiment oriented programmes. MDP has
supported many public management reform programmes focused on decentralization and
strengthening of local authorities. An important step in this regard was the MDP
Workshop on the Decentralization Process held in 1993 in collaboration with the Swiss
Development Corporation (SDC). The Workshop reviewed lessons learned from case
studies of 12 countries: Nepal, Venezuela, Philippines, Malaysia, Malawi, Cote dIvoire,
Colombia, Egypt, Guatemala, Kazakhstan, Sri Lanka, and Eritrea. Legal, financial,
political, and administrative aspects of decentralization were examined.
The experience in Nepal is an excellent example of cooperation between MDP and
regular UNDP project funding. UNDP has an ongoing decentralization support project in
Nepal dating back to 1989. The project has worked at the national level to support the
preparation of decentralization policies and legislation to establish local governing
authorities. It also worked to build planning capacity in selected districts of the country.
In 1993, MDP agreed to provide additional funds to the project specifically earmarked for
"innovative interventions in decentralized management". This assistance was highly
praised by the national government as it enabled the project to broaden its scope of
support to local authorities.
Examples of other MDP-supported projects and programmes include support to the
decentralisation component of the Government of Mongolias Management Development
Programme (MDP) aimed at ensuring that policies and practices enable territorial units to
take increasingly greater control over their own development decision making and
resource mobilisation; support to the South African Government of National Unity in
developing their Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) which is intended
to guide the national, provincial and local governments in undertaking development
efforts at their respective levels; support to the "Democracy and Governance" Programme
of the Government of Moldova which contains a sub-project entitled "Strengthening
Local Governance", addressing needs at the local level for strategic planning and
economic development; financial and information management; and organisational and
human resources development.
UN Capital Development Fund (UNCDF)
Capacity building among elements of the civil society and the private sector has been
addressed by many UNDP and other donor projects. One difficulty often expressed has
been how to scale up the positive lessons learned from small scale projects in order to
have a broader impact on overall development results. This Programme attempts to
address this concern by creating the understanding that small scale organizations do not
have to become large scale organizations in order to be effective nationally. Rather the
critical factor in scaling-up their lessons-learned is found in the quality of the
institutional arrangements that influence the extent of networked interactions among
small and large organizations within a society. Part of the solution to the scaling-up
problem lies in effective collaboration among different donors operating in a single
country.
The mandate of UNCDF is to strengthen economic and social infrastructure in support of
rural development and small-scale industries of Least Developed Countries. UNCDF has
gone through a critical reassessment of its identity and role during the last three years,
eventually leading to its redefinition as a "fund for local and community development".
This focus on local development and on direct partnership with collective actors in the
local space - first and foremost with local governments - reflects two considerations: on
the one hand, it responds to emerging local demands, and donor support, for political and
administrative decentralisation in developing countries and for increased peoples
participation in development planning and management; on the other hand, it appears as
the logical evolution of extensive UNCDF experience with small-scale capital grants for
the provision of local infrastructure and services and for the promotion of local economic
development in least developed countries.
It was in the context of such re-focusing of the Fund on the local space that local
development fund (LDF) programmes were developed as a distinct line of UNCDF
assistance. Through such programmes UNCDF directly assists LDC sub-national
authorities at the regional and local levels, mostly in rural areas. It provides financial
resources and technical support to local authorities to introduce decentralised,
participatory planning and management of local infrastructure and services to promote
local economic development.
Through the implementation of discrete projects, UNCDF has developed a sound
methodology for documenting relevant policy lessons based on detailed empirical
evidence. As of the end of 1995, LDF programmes had been designed or were being
designed in ten countries (Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Malawi, Mozambique, Uganda,
United Republic of Tanzania and Zambia in Africa; Cambodia and Viet Nam in Asia; and
the Palestine Territories in the Middle East.
In the Da Nang Province of central Vietnam, for example, UNCDF is supporting the
Vietnamese Centre for Rural Planning and Development (CERPAD) to develop and
apply a transparent system of capital allocation for social investments from the Province
down to the District and Commune level authorities. The Rural Infrastructure
Development Fund (RIDEF) has been established as a special facility of the provincial
administration to alleviate poverty through investment in small-scale social and economic
infrastructure, working closely with lower levels of local government.
In the Eastern Province of Zambia, UNCDF has set up a District Development Fund
providing extra-budgetary resources for implementation of local development plans. The
Fund can be accessed by the Districts to finance small economic and social infrastructure
projects identified, prepared and managed by a range of local actors, including the
District administration itself, local NGOs community and church groups, etc. An
essential feature of the Fund is the integration of micro-projects within the regular
planning and budgeting process of the local administration.
As each successive new country programme is implemented, considerable time and
energy is being placed on the documentation of case studies on project implementation.
These case studies will be extremely useful in providing guidance to UNCDF in its
continual operational evolution. They will also be vital inputs to the Decentralized
Governance Programme. These case studies will point out critical issues that will be
important for the successful implementation of the local level capacity building
objectives of this Programme.
Direct Support to Local Governments and Civil Society
UNDP's understanding of development has evolved to focus on human development and
the concepts of sustainability and quality of life. In its attempts to promote sustainable
human development, and mobilize domestic and external resources effectively for this
purpose, UNDP is actively collaborating with institutions of the civil society. Over the
past decade, UNDP has steadily expanded the range of its direct support programme for
local governments and non-government organizations. Several of these "innovation
machines" would be closely linked to this programme:
LIFE: The Local Initiative Facility for the Urban Environment (LIFE) is an innovative
programme which promotes 'local-local' dialogue between local governants, NGOs and
low income residents to improve the urban environment. The Programme works in 12
pilot countries, employing methodologies which integrate policy analysis, advocacy,
local dialogue initiatives, and decentralized microprojects offering demonstrative
potential. The Programme is now moving into its third phase and places additional
attention on (1) capacity building support for project committees, (2) monitoring of other
initiatives in the sector, and (3) improved documentation of implementation processes,
impacts, methodologies, and 'lessons-learned'.
Partners in Development (PDP): The PDP now operates in 73 programme countries. The
development objective is to enable people to initiate action for self-reliant development.
This is achieved through (1) support to community-based self-help initiatives that include
income generating activities to alleviate poverty, (2) strengthening the institutional
capacity of local NGOs and community-based groups to respond effectively to critical
development needs, and (3) promoting networking among NGOs, government, UNDP,
and other UN agencies.
Urban Management Programme: This Programme is a joint undertaking of UNDP,
UNCHS, and the World Bank. The Programme is composed of three objectives: (1)
strengthen in-country and regional capacity, (2) develop new policy frameworks and
tools to support country-level initiatives, and (3) facilitate information management and
exchange. Now into its third phase, the Programme has been designed to focus on
poverty eradication, environmental improvement and participatory governance, with a
particular emphasis on activities to generate positive impact at the country level.
Public-Private Partnerships for the Urban Environment: This Programme has created a
mechanism that promotes the involvement of the private sector in programmes and
projects addressing urban environmental problems. By involving three sets of actors in
sustainable, joint municipal ventures - international and national companies; local
companies; and municipal or state agencies - the programme encourages each partner to
bring to bear its own unique talents, resources, perspectives, practices, and expertise. As
partners in mixed capital companies and enterprises, public and private sector participants
work to turn urban environmental problems into viable business opportunities and
sustainable, economically sound, and socially conscious investments. This arrangement
has resulted in both municipalities and private companies meeting their own objectives,
and city dwellers enjoying an enhanced quality of life.
Area Development Schemes (ADS): The ADS is an innovative development programme
launched by the Government of Sudan and UNDP in 1988 to work directly with rural
communities. ADS now covers 2000 villages and reaches half a million people in five of
the poorest and most environmentally fragile areas of northern Sudan. Designed as an
alternative to the conventional 'top-down' approach, ADS places the community in the
