The Impact of Power and Civic Engagement in the Decentralized Management of Natural Resources: The Case of Turkey
| Published date | 01 October 2017 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1809 |
| Author | Zeynep Kadirbeyoglu |
| Date | 01 October 2017 |
THE IMPACT OF POWER AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IN THE
DECENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: THE
CASE OF TURKEY
ZEYNEP KADIRBEYOGLU*
Bogazici University, Turkey
SUMMARY
Decentralization is an extensively discussed topic within academic and institutional circles worldwide. While a common argu-
ment for decentralization is that it fosters democratic deepening, counterarguments cautiously point to unequal access to re-
sources and distribution of power as factors that inhibit democratization. This study contributes to the literature on the
relationship between decentralization and democratization through a comparative study of Water User Associations in two prov-
inces of Turkey and shows in line with the literature that resource and power inequalities hamper the link between decentrali-
zation and democratization. However, as this article shows, civic engagement can generate “countervailing power”that can
overcome the negative impact of such inequalities. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
key words—decentralization; power; inequalities; civic engagement; irrigation
INTRODUCTION
Cherished as a panacea for many of the ills caused by centralized states with vast bureaucracies, decentralization
and relevant reforms have been promoted around the globe. The World Bank and other international development
agencies, for instance, advocate for decentralization primarily as a means to “promote civic empowerment, dimin-
ish corruption, enhance efficiency and improve public service delivery”(Andrews and de Vries, 2007, p. 426; see
also Kolavalli and Brewer, 1999, p. 249; McCarthy, 2004, p. 1201).
Some scholars in the field posit a mechanical positive relationship between decentralization, democratic deep-
ening, and improvements in service provision (see, among others, Dillinger, 1994; Rondinelli et al., 1989). Manor
(1999, p. 48), for instance, argues that “poor as well as prosperous people participate more and increase their col-
lective action potential as a result of decentralization,”even if the elite capture the benefits resulting from decen-
tralization in the short run. Other scholars have challenged the argument that decentralization leads to more
participation or increased service delivery effectiveness, claiming that inappropriately planned decentralization
programs and institutional designs fail to take into account local power dynamics (see, among others, Andrews
and de Vries, 2007, p. 447; Hadiz, 2004; Ramiro et al., 2001; Tang and Bloom, 2000). In the literature on decen-
tralization, negative impact of inequalities is reported (Bene et al., 2009; Devas and Grant, 2003; Ingham and
Kalam, 1992), but neither the extent to which inequalities matter nor the question of whether there is room for
change has been addressed in detail. This article addresses this gap in the literature with its focus on the differential
impact of power asymmetries. More specifically, it evaluates the outcome of natural resource management decen-
tralization, both in terms of performance and the level of democracy of decentralized organizations, and argues that
local contextual factors such as power asymmetries impact the outcomes of decentralization, but this effect is al-
tered by whether or not groups in society have been empowered through past civic engagement. Furthermore, this
*Correspondence to: Z. Kadirbeyoglu, Political Science and International Relations, Bogazici University, Bebek 34347, Istanbul, Turkey.
E-mail: zeynep.kadirbeyoglu@boun.edu.tr
public administration and development
Public Admin. Dev. 37, 277–291 (2017)
Published online 7 September 2017 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/pad.1809
Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial