High expectations, varying outcomes: decentralization and participation in Brazil, Japan, Russia and Sweden
| Author | Christina W. Andrews,Michiel S. de Vries |
| Published date | 01 September 2007 |
| Date | 01 September 2007 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852307081151 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Review of
Administrative
Sciences
High expectations, varying outcomes: decentralization and
participation in Brazil, Japan, Russia and Sweden
Christina W. Andrews and Michiel S. de Vries
Abstract
In the past 20 years, decentralization has been proposed as a strategy for enhanc-
ing public participation. Aid-providing organizations, such as the World Bank,
stimulated decentralization processes in several countries in the hope that this
would promote civic empowerment, diminish corruption, enhance efficiency, and
improve public service delivery. This assumption forms the basis for a comparative
analysis into the relation between decentralization and participation at the local
level in Brazil, Japan, Russia and Sweden. A multi-level regression analysis using
the data of the Democracy and Local Governance Project was undertaken in
order to test the ‘one size fits all’ and the ‘diversity in development’ hypotheses.
The results show that the second hypothesis was corroborated. Perceived auton-
omy had a different impact on openness to participation depending on the
country considered; in one country (Japan), perceived autonomy diminished
public officials’ willingness to be open to public participation.
Points for practitioners
This article provides empirical evidence to rebuff the widespread belief that
processes of decentralization will yield the same desirable outcomes regardless of
the country considered. This belief has been disseminated through numerous
publications aimed at decision-makers in developing countries, particularly those
produced by multilateral organizations, especially the World Bank. The article
serves as a word of caution to practitioners who are under pressure from aid
organizations to implement decentralization processes. Without adequate con-
siderations to the features of the context at hand and the political forces behind
Christina W. Andrews is at the Faculdade de Ciências e Letras – FCL, State University of São Paulo,
Brazil. Michiel S. de Vries is at the Department of Public Administration, Radbound University,
Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Copyright © 2007 IIAS, SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore)
Vol 73(3):424–451 [DOI:10.1177/0020852307081151]
426 International Review of Administrative Sciences 73(3)
the process, decentralization may yield far different outcomes than the ones
initially expected.
Keywords: Brazil, decentralization, Japan, participation, Russia, Sweden
1. Introduction
The relation between decentralization and participation has been brought back onto
the agenda of the study of Public Administration. At least two books recently
released address this relationship (Campbell, 2003; Oxhorn et al., 2004), and many
evaluations done on behalf of the World Bank and UN discuss it at length. There is,
however, something strange about these publications.
On the one hand, they provide magnificent case studies and comparative studies,
conspicuously demonstrating that increased participation has been enhanced in only
a slight minority of cases; if there was increasing participation, this could not be
related to the decentralization processes; and that outcomes are ambiguous at best
and contradictory or absent at worst. As Santin del Río (2004: 60) observes, ‘decen-
tralization and democratization in Mexico have taken parallel paths. . . . However the
relationship between the two phenomena in Mexico is generally in the opposite
direction.’ Many World Bank reports show that decentralization processes compli-
cated projects, that they were in need of local competences, and that they failed to
establish widespread participation (see Di Gropello, 2004; World Bank, 2005a).
On the other hand, despite these unfavorable evaluations, the World Bank main-
tains the requirement of decentralization in many of its programs under the heading
and requirement of good governance. While recognizing the problems associated
with decentralization processes, one of the WB’s reports reads: ‘The prevailing
wisdom today [is] that it would be quicker and more cost-effective to begin the
process of devolution, permit learning by doing and build up capacity through
practice’ (Ahmad et al., 2005: 48–9).