forefront of project activities by making villagers the key decision makers. The
involvement of women is a key factor and almost one quarter of the projects are
exclusively for their benefit.
Other Donors
Governance reform requires that governments take a critical look at the way they are
organized to provide for the common good of all citizens. Such an appraisal can be an
extremely politically sensitive issue involving the exposure of myriad vested interests. It
is widely accepted that assistance from donors in this area must be perceived by
governments as being provided in as neutral and impartial a manner as possible.
Multilateral and bilateral donors are expanding their development cooperation in various
aspects of governance: support to civil society organizations, democratization and human
rights including freedom of association and participation, decentralized cooperation, clear
legal frameworks, bureaucratic accountability, and effective and efficient public sector
management. This is reflected in the policy statements/papers of UNDP, Sida, USAID,
CIDA, GTZ, ODA, and SDC, among others. The explicit linkage between physical
capital development projects and institutional reform has not been common in the past.
Although this approach is increasingly recognized as critical for sustained and equitable
investment the knowledge base for formulating, such projects remain weak.
This points to the need for donors to work together to find common ways of building
support for decentralized organizations into a variety of projects and of linking this
support to systemic institutional reform. Project implementation and institution building
efforts can and should be compatible and mutually reinforcing. It is recognized that
support must go beyond the confines of implementation projects and include general
support to systemic institutional reform but such links would not likely happen within the
confines of a traditional implementation project.
This Programme proposes that like-minded donors establish a carefully designed network
to help to make 'upstream' policy development links for ongoing implementation projects.
This Programme would provide for documenting and learning from ongoing
decentralized governance approaches and for sharing the findings with the wider donor
community. Engagement in such 'upstream' activities would challenge those supporters of
decentralized governance to effectively illustrate its comparative advantage over more
centralized development modalities to produce the fundamental conditions required for
sustainable human development.
Additionally, the Programme strategy conforms to several OECD/Development
Assistance Committee (DAC) Technical Cooperation policy mandates: (1) close
involvement of the people in the development process, thereby enhancing the potential
for sustainable human development, especially by improving access by the poor to basic
services such as education and primary health care; (2) undertaking a decentralized
approach to development by involving the government as a key partner in the entire
planning and implementation process; (3) following a process-oriented implementation
modality leading directly to a programme approach for long-term, self-reliant, capacity
building rather than on immediate short-term performance improvement; (4) keeping
international expertise to a minimum ('least intervention principle'); and (5) a strong
emphasis on strengthening local governance capabilities, democratic institutions, and
enhancing the capacity for enforcing the rule of law.
The Programme also conforms to several of the United Nations policy mandates, and as
such is a highly appropriate mechanism for achieving goals set by the General Assembly:
(1) the Programme would support high political priorities of the participating
governments relating to the involvement of people in the development process, and as
such promotes the overall aims and purposes of the United Nations for sustainable human
development; (2) it stresses a programmatic approach to development, with its attention
to coherence and coordinated programming of national and donor resources, attention to
national management of and responsibility for the development activities being
undertaken in the country, and attention to the ultimate impact of (rather than inputs to)
development efforts; and (3) it promotes the decentralized governance policy of the UN
system by furthering a fundamental rationale for this policy, namely, the establishment of
public accountability mechanisms for all partners participating in the development
process.
III. DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE AND ACTIVITIES
The overall objective of the Decentralized Governance Programme is to contribute to the
learning process of UNDP, governments and other donors on how the capacities for good
governance of the various actors - public, private and civic - at the appropriate levels -
national, provincial, district, municipal, village or community - can be strengthened in the
areas of policy formulation, resource management, and service delivery/access in order to
achieve poverty eradication and other SHD goals. In order to achieve this, the
Programme aims at creating the opportunity for a convergence of efforts resulting in the
generation of national policy environments supportive of efforts to build capacity in
decentralized governance.
In order to progress effectively towards the overall development objective, the
Programme objectives encompass mutually reinforcing activities at the global and
country levels.
Immediate Objective One: The design of focused and relevant UNDP-supported projects
on the basis of national and local needs and priorities.
Output One: A national capacity assessment undertaken to assist national and sub-
national governments, as well as the UNDP Country Office, have a greater understanding
of their capacities, in terms of human, social, fiscal, administrative, organisational,
political, and cultural capacities, to formulate, implement, promote and monitor
decentralized governance policies, based on the priority needs and wants of all sectors of
society.
Activities - In order to achieve the above output, the following activities will be
organised based on demand and relevance at the country level:
1) A national institution or a team of nationals with expertise in carrying out capacity
assessments based on a process consultation approach selected to work with the UNDP
Country Office. International expertise utilised only when the necessary expertise is
unavailable nationally or to bring an outside perspective.
2) A series of participatory Workshops organized and implemented involving as many
stakeholders as possible in identifying capacity development needs for decentralised
governance.
3) The national capacity assessment team completes the assessment involving as many
stakeholders as possible in the process through the utilisation of a process consultation
methodology. The assessment to focus on analysing capacities for policy formulation,
access and delivery of services, and the management of change and may encompass an
analysis of each of the following:
- political capacity, at all appropriate levels of government, particularly referring to the
capacity for devolving power to sub-national levels of government.
- the human resource capacity at all appropriate levels of government, particularly in
terms of the capacity to undertake the new roles necessary as functions and
responsibilities are modified.
- the fiscal capacity for decentralizing governance, particularly in terms of (1) the
capacity at the central level to support in a sustainable manner the new roles and
responsibilities of sub-national levels of government and (2) the capacity of the
appropriate sub-national level(s) of government to undertake new roles and
responsibilities.
- the administrative and organisational capacity at both the national and sub-national
level, particularly in terms of the capacity to revise, as necessary, existing policies and
practices, institutional and legislative frameworks, and inter-organisational relations.
- the social and cultural capacity, particularly in terms of the capacity to actively
participate in decision-making and to take responsibility for decision-making.
Output Two: A national strategy is developed, or revised as necessary, based on the
outcome of participatory processes designed to involve societal actors at all levels to the
greatest extent feasible.
Activities:
1) A national level Workshop is held with representatives from central government,
appropriate sub-national government bodies, civil society organizations, and the private
sector as well as from concerned international organizations working to support
decentralised governance efforts to promote cooperation and complimentarity in aid
efforts. The Workshop will be professionally facilitated to ensure active participation and
representation of all invitees. The Workshop may focus on:
-reviewing the capacity assessment findings.
-examining past efforts of decentralisation from a national perspective.
-reviewing, if appropriate, existing national policies on decentralisation.
-considering primary goals and objectives of decentralisation efforts, from a national
perspective.
-debating possible means for achieving goals and objectives outlined above.
-considering key strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in undertaking any
(further) decentralisation effort, from a national perspective.
-producing a draft statement outlining effective means and intended outcome of a
proposed decentralisation effort.
2) Workshops held at an appropriate sub-national level, incorporating representatives
from sub-national government bodies as well as representatives from civil society
organizations and the private sector operational at the sub-national level. Also
represented should be international organizations operational at the sub-national level
working to promote decentralised governance efforts to ensure complimentarity and
cooperation. The Workshops will be professionally facilitated to ensure active
participation and representation of all invitees. The Workshops may focus on:
-examining past efforts of decentralisation from a sub-national perspective.
-reviewing, if appropriate, existing policies on decentralisation and their effects at the
sub-national level.
-considering primary goals and objectives of decentralisation efforts, from a sub-national
perspective.
-debating possible means for achieving goals and objectives outlined above.
