The Role of Decentralization in Public Policy: Perspective from

India and Africa

Submitted by: Biswajit Sahoo (22/2867)

Abstract
Decentralization emerged within different societies as a strategy for embracing democratic
participation, enhancing service delivery, and managing socio-economic conflicts. In
post-colonial societies like India and across Africa, it is claimed that decentralization tends to
work as a remedy towards the deeply rooted centralised governance systems. This essay looks at
the developments in the notion and theory of the practice intersecting with the critical issues of
public policy regarding decentralization in Africa and India. It raises the question whether
Decentralization leads the operative level to empowerment, poverty reduction, and conflict
mitigation, and argues that although there is great potential in decentralization, much depends
on political will, the presence of a strong and clear legal system, financial control, and an active
civil society.

Introduction
As a result of the past four decades, developing nations across the globe have been subjected to
the phenomenon of Decentralization, the shifting of the decision-making authority and resources
from the Central Government to local governance structures. In scenarios where governance has
continuously operated at a centralised level, there exists a tendency towards marginalization of
local communities, thereby making decentralization one of the central figures of attention due to
its capability in fostering democratisation, development, and growth in governance. 80% of
African countries have adopted some form of decentralization reform, while India implemented
the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments, which established Panchayati Raj and Urban
Local Bodies as the third tier of governance in the country.

The reality of decentralization often displays a gap between its ideology and implementation. It
is not without its challenges. The ability of local governments to implement policies effectively
depends on factors such as institutional capacity, political dynamics, and resource allocation.
Moreover, while decentralization can improve responsiveness, centralized governance structures
often face challenges in coordination, consistency, and efficiency. While the expectations put
forth by governance scholars remain high, there is no clear evidence that conflicts have been
effectively managed or that poverty levels have decreased significantly alongside attempts to
govern. In this essay, we will try to analyze the case of Africa and India to illustrate the
paradoxical outcomes of decentralization’s promises, practices, and pitfalls.

Conceptual Foundations of Decentralization

Decentralization is a complex and multifaceted concept that generally takes three main forms:
Devolution, Deconcentration, and Fiscal Decentralization. Devolution refers to the transfer of
authority to democratically elected local governments and is widely regarded as the most
genuine form of Decentralization. It fosters political participation, encourages local
accountability, and strengthens democratic governance. In contrast, deconcentration involves the
delegation of administrative functions to local offices of central government ministries. While it
decentralizes some operations, it often leaves real power centralized, merely repackaging
existing hierarchies. Fiscal Decentralization, a cross-cutting dimension, entails giving local
governments control over budgeting and financial resources. This financial autonomy is vital for
enabling effective and responsive local governance.

Decentralization is defined as the “transfer of authority and responsibility for public functions
from the central government to subordinate or quasi-independent government organizations
and/or the private sector.” by The World Bank. Cheema and Rondinelli (1983) describe
decentralization as a process through which public planning, decision-making, and
administrative authority are shifted from higher to lower levels of government or regional
organizations. In his work on decentralization, Faguet argues that decentralization improves
governance by enhancing responsiveness to local needs. He emphasises that when local
governments are empowered with resources and authority, they are better positioned to address
specific challenges, such as infrastructure development or education. His study of Bolivia
demonstrated that decentralization improved public investment efficiency, as local governments
prioritised community-specific needs. Francis Fukuyama underscores that decentralization
strengthens state capacity by distributing responsibilities across levels of governance, preventing
over-centralization. He argues that while decentralization enhances responsiveness, its success
depends on the institutional capacity of local governments to handle delegated functions
effectively. Theoretically, decentralization is lauded for its potential to deepen democracy,
improve public service delivery, enhance transparency, and reduce socio-political tensions.
However, in practice, outcomes often diverge from these ideals due to systemic and structural
limitations within political and administrative institutions.

Decentralization in Africa: Motivations, Outcomes, and Challenges

In the African context, the push for decentralization has been influenced by a mix of external and
internal forces. During the 1980s, neoliberal economic pressures emphasized reduced central
government control. The democratic movements of the 1990s further fueled decentralization
efforts, while donor agencies increasingly linked aid to governance reforms, pushing for what
they termed "good governance." Despite these motivations, political elites in many countries
embraced decentralization more in rhetoric than in substance. Rather than empowering local
communities, the reforms often served as a strategy to retain control over local resources.

The outcomes of decentralization in Africa have been uneven. While it was expected to
contribute to poverty reduction by increasing opportunity, empowerment, and social security, the
actual impact has been limited and inconsistent. Studies suggest that Decentralization has had
only a marginal effect on poverty alleviation. In terms of conflict management, the results have
also been mixed. In some cases, decentralization has helped accommodate ethnic diversity and
reduce tensions, but in others, it has led to heightened regional inequalities and exacerbated
existing divisions. Several African countries have implemented decentralization reforms in
recent decades. For example, Uganda embarked on a significant decentralization programme in
the early 1990s, transferring authority and responsibilities to local governments as part of
broader democratization efforts. While initially promising, Uganda’s reforms faced limitations
such as insufficient local autonomy, weak accountability, and persistent patronage and
clientelism, which hindered their effectiveness in reducing poverty and improving governance.
Similarly, Malawi and Ghana pursued decentralization with the stated goal of empowering local
populations and enhancing service delivery. However, these efforts were often undermined by
national political elites who retained control over critical resources and decision-making,
effectively hollowing out the potential of local governance. In Malawi, for instance,
decentralization did little to improve service delivery or promote political participation, largely
due to elite manipulation of the process. In Ghana, despite increased citizen participation in local
decision-making, true accountability and control over resources remained elusive. Across these
cases, a consistent limitation was the gap between the formal structures of decentralization and
the political realities that allowed central and local elites to capture benefits, thereby weakening
the transformative promise of decentralization in Africa​.

