REVIEW ARTICLE : DECENTRALISATION FOR DEVELOPMENT: A CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS

This review article provides a conceptual analysis of the theory and practice of decentralization as a strategy for development. It examines the different forms of decentralization, including deconcentration, delegation, and devolution, and clarifies the key distinctions between them. The study synthesizes the main arguments from the development literature in favor of decentralization, which typically include enhancing administrative efficiency, promoting grassroots participation, and improving the accountability and responsiveness of government. The research also provides a critical assessment of the potential pitfalls and challenges of decentralization, such as the risk of capture by local elites, the problem of inadequate local capacity, and the reluctance of central governments to cede real power. The paper argues that decentralization is not a panacea for development problems. The analysis concludes that the success of decentralization depends on a careful design that is sensitive to the specific political and social context, and on a genuine political commitment to empowering local communities.

Decentralization has been one of the most enduring and powerful ideas in development theory and practice. This review article offers a comprehensive conceptual analysis of this complex subject. The study begins by providing a clear typology of the different forms of decentralization, carefully distinguishing between "deconcentration" (the shifting of workload from central to local offices of the central government), "delegation" (the transfer of responsibility to semi-autonomous bodies), and "devolution" (the transfer of power and resources to autonomous, elected local governments), which is considered the most genuine form. The core of the article is a synthesis and critique of the vast literature on the topic. It reviews the arguments that decentralization can lead to more efficient and equitable development outcomes by bringing decision-making closer to the people and by harnessing local knowledge. It explores the political case for decentralization as a means of deepening democracy and enhancing state legitimacy. However, the paper also presents a strong counter-argument, drawing on literature that highlights the significant risks. These include the danger that decentralized power will simply be captured by unaccountable local elites, and the problem that local governments often lack the financial resources and technical capacity to perform their new functions effectively. The findings suggest that there is no one-size-fits-all model for successful decentralization. Its outcomes are highly context-dependent, and the paper concludes with a call for a more pragmatic and less ideological approach to designing and implementing decentralization reforms.