-considering key strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in undertaking any
(further) decentralisation effort, from a sub-national perspective.
-producing a draft statement outlining effective means and intended outcome of a
proposed decentralisation effort.
Output Three: A National Working Group on Decentralised Governance established,
providing advisory services on issues pertaining to decentralised governance and to
promote the coordination, as well as ensure the appropriateness, of the efforts of
international donors active in the area of decentralised governance.
Activities:
1) As an outcome of the above participatory processes (national and sub-national
Workshops), appropriate persons identified to form a National Working Group on
Decentralised Governance. The participants of the Working Group should represent
central government, appropriate sub-national government, private sector, civil society,
and the donor community.
2) A regular schedule of meetings at appropriate intervals (quarterly, bi-annually)
established to review, discuss, analyse and make recommendations on current
government and donor initiatives in the area of decentralised governance.
3) Detailed reports of the Working Group discussions and recommendations widely
disseminated on a regular basis, acting as an advisory note for concerned government and
donor agencies.
Output Four: A UNDP capacity building project designed based on the specific capacity
building needs and objectives identified through the capacity assessment and the national
and sub-national Workshops. Responsibility for managing the implementation of the
project will be assumed by the relevant UNDP Country Offices.
Activities:
1) Findings of the national and sub-national Workshops analysed and synthesised by a
national team of consultants, with international expertise utilised only as necessary.
2) Discussions, based on a process consulting approach, carried out with appropriate
central government and sub-national government representatives.
3) Discussions, based on a process consulting approach, carried out with concerned
donors to ensure a coordinated and unified donor approach to current and future
assistance to decentralisation support, as well as to explore potential donor collaboration.
4) Based on the above, a draft UNDP project document prepared and reviewed with
government counterparts to ensure compatibility with the national Programme.
Immediate Objective Two: Increased understanding of the impact of UNDP support on
decentralised governance efforts at the country level.
Output One: Where possible, participatory evaluations undertaken at appropriate points
during, or on completion of, the implementation of the country-level projects.
Activities:
1) Identifying a facilitator with expertise in conducting participatory evaluations. The
selected individual(s) should have expertise in local governance processes and a genuine
understanding of the socio-economic, political and cultural environment in which they
are working.
2) Organising a Workshop to allow as many project beneficiaries/ stakeholders as
possible to reflect on what the evaluation is trying to assess, why the evaluation is
needed, and how they can benefit from it.
3) Through the above process, establishing procedures and objectives.
4) Identifying a team of local evaluators, ensuring that the group represents as many
sectors of society as possible.
5) Undertaking activities using a mix of quantitative and qualitative indicators, as
appropriate.
6) Analysing and interpreting the collected data.
7) Preparing, in written, oral or visual form, the findings of the evaluation and presenting
them to the various groups directly concerned with the project.
8) On the basis of the above findings, beneficiaries/stakeholders preparing future
scenarios and action plans to feed into the project process.
Output Two: The outcome of the country-level participatory evaluations synthesised and
disseminated globally.
Activities:
1) Production of guidelines for the completion of country-level participatory project
evaluations, for both mid-term and final evaluations.
2) Synthesis of completed evaluations
3) Dissemination of synthesis of country level evaluations to all concerned UNDP
Country Offices, as well as to other donor agencies, as requested.
4) Dissemination of synthesis of country level evaluations through global seminars and
via the MDGD Homepage.
Immediate Objective Three: Increased global knowledge and awareness of the efficacy of
decentralised governance to support the rapid attainment of sustainable human
development goals.
Output One: A series of formal case studies prepared, analysed, synthesised and
disseminated based on significant issues/assumptions/questions on various aspects of
capacity building for decentralized governance.
Activities:
1) Programme management to establish a set of criteria for nationally-led research
activities focusing on success cases in the area of decentralised governance.
2) Nationally respected academic research institutions identified to design the research
methodology and to conduct all research activities within selected countries.
3) Workshops established at the country level to promote a dialogue and ownership
regarding the proposed research programme and to identify and agree upon the most
appropriate case studies, based on the flexible research criteria, established .
4) Global workshop organised to discuss and finalise research proposals.
5) National institutions undertake research, based on the consensus reached through the
above process. The first drafts of the case studies will be submitted for review at UNDP
New York.
6) Occasional regional and global seminars are organised to formally share the results of
the above process.
7) An appropriate institution or individual selected to prepare synthesis papers based on
the above findings.
8) Synthesis documentation published and widely disseminated, as well as distributed
through the Management Development and Governance Network.
Output Two: A series of analytical papers prepared by international experts in the field of
decentralisation and decentralised governance, in particular, and disseminated widely.
Activities:
1) On the basis of the ongoing research, specific issues selected for further analysis
through a series of concept papers.
2) International experts identified and selected to prepare the concept papers.
3) Concept papers printed as part of a MDGD publication series on Decentralised
Governance.
Immediate Objective Four: Increased global sharing of experiences and access to
information of the efficacy of decentralised governance to support the rapid attainment of
sustainable human development goals.
Output One: Countries have access to a wide range of documentation on decentralised
governance initiatives via the Internet.
Activities:
1) Decentralization Page on the MDGD HomePage established, with hypertext links to
other sites of interest.
2) Currently available documentation (studies, concept papers, workshop reports,
evaluations) and all future documentation made available through the MDGD HomePage.
Output Two: The establishment of a Decentralisation Working Group.
Activities:
1) A global Workshop held end-1997 to bring together UNDP project staff, government
counterparts, members of civil society organizations, and bilateral and multilateral donors
to begin a dialogue of collaboration and information sharing as well as to agree upon the
overall objectives of the Decentralisation Working Group and make recommendations on
the schedule for future meetings (bi-annually, annually). The Working Group will
provide a forum for disseminating the programme outputs (evaluations, research, concept
papers). In particular, this global level coordination will serve to identify opportunities
for expanded cooperation at the country levels between UNDP and like-minded donor
agencies.
2) A Programme Advisory Workshop held annually comprised of the contributing
bilateral donors, e.g., Sida, and UNDP to review the progress of the programme and to do
strategic planning of future activities.
Immediate Objective Five: An effective flexible methodology for support to
strengthening country level efforts to decentralise governance to appropriate levels
available to UNDP and other concerned donors.
Output One: A manual, based on a process consultation approach, is produced to guide
UNDP and other concerned donors, based on the lessons learned from the ongoing
activities of the country level sub-component and the global level sub-component.
Activities:
1) Analyse and synthesise the findings/lessons learned from the country level sub-
component, available from the completed participatory evaluations. The analysis should
include an in-depth look at the participatory evaluations themselves.
2) Analyse and synthesise lessons available from the global level research project,
directly pertaining to country-level project design, implementation and evaluation.
3) Prepare a draft framework for a flexible methodology to guide country office in
designing, implementing and evaluating decentralised governance projects.
4) Organise a global workshop to bring together UNDP project managers and
government counterparts directly involved in UNDP decentralised governance
programmes in countries participating in the Programme. The workshop will provide the
opportunity for practitioners to review and make recommendations regarding the
proposed methodology.
5) Based on the above dialogue, the methodology for supporting decentralised
governance projects will be revised and distributed to Country Offices and other donors,
as requested.
IV. FOUR YEAR BUDGET (1997-2000)
I. Country-level Activities
A.Design of new programmes 11x$70,000=$770,000
B.Monitoring of programmes 16x20,000=$320,000
C.Evaluation of programmes 16x30,000=$480,000
D.Case studies of national experience 10x50,000=$500,000
TOTAL $2,070,000
II. Global-level Activities
A.Synthesis of evaluations=30,000
B.Synthesis of case studies=40,000
C.Guidelines 2x30,000=60,000
D.Concept papers 10x15,000=150,000
E.Publications 5x50,000=250,000
F.Dissemination=50,000
G.Workshops 5x80,000=400,000
TOTAL=980,000
III. Global Technical Support:
A.Coordinator 4x150,000=600,000
B.Programme Officer 4x90,000=360,000
C.Travel 4x40,000=160,000
TOTAL=1,120,000
GRAND TOTAL=$4,170,000
ANNEX ONE
COUNTRIES INVOLVED IN THE PROGRAMME
Support for Innovative Design
Papua New Guinea
Venezuela
Philippines
Tanzania
Thailand
Uganda
Mongolia
Mozambique
Yemen
Zimbabwe
Dominican Republic

