直播湖南卫视快乐大本营,经常用香皂洗脸好吗,丽泽长途汽车站时刻表
|
Conversely, some definitions of decentralization are specific in terms of the functional areas that are transferred to the local levels whereas others do not. For example, Rondinelli and Cheema (1983) specify in their definition that functions like planning, decision making and administrative authority need to be transferred from the central to local authorities. According to Brinkerhoff and Azfar (2006: 2), “Decentralization deals with the allocation between center and periphery of power, authority, and responsibility for political, fiscal, and administrative systems”. The authors are more specific here with regard to what is decentralized and the scope of functions. In contrast, McGinn and Welsh (1999) consider decentralisation generally as the transfer of authority from central government to provincial, district and school levels. In the same way, Geo-jaja (2004) describes the concept of decentralisation as “a process of re-assigning responsibility and corresponding decision making authority for specific functions from higher to lower levels of government”(Geo-jaja, 2004: 309). From these points of view, it can be said that there are differences in meanings and motives of decentralisation.
To sum up what has been grasped from the various viewpoints and extend a little bit the scope of argument, Decentralization can be described as the transfer of decision making authority and responsibility from central to lower levels of government or private institutions. The transfer of authority and responsibility may encompass such aspects as planning, resource distribution, administrative and management tasks (Dyer and Rose, 2005; Abu-Duhou, 1999). Local authorities may be provinces (for federal states like that of the United States and Nigeria), and Regions (for unitary state like those of most African countries like Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda). Decentralisation also involves transfer of authority and responsibility from the central government to the local government authorities (LGAs) and institutions (city, municipal, town and district councils, villages and schools) depending on the context of the country in question. Most of the popular definitions of decentralization differentiate alternative levels of decentralisation along a continuum. At one end of, the center maintains powerful control with limited power and discretion at lower levels (deconcentration) to more and more diminishing central control with increasing local discretion at the other (devolution). The devolutionary end of the continuum is associated with more democratic governance, expanded discretionary room to make decisions at the local level and a shift in accountability from upward to downward orientation (Brinkerhoff and Azfar, 2006).
3.3 Public sector decentralisation My concern in this part is to examine decentralisation of the public sector because it has always been the most important pillar in supporting national development, not only in the developing countries but also in the developed ones. Public service provision in most of the countries is at large provided by the state. Even where these services are provided by private bodies, non-governmental organisations and/or civil societies, the state remains the principal regulatory body. This part of the chapter therefore attempts to analyse decentralisation in the public sector, focusing on the main types, forms and features, implicating them to citizen power and control at the local levels. Along this line of argument, decentralisation within the public sector can in essence be discussed under three main types namely; political, fiscal and administrative decentralisation. |
