Theories and Concepts of Local Government

Dr. AMM Shawkat Ali

Local government is one of the means to achieve the ends of decentralization.
It is thus linked to the broad concept and practice of decentralization.
The concept is also based on devolution of legal authorit on territorial basis. It ma also include
e!ercise of administrative functions.
The above is rooted in the premise that not everthing can or should be done from the centre.
The rationale for such a belief appears to be" apart from practical difficulties of governance in far
flung areas" it is necessar and desirable to ensure participation of local people through
institutions in the process of governance.
Tpologies of territorial sharing of power in most countries depends on the structure of central
government. #roadl" the structure ma either be federal or unitar or a mi!ture of both. $SA
and India are e!amples of federal structure.
$nder this structure" the constituent states form part of the federal or central government. At the
same time" the states have separate legislatures that form the centre of governance. These are
not called local governments but are known as state governments.
The sharing of responsibilities and authorit for local governance are broadl defined in the
constitutions of a given countr.
#elow the state governments lie the local government. The are generall elected councils that
perform wide range of functions. The degree of autonom en%oed b the local governments
depends on the countr&s heritage" administrative and political development. 'enerall" it can be
said that in developed countries local governments en%o lot of autonom. The local
governments also en%o powers of ta!ation in specific fields.
Theories of decentralization
The interpretations of decentralization discussed are those of (esler" )oners and *ondinelli.
(esler views decentralization as a comple! issue" both as a concept and in practice+ he looks at
it from four perspectives, decentralization as a doctrine" as political process in a given political
setting" as an administrative problem" and finall as an administrative process involving forced
choices and changes in the function and area-based administration" and between the regulator
.law and order/ and development functions of appointed and elected officials.
)oners" like (esler" notes that discussion on decentralization can easil become confused
because of analtical problems surrounding the concept of decentralization. )oners accepts
the definition of decentralization b *ondinelli" that is" as the transfer of 0authorit to plan" make
decisions and manage public functions1 from the national level to an individual" organization" or
agenc at the sub-national level. It is at the same time pointed out b )oners that the definition
limits attention to 0territorial1 as opposed to 0functional1 decentralization. It e!cludes the 2uestion
3var3www3apps3conversion3tmp3scratch4536767897:;.doc <age 1 of 2
of transfer of authorit from central to peripheral organizations at the national level" for e!ample
from a government department to a parastatal agenc.
=n the 2uestion of the relationship between centralization and decentralization" )oners"
*ondinelli" (altas" and others appear to echo the views of (esler in asserting that both
0centralization1 and 0decentralization1 should be regarded as processes of change" rather than
as fi!ed poles. It is further argued that it is not possible to envisage a totall decentralized
sstem of government" and finall that centralization and decentralization can take place
simultaneousl.
*ondinelli" >ellis" and )heema have reviewed the recent e!periences of decentralization in
developing countries" finding that ob%ectives of decentralization ma be broadl categorized into
.a/ administrative and management" and .b/ political. The political ob%ective assumes that local
government or administrative units can provide an effective channel of communication between
the national government and local communities. It further assumes that 0greater participation in
development planning and management supposedl promotes national unit b giving groups in
different regions in a countr a greater abilit to participate in planning and decision making" and
thus increases their stake in maintaining political stabilit.1
Administrative and management ob%ectives mainl rel on the deconcentration of authorit to
appointed officials to 2uickl react to unanticipated problems. It is important" however" to point
out that the line of difference between political and management and administrative ob%ectives is
often" in the real world of government" ver thin indeed.
*ondinelli" >ellis" and )heema view decentralization as an 0ideological principle associated with
ob%ectives of self-reliance" democratic decision making" popular participation in government" and
accountabilit of public officials to citizens.1 In this the appear to differ from the line reasoning
advanced b (esler" who cautions against a doctrinal approach and in fact re%ects it. ?e also
does not accept the argument that decentralization contributes to democratic decision making.
?e finds that in the doctrinal approach 0there is a tendenc to link" then merge and confuse"
decentralization and democrac.1
It is argued that insofar as developing countries are concerned the tpologies of devolution"
deconcentration" delegation" and privatization ma not trul reflect the underling ob%ectives of
decentralization that a give countr adopts. This has been shown b )oners in the case of
@ambia. *ondinelli has accepted the fact there can be one or a combination of ob%ectives and
forms of decentralization. ?e has further argued that ultimatel decentralization is a political
decision" 0and its implementation a reflection of a countr&s political process.1 )oner&s
arguments" centering on the ob%ectives of decentralization" also support the overwhelmingl
political connotation inherent in an effort at decentralization.
Thank ou
3var3www3apps3conversion3tmp3scratch4536767897:;.doc <age 2 of 2