Monitoring and Evaluation

Nepal
Venezuela
Bhutan
Moldova
Papua New Guinea
Uganda
Philippines
Mozambique
Thailand
Zimbabwe
Mongolia
Tanzania
Yemen
Jamaica
Dominican Republic

Research Case-studies
Honduras
India
Brasil
Pakistan
South Africa
Philippines
Uganda
Poland
Cote dIvoire
Jordan
ANNEX TWO
Decentralized Governance Programme
Country-Level Activities
The following is a summary of the ongoing activities of UNDP activities in the area of
decentralisation in the following countries:
Nepal
Papua New Guinea
Thailand
Mongolia
Pakistan
Moldova
Bhutan
Jordan
Tanzania
Uganda
Yemen
Dominican Republic
NEPAL
UNDP has been supporting the process of decentralisation in Nepal since 1982, initially
supporting the formulation of the Decentralization Act. In 1989, a UNDP project entitled
"Strengthening Decentralized Planning" assisted the government in the preparing the
currently existing local governance laws and national policies related to decentralization,
rural development, and NGOs, including the District Development Act, Village
Development Act, and the Municipal Development Act.
The "Supporting Decentralization in Nepal" Project, funded by UNDP and executed by
His Majesty's Government of Nepal through its National Planning Commission
Secretariat, was approved in January 1993 and is now completed. The Project was
formulated to address three key issues believed to be fundamental in preventing the
majority of rural inhabitants from benefiting from development activities: lack of
information to guide local decision-makers; continued control of development resources
by central bureaucracies; and a continuing lack of accountability to the people. To
address these above issues the project helped to enhance the capabilities of the National
Planning Commission (NPC) to formulate, promote, and monitor the implementation of
liberalising policies in support of rural development and, secondly, to enhance the
capabilities of local elected bodies in six districts to effectively plan and manage local
development activities through co-operation with government line agencies,
nongovernment organisations and user groups (the participatory development approach).
As a direct follow-on to the above project, the "Participatory District Development
Project" (PDDP) was approved in 1995 and is still ongoing, building on the achievements
of the 1992 project and recognising that further efforts are needed to consolidate, improve
and expand activities and formalise the participatory development concept in practical
ways. Included in the project are the original six districts and a further 14 districts.
Primary emphasis in PDDP is given to promoting decentralised, participatory
development by mobilising civic society institutions (including the private sector, women
organisations, NGOs and community organisations), local authorities with support from
the National Planning Commission and the Ministry of Local Development. The
Programme is supporting VDCs and DDCs in development programming, monitoring
and implementation at the community or settlement level to enable them to identify and
utilise all resources available at the local level.
The stated objective of this programme is to further strengthen and support efforts of the
government to enhance better local governance, better management of sustainable local
development and to make an impact on poverty alleviation. The programme will
supplement the efforts of the PDDP although it will remain under a separate programme
management so as not to overburden the management of PDDP, although it will use the
same programme ideas and will form together one umbrella programme. Together with
the PDDP, the programme will provide additional support to the government in realising
a national system of decentralised management of local development and poverty
alleviation.
A second programme, the "Local Governance Programme" aims to launch up to a further
20 district development programme in the eastern and central regions of Nepal by
enhancing the capabilities of the DDCs, VDC and community organisation. As part of the
participatory development package being consolidated by the PDDP, support will be
provided to DDCs to develop an information system; (2) to practice and institutionalise a
participatory approach to planning for district development, (3) to practice and
institutionalise a participatory approach to monitoring the progress of development
initiatives and measuring the impact made on local development based on information
derived from the beneficiaries themselves; (4) incorporation of an accounting system in
the DDCs to monitor the use of development funds; and (5) use of alternative, innovative,
to-be-developed ideas to improve implementation management methods.
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
The Government of Papua New Guinea has demonstrated a strong commitment to
overcoming some of the problems arising from an over-centralisation of planning and
management. As major new government policy vests substantial economic and
administrative responsibilities with provincial and district administrations. In 1995, two
important decisions were made by the Government. First, a National Planning Office was
established, separating planning from finance and, second, an Organic Law was enacted
which delegated substantial economic and financial authority to the provincial and the
district level. Each of these sub-national entities have now been vested with substantial
resource mobilisation and spending autonomy and are now responsible for all rural
development activities, public health, education, and infrastructure.
The government requested that UNDP be the lead donor in reforming the national
planning system as well as expanding an ongoing project to strengthen the necessary
decentralised financial management. In this regard, UNDP, in co-operation with
government counterparts, is supporting a project entitled "Strengthening National and
Decentralised Planning Systems". The overall development objective of the project is "to
create the capacity in Papua New Guinea for effective decentralised planning and for
developing national strategies and plans that guide development within well-articulated
national policies for sustainable development".
The first phase of the project is addressing the immediate problems faced at the central
level and assisting in building the basic structures and procedures of the new unified
planning system. Such a unified structure must emphasise devolution of substantial
planning functions to the sub-national levels, linkages to line ministry planning, and
include organisations outside of government in the overall planning process. Assistance
will include strengthening the capacity of planning institutions and develop the processes
needed to direct, support, monitor and evaluate the implementation of national plans and
policies. In addition, assistance will be given to three pilot provinces to address the
problems at the sub-national level and test methods that will subsequently be applied
throughout the country. This assistance will include the establishment of organisational
structures and capacities for participatory planning at district and local levels that involve
local stakeholders and local administrations, that are responsive to locally articulated
needs, and that fit within national policies and strategies. The lessons learned from Phase
I will be incorporated into a multi-year Phase II project which will consolidate and refine
the achievements at the central level and extend assistance to all provinces. Phase II will
be designed during the second year of Phase I to ensure continuity of project activities.
THAILAND
In December 1994, the Government of Thailand promulgated the Tambon Council Act.
This was a major initiative to decentralise development planning, resource generation and
management, and other decision-making to the Tambon level. The government has
requested the United Nations to assist with the task of building the capacity of the TAOs.
UNDP is supporting a one year pilot training project for the TAOs. The objective of the
proposed project for strengthening the capacity of TAOs is to test a training curriculum
and methodology for learning participatory development skills. The existing TAO
administrative training programme provides information about laws, procedures,
regulations, financial management, accounting, personnel management, etc, all which can
be effectively conveyed to TAO chairmen and staff through lectures, manuals and forms.
In contrast, training in participatory development (roles, responsibilities and relationships
to development partners) requires the use of different training techniques and
methodologies. This training to develop the participatory capacity of TAOs would
complement the TAO administrative training being conducted by the Department of
Local Administration (DOLA).
The primary focus of the training is to advance active participation skills to all
participants. The training aims also to encourage expression of views; the understanding
of the partnership relationship among the TAO, villagers and government; and the
clarification of individual and group responsibilities. The pilot training will be conducted
in several Tambons that have different conditions and situations. The long-term goal is to
develop a training programme for building the capacity of TAOs through participatory
development techniques that can be integrated with ongoing administrative training, as
part of an expanded national training programme for TAOs. An evaluation at the end of
the pilot phase will determine if training should be modified based on lessons learned. In
the longer-term, it is envisioned that DOLA will either conduct the training or provide
oversight management or ensure that it is implemented as planned.
MONGOLIA
Since 1990 Mongolia has moved swiftly from a highly centralized, planned economy and
polity, featured by restricted political activity and citizen participation to an open,
democratic and market oriented society. One of the key instruments employed for this
transformation is the national Management Development Programme (MDP), which
UNDP has been supporting since 1992.
Mongolia established the MDP as a global, comprehensive framework for bringing under
its scope all efforts related to the development of a national capacity for managing
change, and for the introduction of a modern management culture into the restructured
private and public sectors of the preceding social organization. As an integrated national
programme framework, the MDP was designed to ensure that all interventions were
planned and executed in an integrated and coordinated manner by national actors, and
that donor support became supportive of national policies and priorities for management
development. Process consultancy was a key participatory methodology used. MDP
consisted of six components - including one on decentralization and local administration
strengthening. This focused on strengthening the capacity of the local democratic
institutions and enabling them to effectively fulfil their functions of managing the
production and delivery of the public goods and services.
The present Mongolian MDP is now moving to its next phase which is a broader
Governance Development Programme (GDP). Its coverage will include the legislative
system (the parliament, regional and local legislative bodies, electoral bodies) and the
judiciary (including administrative law and regional needs). The Programme will
continue to provide support to decentralization and strengthening local administrations.
The primary focus will be on implementing a participatory approach to local
development management in six aimags as a pilot test. This pilot phase will include
designing a planning and management system and implementing a guided Bagh
Development Facility.
PAKISTAN
While the economy of Pakistan has grown strongly over the past 30 years, human
development has persistently lagged behind economic performance. The search for
solutions to the breakdown of basic social services culminated in the Social Action Plan
(SAP), formulated by the Government of Pakistan in an effort to promote the delivery of
basic social services in the country. The ultimate objective of the SAP is to expand
existing access to improved social services and a necessary step in improving the quality
and quantity of social services is greater participation by the people in their own
development efforts and concurrently a greater devolution of power to local institutions.
The Institutional Development Programme (IDP) Preparatory Project which was
proposed by UNDP to assist in overcoming the institutional bottlenecks that seriously
undermine the delivery of social services in Pakistan. The Preparatory Phase of the IDP is
currently being implemented. The project is focusing on (1) addressing the institutional
constraints in the delivery of social services under the SAP in Punjab and also the NWFP;
(2) assisting Punjab in developing an MIS for planning and monitoring, that will add
transparency to the delivery of social services in Punjab; (3) developing a co-ordination
mechanism for institutional development initiatives; and (4) conducting a study on the
impact of the existing salary scales and the system of incentives and rewards on the
productivity of the civil service.
BHUTAN
The national development goals of Bhutan are clear and they are consistent with the
UNDP mandate to support sustainable human development. The Royal Government of
Bhutan (RGOB) has chosen a deliberate and measured path towards sustainable human
development to ensure that it takes place without disruption to the unique culture and
traditions of the nation and its people. Governance at the sub-national level has changed
dramatically since 1981 when His Majesty the King announced a policy of decentralising
a wide range of government functions and promoting people's participation in the
development process. Increased responsibilities for administration and planning have
been delegated to the district level and additional staff have been assigned to the districts
to carry out these responsibilities. District Development Committees (DYTs) have been
established in each of the 20 districts (Dzongkhags) and block development committees
(GYTs) have been organised in each of the 196 blocks (Gewogs).
UNDP is supporting as project aimed at strengthening the capacity of the public sector to
plan, manage and co-ordinate development activities. This will be accomplished by
supporting improvement of a vertically integrated system of decentralised planning and
project management. The overall objective will be achieved by implementing four
immediate objectives strengthening the support and co-ordination of a decentralised and
standardised national development planning and project monitoring system;
strengthening the capacity for decentralised co-ordinated planning and improved project
management at the dzongkhag level; strengthening the administration of geowog and
improve their capacity for participatory planning and project management; and advancing
the process of decentralisation through increased devolution of authority for decision-
making and financial management of resources to execute development projects.
MOLDOVA
Since its declaration of independence on August 27, 1991, Moldova has become
encompassed in a comprehensive process of nation-building with the aim of creating a
modern, independent state based on the principles of democracy, the rule of law,
pluralism and a market economy. As a consequence, Moldova is simultaneously
undergoing three fundamental and difficult transformations: (i) from a centrally planned
economy to a market economy, (ii) from an integrated part of a larger country to an
independent state, and (iii) from an authoritarian rule to a democracy. The new
constitution was adopted in July 1994 and lays the foundation for a modern democracy
and a genuinely democratic multi-party Parliamentary election was held in February
1994. Local elections held in April 1995 resulted in the establishment of democratically
elected authorities at the commune, town and district level.