Several challenges continue to undermine decentralization efforts across the continent. Weak
legal frameworks, unclear delineation of responsibilities between levels of government, and
limited administrative capacity at the local level are among the core issues. Additionally, the
persistence of executive dominance, low levels of citizen engagement, inadequate accountability
mechanisms, and resistance from national elites all hinder meaningful decentralization.
Moreover, local governance itself often suffers from elite capture and democratic deficits, further
limiting the transformative potential of these reforms.

Decentralization in India: Successes and Shortcomings

India's approach to decentralization gained formal expression and constitutional guard through
the 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Constitution, which sought to institutionalize democratic
Decentralization by establishing Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) in rural areas and Urban
Local Bodies (ULBs) in cities and towns. These reforms aimed to enhance transparency, promote
social justice, and broaden citizen participation in governance.

The amendment also made provisions for the reservation of seats for women, Scheduled Castes
(SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs), thereby ensuring inclusivity and representation of
marginalized groups. Additionally, the 73rd Amendment required the establishment of State
Election Commissions to supervise Panchayat elections and provided for the creation of State
Finance Commissions to ensure financial autonomy. The amendment also recommended the
creation of a District Planning Committee, which would play a crucial role in planning and
coordinating development activities at the district level. Several programmes of the government
can be seen as case studies for decentralization in action which includes the Jal Jeevan Mission,
People’s Planning Campaign in Kerala, Mid-Day Meal Schemes and the role of ASHA workers
in the health facilities in rural areas. The success of decentralization can be seen through the role
of local governance during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Despite these constitutional reforms, the ground reality reveals a more complicated picture.
Many state governments have been reluctant to devolve real power to local bodies, often
retaining key decision-making authority. Financial constraints also limit the effectiveness of local
governance, as these bodies lack sufficient fiscal autonomy to plan and implement development
initiatives. Additionally, traditional elites frequently dominate PRIs, undermining efforts to
empower marginalized groups. The liberalization reforms of the 1990s further deepened
economic disparities, which in turn challenged the constitutional vision of equity and justice in
local governance.

Does Decentralization Deliver?

When genuinely implemented, decentralization has significant potential. It can promote political
inclusion, particularly for historically marginalized communities, by bringing governance closer
to the people. It can also improve the quality and responsiveness of public services by aligning
them more closely with local needs. Local governments are the ones closest to the people they
serve. They are responsible for making sure that the policies created at the national level are
implemented effectively at the grassroots level. Furthermore, decentralization can enhance
accountability, as elected representatives at the local level are often more accessible and directly
answerable to the public.

However, the success of decentralization is contingent upon several structural factors. A lack of
political will, weak institutional capacity, and entrenched social inequalities often limit its
effectiveness. Without broader socio-economic reforms, decentralization can end up reinforcing
the very hierarchies and disparities it is meant to dismantle. To maximize its potential,
decentralization must be accompanied by capacity building, resource allocation, and mechanisms
to ensure accountability and equity. As highlighted by theorists like Manor, Fukuyama, and
Faguet, decentralization is not just about transferring power but about creating systems that are
capable of delivering inclusive and sustainable development.

In both Africa and India, the experience of decentralization shows that while the concept holds
great promise, it is not a cure-all for governance and development challenges. For
decentralization to be genuinely transformative, certain preconditions must be met. These
include a strong and sustained political commitment to devolution, clear and robust legal
frameworks, financial empowerment of local institutions, active involvement of civil society, and
deep reforms aimed at promoting social justice. Especially, underdeveloped and developing
countries with a history of colonial rule and diverse societies often have centralising tendencies
in the guise of unity of the country.

Ultimately, decentralisation should not be seen merely as a technical or administrative reform. It

References
1.​ Crawford, G., & Hartmann, C. (2008). Introduction: Decentralisation as a Pathway out of
Poverty and Conflict? In Crawford, G., & Hartmann, C. (Eds.), Decentralisation in
Africa: A Pathway out of Poverty and Conflict? Amsterdam: Amsterdam University
Press, pp. 7-32.
2.​ Bandyopadhyay, D. (1996). Administration, Decentralisation and Good Governance.
Economic and Political Weekly, 31(48), pp. 3109-3114.
3.​ Grindle, M. S. (2009). Going local: decentralization, democratization, and the promise of
good governance.
4.​ Rondinelli, D. A. (1981). Government decentralization in comparative perspective:
theory and practice in developing countries. International review of administrative
sciences, 47(2), 133-145.
5.​ Adamolekun, L. (1991). Decentralization policies: problems and perspectives. Asian
Journal of Public Administration, 13(1), 67-92.