Assessing the impact of decentralization on governance: A comparative methodological approach and application to Tunisia
| Published date | 01 December 1992 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/pad.4230120505 |
| Date | 01 December 1992 |
| Author | Hatem Ben Salem,Richard Vengroff |
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT, VOL. 12,47H92 (1992)
Assessing the impact
of
decentralization
on
governance: a
comparative methodological approach and application to
Tunisia
RICHARD VENGROFF
University
of
Connecticul
and
HATEM BEN SALEM
Ecole Nationale d’Administration, Tunis
SUMMARY
The relationship between decentralization and governance has not been adequately explored
in the literature. Many past studies have failed to assess fully the impact of decentralization
because
of
the lack of a set of independent, comparative indicators of the quality of decentrali-
zation being implemented in a given country. The authors adopt the working hypothesis
that decentralization, both as a process and as an end state
in
terms of organization and
operations, is closely related to the quality
of
governance in developing countries.
In
order
to provide an empirical basis
for
a comparative assessment, the authors have developed a
model based on the scope, intensity and commitment to decentralization
in
a country. Each
of
these concepts is operationalized in terms
of
a set
of
empirically measurable variables.
The method is then applied to the case of Tunisia and assessed as a tool for the comparative
study
of
decentralization and governance. Decentralization in Tunisia is shown to have an
important relationship to
the
quality
of
governance in that country. The methodology de-
veloped here
for
the analysis
of
the quality
of
decentralization appears, based on the examin-
ation of a significant case, to be worth pursuing cross-nationally.
INTRODUCTION
There have been numerous efforts to define governance and a broad debate exists
regarding its many components. As a point of departure, the definition provided
in the AID Africa Bureau’s draft ‘Governance working paper’ (Charlick, 1992;
p. 2), which draws
on
the work
of
Hyden (1991)’ seems to be quite useful:
‘Governance is the impartial, transparent management of public affairs
through the generation of a regime (set
of
rules) accepted as constituting
legitimate authority, for the purpose of promoting and enhancing societal
values that are sought by individuals and groups.’
However, this definition appears to be static in that it lacks a firm link with the
Dr Vengroff is Dean
of
the International Affairs Division at the University
of
Connecticut, U-182, 843
Bolton Road, Storrs,
CT
06269-1 182, USA. Dr Ben Salem is Director
of
the Centre de Recherche
et
d’Etudes Administrative, hole Nationale d’Administration, Tunis, Tunisia.
0271-2075/92/050473-20$15.00
0
1992
by John Wiley
L
Sons, Ltd.
414
R.
Vengrofand
H.
Ben Salem
issues of change or development. Therefore, for the purposes of this paper, we must
also consider the broad definition provided by Landell-Mills and Serageldin
(1
99
1)
as a base against which the impact of decentralization can be assessed. They define
governance as:
‘the use of political authority and exercise of control over a society and
the management of its resources for social and economic development’
(Landell-Mills and Serageldin, 1991; p. 3).
They go on to say that their definition
‘encompasses the nature of functioning of a state’s institutional and struc-
tural arrangements, decision making processes, policy formulation, imple-
mentation capacity, information flows, effectiveness of leadership, and
the nature of the relationship between rulers and ruled.’
Drawing upon these two definitions, the quality of governance can be seen as depend-
ing very heavily on a variety of factors, the most important of which can be summar-
ized:
1.
Transparency in the elaboration, execution and evaluation of budgets;
2.
Open access to and opportunities for participation;
3.
The initiation
of
a variety of actions and policies by the public or their elected
representatives, often at several different levels of government or administration;
4.
Government responsiveness
to
demands expressed by the populace and/or their
chosen representatives;
5.
A free flow of ideas and information, which makes polices and the choice
of policies an open, informed process;
6.
A regular and open procedure for the selection of leaders.
All of the above reflect the broader issue of accountability. It should be made clear
that the purpose of this paper is not to provide a
full
discussion of the notion of
governance but to see how it relates to some key concerns of regional and municipal
government and the quality of the associated policy choices. However, it is worth
noting that the concept of decentralization plays a prominent role in much of the
thinking associated with governance (Hyden, 1991; Charlick, 1992).
The key hypothesis that underlies the analysis on which this paper is based is
the idea that decentralization, both as a process and as an end state in terms of
organization and operations, is closely related to the quality of governance in coun-
tries
at
every level of development, but particularly in developing countries such
as Tunisia.
For
our purposes, the widely accepted definition of decentralization pro-
vided by Rondinelli, Nellis and Cheema (1983; p. 9)
is
quite useful:
‘Decentralization can be defined as the transfer of responsibility for plan-
ning, management and resource raising and allocation from the central
government and its agencies to: (a) field units of central government minis-
tries or agencies, (b) subordinate units or levels of government, (c) semi-
autonomous public authorities or corporations, (d) area wide, regional
To continue reading
Request your trial