The system of local government is based on the principle of local autonomy in the
management of local affairs and decentralisation of public services. Local governments
are have been given the authority to raise their own taxes within specified limits and to
set and manage their own budgets. Local governments have therefore been required to
play a central role in the transition period.
The current UNDP Programme in Moldova, "Democracy and Governance", contains a
sub-project entitled "Strengthening Local Governance". The project addresses three chief
needs for international assistance: providing local authorities with an understanding of
the ways in which they can encourage diversification and the growth of new
manufacturing and service enterprises on their territory; training in and exposure to the
best practices of financial and information management; and institutionalising continued
human resource development through internal training.
JORDAN
The decentralisation process in Jordan is not starting from scratch and there have been
several attempts to pursue deconcentration, albeit without a clearly articulated. Part of the
reason for such fragmented efforts may have been constitutional: the Supreme Court has
ruled that deconcentration or shifting powers from the centre to the regions cannot be
generalised and that the Constitution requires that it be done on a case-by-case basis.
The last municipal elections were held in Jordan in 1995. Whilst from a legal standpoint a
municipality is a corporate body able to act in its own name, some important decisions
require the prior approval of the Governor or the Minister of Municipal and Rural
Affairs, depending on the case. In practice, there are two major impediments severely
restricting independent action by municipalities, namely, the lack of any significant
autonomous resources and the scarcity of qualified personnel. Village Councils, on the
other hand, are appointed by the Governor after consultation with community leaders.
Village Council decisions are not final unless they are approved by the Governor.
At the request of the Government of Jordan, the UNDP Office in Amman, jointly with
the Management Development and Governance Division (MDGD), has designed a
project which aims to improve administrative efficiency and improve the equitable access
to services. The project will be carried out in two governorates for a period of 18 months
- with the aim of scaling it up to cover all municipalities in Jordan and ultimately some of
the larger village councils.
TANZANIA
Tanzania's present system of local government is the result of an attempt to reinstitute the
structure which existed prior to 1972. The Decentralization of Government Act of 1972
abolished the country's local government system, whose functions and responsibilities
were transferred to planning and implementation committees at the local level. Changes
adopted in 1972 displaced a system of local government which had performed a range of
worthwhile services in urban and rural areas. The restructured system was in fact a
deconcentration of central government, strengthening its field administrative system in
each of the 20 regions and 80 districts. The importance of development in local
governments has been identified by the current government as being of supreme
importance in Tanzania's economic growth. For Tanzania to attain its objectives of
accelerated growth, its local governments must be able to provide higher levels of
infrastructure and services, must be managed more efficiently, and must offer a more
supportive environment for private investments.
Given the economic context, the major concern in Local Government reform is the need
to improve the participation and contribution of local governments to national economic
growth and development. The existing Local Government structure and operations will
need strengthening, if the local level is going to be expected to play its part in Tanzania's
development. Some of the major challenges which the country faces are: the need (i) to
increase the rate of growth and development so as to provide jobs to millions of the
growing population; (ii) for massive socio-economic development so as to make
urbanization an instrument of national development and, particularly, human
development and, (iii) for building a democratic political culture where diversity is
encouraged and where the poor are not excluded. UNDP is currently designing a project
which aims to provide support in these areas.
INDIA
The Eight Year Five Year Plan of India is based on two central principles. The first is that
in many areas of activity, development can be best assured by freeing efforts from
unnecessary controls and regulations and withdrawing State intervention. The second
principle is that the success of development programmes can be multiplied if the people
are involved in their implementation by building and strengthening people's institutions
and making people active participants. The New Economic Policy (August 1991)
embodies the first principle and the Panchayati Raj Act (May 1993) embodies the second.
UNDP will provide support to both these principles through a programme entitled
"Public Sector Reform and Decentralisation" - one of the 11 Programmes making up the
UNDP Country Co-operation Framework. Initial support is currently being provided
through a Preparatory Assistance Project, to examine the proposed scope of the
programme and subsequently formulate the Programme Document.
One of the principle components of the Programme will be support to decentralised
governance systems, in support of the Panchayati Raj Act. The following will be some of
the key activities of the support: (1) strengthening local governance and administration by
devising/reviewing procedures and ensuring that elected representatives officials at the
district/sub-district levels have the appropriate knowledge, skills and interpersonal
attitudes to strengthen the delivery of services in the 29 areas demarcated for rural
panchayati bodies and similarly for the 18 areas demarcated for urban bodies; (2)
supporting the development of comprehensive training package which would be made
available to each elected woman and those aspiring to play a more direct role in the
functioning of the Panchayatis in the future; (3) help to create mass awareness among the
people regarding the unique opportunities provided by the Panchayati Raj Act in enabling
them to have a say in managing local affairs; and (4) support systematic institutional
reforms which extend from the government departments of education, health, family
planning, etc, down to the lowest level.
The programme will establish pilot schemes to spearhead procedural simplification,
organisational streamlining, and support of local governance for decentralised planning
and delivery of services. The experiences of these pilot schemes will be widely
disseminated through the printed word, audio/audiovisual media and periodically
countrywide through the State Administrative training institutions and seminars. The
purpose would be to learn from the experiences and replicate them elsewhere if possible.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
The general objective of this project is to collaborate with the Dominican Government in
the formulation and implementation of a Governance, Decentralisation and Municipal
Development national policy and programme which allows the improvement of public
administration's efficiency and the promotion of the municipal governments'
development, by providing them with the institutional capabilities for procuring local
development and achieving a deeper civil participation in public management.
Agreements between national, provincial and municipal levels, and among them the civil
society, will be promoted in order to achieve poverty eradication and obtaining high
human development indicators at the local level.
Specifically, this project seeks to: support the definition and the adoption of a National
Agenda and a public policy regarding Governance, State Decentralization, and Local
Development which will be the result of the consensus among the different sectors; to
contribute to the development of public and private institutionality by giving support to
the different levels of the public management (national, regional, provincial and local)
and to the organised groups of the civil society (private sector, universities, civil
associations, NGOs) through the analysis of the issues which modernise the institutional
aspects (budget, management, information, among others); and finally, to assist in the
design of technical instruments which support the search for consensus and the
implantation of the adopted policies.
YEMEN
Yemen has undergone a process of rapid political, economic and social change brought
about by unification and economic crises. In response to these changes, the Government
recognises the need to improve the functioning of its government machinery and the
utilisation of its scarce operating and developmental resources and is therefore
undergoing administrative reforms in all sectors and at all organisational levels. In
Yemen, existing state centralism is a result of a national political struggle to build a
modern national and central state and to integrate the country's regions and its
commodities. However, the authority of the state is challenged by persistent tribal and
regional resistances and by affirmations of local autonomy.
To facilitate and accelerate the development of the economy, to promote democracy, and
to enhance economic and social integration, the State has recognised that it needs to aim
at a system of decentralised democratic governance. The State also needs to adopt public
investment and development schemes which are directed at stagnant or depressed towns
and regions and the poorer and marginal rural communities. This is particularly necessary
as the introduction of fiscal and financial stabilisation measures, notably the removal of
subsidies and the increase in the price of commodities and concomitant inflation will
affect the poorer and more marginal rural and urban populations.
The government is currently committed to pursuing a decentralisation programme.
UNDP is currently working with the government to design a comprehensive national
programme of support to governance, encompassing the executive, legislative, and
judicial branches and managed through the Prime Minister's Office. A key aspect of this
support will be support to the decentralization process.
UGANDA
The overall objective of the entire UNDP Country Co-operation Framework (1997-2000)
in Uganda is the promotion of democratic governance for poverty eradication. This will
be pursued through two areas: (1) decentralized governance, with a particular emphasis
on capacity development for participatory formulation and management of district and
local-level policies and programmes related to poverty eradication; and (2) private sector
development, with particular emphasis on the development of small-scale and micro-
enterprises, as a mean o fighting poverty. Foundations for these thematic areas have
already been laid down through support to the Decentralization Secretariat on the
development of generic planning manuals and guidelines for district and local-level
governments; a methodology for assessing district endowment profiles; a monitoring and
evaluation system for development programmes at the district and local levels; and
support for private sector development through assistance in the formulation of a national
strategy6 and programme of action.
ANNEX THREE
THE GLOBAL RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
OF THE DECENTRALIZED GOVERNANCE PROGRAMME
A. CONTEXT
Good Governance and Sustainable Human Development
Radical changes are taking place in the global political environment which are almost
unprecedented in history. Never before have we witnessed a larger number of
democratically elected governments all over the globe, both at the national and local
levels. Democratic governments and market-based economic systems have replaced
authoritarian, statist regimes in a significant number of countries during the past 10 years.
At the same time, widening disparities in economic performance are creating ever more
polarized societies. The assets of the world's 358 billionaires exceed the combined annual
incomes of countries with 45% of the world's people, i.e., nearly 3 billion people living in
difficult conditions. The poorest 20% of the world's people saw their share of the global
income decline from 2.3% to 1.45% in the past 30 years; meanwhile, the share of the
richest 20% rose from 70% to 85%, thus doubling the gap between the richest and the
poorest.
Despite rapid and widespread economic growth during the past decades, there is broad-
based evidence that the benefits of growth have not been equitably distributed. It has
become increasingly clear in recent years that the ability of nations to achieve their
human development goals hinges largely on the quality of governance. UNDP, the central
coordinating body of the operational activities of the UN system, has been at the forefront
of the growing international consensus that good governance and sustainable human
development are indivisible and that developing the capacity for good governance can be
- and should be - the primary means to eliminate poverty. The challenge for all societies
therefore is to create a system of governance that promotes, supports and sustains human
development to realize the highest potential of everyone and the well-being of all, thus
eliminating poverty and all other forms of exclusion.
Governance can be seen as the exercise of authority to manage all aspects of a country's
affairs at all levels in all spheres (public, private, civic). While the economic, political
and administrative aspects of governance are often the focus, the summits and
international conferences sponsored by the UN over the last decade reflect a growing
recognition of the need for a more holistic concept. Governance comprises the
mechanisms, processes and institutions through which collective decisions are made and
implemented, citizens, groups and communities pursue their visions, articulate their
interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences.
There is no single definition of good governance, but the same summits and conferences
have put growing emphasis on a number of characteristics that reflect values and
principles, norms and practices that derive from putting people first and at the centre.
The core characteristics of governance as defined by UNDP (see box 1) are clearly
interrelated, mutually reinforcing and cannot stand alone. For example, accessible
information means more transparency, broader participation and more effective decision-
making. Broad participation contributes both to the exchange of information needed for
effective decision-making and for the legitimacy of those decisions. Legitimacy, in turn,
means effective implementation and encourages further participation. And responsive
institutions must be transparent and function according to the rule of law if they are to be
equitable.
What is not so clear is what the order of casual relations is among these characteristics. It
could be hypothesized that those related to the broad participation of people on an
ongoing basis in the business of governance are instrumental in bringing about other key
elements. Thus participation, partnership, empowering and enabling and community
focus could be seen as fostering transparency, responsiveness, consensus orientation,
accountability and equity.
These core characteristics represent an ideal: no actual system of governance can be
expected to reflect all these characteristics. Even so, UNDP believes that societies should,
through broad-based consensus-building, develop their own visions of good governance
and aim to define which of the core features are most important to them and what the best
balance between the state, the market and society is for them.
BOX 1
UNDP defines the following as core characteristics of good governance:

