The rise and fall of the national ‘decentralized agencies’ in Colombia
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/pad.4230090204 |
| Published date | 01 April 1989 |
| Author | Charles David Collins |
| Date | 01 April 1989 |
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT, VOL. 9, 129-146 (1989)
The rise and fall of the national ‘decentralized agencies’ in
Colombia
CHARLES DAVID COLLINS
The
University
of
Leeds
SUMMARY
The public sector
in
Latin America has been characterized by the proliferation of national
semi-autonomous bodies
known
as ‘decentralized agencies’. This article focuses on such
agencies in Colombia from the
1960s
onwards. Attention will be paid to their institutional
proliferation and how this affected local government, particularly
in
the fields of water
and
sanitation. Such changes in state organization have not been problem free. The growth of
‘decentralized agencies’ has been associated
with
problems
of
inefficiency, administrative
confusion and problems of social and political unrest. Indeed, such contradictions have
resulted
in
the issue
of
decentralization being placed on the political agenda and the
development
of
innovative and administrative reforms that could breathe new life into local
government.
INTRODUCTION
The development of state intervention in Latin America has led to a growth in the
institutional machinery
of
the state.
Of
particular significance has been the
tendency in many Latin American countries to set up a wide variety of semi-
autonomous agencies attached to specific central ministries. There has indeed been
a bewildering growth
of
new semi-autonomous agencies-ften referred to as
‘decentralized agencies’-and taking the form
of
specific project implementation
bodies, public enterprises, multi or single purpose functional authorities and
regional development agencies (Harris, 1983). Thus Grindle (1977, p.
3)
reports
that by 1975 the Mexican bureaucracy comprised 18 ministries followed by 123
decentralized agencies, 292 public enterprises, 187 official commissions and 160
development trusts. Although the nomenclature used to classify the different forms
of
decentralized ‘agencies’ varies from one country to another, the basic
institutional form is defined as indirect administration as opposed to the direct
administration practised by the central ministerial structure. As an organizational
form
of
decentralization, their existence has been described by Rondinelli, (1983,
p. 189)
as
delegation
to
semi-autonomous
or
parastatal organizations. Such
institutions
‘.
. .
often operate free
of
central government regulations concerning
personnel recruitment, contracting, budgeting, procurement and other matters,
and that act as an agent for the state in performing prescribed functions with the
ultimate responsibility for them remaining with the central government.’
Dr Collins is a Lecturer at The Nuffield Institute for Health Services Studies at the University
of
Leeds,
Fairbairn House, 71-75 Clarendon Road, Leeds LS2 9PL, U.K.
0271-2W5/891020129-18$09.00
@
1989
by
John Wiley
&
Sons, Ltd.
130
C.
D.
Collins
The objectives of this article are firstly to trace the expansion
of
the
‘decentralized agencies’ and then to analyse the contemporary crisis faced by this
system
of
administration. Attention will be focused on one particular Latin
American society-Colombia-where the problem
of
the ‘decentralized agencies’
has been quite evident in recent years. Questions to be asked include: why was the
structure of indirect administration
so
consistently favoured from the 1960s
onwards? How did this affect other state institutions, such as local government?
In
attempting to answer these questions, attention will be focused
on
the relative role
of the ‘decentralized agencies’ and local government in the field
of
water and
sanitation services. Lastly, we shall consider the more administrative problems
faced by the state system, given the emphasis on ‘decentralized agencies’ in recent
decades. We shall conclude by indicating how a new consciousness of these
problems is clearing the way for innovative political and administrative reforms that
could breathe new
life
into local government.
STATE ORGANIZATION, ‘DECENTRALIZED AGENCIES’
AND DEMUNICIPALIZATION IN COLOMBIA
The state sector in Colombia is a three tier system comprising the central,
departmental and municipal levels. The country is divided into 24 Departments
which are run by a centrally appointed governor and an elected Assembly. There
are also ten National Territories covering the less developed parts of the country.
The whole country is also divided into over 900 local government units, known as
rnunicipios.
The latter possess an elected mayor-council system
of
government,
although prior to the 1986 constitutional reform, the mayors were appointed by the
departmental governor. All three levels
of
the state system contain what may be
referred to as their own central organization structure
of
ministrieshecretariats,
etc. in addition to
a
‘decentralized’ system
of
indirect administration consisting
of
parastatals, agencies, etc.
On the basis
of
international comparisons, the state in Colombia could hardly be
called interventionist. In 1979 current income and state expenditure accounted for
25.2% and 29.6%
of
GNP respectively. Nevertheless, the state is an important cog
in the accumulation process through regulatory powers, provision
of
social services
and overhead capital, direct production
of
heavy industrial goods and the
promotion
of
mixed companies. As an institutional expression
of
these activities
the central executive arm
of
government significantly increased its authority, role
and organizational standing within the state apparatus. At the same time a
proliferation
of
new institutions took place. By 1978 the central executive arm
of
government was made up
of
the Presidency,
13
ministries, 7 administrative
departments,
6
superintendencies,
105
public establishments,
20
state companies
and 15 mixed companies (Murillo and Ungar, 1978,
p.
289). Between 1960 and
1979, the ‘decentralized agencies’ increased their expenditure from 1.4% to
20%
of
GNP (Pizarro
et
al.,
1981, p. 200).
These agencies supplanted local government in such areas as general urban
policy, housing, health, education, and in the provision of basic public services such
as electricity, water and sewerage. The rationale behind their creation was to by-
pass the established machinery
of
government and endow it with coherence around
To continue reading
Request your trial