The political process of decentralization in Peru, 1985–1990
| Published date | 01 August 1992 |
| Author | Sung Han Kim |
| Date | 01 August 1992 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/pad.4230120304 |
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT,
VOL.
12,249-265
(1992)
The political process
of
decentralization in Peru,
19851990
SUNG
HAN
KIM
University
of
Texas at Austin
SUMMARY
This paper, using Peru as a case study, argues that the most potent factor in the implementation
of decentralization in developing countries is ‘political’ in nature and operation. The legislative
process of decentralization under President Alan Garcia’s regime went through three major
steps, controlled by his party, APRA
(Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana,):
(1) The
1986 Bill
of
the Basic Law of Regionalization; (2) The 1987 Basic Law
of
Regionalization;
and
(3)
The 1988 Modified Law
of
Regionalization. Why did Alan Garcia push for decentraliza-
tion, unlike his predecessors? The 1985 elections produced Garcia, a populist demagogue,
and a loose political party system dominated by APRA. However, the legislation of decentrali-
zation was possible paradoxically because Garcia, who was desperately looking for a political
issue to distract people’s minds from his misgovernment, needed to control APRA
for
a
regional power base after 1990. Thus, the whole decentralization process was highly politicized,
and Garcia’s strategy was ‘successful’ in that regional governments came
to
be
controlled
by APRA after the 1989 and 1990 regional elections. The Peruvian case shows how far decentra-
lization can
be
used for personalistic
or
partisan interests in a fragile democracy.
INTRODUCTION
The 1980s have been a historic time of important change for the continent of Latin
America. While progress has been made toward democracy, economic crisis has
deepened in most countries. These two phenomena have become major constraints
on the policy options to be taken by the newly established civilian regimes. As
a
new relationship between the state and civil society began to emerge, political debate
on ‘decentralization’ started in a number of countries
as
a means of re-establishing
state-society relationships and of promoting economic development. For many,
decentralization tends to be seen as a solution not only for economic crisis but
also for the dilemma of efficiency vs. democracy in the modem bureaucratic state.
Despite the fact the decentralization is a ‘fashionable’ topic’ in developing coun-
tries, it is an elusive concept for both practitioners and theorists of development.
The term ‘centralization’ has a clear and stable meaning, referring
to
the concen-
This paper was originally presented at the Annual Conference
of
the Pacific Coast Council
on
Latin
American Studies, San Francisco, CA, Oct 25-28,
1990,
and has been revised for submission to
Public
Administration
and
Development.
The author is a PhD candidate in the Department of Government, The University of Texas at Austin,
Burdine Hall 536, Austin,
TX
78712-1087,
USA.
’
Conyers
says
there has been a resurgence
of
interest in decentralization, but decentralization is now
somewhat differently conceived from the way it was in the
1960s
(see Conyers,
1983).
027
1-2075/92/030249-17$08.50
0
1992 by John Wiley
&
Sons, Ltd.
250
Sung Hun Kim
tration of powers in
a
single head or centre. But its antonym, decentralization, is
an umbrella term for a number of distinct and even conflicting concepts because
one can move away from centralization on different dimensions. Political authority,
administrative staff, public finance and economic activity are just a few important
dimensions that may be relatively centralized
or
decentralized. The typology of decen-
tralization chosen depends ultimately on the task at hand (Schmidt, 1989, p.
3).
In the study of politics, decentralization refers to the territorial distribution of
power. It is concerned with the extent to which power and authority are dispersed
through the geographical hierarchy of the state, and the institutions and processes
through which dispersal occurs. Decentralization entails the subdivision of the state’s
territory into small areas and the creation of political and administrative institutions
in those areas. Some of the institutions
so
created may themselves find it necessary
to practise further decentralization (Smith, 1985, p. 1).
Decentralization occurs in
a
political setting. It is this setting that substantially
accounts for initiatives to decentralize, conditions the operation of decentralization,
and is in turn altered by the political consequences, both anticipated and unantici-
pated, of decentralized structures and processes (Fesler, 1965, p.
550).
The pressures
on the modern state to decentralize seem, at first glance, to fall into two quite distinct
categories, one apparently administrative, the other political. The managerial needs
of national organizations can only be met by delegating authority to field offices.
Politically, threats to integration from culturally distinct communities can only be
met by a measure
of
devolution. The two processes seem quite separate. However,
having decided that an administrative presence in the regions and localities is needed
does not conclude the process of political choice. A decision still has to be made
on how the administration is to be carried on, and whether
it
is to be politicized
(Smith, 1985, p. 201).
This paper, using Peru as a case study, argues that the most potent factor in
the implementation of decentralization in developing countries is ‘political’ in nature
and operation.
1
further argue that political processes create initial conditions from
which decentralization could be actually implemented in the whole country.
Jost
Carlos Marihtegui, a leftist thinker of the 1920s in Peru, stated: ‘Decentralization,
no matter what form it has taken in the history of the republic, has always represented
an absolutely centralist concept and design’ (1971). This can be interpreted to mean
that all decentralization attempts in Peru have been manipulated for centralist politi-
cal purposes. If
so,
then, why did President Alan Garcia push hard for decentraliza-
tion?
Is
his case an exception to Mariategui’s proposition that ‘power-holders propose
decentralization on the centralist design’? My research focuses
on
development of
decentralization process under Garcia’s regime and his political goals and designs
for APRA’s
(Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana)
power base.
This paper consists of three parts. The first deals with the legislative process
of
decentralization under the Garcia regime (1985-1990). This part focuses on two
aspects:
1.
A comparison of three important legal findings-the Bill of Regionalization
(1986), the Basic Law of Regionalization (1987), and the
Modificatoria
of the
Basic Law of Regionalization (1988Fto see if there are any differences in
key issues between the first two, which were adopted before 1988, and the
To continue reading
Request your trial