Participation: All men and women have a voice in decision-making, either directly or
through legitimate intermediate institutions that represent their interests. Such broad
participation is built on freedom of association and speech, as well as capacities to
participate constructively.

Rule of law: Legal frameworks are fair and enforced impartially, particularly the laws on
human rights; public security and safety are at a high level.

Transparency: Transparency is built on the free flow of information. Processes,

institutions and information are directly accessible to those concerned with them, and
enough information is provided to understand and monitor them.

Responsiveness: Institutions and processes serve all stakeholders.

Consensus orientation: Differing interests are mediated to reach a broad consensus on

what is the common good, in the best interests of the group, organization, community or
country and, where possible, on policies and procedures.

Equity: All men and women have opportunities to improve or maintain their well-being
and the vulnerable and excluded are targeted to provide security of well-being to all.

Effectiveness and efficiency: Processes and institutions produce results that meet needs
while making the best use of resources.

Accountability: Decision-makers in government, the private sector and civil society

organizations are accountable to the public and specific constituencies,, as well as to
institutional stakeholders.

Strategic Vision: Leaders and the public share a broad and long-term perspective on the
good society, good governance and human development, along with a sense of what is
needed for such development.

Legitimacy: Authority is legitimate in terms of the established legal and institutional

framework and specific decisions in terms of the accepted institutional criteria, processes
and procedures.

Resource Prudence: Resources are managed and used with a view to optimize the well-
being of people over several generations, ideally in perpetuity, without mortgaging the
future.

Ecological Soundness: The environment is protected and regenerated to ensure

sustainable self-reliance.
Empowering and Enabling: All actors in society are empowered to pursue legitimate
goals and enabling environments are created to optimize their success and the realization
of the well-being of all.

Partnership: Governance is seen as a whole-system responsibility that cannot be

discharged effectively by government alone, but involves institutionalized mechanisms
and processes for working in partnerships of public, private and civic actors in
conducting the business of governance at all levels.

Spatially grounded in communities: The multi-level nature of human systems with the
principles of self-determination and self-organizing embodied at each level is recognized
as the basis for governance that puts people at the centre and empowers them to be self-
reliant, self-organizing and self-managing, building on the autonomy of local
communities.
The Relationship between Good Governance and Decentralization
Decentralization, or decentralizing governance, refers to the restructuring or
reorganization of authority so that there is a system of co-responsibility between
institutions of governance at the central, regional and local levels according to the
principle of subsidiarity, thus increasing the overall quality and effectiveness of the
system of governance, while increasing the authority and capacities of sub-national
levels.
Decentralization thus relates to the role of, and the relationship between, central and sub-
national institutions, whether they are public, private or civic. Although experience
suggests that decentralization in itself is no guarantee of good governance, many believe
that decentralizing governance, from the centre to regions, districts, local
governments/authorities and local communities is more conducive to good governance. If
this is the case, decentralizing governance could be an effective means of achieving
critical objectives of the sustainable human development vision - improving access to
services, credit, employment, health, and education, eradicating poverty, achieving
greater socio-economic equity, especially between men and women and safeguarding the
environment. Decentralization could also be expected to contribute to key elements of
good governance, such as increasing people's opportunities for participation in economic,
social and political decisions; assisting in developing people's capacities; and enhancing
government responsiveness, transparency and accountability.
The present level of interest in decentralization is pervasive in that out of 75 developing
and transitional countries with populations greater than 5 million, all but 12 claim to have
embarked on some form of transfer of political power to local units of government.
During the past three decades, governments in developing countries have attempted to
implement a variety of administrative decentralization policies. These have ranged from
those that are more comprehensive in scope and designed to transfer development
planning and management responsibilities to local units of government. Others have been
more narrowly conceived, deconcentrating or reallocating administrative tasks among the
units of central government. But on an unprecedented scale, central governments are
allocating more substantial portions of the national budget to local authorities, more
administrative authority, more economic responsibility and more political autonomy.
At the same time, it is recognized that improved governance will require not only
strengthened central and local governments but also the involvement of other actors from
civil society organizations and the private sector in partnerships with government at all
levels. This is a key message of UNDP's Policy on Governance: that building capacity in
all three domains of governance - state, civil society and the private sector - is critical for
sustaining human development. Civil society organizations, for example, are increasingly
seen as effective mechanisms for targeting disadvantaged groups and the private sector is
now more often seen as a natural partner for governments seeking innovative ways and
means of improving service quality and delivery. The role of the government becomes
that of a facilitator, a catalytic force for enabling the innovative sharing of responsibilities
and creating enabling environments for the effectiveness of people and partners in
pursuing their legitimate objectives. Within this context, civil society and the private
sector become key partners of national and sub-national governments in the transition
towards improved forms of local governance through decentralization.
The effects of decentralization on good governance depend to a large extent on the form
and nature of the decentralization involved in the particular country. The type of unit with
which authority is shared or to which it is transferred in the decentralization process is
critical for understanding the implications for good governance. The following table
attempts to provide some framework for consideration of the nature of and relations
between different types of transfers that are often included in discussions of
decentralization:
Types of Arrangements often included in Discussions on Decentralization
There are a variety of different arrangements which are often included in discussions on
decentralization (see box 2). The first type is autonomous lower-level units, such as
provincial, district, local authorities that are legally constituted as separate governance
bodies. The transfer of authorities to such units is often referred to as devolution and is
the most common understanding of genuine decentralization. Through devolution, the
central government relinquishes certain functions or creates new units of government that
are outside its direct control. Federal states are by definition devolved, though the extent
of legally defined and shared powers devolved by the federal government to lower level
governmental units can be quite limited. Devolution in its purest form has certain
fundamental characteristics. First, local units of government are autonomous,
independent and clearly perceived as separate levels of government over which central
authorities exercise little or no direct control. Second, the local governments have clear
and legally recognized geographical boundaries within which they exercise authority and
perform public functions. Third, local governments have corporate status and the power
to secure resources to perform their functions. Fourth, devolution implies the need to
"develop local governments as institutions" in the sense that they are perceived by local
citizens as organizations providing services that satisfy their needs and as governmental
units over which they have some influence. Finally, devolution is an arrangements in
which there are reciprocal, mutually beneficial, and coordinate relationships between
central and local governments; that is, the local government has the ability to interact
reciprocally with other units in the system of government of which it is a part.
The second type is semi-autonomous lower-level units, such as urban or regional
development corporations to whom aspects of governance are delegated through
legislation or under contract. This is a fairly common variant of decentralization that
stops short of devolution, but involves significant delegation of authorities and
responsibilities. Delegation refers to the transfer of government decision-making and
administrative authority and/or responsibility for carefully spelled out tasks to institutions
and organizations that are either under government indirect control or semi-independent.
Most typically, delegation is by the central government to semi-autonomous
organizations not wholly controlled by the government but legally accountable to it, such
as state owned enterprises and urban or regional development corporations.
The third type is sub-ordinate lower-level units or sub-units, such as regional, district or
local offices of the central administration or service delivery organization. These units
usually have delegated authority in policy, financial and administrative matters without
any significant independent local inputs. This type of arrangement is most often referred
to as deconcentration and involves very limited transfer of authority. It involves the
transfer of authority for specific decision-making, financial and management functions by
administrative means to different levels under the same jurisdictional authority of the
central government. This is the least extensive type of administrative decentralization and
the most common found in developing countries. General deconcentration occurs to the
extent that a variety of tasks are deconcentrated to a horizontally integrated
administrative system. Functional deconcentration occurs to the extent that specific tasks
are deconcentrated to the field units of a particular ministry or agency.
The fourth type refers to units external to the formal governmental structure (non-
governmental or private), such as NGOs, corporations and companies. While sometimes
included in discussions of decentralization, the nature of these transfers is not level-
specific, i.e., transfers could occur at the same level, which is often the central one. These
phenomena are best not treated as forms of decentralization, but of divestment.
Divestment occurs when planning and administrative responsibility or other public
functions are transferred from government to voluntary, private, or non-government
institutions. In some cases, governments may transfer to "parallel organizations" such as
national industrial and trade associations, professional or ecclesiastical organizations,
political parties, or cooperatives - the right to license, regulate or supervise their members
in performing functions that were previously controlled by the government. In other
cases, governments may shift responsibility for producing goods or supplying services to
private organizations, a process often called privatization. For example, increasingly,
central and local-level governmental units are transferring tasks, such as refuse collection
and road repair, by contract to private firms. Governments can also transfer
responsibilities to or share them with organizations that represent various interests in
society and that are initiated and operated by members of those organizations: farmer's
cooperatives, credit associations, mutual aid societies, village development organizations,
trade unions, or women's and youth clubs. Such arrangements may constitute genuine
partnerships, but usually do not.
Box 2
Type of Unit to which Aspect of Governance transferred or shared Generi
Authority is transferred