Among the theorists, the same peculiar contradiction between fact and theory
exists. Crook and Manor (1998), for instance, investigated the effects of decentraliza-
tion on formal participation in two Asian and two African countries. Although they
found an increased turnout in only two of the four countries, they conclude that ‘in all
four countries popular participation was considerably enhanced’ (p. 271), although
they also state that the outcomes might be biased because ‘for many people par-
ticipation usually means a rather formal set of activities organized by political parties
such as canvassing or delivering leaflets’ (p. 272). However, two years later, in a World
Bank working paper, the authors insist in their positive evaluations: ‘Democratic
decentralization can make government processes more visible and intelligible to
ordinary people’; ‘Democratic decentralization tends to produce systems that are
more open – that is, they are more transparent and easier for individuals and groups
at local and supra-local levels to access and influence.’; ‘Democratic decentralization
also tends strongly to foster more accountable government’ (Crook and Manor,
2000: 11–12).
They recommend that the World Bank take measures to encourage more coun-
tries to engage in decentralization reforms because in not joining the bandwagon,
Andrews and de Vries Decentralization and participation 427
they are ‘hampering their development and long-term interests’ (Crook and Manor,
2000: 24). In the book by Oxhorn et al. (2004: 16), something similar is seen, when
they state: ‘However critical, all authors in this volume agree in both the importance
of the ideal of democratic decentralization and the very real possibilities that exist for
increasing the democratic qualities of even the most limited forms of decentraliza-
tion.’ Similarly, Campbell states that ‘the countries seemed to learn little from each
other’s experiences’ (p. 51) and that the ‘very nature of decentralization impeded the
degree to which states were able to exercise the influence needed to keep progress
moving smoothly’ (p. 52). Moreover, ‘most of the countries undergoing decentraliza-
tion have not achieved . . . integration’ (p. 98), and ‘most cities were unable to achieve
reform after decentralization’ (p. 148). However, according to the same author,
‘continued commitment to reform and local government may be needed to sustain
strong participatory democracy and participatory social programs at the local level’
(p. 180) and the decentralization has brought about a quiet revolution in democrati-
zation as a result (as in the title of the book).
Thus, there are very disappointing outcomes of decentralization in practice and,
simultaneously, a continued ‘belief’ and high expectations among scholars as well as
policy-makers about its impact on citizens’ participation.
This presents the problem on which this article is based. Are current theories on
decentralization and participation universally valid? Or is there a Western, welfare,
developed country bias ingrained in them? We discuss this problem by first giving a
concise overview of the theoretical ideas behind the relation between decentraliza-
tion and participation. Subsequently, we discuss the evaluations of decentralization
processes in practice as made by or on behalf of the World Bank. It points to the
problems observed in practice and provides a different picture of the effects of
decentralization than suggested by the theories. This is followed by a section in
which two opposite hypotheses about the possible relation between decentraliza-
tion and democratization are proposed, the so-called ‘one size fits all hypothesis’
which assumes that the relation between decentralization and participation is uni-
versally valid, and the ‘diversity in development hypothesis’ which states that the
context determines sign and strength of the effect of decentralization on public
participation. In the subsequent sections, these hypotheses are tested against empiri-
cal data. At the end of this article, we reflect on the outcomes of this research and
compare these with the theoretically supposed relation between decentralization
and participation.
First, a note on our definition of decentralization. Decentralization is defined in
varying ways by different scholars. The classic definition by Cheema and Rondinelli
(1982) includes all those policies taking away power from the central state, including
privatization. However, we will follow Crook and Manor (1998: 6) and Oxhorn et al.
(2004: 7) in their recent works, who define decentralization more narrowly as
‘the transfer of power to different sub-national levels of government by the central
government’.
428 International Review of Administrative Sciences 73(3)
2. Theories about the relation between decentralization and public
participation
Participation and decentralization are among the most debated themes of Public
Administration. Thus, it is beyond the scope of a single article to fully review these
debates. Nevertheless, in order to discuss whether the existing theories are applica-
ble worldwide, we present some of the main aspects concerning theses debates in
this section. One has to distinguish, however, between two periods of theorizing.
Until the end of the 1970s, there was little experience with...
To continue reading
Request your trial