Political (policy or Economic or Administration and

decision making) financial resource service delivery
management

Autonomous lower- level

units Devolution Devolution Devolution Devolu

Semi-autonomous lower-
level units Delegation Delegation Delegation Delega

Sub-ordinate lower- level

units or sub-units Directing Allocating Tasking Deconc

External (non-
governmental) units at any Deregulation Privatization Contracting Divestm
level
Much has still to be learned with regard to the impact each of these different
arrangements subsumed under decentralization has on sustainable human development,
especially poverty eradication and equity building. For example, even where central
control of resources and decision-making responsibility is devolved to local bodies, there
are many cases where local officials have exercised this control and authority to their
own benefit instead of perceiving their new positions as managers of local resources on
behalf of all citizens. Or, in many cases, central governments have kept the most buoyant
sources of revenue for themselves and local governments have lacked adequate capacity
for tax collection and other forms of revenue generation. Similarly, despite varying levels
of decentralization, the accountability of local officials has often remained upwards,
toward the centre, rather than outwards to citizens. Local organizations therefore continue
to act as bureaucratic instruments of the centre rather than as generators of alternative
values, preferences and aspirations. Local leaders are seen by central government
officials as merely communicators and solicitors for support for national policies rather
than channels through which the conditions and needs of the local communities can be
articulated to central and sub-national planners and policy makers or as mobilizers of
local resources for promoting development from the "bottom-up". Finally, where
devolution of central government activities has been attempted, additional problems can
arise such as reinforcing provincial inequalities and disparities in levels of development.
The factors that determine these undesirable outcomes are little understood, but the
absence of key elements of good governance in all these situations is evident: lack of
participation, responsiveness, partnership, community involvement, transparency and so
on.
A Holistic People-centred Approach and Decentralization
The UN-sponsored summits and international conferences of the last decade have
converged on a holistic people-centred approach as central to the achievement of
sustainable human development and other elements of the global development agenda.
This approach has been defined as involving the following strategies within a clearly
defined governance framework:
*Empower all actors through participation and partnership
*Create enabling environments for all
*Let local community drive their own development
*Target the excluded to achieve the well-being of all
These process strategies complement substantive SHD strategies and are critical for their
effectiveness. These are development management strategies and, as such, key elements
of governance that have been found to be effective in realizing SHD. In fact these
strategies are central elements of good governance or "people-centred governance".
Of critical importance in the development or strengthening of key development
management capacities are the capacities for constructive, open participatory decision-
making, planning and action, for partnership collaboration process skills and for
community self-reliance in all aspects of development management.
With regard to participatory development, it is important to realize that there is an
emerging new understanding and practice of participation as an ongoing, organic,
inclusive process that needs to be structured through skillful facilitation to ensure an open
and fair process for all involved, men and women. These skills can be learned through
focused experience and coaching and capacity development in them is critical for
effectiveness, especially at the local level. These processes of participatory development
require new approaches to local governance that create new spaces for all actors and
partners and prevent or inhibit the tendency of traditional and self-appointed elites to
dominate local processes.
Similarly, institutional capacities for partnership need to be developed by fostering trust,
a shared vision, a collaborative spirit and the evolution of a clear framework of
institutional provisions for sustained efforts to work together and share responsibilities,
e.g., the establishment of special partnership mechanisms and facilities, such as those
proposed by UNDP in the context of the World Summit for Social Development.
The local community focus provides the scale and the context within which the micro
environments that determine the well-being of people can be addressed most effectively
by themselves. This also requires capacity development in participatory methods for
visioning, planning, management, implementation and monitoring and evaluation of their
own development. There is always potential conflict between micro-, meso- and macro-
policies and strategies, but the holistic approach minimizes these by providing
frameworks that guide action down the scale of levels and facilitate the folding in of
lower level priorities into higher level ones. Community empowerment within a
framework of multi-level articulation of priorities and strategies is thus a fundamental
building block of decentralized governance.
The holistic nature of the people-centred approach is based on recognition of the fact that
people do not think of their well-being or development in terms of sectors, levels or
spheres, or domains, but deal with the whole of their reality. The holistic approach is thus
made operational by taking a whole systems perspective, including levels, spheres,
sectors and functions and seeing the community level as the entry point at which holistic
definitions of development goals are most likely to emerge from the people themselves
and where it is most practical to support them. It involves seeing multi-level frameworks
and continuous, synergistic processes of interaction and iteration of cycles as critical for
achieving wholeness in a decentralized system and for sustaining its development.
B. UNDP'S DECENTRALIZED GOVERNANCE PROGRAMME (DGP)
General Description
The Decentralized Governance Programme addresses the fact that, despite the
considerable advances in human development and significant economic growth in many
countries, there has not been commensurate progress in the development of good
governance. As a result, certain policies and practices of many governments continue to
impede the opportunities available to their citizens to mobilize the necessary resources
(human, financial, physical) for achieving sustainable human development. UNDP sees
good governance, or people-centred governance, as an integral element of human
development that needs to be developed as much as any other element of SHD. In fact, no
other aspect of human development is so profoundly shaped by institutional culture,
patterns of traditional authority and domination, such as patriarchy and systems of
communal governance. The development of institutional patterns of governance that
display the characteristics of good governance is not only necessary for the achievement
of the rest of SHD, but the systemic source of sustainable achievement of higher levels of
human development and well-being.
To respond to this challenge of fostering the development of good governance, the
Programme aims to contribute to the learning process of UNDP, governments and other
donors on how the capacities for good governance of the various actors - public, private
and civic - at the appropriate levels - national, provincial, district, municipal, village or
community - can be strengthened in the areas of policy formulation, resource
management, and service delivery/access in order to achieve poverty eradication and
other SHD goals.
The Programme builds on the accumulated experience of UNDP in the design and
implementation of decentralized governance capacity building projects over the past
several years. Programme activities are divided into two sub-programmes, one at the
global-level and one at the country-level:
Global level activities have been designed to ensure that the lessons and experiences of
past and ongoing country-level projects, supported by governments, UNDP and other
international agencies, are analyzed, documented and disseminated so that ongoing
efforts guide the design and implementation of future efforts to promote national policy
environments supportive of good decentralized governance. The global level component
will therefore focus on:
Contributing to the knowledge and learning process of UNDP and other donors regarding
key issues of decentralized governance (policy formulation, resource management, and
service delivery/access) through conducting research and commissioning papers. This
research project will complement and draw on the various ongoing efforts of other
international agencies and institutions in this area.
Sharing information among UNDP global, regional and country level operations, as well
as member governments and other concerned donors through electronic networking,
global and regional meetings, and publications. The first of these publications will be a
comprehensive annotated bibliography of decentralization documentation, including
books, journal contributions, research findings, workshop reports and country level
studies.
Encouraging the agencies of the UN system and associated donors to move toward a co-
ordinated approach to supporting decentralized governance by organising and acting as
the Secretariat for a Decentralized Governance Working Group which will bring together
UNDP project staff, central and local government counterparts, members of civil society
organizations, UN agencies, and bilateral donors to begin a dialogue for collaboration.
The Working Group will provide opportunities for expanded co-operation at the country
level between UNDP and like-minded donor agencies.
Country level activities will consist of providing limited technical support in selected
countries for the innovative design of UNDP projects and programmes focused on
decentralized governance initiatives (including Papua New Guinea, the Philippines,
Thailand, Yemen, Mongolia, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Tanzania, and Uganda).
The primary aim is to promote a holistic approach to sustainably improving policy
formulation, resource management and the equitable delivery of public goods and
services in decentralized governance systems. In addition to these activities, in-depth
evaluations of UNDP's country level projects will also ensure that the lessons and
experiences of past and ongoing country level projects are analyzed, documented and
disseminated in order to guide the design and implementation of future UNDP efforts to
support decentralised governance initiatives.
C. THE GLOBAL RESEARCH SUB-PROGRAMME OF THE DECENTRALIZED
GOVERNANCE PROGRAMME
As more and more governments in the developing world look to decentralization as a
mechanism for improving their efficiency and effectiveness, it is becoming increasingly
necessary to address the serious gap that exists in our understanding of the various
dimensions and complexities of decentralization. In order to directly contribute to the
process of knowledge generation in this area, the Programme will undertake a
comprehensive two year research programme in collaboration with the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT), ten national research institutions in developing countries,
and a number of experts in the field of decentralization. The UNDPs Global Research
Programme on Decentralized Governance (GRP) will focus particularly on the
interrelations between decentralization and good governance and the consequent effects
on poverty eradication, gender equity and environmental improvement as the
organizations primary focus area.
Research Case Studies
The first component of the research sub-programme will be a comparable series of
country-led case studies. UNDP will partner with national research institutes to complete
research in ten selected research countries (Honduras, Brazil, South Africa, Uganda, Cote
DIvoire, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, Poland and Jordan).
The case studies will focus primarily on decentralization, with either devolution or
delegation to lower-level, legally constituted authorities. It is realized that there might not
be many cases in which devolution has been institutionalized over a long enough period
of time and that delegation is more common. In may cases, there might be a mixture of
devolution, delegation and deconcentration. Where there is no devolution or delegation,
cases of deconcentration will also be considered. It is proposed that divestment not be
treated as part of decentralization for the purposes of the GRP, even though there may be
cases where it has involved aspects of SHD, such as social service delivery.
UNDP is primarily interested in understanding better how devolution, delegation and
deconcentration contribute to good governance and hence to SHD. The hypotheses are
that devolution is most likely to contribute to good governance and SHD, followed by
delegation, and that deconcentration is least likely to do so. The research design should
provide opportunities to identify the conditions under which the relationships posited in
these hypotheses might be reversed, i.e., under what conditions are devolution or
delegation unlikely to contribute to good governance and under what conditions is
deconcentration likely to contribute? In particular, UNDP wishes to investigate the
efficacy of decentralized forms of participatory development management, institutional
partnership arrangements and community-driven strategies for local development in
contributing to good governance and SHD. It also hopes that it will be feasible to
examine the extent to which a holistic approach has been used effectively, especially at
the community level, and what factors influence the effectiveness of the approach.
Each study will be based on the priority areas of concern highlighted above. For the
national research institute, participation in this activity will involve the following:
1) Finalising institutional arrangements with UNDP in March/April.
2) Between May 1 and June 1, organising a one-day consultation meeting, to involve the
national partner research institution and other actors working in the area of
decentralization - bilateral and multilateral agencies, and national and local government,
private sector and civil society representatives. The purpose of the meeting will be to
discuss the priority areas of concern highlighted in the UNDP Research Framework.
Based on the Framework and stimulated through a process of dialogue between the
various concerned actors, two to three one-page proposals, will be completed in
accordance to a pre-established proposal format provided by MDGD/UNDP. These
should also draw on any available and relevant country specific research which has
already been completed in the area of decentralisation. The proposals should be sent to
MDGD by 1 June 1997.
3) The primary researcher from each of the national partner research institutions will be
invited to MIT in Boston to participate in an Global Planning Workshop from 9-10 June
1997. The purpose of the Workshop will be to allow each of the national institutions to
present their research proposals for discussion. Collectively, the Workshop participants
(national institutions, UNDP and MIT) will re-examine the overall framework for the
research project and, based on this, select one of the research proposals from each
institute. The final selection of proposals will allow for constructive comparison between
countries, capturing the maximum benefit from the participation in the larger global
research effort.
4) The research activities will be carried out by the national research partners over a
period of at least 6-8 months. In some cases, based on an understanding with the research
institute, research assistance from MIT will be provided during this period. Technical
assistance will be provided by MDGD and MIT in reviewing and commenting on the first
drafts of the studies.
5) The primary researcher from each of the partner institutions will be invited again to
MIT in Boston for a second global Workshop in early 1998 for the final presentation and
discussion of the research studies. At this meeting, guidelines for the synthesis of the
studies will be defined.
6) Synthesis and analysis of the research case studies will be conducted and a monograph
will be prepared and disseminated widely, making effective use of electronic means of
communication. Findings will also be presented at regional and inter-regional seminars to
ensure that results are shared with individuals and institutions in developing countries, as
well as the donor community.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Put in its simplest form, the primary research question that this programme seeks to
address is
"What are effective mechanisms, processes or procedures of decentralized governance
which contribute to measurable improvements in the quality of life of men and women
living in rural and/or urban poverty, including the natural or built environment and
contribute to the achievement of equity, particularly gender equity?"
This question, however, needs to be translated into a number of hypotheses that can be
investigated in the case studies. The first step is to construct the logical tree of
propositions or hypotheses that should inform the research design. The following
hypotheses are implied if not stated in the contextual analysis above:
Good governance is an integral element of the holistic concept of SHD
Good governance presents the most generalized and systemic means of improving other
elements of SHD, such as poverty eradication and equity building.
A holistic people-centred approach to development management strengthens the
achievement of both good governance and SHD goals.
Decentralization (particularly devolution and delegation) creates an enabling environment
for a holistic people-centred approach and thus strengthens key elements of good
governance.
Therefore, decentralization (particularly devolution and delegation) should contribute to
more effective SHD, particularly poverty eradication and enhanced equity.
The central research question could therefore be formulated as:
"Under what conditions, with regard to which aspects and through which mechanisms
and processes does decentralization contribute to key elements of good governance and
the achievement of SHD goals, particularly poverty eradication, equity building in
gender, and environmental improvement?"
This question assumes information in analyzable form of
Conditions: We propose that critical national conditions be described, including:
-The state of good governance in the country
-The national framework for decentralization, i.e. what are the principal forms of
decentralization: devolution, delegation ordeconcentration or what mix of these?
Aspects of governance decentralized: We propose a focus on:
-Service delivery, including related policy formulation and financial resource
management
Mechanisms and processes: We propose that the presence or absence of a holistic people-
centred approach be investigated in terms of:
-Participatory development management
-Institutionalized partnership arrangements
Sustainable human development goals: We propose a focus particularly on:
-Poverty eradication, with concern given to environmental considerations and gender
equity.
Given the above, the case studies, in implementing this research design, will include the
following, more or less in the order presented:
1) Analyzing the Level of Good Governance in the Country
The comparability of the case studies will be significantly improved if they could include
an analysis of the level of good governance in the country. This could be done in the form
of a SWOT analysis rather than a conventional assessment, which might be too politically
sensitive. In other words, the key research questions in this regard could be:
-What are the strengths of the country with regard to key elements of good governance?
-What are the weaknesses of the country in realizing good governance, in which
elements?
-What opportunities exist for improving good governance, for which elements?
-What threats to the existing level of good governance and the achievement of other
elements are there?
If this element is included in the suggested research design, it might be useful to develop
a suggested list of elements of good governance, likely indicators of their presence and
likely sources of data on the indicators.
2) Describing Key Elements of the National Framework for Decentralization
Several aspects of decentralized governance are critically influenced, if not determined,
by central frameworks and policies. It is therefore necessary to take account particularly
of the following elements of the national framework for decentralization:
The constitutional/statutory basis defining the systems, the levels, their respective
jurisdictions and their complementary roles according to the principle of subsidiarity.
The incorporation of the institutional forms of governance, with defined constitutional
provisions with regard to authorities, structure, composition, representation, elections,
procedures, modes of operation, regulations, and so on.
Definition of accountabilities and co-responsibilities between levels and their publics.
Institutional provisions for transparency: definition of access to information, reporting
responsibilities, the sharing of data and information on a disaggregated basis through
decentralized, modular information systems.
Definition of the sharing of fiscal authorities and responsibilities and the creation of
special instruments to ensure national capacity to address regional inequities and
disparities, such as funds or partnership facilities.
In short, is the system, in the way it deals with these aspects, one of devolution,
delegation or deconcentration or is it a mixture and, if so, which form is dominant?
At issue here is the extent to which the national framework enshrines or incorporates the
values and principles of good governance in the system of decentralization. This will
critically facilitate or hinder good governance at the decentralized levels. Hence case
studies need to document and analyze the national frameworks and draw concise
conclusions on the extent to which they present enabling environments for good
decentralized governance or inhibit it.
3) Key Aspects of Decentralized Development Management
It is suggested that rather than including all aspects of public administration, the case
studies focus on service delivery and, in particular, to what extent was development of
service delivery placed under the authority of the decentralized entities? Were resources -
human, financial, physical - transferred with the authorities?
Related to the above is are questions relating to policy formulation, and in particular to
what extent was specific policy formulation authority transferred to the decentralized
entities with regard to development in the areas under their jurisdiction? There are also
questions relating to financial resource management, and in particular to what extent have
decentralized units been empowered to raise revenues and what other measures were
taken to ensure that they have access to the resources required to execute their
development plans?
4) Mechanisms and Processes
In relation to the above aspects of development management, UNDP is particularly
interested in the testing of the following hypotheses in the case studies:
1. The more participatory decision-making is institutionalized at the decentralized level,
the greater the contribution to key elements of SHD, particularly poverty eradication and
equity building; and the greater the empowerment of local communities to take
responsibility for all aspects of their lives and to plan and manage their own
development, the greater the contribution of decentralized governance to key elements of
SHD, particularly poverty eradication and equity building.
2. The greater the presence and effective functioning of institutional mechanisms for
partnership among public, private and civic actors at the decentralized level, the greater
the contribution to key elements of SHD, particularly poverty eradication and equity
building.
5) Sustainable Human Development Goals
In the context of UNDPs mandate to promote sustainable human development, each case
study will focus on:
-Determining the presence or absence of elements of the holistic people-centred approach
-Determining the availability of baseline and trend data on key elements of SHD in
relation to decentralized governance
-Formulating and investigating specific hypotheses with regard to SHD
Research Design
Research designs to test these hypotheses would ideally involve a controlled experiment
design where two are compared, one with a high level of the independent variable, e.g.,
participatory decision-making, institutionalized partnership processes, and the other with
the absence or weakness of these variables. These two variables are likely to be
associated with each other; in cases where there is a strong association, the two
hypotheses could be combined into one since it might be impossible to examine the
effects of the two variables separately.
Such designs would naturally need to control for, or trace the probable effects of, other
variables or elements of good governance, such as, for example, equity, responsiveness,
transparency, strategic vision, legitimacy, empowerment and enabling. A holistic,
qualitative research approach is advised; complex multi-variate analysis models using
questionable quantitative data should be avoided.
Also, it is important to avoid comparing apples and oranges as far as forms of
decentralization is concerned. Within a national system of decentralized governance, this
is unlikely to be a major problem. Nonetheless, there is likely to be significant differences
in the impact on good governance between administrative deconcentration on the one
hand and full devolution of authority and resources on the other. It will therefore be
necessary to define as precisely as possible the key characteristics of the decentralized
system in the situations that are compared. This is also necessary and important for the
eventual comparison and synthesis of the ten case studies.
Concept and Review Papers
A great deal of research has already been undertaken on different aspects of
decentralization. Most of this research has focused on examining structures and functions
of central and local governments and fiscal relationships among different levels of
government. Relationships between good governance and decentralization and poverty
alleviation and different dimensions of decentralization are complex and need to be
examined and better understood.
In order to build on what is already known, the second element of the research strategy
will be to prepare a set of concept and review papers on selected topics relevant to the
research questions raised above. These papers would be based on the literature review
and existing information. The concept and review papers would be prepared on the
following topics (suggested resource persons are also listed):
*Decentralization and globalization: the extent to which and the mechanisms through
which globalization is positively or negatively affecting the process of decentralization in
developing countries
*Impact of social investment funds on patterns of decentralization
*Relationships between decentralization and poverty alleviation
*Methodological issues in research on decentralization
*Decentralized administration of informal land delivery
*Innovations in local government fiscal reform
*Decentralization in Asia: lessons of experience
*Decentralization in Latin America: lessons of experience
*Decentralization In Africa
*Decentralization in Eastern Europe/former Soviet Union: challenges and opportunities
*Decentralization and empowerment: the impact on marginal groups
*Decentralization and its impact on civil society
The studies on the above topics will be edited and published in a volume by UNDP to
share with research institutions in developing countries. A leading scholar will be
identified to edit the volume and prepare a synthesis chapter based on the studies. The
book may be published for commercial distribution. Summaries of the key findings of the
papers will also be made widely available on the internet.
D. FURTHER INFORMATION
For more information, please contact:
Robertson Work
Principal Technical Adviser
Team Leader, Decentralised Governance
Management Development and Governance Division
United Nations Development Programme
DC1-2086, One United Nations Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10017
Tel: 212-906-6602
Fax: 212-906-6471
e-mail: robertson.work@undp.org
Kendra Collins
Programme Officer
Management Development and Governance Division
United Nations Development Programme
DC1-2076, One United Nations Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10017
Tel: 212-906-3654
Fax: 212-906-6471
e-mail: kendra.collins@undp.org